College of Doctoral Studies RES-850 Modified 10 Strategic Points Template Article Citation Point Broad Topic Area Lit Review Problem Statement Research Questions Sample Describe Phenomena (qualitative) or Define Variables/ Hypotheses (quantitative) Methodology & Design Purpose Statement Data Collection Approach Data Analysis Approach Evaluation (Maximum 250-500 words) Description Location (Page #) Servant Leadership and its Impact on Classroom Climate and Student Achievement Submitted by Daniel F. Mulligan A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctorate of Education Grand Canyon University Phoenix, Arizona May 6, 2016 ProQuest Number: 10110904 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest 10110904 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 © by Daniel F. Mulligan 2016 All rights reserved. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY Servant Leadership and its Impact on Classroom Climate and Student Achievement I verify that my dissertation represents original research, is not falsified or plagiarized, and that I have accurately reported cited, and reference all sources within this manuscript in strict compliance with APA and Grand Canyon University (GCU) guidelines. I also verify my dissertation complies with the approval(s) granted for this research investigation by GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB). Abstract The purpose of this quantitative research was to see to what degree a relationship existed between servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement in a collegiate environment. This was a quantitative, correlational study. The foundational theories for this research included servant leadership and organizational climate that pertain to transformational follower development and unifying values within an organization to align behavior. The research questions for this study included: (R1) What was the relationship between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors and classroom climate as reported by students? (R2) What was the relationship between servant leadership behavior and student achievement? (R3) To what extent was the relationship between servant leadership behavior and student achievement mediated by classroom climate? The data collection instruments for this study included The Servant Leadership Profile–Revised and the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory. The sample size was 18, composed of faculty at a private university in Northwest Pennsylvania. The resultant correlations between teacher servant leadership and both classroom climate and student achievement were not statistically significant (r = .407, rs = -.16, p = .25). Therefore, there was no definitive mediating effect of classroom climate. These results were not consistent with similar prior research at the primary and secondary levels of education, and thus raised questions regarding choice of instrumentation at the college level. This study sheds light on important variables and dynamics of researching these correlations in a collegiate environment. Keywords: Servant leadership, classroom climate, student achievement, Servant Leadership Profile–Revised, questionnaire measures or organizational culture. vi Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends who supported me throughout this journey. Your patience and encouragement made this possible. vii Acknowledgments No project of this magnitude is the result of one individual effort. Personal and professional advice, guidance, and encouragement made the completion of this dissertation a reality. I cannot adequately convey the contributions of my committee chair, Dr. Patricia Chess. Her scholarship, mentorship, advice, guidance, patience, mentorship, encouragement, and friendship throughout coursework, research, and even health issues made this possible. The committee members, Dr. Jeanette Shutay and Dr. Gary Piercy, have been excellent resources who continually challenged me to both learn and become a better researcher. The participating teachers and students who completed the surveys making this research possible are greatly appreciated. Lastly, a special thanks to my wife, Amy, who supported me academically, emotionally, and physically (in sickness and in health) throughout this journey. viii Table of Contents List of Tables.................................................................................................................xii List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xiii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ................................................................................ 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Background of the Study............................................................................................ 3 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 9 Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 11 Advancing Scientific Knowledge ............................................................................. 14 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 15 Rationale for Methodology ...................................................................................... 16 Nature of the Research Design for the Study ............................................................ 18 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 21 Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations.................................................................. 22 Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study ...................................... 24 Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 26 Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem..................................... 26 Theoretical Foundations ........................................................................................... 27 Servant leadership ...................................................................................... 29 Organizational climate. ............................................................................... 31 Summary .................................................................................................... 33 Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 34 Servant leadership ...................................................................................... 35 ix Servant leadership variable measurement and outcomes ............................. 47 Climate....................................................................................................... 49 Methodology .............................................................................................. 57 Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 60 Summary ................................................................................................................. 61 Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................ 64 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 64 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 64 Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 65 Research Methodology ............................................................................................ 67 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 69 Population and Sample Selection ............................................................................. 71 Instrumentation ........................................................................................................ 72 The Servant Leadership Profile-Revised Survey Instrument........................ 72 The College and Classroom Environment Inventory Survey Instrument...... 73 Validity.................................................................................................................... 74 Reliability ................................................................................................................ 75 Data Collection and Management ............................................................................ 75 Data Analysis Procedures ........................................................................................ 79 Preparation of data...................................................................................... 80 Tests of assumptions................................................................................... 81 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................. 82 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 83 Summary ................................................................................................................. 84 x Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results ............................................................................ 87 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 87 Descriptive Data ...................................................................................................... 89 Data Analysis Procedures ........................................................................................ 91 Servant Leadership Profile-Revised ............................................................ 91 CUCEI. ...................................................................................................... 95 Student achievement ................................................................................... 96 Preparation of data...................................................................................... 98 Sources of error .......................................................................................... 99 Results ................................................................................................................... 100 Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 101 Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 105 Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 111 Summary ............................................................................................................... 112 Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations .......................................... 115 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 115 Summary of the Study ........................................................................................... 117 Summary of Findings and Conclusion.................................................................... 119 Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 119 Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 120 Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 121 Implications ........................................................................................................... 122 Theoretical implications ........................................................................... 123 Measuring servant leadership ................................................................... 124 xi Measuring classroom climate ................................................................... 125 Measuring achievement ............................................................................ 125 Strengths and weaknesses ......................................................................... 126 Practical implications ............................................................................... 126 Future implications ................................................................................... 127 Recommendations.................................................................................................. 129 Recommendations for future research. ...................................................... 129 Recommendations for future practice. ...................................................... 131 References ................................................................................................................ 132 Appendix A. Letter of Approval to Conduct Research ................................................. 158 Appendix B. Survey Coordinator Informed Consent Form ........................................... 159 Appendix C. Instructor Informed Consent Form .......................................................... 162 Appendix D. Student Informed Consent Form ............................................................. 