Servant Leadership and Global Leader

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP i
A Quantitative Correlative Analysis:
Attributional Relationship between Servant Leadership and Global Leadership
By;
Erik Magner
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty
Division of Ph.D. studies in Global Leadership
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in Global Leadership
Indiana Institute of Technology
(Indiana Tech)
April 15, 2012

UMI Number: 3634035
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.
UMI 3634035
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP ii
©Copyright by Erik Magner
2012
All Rights reserved

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP iii
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the attributional association between servant
leadership and global leadership. The research employed a correlational, hypothetical-
deductive, cross-sectional quantitative research strategy with two established
instruments to measure servant leadership and global leadership attributes. The
sample included 413 leaders and executives of organizations in northeast Indiana in
the United States. The study found a close association between servant leadership and
global leadership and between individual leadership attributes