165 Appendix E. Confidentiality Statement ........................................................................ 167 Appendix F. Permission Email to Adapt the Conceptual Framework Model ................ 168 Appendix G. Permission Email to Use the Servant Leadership Profile—Revised ......... 169 Appendix H. Servant Leadership Profile—Revised (SLP-R)........................................ 170 Appendix I. Permission Email to Use the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) ............................................................. 175 Appendix J. College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) survey ....................................................................................... 176 Appendix K. GCU IRB Approval Letter ...................................................................... 179 Appendix L. Power Analyses ....................................................................................... 180 xii List of Tables Table 1. Servant Leadership Profile-Revised Raw Scores ............................................. 93 Table 2. Instructor Servant Leadership Rankings .......................................................... 94 Table 3. College and University Classroom Environment Inventory Raw Scores .......... 95 Table 4. Classroom Environment Rankings .................................................................. 96 Table 5. Grade Conversion Chart .................................................................................. 97 Table 6. Student Grade Raw Scores .............................................................................. 97 Table 7. Class Student Achievement Scores.................................................................. 98 Table 8. Tests of Normality ........................................................................................ 104 Table 9. Pearson Correlation Between Servant Leadership and Classroom Climate, N=18............................................................................................... 104 Table 10. Spearman Correlation Between Servant Leadership and Student Grades ..... 111 Table 11. A Priori Power Analysis to Determine Sample Size..................................... 180 Table 12. Compromise Power Analysis ...................................................................... 180 xiii List of Figures Figure 1. Research variables diagram. ............................................................................ 10 Figure 2. Conceptual framework model. ........................................................................ 68 Figure 3. Participating students’ grade distribution example. ......................................... 78 Figure 4. Letter grade to ordinal number conversion chart. ............................................ 79 Figure 5. Faculty experience profile. .............................................................................. 90 Figure 6. Class size. ....................................................................................................... 91 Figure 7. Servant leadership scores. ............................................................................. 101 Figure 8. Servant leadership scores histogram. ............................................................. 102 Figure 9. Servant leadership scores box-plot. ............................................................... 102 Figure 10. Servant leadership to classroom climate scatterplot. .................................... 103 Figure 11. Classroom climate scores. ........................................................................... 106 Figure 12. Classroom climate scores. ........................................................................... 106 Figure 13. Classroom climate scores box-plot. ............................................................. 107 Figure 14. Student grade scores. .................................................................................. 108 Figure 15. Student grade scores histogram. .................................................................. 109 Figure 16. Student grade scores box-plot. .................................................................... 109 Figure 17. Servant leadership to student grades scatterplot. .......................................... 110 Figure 18. Post hoc power analysis for correlation using G power software ................. 181 Figure 19. Post-hoc power analysis for linear multiple regression using G power software ........................................................................................ 182 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Introduction Many people remember the special teachers in their lives; those who make learning easy and really connect students with new material. Unfortunately, there are also teachers who go through the motions of teaching and are apathetic. Because teachers plan, organize, and control student behavior and activities, they are organizational leaders in the classroom (Drobot & Roşu, 2012). Consequently, teaching and leadership intersect. According to Shuaib and Olalere (2013), the purpose of teaching is to impart knowledge; and one key aspect of effective teaching is learner-focused education. Therefore, it was relevant to research how teacher leadership practices focused on and influenced student achievement. Several researchers have grappled with the issue of whether there is a leadership style best suited to teaching. According to Hays (2008), the application of servant leadership values and principles can significantly affect the learning experience for both teachers and students. Servant leadership is an extension of the principles of transformational leadership described by Burns (2010) whereby the leader “engages the full person of the follower [in] a relationship of mutual stimulation in elevation that converts followers into leaders” (p.4). This is significant in higher education as a leadership focus towards learner-centered development is necessary to both attract and retain students (Tinto, 2009). Despite the scriptural origins of servant leadership, its practice is secular in nature (van Dierendonck, 2011). In fact, religious proscriptions do not determine servant leadership. Rather, according to Greenleaf and Spears (2002), the true measure of servant 2 leadership is the personal growth of followers. The growth aspect of this servant leadership “Best Test” is particularly germane to the field of education (Goe, Bell, & Little, 2008). In fact, it should be the primary goal of teachers (Goe et al., 2008). Burns (2010) identified the causal effects of values on behavior. This is significant because several researchers reported a direct relationship between leadership and the creation of organizational culture and climate (Fernando & Chowdhury, 2010; Groves, 2006; Karakas, 2011; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). In a discussion of the evolution of constructs about organizational culture and climate, Reichers and Schneider (1990) defined organizational climate as formal and informal organizational practices and procedures behavior can be manifested by the embedded values of the culture that affect the organizational climate. Furthermore, because performance is a measure of behavior, the leadership that creates the organizational climate is a strong determinate of performance. Within the field of leadership, research from Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, and Doty (2011); Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008); and Hays (2008) found strong positive correlations between Servant Leadership and improved achievement. This chapter contains the background and implications concerning how servant leadership behaviors by teachers correlate with classroom climate and student achievement. It includes an overview of the problem and purpose of the study, the guiding research questions and hypotheses, the framework and rationale of the study, assumptions and limitations, and the definitions of key terms. It also includes a brief discussion of how this study can advance scientific knowledge in this area. 3 Background of the Study The roles of leadership and accountability in education have become increasingly important in recent years. President George W. Bush made accountability the centerpiece of his education agenda which reinforced a central theme of state educational policies (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). However, legislation alone cannot yield significant improvements. For more than a decade, as established in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, school districts have been required to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by showing a minimum, prescribed level of growth in student achievement (Gamble-Risley, 2006). However, according to Gamble-Risley (2006), AYP is a misnomer, or at least an understatement. Satisfying AYP mandates demands a far greater than adequate effort. Subsequently, in 2009, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers sponsored the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative to align educational standards and better prepare students for college and adult careers (Forty-Nine States and Territories, 2009). However, when the 2010 World Education rankings rated the United States average, as quoted by Zeitvogel (2010, para 5), U.S. Education Secretary Duncan declared, “this is an absolute wake-up call for America…the results are extraordinarily challenging to us and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more serious about investing in education." Subsequently, the federal School Improvement Grant program awarded more than $534 million to states to assist schools with poor standardized test scores (Zeitvogel, 2010. Fortunately, the Nation’s Report Card for 2012 started to indicate slight improvements in academic achievement and preparation for 4 post-secondary schooling (The Nation’s Report Card, 2013). Moreover, the Lumina Foundation funded a three year Core to College initiative, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York created programs to further improvements by facilitating greater implementation and coordination of the CCSS and post-secondary student preparation (Finkelstein et al., 2013). Yet, U.S. academic achievement remains close to that of the early 1970s, and still behind many of the industrialized nations (The Nation’s Report Card, 2013). According to Routman (2012), the best way to improve achievement levels is to improve teaching and focus on strong, effective leadership. The recent emergence of several organizations to address these issues attests to the importance of this dynamic. For example, in 1996 Teachers College, Columbia University, founded the National School Climate Center (NSCC) to improve educational leadership in the area of school climate to enhance student achievement (NSCC, 1996). In 2007, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality issued a report titled Enhancing Teacher Leadership (2007) claiming that teacher leadership is essential for successful students and effective schools. In 2008, a group of national organizations, state education agencies, major universities, and local school systems formed the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has worked on developing a new certification for Teacher Leaders (“Teacher Leadership,” 2013). Today, more than ever, teacher leadership is essential for student success (Ludlow, 2011). In fact, Drobot and Roşu (2012) asserted that teacher relations with students (i.e., leadership) are the most important ingredient for student learning. 5 Education begins with teachers. While legislation prescribes standards, teachers are responsible for helping students attain them. Logically, better teachers should facilitate greater learning and subsequent test scores of students. Clearly, some teachers are better than others are. Perhaps they are more knowledgeable of the subject matter. Alternatively, perhaps they are better leaders and motivators (Adiele & Abraham, 2013). The innocent victims of the present situation are the students who participate in the educational system. According to statistics in the NCLB (2002) legislation, almost 70% of elementary students in inner cities cannot read at a basic level and approximately one third of college freshman now have to take remedial classes. NCLB mandates improving both fourth and eighth grade math results on standardized tests (Dee & Jacob, 2011). However, because one third of college freshman require remedial classes, the attention provided to primary levels of education by NCLB could extend to higher education. Despite improvements at lower levels of education, the United States continues to lag behind other nations in education (Hanushek, Peterson, & Woessmann, 2012; The Nation’s Report Card, 2013). All these factors contribute to the pervasive need to improve education in a number of ways. Determining how leadership could best facilitate these improvements is more difficult. Current credentialing procedures at the primary and secondary levels of education require professional education and experience in a variety of teaching areas such as lesson design and planning, teaching techniques, and classroom management (Norton, 2013). The education departments that are creating primary and secondary education teachers do not require similar training at the collegiate level of education (Norton, 2013). 6 Consequently, the importance of leadership in the classroom cannot be overstated. Understanding and communicating values, ideas, and tasks in a manner conducive to motivation and compliance is essential for effective teaching (Adiele & Abraham, 2013; Drobot & Roşu, 2012; Routman, 2012; Shuaib & Olalere, 2013). Spillane (2005) provided a useful definition of leadership in an educational environment: Leadership refers to activities tied to the core work of the organization that are designed by organizational members to influence the motivation, knowledge, affect, and practices of other organizational members or that are understood by organizational members as intended to influence their motivation, knowledge, affect, and practices. (Spillane, 2005, p. 384) Classroom leadership motivates and encourages students to learn (Adiele & Abraham, 2013). It increases the likelihood of increased student effort, focus, and retention (Adiele & Abraham, 2013). The skills required to affect this influence originate from many fields of discipline: leadership; organizational behavior, development, dynamics, and culture; and psychology (Adiele & Abraham, 2013). In essence, teachers should be content area specialists, curriculum experts, community builders, heads of safety and discipline, parent liaisons, and head cheerleaders (Landeau Jr, VanDorn, & Ellen, 2009). Understanding organizational structure, job redesign, group dynamics and organizational culture all help to provide a foundational framework for a teacher. However, the teacher is ultimately responsible for combining this knowledge into action that--as the definition states--influences student behavior. 7 Is there a leadership style for teachers that is most conducive to facilitate student learning? According to van Dierendonck and Nuitjen (2011), the focus of peoplecentered, ethical management inspired by servant leadership is what organizations need now. This is especially applicable in education where the primary goal of teachers should be the growth of their students (Goe et al., 2008). Several researchers have shown a direct relationship between leadership and the creation of organizational culture and climate (Duke, 2006; Fernando & Chowdhury, 2010; Groves, 2006; Karakas, 2011; Kutash, Nico, Gorin, Rahmatullah, & Tallant, 2010; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Villavicencio & Grayman, 2012) . Saphier and King (1985) identified the importance of organizational culture in education. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) synthesized 30 years of leadership in education and recommended careful attention to school culture. Saphier (2011) recommended changing teacherstudent paradigms to increase learning effectiveness. This culture, in turn, is observable in the daily behaviors that shape the organizational climate. As stated previously, using the definition of organizational climate as “shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures, both informal and formal” (Reichers & Schneider, 1990, p. 22), it becomes obvious that the leadership behavior of the teacher is directly responsible for creating the classroom climate. Furthermore, the educational climate influences student achievement (Cohen & Brown, 2013; Cunningham, 2008; Herndon, 2007). Problem Statement It was not known to what degree there was a relationship between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors, classroom climate, and student achievement at the collegiate level. The research focus of this study was the correlation between servant 8 leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement. Kelley, Thornton, and Daugherty (2005) conducted a quantitative, correlational study of 31 elementary principals and 155 teachers and found principal servant leadership characteristics had a significant effect on school climate. Herndon (2007) found a statistically significant positive relationship between principals’ servant leadership and both school climate and student achievement across 62 elementary schools. Black's (2010) mixed method, correlational study of 231 teachers and 15 principals in Catholic elementary schools found a significant correlation between principal servant leadership and school climate. A meta-analysis of 27 studies by Robinson et al. (2008) identified a significant positive relationship between servant leadership characteristics and student outcomes. Moreover, Boyer’s (2012) quantitative, correlational analysis of 9 principals, 54 teachers, and 537 students in secondary schools found a statistically significant relationship between principal servant leadership and school climate. The current United States’ World Education Ranking of average suggests traditional educational structures and practices are no longer acceptable. U.S. Education Secretary Duncan said this ranking served as a wake-up call for America and mandated more serious proscriptions for improving education (Zeitvogel, 2010). One possible course of action for educational leaders is to focus on the learning environment teachers create. Specifically, is a servant leadership environment, as measured by the Servant Leadership Profile-Revised (SLP-R) (Wong & Page, 2003), more conducive to improved student achievement? Discovering ways to create better learning environments should improve student achievement (Adiele & Abraham, 2013). 9 Since teacher leadership is an important aspect of teaching effectiveness, it is important to add to existing literature by examining these correlations in higher education. (Adiele & Abraham, 2013; Drobot & Roşu, 2012; Routman, 2012; Shuaib & Olalere, 2013). In a higher education environment, federal laws do not mandate student attendance meaning the students are voluntarily seeking education. Additionally, because college students are adults, they are likely to be more responsible. These contextual differences may create differences in student motivation and subsequent achievement. This researcher attempted to identify these correlations at the classroom level in higher education. Understanding this dynamic is critical to identify, confirm, or refute a popular leadership paradigm in an educational context (Marzano & Marzano, 2003). Additionally, these results contribute to understanding and potentially amending current teaching practices to improve student achievement. Although the link among administrative servant leadership, school climate, and student achievement has been established in the K-12 learning environment, the link between teacher servant leadership to classroom climate and student achievement has not been established in higher education. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to investigate to what degree a relationship existed between servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement for students and faculty at a small university in Northwest Pennsylvania. In this study, servant leadership and classroom climate were predictor variables and student achievement was the criterion variable. Logically, while there are numerous leadership styles that create a variety of organizational climates, identifying the appropriate 10 combination of leadership and classroom climate to improve student motivation and achievement is beneficial (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013). The use of accurate measures of teacher servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement provided the necessary assessment data to identify possible correlations. This study was designed to identify the correlations between teacher leadership attributes and their effect on both classroom climate and student achievement. This was a quantitative, correlational study. Research studies have yielded evidence that within the primary education levels, teachers’ leadership has affected the classroom climate and influenced student achievement (Rivers, Brackett, Reyes, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2013; Robinson et al., 2008). Similarly, studies have shown that climate has had an impact on student achievement (Evans, Harvey, Buckley, & Yan, 2009). Figure 1 diagrams these relationships. These relationships have not been shown in higher education; this study therefore investigated them in the context of higher education. Teacher Leadership Classroom Climate Student Achievement Figure 1. Research variables diagram. The study was designed to address some potential pedagogical shortfalls in education. Current practices are not yielding appropriate student achievement (Zeitvogel, 2010). One possible course of action is a focus on the learning environment created by teachers. Because teachers are the organizational leaders in the classroom, they are 11 responsible for creating a classroom climate conducive to learning. While prior researchers confirmed the positive impact of servant leadership on student achievement at the K-12 level, they neither confirmed nor refuted this relationship at the collegiate level (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Hiller et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2005; Spillane, 2005). Despite significant attention on professional development for teaching at the primary and secondary levels of education (Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013), collegiate professors are normally appointed based upon subject expertise with little emphasis on curriculum design, lesson planning, and presentation (Norton, 2013). Therefore, the results of this research may support the current practices of teacher pedagogy at the collegiate level. Conversely, they may encourage other researchers to conduct studies that more closely examine the development of collegiate teachers in the areas of leadership and pedagogy (in addition to subject matter expertise). Research Questions and Hypotheses The research questions for this study pertain to the identification and measurement of teachers’ servant leadership, the classroom climate created by these teachers, and subsequent student achievement. Values determine behaviors (McClelland, 1985). This concept is not new. It is foundational for understanding human psychology and behavior and the premise underlying behavioral models such as Maslow's (1943) original paper on hierarchy of needs. Collectively, “common values are the glue which binds an organization together; they motivate and create a sense of community. If properly implemented, the employees can be trusted in the absence of direct rules and regulations” (Brytting & Trollestad, 2000, p. 55). These common values create the 12 culture of the organization and directly influence the climate (Schein, 2010), and climate, in turn, influences achievement (Cunningham, 2008; Herndon, 2007). Values-based leadership presumes moral and ethical leadership (McCoy & McCoy, 2007). Likewise, servant leadership ensures rational and emotional commitment to organizational objectives (McCoy & McCoy, 2007). O’Toole (1996) identified integrity, vision, trust, listening, respect for followers, clear thinking, and inclusion as the primary characteristics of values-based leadership. If we use our beliefs to make decisions, our decisions will reflect our past history in dealing with similar situations…If we use our values to make decisions; our decisions will align with the future we want to experience. Values transcend both contexts and experiences. (Barrett, 2007, p.1) The inherent values that manifest leadership behavior work to create the underlying values and beliefs (culture) of an organization. This culture, in turn, is observable in the daily behaviors that regulate the organizational climate. The basic research questions and hypotheses of this study pertain to whether teachers’ servant leadership behaviors, as perceived by students, create a positive classroom climate and the extent to which the resultant classroom climate affects student achievement. The following research questions and hypotheses guided this study: R1: What is the relationship between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors and classroom climate as reported by students? H1: There is a positive correlation between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors, measured by “The Servant Leadership Profile” and classroom climate reported by students (SLP-R) (Wong & Page, 2003). 13 H0: There is not a positive correlation between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors, measured by “The Servant Leadership Profile” and classroom climate reported by students (Wong & Page, 2003). R2: What is the relationship between servant leadership behavior and student achievement? H2: There is a positive correlation between servant leadership behaviors, measured by the SLP-R and student achievement, measured by final course grades (Wong & Page, 2003). H0: There is not a positive correlation between servant leadership behaviors, measured by the SLP-R and student achievement, measured by final course grades (Wong & Page, 2003). R3: To what extent is the relationship between servant leadership behavior and student achievement mediated by classroom climate? H3: There is a positive correlation between servant leadership behavior and student achievement mediated by classroom climate, measured by the CUCEI (Fraser et al., 1986). H0: There is not a positive correlation between servant leadership behavior and student achievement mediated by classroom climate, measured by the CUCEI (Fraser et al., 1986). One goal of education is to impart knowledge to prepare students for a successful future. Some classrooms are friendly while others are antagonistic. The research questions of this study are relevant to teachers’ leadership behaviors and their effect on classroom climate. Likewise, this study helped to correlate the comparisons between 14 classroom climate and student achievement. Finally, this research included the comparisons between a classroom climate created by teachers’ servant leadership and students’ achievement. Advancing Scientific Knowledge This study advanced scientific knowledge in the areas of servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement. Previous research from Kelley et al. (2005), Herndon (2007), Robinson et al. (2008), and Black (2010), found statistically significant relationships between servant leadership by school administrators and overall school climate and student achievement. Boyer (2012) extended this research and confirmed statistically significant positive effects of servant leadership from the teacher’s perspective on school culture and student achievement. This study advances the known self-perception analysis of teacher servant leadership on classroom (instead of schoolwide) climate and student achievement at the collegiate (instead of primary or secondary) level of education. This study extends prior research in the field. Although there are multiple studies correlating the effects of administrative servant leadership on school culture and climate, there are very few that correlate these effects based on teachers’ servant leadership behaviors (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Kelley et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008). Similarly, most prior research studied these relationships at the lower levels of education (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Kelley et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008). This study adds to the existing body of literature by increasing the small number of studies that examined these effects at the level of the teacher in the classroom 15 (Colakoglu & Littlefield, 2010; Jacobs, 2011). Additionally, the researcher revealed these effects in a completely different environment—collegiate education. Significance of the Study The results of this study should be of interest to educational accrediting agencies, school administrators, principals, college and university deans, and teachers and students at all levels of education. A positive correlation between classroom climate and achievement provides strong implications about the importance of professional development in leadership for all teachers. Since servant leadership focuses on the development of followers, the hypotheses of this research pertain to correlations between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors and student achievement mediated by classroom climate. Potentially, this researcher highlighted a need for future similar research testing other leadership models. School accountability is a critical issue (Jennings & Rentner, 2006). Reexamining and focusing leadership in education is essential (Fullan, 2009). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act mandated testing to measure the effectiveness of teaching styles and environments on student achievement (Bush, 2001). This legislation changed the focus of teaching methods to garner more resources for low performing schools (Jennings & Rentner, 2006). Tenets of NCLB make increasing student achievement imperative. While numerous factors contribute to student success, school leaders are primarily responsible for student success (McCoach et al., 2010). This research was designed to help identify and compare the effects of a specific teacher leadership paradigm and classroom climate and student achievement. 16 With the exception of collegiate education departments that must focus on pedagogy to ensure their graduates’ accreditation to teach at the primary and secondary levels of education, there is not a similar pedagogical requirement in collegiate education (Norton, 2013). If these research results show significant positive correlations between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors and student achievement, they may support a potential paradigm shift in collegiate education to incorporate leadership into collegiate pedagogical training. Subsequently, it is possible that such changes will help to raise the current collegiate graduation rate of 58% (U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Rationale for Methodology The purpose of this quantitative, correlational research was to examine to what degree a relationship exists between servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement. According to recent research, “the driving force of evidence-based practice and research in the traditional sense is the ability to measure and quantify a phenomenon, as well as the relationships between phenomenon numerically” (Vance, Talley, Azuero, Pearce, & Christian, 2013, p. 67). This research was designed to help correlate the variables of servant leadership and organizational climate to describe student achievement. The study correlated teachers’ servant leadership behaviors with classroom climate and student achievement. The aggregation of student climate surveys and grades provided mean values for each variable. Thus, it is consistent with a quantitative, correlational design methodology using servant leadership and classroom climate instruments and end of course student grades. The body of research concerning school climate and servant leadership in education and its influence on student achievement is growing. Quantitative studies by a 17 number of researchers (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Cunningham, 2008; Herndon, 2007; Kelley et al., 2005; MacNeil et al., 2009; Pritchard, Morrow, & Marshall, 2005; Robinson et al., 2008) determined a statistically significant positive relationship between servant leadership, school culture and student achievement at the primary and secondary levels of education. Therefore, for this type of research, a quantitative, correlational methodology was both established and accepted. This study was consistent with the methodology of aforementioned studies. However, it was unique by examining these variables and dynamics at the classroom (rather than whole school) level, and with teachers (rather than administrators). Specifically, the study location was a small, private, Catholic, liberal arts institution in Northwest Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the context for this research was a higher education environment. Unlike previous studies, there is no legal mandate for the students in this study to receive instruction. They voluntarily—in fact, pay—to attend college. Therefore, student motivation to excel may be more influential than in a federally mandated attendance environment at lower educational levels. Because of their age, it is reasonable to assume greater maturity than that of elementary or secondary students. Finally, although standardized tests are readily available in primary and secondary education as a measure of student achievement, at the collegiate level they only apply to complete programs of study (e.g., bar exams, medical boards, CPA exams) instead of individual courses. However, despite these environmental differences, the similar, basic construct of the methodology justified its use. According to the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (2012), the United States is below the international average with a collegiate 18 graduation rate of only 58% of students who graduate within six years. According to Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2010), the United States will fall at least three million degrees short of 22 million new college degrees necessary by 2018. Poor student achievement is an issue at all levels of education. Any research that can add to the body of knowledge to help curb these current trends in education is worthwhile. Nature of the Research Design for the Study The nature of the study outlines the overall components of the study. It explains the rationale for a quantitative, correlational study with teachers’ servant leadership behaviors, classroom climate, and student achievement as the key variables. The purpose of the study was to investigate the research questions and hypotheses comparing these variables. Finally, it includes a brief discussion of the sample population, sampling procedures, and data collection plan. The epistemological roots of this research spring primarily from a post positivist worldview whereby causes determine effects. "Post-positivist inquiry does not claim universal generalizability; however, it aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study" (Tekin & Kotaman, 2013, p. 84). This study sought to measure and correlate real world classroom dynamics. It is, however, somewhat reductionist to use teachers’ servant leadership behaviors as the primary determinant for both classroom climate and student achievement. In this study, the paired classroom climate and student achievement data were not independent of each other. “It is important to account for this pairing in the analysis…[and]…concentrate on the differences between the pairs of measurements 19 rather than on the measurements themselves” (Whitley & Ball, 2002, p. 3). Thus, the selection of a quantitative, correlational research design for this study. The foundational theory for this research included research on servant leadership developed by Greenleaf (2007). Additionally, research on organizational climate by Litwin and Stringer (1968), and Schein (1984), were used to study transformational follower development and unifying values within organizations to align behavior. This research examined these dynamics in an educational environment. It is known that there is a direct relationship between leadership and the creation of organizational culture and climate (Fernando & Chowdhury, 2010; Groves, 2006;Karakas, 2011; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Likewise, within the field of leadership, research from Robinson et al. (2008), Hays (2008), and Hiller et al. (2011), identified strong positive correlations between servant leadership and improved achievement. What was not known is the strength of the correlation between a climate created by servant leadership in education at the level of the teacher and consequent student achievement. This was a quantitative, correlational study. It examined the dynamics of teacher leadership on classroom climate and this relationship to student achievement. The purpose of this study was to measure these correlations. The rationale for this study was based upon similar studies that correlated these dynamics in education from an administrative level to student achievement (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Kelley et al., 2005; MacNeil et al., 2009; Pritchard, Morrow, & Marshall, 2005; Robinson et al., 2008). While significant, these studies may be omitting the mediating influence of leadership by the classroom teacher. Thus, the essential research questions sought to begin identifying and measuring servant leadership influence in the classroom 20 and student achievement. The main hypothesis was that students would perform better when they are in a classroom environment of servant leadership. The population for this research included all teachers and students. The targeted population consisted of collegiate professors and students. The sample consisted of students and faculty at a small university in Northwest Pennsylvania. The sample characteristics reflect a small, private, Catholic university. The necessary data for this research included instruments that helped to quantify teachers’ servant leadership behaviors, classroom climate, and student achievement. Fortunately, there are established survey instruments for both servant leadership and classroom climate—SLP-R (Wong & Page, 2003) and the CUCEI (Fraser et al., 1986). Finally, end of course student grades were collected. To alleviate bias and encourage participation, the identities of all participants’ data was unknown to the researcher. Each participant received a complete set of guidelines and a confidentiality statement. A Survey Coordinator distributed and collected the survey instruments to participating teachers. The SLP-R teachers’ servant leadership instruments were coded to protect teacher identity. Likewise, the CUCEI student instruments were coded to correspond with the appropriate SLP-R. Finally, end of course student grades were anonymously aggregated on a corresponding coded form. The administration of survey instruments occurred in the latter half of the semester to allow sufficient time for the classroom climate to be established. To prepare the data for analysis, each survey instrument was tabulated according to its corresponding evaluation criteria. This resulted in scale scores (continuous and 21 interval level scores) for the SLP-R and CUCEI. Final course grades were converted into ordinal numbers. Empirically, the two instruments for this study, SLP-R and CUCEI, generated scale scores. Therefore, a Pearson correlation was appropriate to address the first research question and hypothesis. The data for the second research question and hypothesis consisted of an interval level variable from the SLP-R and an ordinal value (student grades). Consequently, a Spearman correlation was appropriate for this analysis. Finally, the data for the third research question and hypothesis consisted of two predictor variables (servant leadership behavior and classroom climate) and one criterion variable (student achievement). However, because the study was not seeking a fit with a causal model, path analysis was not appropriate (Wuensch, 2012). Thus, multiple linear regression analysis of the predictor variables (servant leadership and classroom climate) and the criterion variable (student achievement) was appropriate. Definition of Terms The primary constructs of this study include servant leadership and classroom climate as the predictor variables, and student achievement as the criterion variable. The following terms were frequently used throughout this study: Classroom climate. The aggregate environment created by interpersonal relations across seven dimensions: personalization, involvement, student cohesiveness, task orientation, satisfaction, innovation, and individualization (Fraser, Treagust, & Dennis, 1986). 22 Direction. Communicating achievement and behavioral expectations to employees. Both employees and the organization benefit with clear direction (Laub 1999). Humility. The ability to refrain from self-aggrandizement and keep one's accomplishments and talents in perspective (Patterson 2003). Interpersonal acceptance. The ability to empathize with the feelings of others (George, 2005)and to ignore perceived personal injustices without bearing a grudge (McCullough, Hoyt, & Rachal, 2000) . Organizational climate. The “shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures, both informal and formal” (Reichers & Schneider, 1990, p. 22). School climate. The values, beliefs, and attitudes that influence interactions between teachers and students (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005). Servant leadership. “Servant leaders empower and develop people; they show humility, are authentic, accept people for who they are, provide direction, and are stewards who work for the good of the whole” (van Dierendonck, 2011, p. 1232). Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations The constructs of servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement clarifies the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of this study. The following were the assumptions of this study: 1. The survey participants in this study answered questions honestly, to the best of their ability, and were not deceptive with their answers. The nature of the 23 survey instruments and the survey instructions specified a quantitative, correlational study. Therefore, there were no “approved solution” answers. 2. The SLP-R and CUCEI are valid and reliable for this sample population. These instruments are well established and have been used in studies with similar sample populations. 3. This study was limited by population constraints. That is, the instruments require non-science-related lecture classes without laboratory periods. 4. End of course grades are indicative of student achievement. Individual teaching philosophies with respect to grading may vary. However, while one instructor’s overall grades may be higher than the other, it is not likely that all students will receive identical grades. Therefore, any grade distribution was likely to reflect variances and student achievement. The following were limitations of this study 1. This study was limited by a small sample. While there were more than 300 student participants, there were only 18 teachers. 2. This study was limited to the validity and reliability of the survey instruments. 3. This study was limited by variances due to the difficulty of course content. For example, overall student achievement may be lower in a course with difficult content. The reasons for this lower achievement may be more attributable to the difficulty of content than the classroom climate created by teachers’ leadership behaviors. 24 4. The survey of collegiate students was delimited to a private, Catholic University in Northwest Pennsylvania, limiting the demographic sample. The study habits and characteristics of students at a private Catholic University may not be generalizable to the entire population of collegiate students. Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study The purpose of this quantitative, correlational research was to see to what degree a relationship exists between servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement for students and faculty at a small university in Northwest Pennsylvania. Taylor’s (1911) Scientific Management movement professionalized management and leadership by demonstrating the need to attend to individual differences among employees. Subsequent leadership paradigms focused on improving achievement to further organizational goals (Greenleaf, 2002). Concurrently, research correlated leadership behavior with organizational culture and climate (Schein, 2010) and organizational climate with organizational achievement (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). Additionally, within the field of leadership, research from Robinson et al. (2008), Hays (2008), and Hiller et al. (2011) found strong positive correlations between servant leadership and improved achievement. NCLB legislation identified degradations of student achievement and mandated investigation, professional development and instructional changes, and accountability measures designed to improve education and improved student achievement (NCLB, 2002). Saphier and King (1985) identified the importance of organizational culture in education. Waters et al. (2003) synthesized 30 years of leadership in education and recommended careful attention to school culture. Saphier (2011) recommended changing 25 teacher-student paradigms to increase learning effectiveness. Research by Kelley et al. (2005), Herndon (2007), Black (2010), Robinson et al. (2008), and Boyer (2012), determined a statistically significant positive relationship between servant leadership, school culture, and student achievement at the elementary and secondary levels of education. The results of this study helped to identify these correlations at the collegiate level of education and may be used to develop professional education modules for educators in higher education. The literature review presented in Chapter 2 contains the theoretical foundational framework for this study. Chapter 3 contained the methodology of the study. Chapter 4 contained the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 contained the conclusions of the study. 26 Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem The impact of servant leadership on classroom climate and student achievement has its roots in studies that have focused more broadly on organizational culture and climate in a range of organizations, including schools (Glick, 1985; Ismat, Bashir, & mahmood 2011; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Scheerens, Witziers, & Steen, 2013; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). Now, more than ever, society values education and high educational attainment (Hazelkorn, 2013). Unfortunately, there is a marked decline in the efficacy of education around the world and within the United States (Hazelkorn, 2013; Zeitvogel, 2010). The prevalent use of educational rankings articulates the ramifications of this decline. These rankings demonstrate national progress, justify professional academic reputations, guide university goals, and facilitate student selections for higher education (Hazelkorn, 2013). The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between servant leadership and its influence on both classroom climate and student achievement in a collegiate environment. Despite more than 100 years of development of organizational and leadership theories, many schools are still organized according to the older structures and traditions established by early organizational theorists (Chance & Chance, 2002). Weber’s (1991) bureaucracy focused on organizational structure, while Taylor’s (1911) Scientific Management focused on management and efficiency. Collectively, these perspectives helped to create the “factory model” of education that is still “highly ingrained in schools’ organizational structure and is evident in the language often associated with 27 schooling” (Chance & Chance, 2002, p. 5). This research helped to identify one potential differentiated path-servant leadership-to improve student outcomes at a college. The review begins with overviews of servant leadership and organizational climate and culture. Subsequently, it discusses the variables included in the research study and their relationship to contemporary research. Finally, it encompasses the methodological research and considerations relevant to this study. Internet search engines and online databases identified pertinent articles and publications. Search terms included various descriptors pertaining to the themes of: leadership, servant leadership, organizational climate, and achievement. For example, within the theme of servant leadership, descriptive variants such as servant leader qualities, servant teacher, and servant leadership in education helped to locate relevant research. Scholarly, peer reviewed articles and primary source data provided the foundations for this review. The ProQuest dissertation abstracts database identified topical dissertations and the literature reviews and bibliographies within those dissertations aided in identifying additional material. Relevant articles and publications were categorized as seminal, descriptive, or empirical with preference to recently— within five years—published research. Theoretical Foundations The foundational theories for this research include servant leadership and organizational climate. These were developed by Greenleaf (2007), Litwin and Stringer (1968), and Schein (1984), and were used to study transformational follower development and unifying values within an organization to align behavior. Servant 28 leadership reflects one philosophical approach to leadership (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Therefore, it must be understood within a contextual framework of leadership itself (van Dierendonck, 2011). Harding, Lee, Ford, and Learmonth (2011) conducted a mixed method study of 44 organizations and explained why the definition of leadership is so ambiguous. The perception and promotion of leadership morphed. Historically, leadership in industry was hierarchical and transactional. Contemporary leadership emphasizes participative, empowering relationships (Haber, 2012). There are four key aspects of leadership. First, leadership is a process. This emphasizes both the interactive nature and complexity of activities involved in leadership. Second, this process results in influencing others. The obvious implication is that without influence leadership is not present. Third, this leadership influencing process involves groups of people, whereby the groups provide context for leadership to occur. Finally, the leadership process influences groups of people to achieve a common goal. The goal provides a unifying objective for collective behavior (Loughead & Hardy, 2005). Therefore, how and why power is exercised are important aspects of leadership. According to Doscher and Normore (2013), leadership creates the environment to facilitate decisions and action. More specifically, leaders prepare and manage organizational change (Kotter, 2009; Stringer, 2012). Almost a century of psychological leadership research generated a voluminous library of the topic (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). Servant leadership represents a recent addition to this leadership library (van Dierendonck, 2011). 29 Servant leadership. Greenleaf (1970) reintroduced and articulated the concept of Servant Leadership. The determining characteristic of a servant leader is a desire to serve. Then there is a conscious choice to aspire to lead (Greenleaf, 1970). This principle reiterates the messages of numerous historic and religious leaders like Confucius, Mahatma Gandhi , Lao-tzu, Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman, Mother Teresa, and Moses (Keith, 2008). Hayden (2011) articulated the philosophical consistency of Islam with servant leadership. The word itself—Islam—means, “Self-surrender to the will of God” (Hayden, 2011, p. 15). More specifically, The Quran (3:111) proclaims, “you are the best people ever raised for the good of mankind because you have been raised to serve others; you enjoin what is good and forbid evil and believe in Allah" (Hayden, 2011, p. 15). The behaviors and teachings of Jesus Christ are often described as the perfect role model of servant leadership (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010; Lanctot & Irving, 2010). Specifically, servant leaders value power not for themselves, but for its potential value to benefit their followers, organizations, and communities (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010). Multiple examples from the Gospels of John and Mark illustrate servant leadership. Specifically, Jesus’ willingness to wash his disciples’ feet and admonition that “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:43 NIV Bible) demonstrate servant leadership in action (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Jesus redefined the purpose and role of leadership power as an enabling factor to benefit others (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). While the goal of transformational leadership is to improve organizational achievement, the focus of servant leadership is on the needs of individual organizational 30 members (Stoten, 2013). This higher-order, ethical leadership model unapologetically prioritizes the welfare and development of followers over organizational goals (Greenleaf, 1970). Consequently, an explicit goal of this leadership model is an overall improvement in society and humanity. Although Greenleaf (1970) received credit for reintroducing servant leadership, his descriptions of servant leadership, like leadership itself, did not include an empirically validated definition (van Dierendonck, 2011). Greenleaf (1970) did not propose servant leadership as a scholarly edict or a specific how-to manual. Consequently, this dynamic has hindered the acceptance of servant leadership theory in academia because it is difficult to empirically test a philosophical way of life (Parris & Peachey, 2013). However, according to De Maeyer, Rymenans, Van Petegem, van den Bergh, and Rijlaarsdam (2007), the choice of a conceptual leadership model – including servant leadership – significantly influences student achievement. According to Block (2006), the definitional ambiguity of servant leadership fosters continual reflection. Justice Potter Stewart famously articulated this undefinable dynamic in Jacobellis v. Ohio regarding pornography when he stated that he could never succeed in intelligently defining it; but he knew it when he saw it. Unlike traditional leadership theories whereby a leader's actions are evaluated to determine the quality of the leader, servant leadership evaluates the leader’s character and commitment to serve others (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Spears (2004) worked closely with Greenleaf (2002) and identified 10 characteristics of a servant leader: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to 31 the growth of people, and building community. Subsequently, researchers validated and consolidated these characteristics and introduced others to help clarify the concept. For example, Laub (1999) is generally credited with creating the first organizational servant leadership assessment. The Delphi method helped define servant leadership characteristics and created an instrument to measure those characteristics within an organization. This instrument generates organizational perceptions from various groups within the organization (Laub, 1999). Page and Wong (2000) extended this research from the organizational level to the individual level by developing one of the first servant leadership instruments that measured servant leadership of an individual. Their original assessment (Servant Leadership Profile) measured 12 characteristics with a 100-item instrument. After further research, they created SLP-R; a 62-item opponent process instrument measuring 10 servant leadership characteristics (Wong & Page, 2003). Concurrently, Patterson (2003) developed a servant leadership instrument that incorporated the characteristic of agapao love. Like the SLP-R, this instrument included an aspect of humility as a required characteristic of servant leadership. The Review of the Literature section discusses these characteristics in detail. Organizational climate. Since leadership is partially defined by organizational context, organizational development and dynamics become important aspects of the leadership equation. Weber's (Weber et al., 1991) bureaucratic organizational structure and Taylor's (1911) scientific management shaped early organizational theory. The classical organizational development perspective viewed organizations as rational systems valuing operational efficiency above all (Morgan, 1997). Consequently, many saw bureaucracies as 32 dehumanizing organizations that stifled creativity, inhibited personal growth, and caused people to fear management (Hohn, 1999). Addressing the human aspect of organizations, Lewin’s (1951) participatory management, and Maslow's (1943) original article on hierarchy of needs, McGregor (1960) identified positive and negative managerial perspectives and labeled them Theory Y and Theory X. Akindele and Afolabi (2013) related the importance of this managerial leadership choice with its influence on organizational climate. Specifically, Theory Y is practically implemented in organizations through participatory management, decentralized responsibilities, delegation of authority, and job enlargement (Akindele & Afolabi, 2013). Decades ago, Glick (1985) reported the inglorious prominence of climate research in organizational science. Beginning with Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) and their studies of created climates, subsequent researchers continued to identify organizational groups and systems as part of organizational climate (Barker, 2007; Denison, 1996; Hall, 1972; Lewin, 1951, and Likert, 1961). However, researchers still do not agree on a single definition of organizational climate. For example, according to Hellriegel & Slocum (1974), organizational climate is induced from the attributes of organizational systems that affect its members. More recently, Peña-Suárez, Muñiz, Campillo-Álvarez, FonsecaPedrero, and García-Cueto (2013) defined organizational climate as the set of shared perceptions of co-workers in the same organization. Regardless of definitional differences, Litwin and Stringer (1968) deserve credit for pioneering organizational climate research by identifying and articulating nine dimensions of organizational 33 climate: structure, responsibility, reward, risk, warmth, support, standards, conflict, and identity. A brief review of organizational culture research illustrates the large overlap between the identification and integration of organizational climate and organizational culture. Schein (1999) attempted to explicate the definitional differences, “climate is embedded in the physical look of the place, the emotionality exhibited by employees, in the experiences of the visitor or new employee upon entry, and in a myriad of other artifacts that are seen, heard, and felt” (p. 4). Organizational climate originates with the underlying values and beliefs of the organization. In other words, organizational climate is an artifact of the organizational culture (Schein, 1999). There are three levels of organizational culture: artifacts, values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010). Summary. As noted, the difficulties in distinguishing and measuring characteristics of organizational climate and culture results in the potential semantic misapplication of terms in current research (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Cohen et al., 2009; Colakoglu & Littlefield, 2010; Duke, 2006; Herndon, 2007; Hiller et al., 2011; Ismat et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2005; Kutash et al., 2010; Lumby & Foskett, 2011; Luqman, Farhan, Shahzad, & Shaheen, 2012; Villavicencio & Grayman, 2012). Additionally, according to Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, and Falkus (2000), many climate instruments fail to include reliability information. Therefore, despite numerous attempts, even those intimately involved with the dynamics of organizational culture and climate experienced difficulty distinguishing between the two and a careful analysis of literature in both areas reveals overwhelming similarities (Denison, 1996). 34 Accordingly, “these two research traditions should be viewed as differences in interpretation rather than differences in the phenomenon” (Denison, 1996, p. 645). Evaluating and categorizing these dimensions in current literature is beyond the scope of this research. Therefore, the terms culture and climate, as used in the research contained in this literature review, both address common dimensions and are often used synonymously. Review of the Literature There are significant differences between a leader and leadership (Reynolds & Warfield, 2010; Sadeghi, Yadollahi, Baygi, & Ghayoomi, 2013). A leader is often a person with a designated title or organizational role while leadership relates to the skills and abilities to influence others (Sadeghi et al., 2013). Moreover, different leaders subscribe to different leadership paradigms to exert their influence over others. Because leadership involves influence and interaction between people, good leadership is individually phenomenological and influenced by organizational context (Akindele & Afolabi, 2013). Consequently, organizational context becomes an important factor in practicing leadership. One important aspect of servant leadership is focusing on the development of followers. This aspect is particularly germane in an educational environment wherein organizational goals explicitly focus on the development of followers. Because the definitive principal of servant leadership espouses the development of followers, its relationships to classroom climate and student achievement are relevant. In the 21st century educational environment, there is a greater need for educational leaders than professional teachers (Luqman et al., 2012). More specifically, 35 contemporary research recommends servant leadership to enhance and improve academic environments and achievement (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Hiller et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2005; Luqman et al., 2012; Spillane, 2005). Therefore, it is necessary to understand and define educational leadership (Shuaib & Olalere, 2013). Spillane (2005) provides a useful definition of leadership in an educational environment: Leadership refers to the methods of motivation and practices specifically designed to influence the motivation and knowledge of organizational members. Simply put, classroom leadership motivates and encourages students to learn. It increases the likelihood of increased student effort, focus, and retention. Servant leadership. A servant leadership paradigm emphasizes the development of the follower and the organizational climate helps to facilitate follower receptivity to leadership direction. Operationalizing these theories in an educational environment improves student achievement (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Cunningham, 2008; Hays, 2008; Herndon, 2007; Hiller et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2005; Spillane, 2005). The SLP-R developed by Wong and Page (2003) measures the following servant leader characteristics: leading, servanthood, visioning, developing others, team building, empowering others, shared decision-making, and integrity. Leading. Leading focuses on the skills necessary for achieving productivity and success (Wong & Page, 2003). Leading is about giving direction (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). While authoritative leadership remains a common practice, servant leadership’s application and use of positional power is more effective (Zhang, Lin, & Foo, 2012). 36 According to Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), healing is one aspect of leading in servant leadership. However, it is often overlooked. Everyone experiences physical and emotional suffering; however, servant leaders recognize this as an opportunity to help their followers (Spears, 2004). Greenleaf (1970) wrote servant leaders practice healing by helping employees create personal and professional pathways to happiness. Most significantly, healing is an under-appreciated variable that distinguishes servant leadership from traditional leadership theories (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). This variable is widely accepted in contemporary servant leadership research (Barbuto, 2002; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006;; Laub, 1999; and Reed, Vidaver-Cohen, & Colwell, 2011; van Dierendonck, 2011). Yet, it is not always specifically labeled as leading. Barbuto (2002) describes this variable under the characteristic awareness. Patterson (2003) described its characteristics in service. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) and Reed et al. (2011) encompassed this variable under the term altruism. In addition, Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) included this variable when describing the attribute of courage. Servanthood. Servanthood is directly related to the leader’s character (Wong & Page, 2003). It is a reflection of a servant attitude. The focus is on helping others (Wong & Page, 2003). Aspects of servanthood are visible in Greenleaf’s (1970) building community. This is where leaders show the way by demonstrating service to others and the community (Greenleaf, 1970). Through servanthood, leaders instill a sense of community spirit in their organizations (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). As expected, the variable of servanthood is prevalent in contemporary servant leadership research (Barbuto, 2002; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Dennis & Bocarnea, 37 2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011; Ehrhart, 2004; Laub, 1999; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Patterson, 2003; Reed et al., 2011; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008). Yet, it is not always called servanthood. Laub (1999) and Barbuto (2002) described this variable in terms of a calling. Russell and Stone (2002) and Dennis and Winston (2003) used the term service. Ehrhart (2004) and Liden et al. (2008) labeled this putting others first. Finally, Patterson (2003) and Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) used the term altruism. Moreover, Patterson (2003) also used the term agapao love as a manifestation of aspects of servanthood. In a quantitative correlational analysis of 291 high school students, Kurnianingsih, Yuniarti, and Kim (2012) confirmed the importance of this variable in education. A recent quantitative study of 524 teachers and administrators from primary and secondary schools in Singapore by Zhang et al. (2012) correlated the extent to which educational practitioners embraced the concept of servant leadership. Zhang (2012) confirmed the importance of this variable in education. Their results confirmed a statistically significant correlation between servanthood and its preference in an educational environment. Visioning. Visioning is another variable focused on specific actions and tasks of a servant leader (Wong & Page, 2003). It encompasses three of Greenleaf’s (1970) 10 characteristics: foresight, awareness, and conceptualization. Visioning allows a leader to be a guidepost for followers (Wong & Page, 2003). Foresight is the ability to anticipate future events and outcomes (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). It is the central ethic of leadership (Greenleaf, 1970). Foresight allows the leader to understand the past and apply lessons learned to the present and future 38 (Spears, 2004). It allows the servant leader to be a bellwether for future organizational success (Boyer, 2012). Within the context of servant leadership, awareness refers to a leader’s astuteness at reading environmental cues (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Situational awareness provides necessary information allowing leaders to evaluate issues from multiple perspectives (Greenleaf, 1970). Likewise, awareness makes servant leaders stronger (Spears, 2004). The characteristic of conceptualization allows servant leaders to be great dreamers (Spears, 2004). It is the primary leadership talent (Greenleaf, 1970). Conceptualization is the ability to exercise lateral thinking beyond present realities (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Servant leaders implement conceptualization by conveying the future vision, values, and mission of the organization (Bell, Bolding, & Delgadillo, 2013). Russell and Stone (2002), Dennis and Winston (2003), Patterson (2003), and Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), all used the term vision. Barbuto (2002), Ehrhart (2004), and Liden et al. (2008), described visioning activities as aspects of conceptualization. Research by Kelley et al. (2005), Herndon (2007), Black (2010), Robinson et al. (2008), and Boyer (2012), all confirmed the importance of this variable in education. Developing others. Developing others is a manifestation of the people orientation of a servant leader (Wong & Page, 2003). It focuses on how the leader relates to others and his or her commitment to their growth (Wong & Page, 2003). This characteristic most closely embodies the tenets of transformational leadership (Spears, 2004). Moreover, a strong leadership commitment to individual growth yields positive organizational outcomes (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). 39 Significantly, this characteristic provides an excellent example of the semantic problems with subsequent interpretations and consolidations of servant leadership characteristics and measurement instruments. For example, Laub (1999) and Barbuto (2002) described this variable as commitment to growth. Ehrhart (2004) and Liden et al. (2008) labeled this helping subordinates grow. Then Reed et al. (2011) called this activity interpersonal support. Russell and Stone (2002), Patterson (2003), Dennis and Winston (2003), and Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), all used the term vision as a characteristic of servant leadership. With the exception of Patterson (2003), each of these authors related vision with Greenleaf’s (1970) characteristics of conceptualization and foresight. However, according to Patterson (2003), vision referred to the leader assisting in the development of followers. Developing others is a cornerstone of education (Waters et al., 2003). In a quantitative correlational analysis of 291 high school students, Kurnianingsih et al. (2012) confirmed the importance of this variable in education. In addition, according to Taylor, Martin, Hutchinson, and Jinks (2007), servant leadership should be cultivated in every classroom. Team building. Team building focuses on making the organization more efficient (Wong & Page, 2003). It is part of the process of servant leadership (Wong & Page, 2003). Team building encompasses Greenleaf’s (1970) aspects of listening and a commitment to people. It requires dialogue – both speaking and listening, and reflects the leader’s respect for employees (Greenleaf, 1970). 40 Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) clarified this characteristic as hearing and valuing the ideas of others. Reed’s et al. (2011) servant leadership instrument labeled this characteristic Egalitarianism. Regardless of the semantic label, most studies confirm the importance of this variable as a characteristic of servant leadership (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; Ehrhart, 2004; Laub, 1999; Liden et al., 2008; Patterson, 2003; Russell & Stone, 2002; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Wong & Page, 2005). Empowering others. Empowering others is another people orientation characteristic of servant leadership (Wong & Page, 2003). It requires a commitment to followers and a willingness to empathize with and allow followers to direct their behaviors (Wong & Page, 2003). Empowering others facilitates followers becoming freer and more autonomous, which are two conditions of Greenleaf’s (1970) “Best Test” for servant leadership. Laub (1999) determined servant leaders’ actions in developing people included providing learning, encouragement and affirmation. Servant leaders do not unconditionally accept all follower behaviors, but they do assume the intentions of all follower behaviors are honorable (Spears, 2004). With this mindset, even when servant leaders reject follower behaviors, they are not personally rejecting the follower (Spears, 2004). Van Dierendonck and Nuitjen (2011) further articulated this concept as part of interpersonal acceptance. Being able to forgive when confronted with mistakes is a logical servant leadership consequence of empowering others. Dennis and Winston (2003), Patterson (2003), Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), and Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, (2011), all considered empowerment an important variable in servant leadership. Ehrhart (2004) and Liden et al. (2008) described this 41 variable as helping subordinates grow. Similarly, Sendjaya and Cooper (2011) used the term covenantal relationship to describe this characteristic. Shared decision making. Shared decision-making refers to the organizational process of collaborating for efficiency (Wong & Page, 2003). Sharing leadership is one of the Laub’s (1999) six key variables of servant leadership. Greenleaf’s (1970) characteristics of listening, empathy, and persuasion are all aspects of shared decisionmaking. The ability to influence others is a key, definitional component of leadership (Loughead & Hardy, 2005). However, unlike leadership in traditional, autocratic, hierarchical organizations whereby positional powers allow leaders to dictate specific actions, servant leaders replace coercive methods with persuasion (Spears, 2004). Thus, persuasion is the ability to influence others without a reliance on formal authority (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). The leadership byproduct of shared decision-making is credibility (Russell & Stone, 2002). Paradoxically, most servant leadership instruments do not specifically measure shared decision-making as a variable of servant leadership (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; ; Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Patterson, 2003; Russell & Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2010). The variables of servanthood, developing others, team building, and empowering others often carry an assumption of sharing in decisions (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; ; Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Patterson, 2003; Russell & Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). However, it is a key variable in Laub’s (1999) Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA). 42 Integrity. Integrity is a variable at the heart of servant leadership (Wong & Page, 2003). All servant leadership tasks are impossible if the leader’s character lacks integrity (Wong & Page, 2003). By demonstrating moral courage and integrity, leaders improve organizational behavior and inspire followers to emulate them (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Greenleaf (1970) posited the benefits of integrity include trust, empathy, persuasion, stewardship, and a commitment to the growth of people. It is critical to creating a servant leadership organization (Greenleaf, 1970). The Reed et al. (2011) servant leadership instrument included moral integrity as a key variable. Although many other servant leadership instruments do not use the term integrity, they recognize its importance (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Ehrhart, 2004; Laub, 1999; Liden et al., 2008; Patterson, 2003; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya and Cooper, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Laub (1999), and Russell and Stone (2002) used the term honesty. Sendjaya and Cooper, (2011), and Van Dierendonck and Nuitjen (2011) all described this variable as an aspect of authenticity. Ehrhart (2004) and Liden et al. (2008) incorporated integrity within ethics. Finally, Patterson (2003) and Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) included Greenleaf’s (1970) outcome of integrity – trust – as a key variable in their servant leadership instruments. Abuse of power and egotistic pride. Wong and Page (2003) identified two opposing forces to servant leadership: authoritarian hierarchy and egotistical pride. They lead to abuses of power. Moreover, they are antithetical to servant leadership and two major causes of organizational failure (Wong & Page, 2003). Authoritarian hierarchy refers to a vertical organizational structure that is conducive to creating defined powers and responsibilities that encourage rigid command 43 and control practices (Wong & Page, 2003). Within these organizational structures, leaders need to develop two sets of skills. First, they focus primarily on demonstrating loyalty and submission to their supervisors. Second, they are willing to intimidate, deceive, and manipulate their subordinates to demand a similar level of loyalty and subjugation. This abusive power inevitably leads to scandals and corruption (Wong & Page, 2003). Unfortunately, a business culture of competitiveness and individualism fosters egotistic pride (Wong & Page, 2003). Especially in hierarchical organizations, selfserving leaders demand the center of attention and portray themselves as the linchpin of the organization. They demand the center of attention and will use any means available to achieve material success—including accepting credit for the work of others (Wong & Page, 2003). The lure of power and its accompanying privileges can corrupt and compel people to betray, or even kill, others (Wong & Page, 2003). Similarly, pride can manifest itself through greed for wealth or fame. It is impossible to exercise servant leadership if a leader is enamored with power or egotistical pride because servant leadership requires the voluntary surrender of one’s ego and intentional vulnerability. Therefore, it is important to include these opponent process variables in the identification of servant leadership (Wong & Page, 2003). Despite the prevalence and high reliability (0.937) of the SLP-R developed by Wong and Page (2003), it remains the only instrument that considers negative aspects of servant leadership. Just as pseudotransformational leadership presents the misuse and abuse of leadership skills, the abuse of power and egotistical pride prevents the 44 implementation of true servant leadership. The SLP-R identifies these tendencies by measuring intentional vulnerability and voluntary humility (Wong & Page, 2003). Summary of servant leadership variables. Greenleaf (1970) readily admitted his list of 10 characteristics was not meant to be exhaustive (Bugenhagen, 2006). Chronologically, Laub (1999) reduced the list to six: values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership. Russell and Stone (2002) identified nine functional characteristics: vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. They also identified 11 accompanying attributes: communication, credibility, competence, stewardship, visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching, and delegation. Wong and Page (2003) initially began with 12 characteristics: leading, servanthood, visioning, developing others, team building, empowering others, shared decision-making, integrity, humility, caring for others, goal setting, and modeling. Subsequently, they refined their list by eliminating the last four – humility, caring for others, goal setting, and modeling. Patterson (2003) consolidated the list to seven virtues: love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service. Likewise, Ehrhart (2004) developed seven subscales of servant leadership: forming relationships with subordinates, empowering subordinates, helping subordinates grow and succeed, behaving ethically, having conceptual skills, putting subordinates first, and creating value for those outside the organization. Dennis and Winston (2003) identified three domains of servant leadership: empowerment, service, and vision. Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) reduced Patterson’s 45 (2003) seven virtues to five: vision, empowerment, trust, humility, and love. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed an instrument to measure 11 dimensions of servant leadership: calling, listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, growth, and community building. Then Sendjaya and Cooper, (2011) categorized six dimensions of servant leadership behavior: voluntary subordination, authentic self, covenantal relationship, responsible morality, transcendental spirituality, and transforming influence. Liden et al. (2008) developed an instrument using Ehrhart’s (2004) seven servant leadership behaviors: emotional healing, ethical behavior, putting subordinates first, helping subordinates grow and succeed, empowering, creating value for the community, and conceptual skills. Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2010) created an instrument with eight dimensions: standing back, forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability, authenticity, humility, and stewardship. Subsequently, Van Dierendonck (2011) further distilled this list to six: humility, authenticity, empowering and developing, accepting, providing direction, and being good stewards. And Reed et al. (2011) created an instrument based on five servant leadership characteristics: interpersonal support, building community, altruism, moral integrity, and egalitarianism. Honesty and integrity are essential variables in servant leadership (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003; Reed et al., 2011; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya and Cooper 2011; Wong & Page, 2003). Their definitions convey the essence of servant leadership. Honesty means telling the truth and integrity means good morals (Russell & Stone, 2002). 46 Altruism conveys the leader’s desire to place the needs of others first and making a positive difference in others’ lives (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Simply put, altruism involves helping others just for the sake of helping (Patterson, 2003). Authenticity is closely related to altruism because it emphasizes the individual over any professional role (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2010). It is a natural construct of the term servant. Wisdom is a combination of awareness and foresight (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Courage involves taking risks, relying on values and convictions, and trying new approaches (Greenleaf, 1970; Russell & Stone, 2002; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Standing back is closely related to authenticity, empowerment, humility, and stewardship (Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011). Humility involves understanding one’s strong and weak points and seeking assistance from others to overcome weaknesses (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Patterson, 2003; van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011; Wong & Page, 2003). Finally, agapao love includes “embracing the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty, and propriety” (Patterson, 2003, p. 12). Leading with agapao love focuses on the employees first and then on how the employees’ talents can benefit the organization (Patterson, 2003). In summary, servant leadership is more than a leadership style (Laub, 1999). It is a different way of thinking about life – an opportunity to serve others. Servant leadership is not a title, position, or status. Instead of controlling people, servant leadership enables people towards their full potential (Laub, 1999). To date, most servant leadership research falls into three categories: conceptually defining and articulating, measuring, and the development of operational models (Parris 47 & Peachey, 2013). Obviously, despite the consistency and overlap of several characteristics, the introduction and measurement of 44 different characteristics highlights the difficulty of both defining and operationalizing servant leadership. Measurement instruments aside, how does one identify or determine the implementation of servant leadership? According to Greenleaf (1970), the modern originator of servant leadership: The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 6) Servant leadership variable measurement and outcomes Despite difficulties in the definition of servant leadership and a lack of specific agreement in the semantics of servant leadership instrument variables, numerous empirical studies capture and measure the essence of servant leadership (Parris & Peachey, 2013). The study of servant leadership in at least 11 countries and across multiple religions demonstrates the crosscultural interest in servant leadership. Likewi...
Purchase answer to see full attachment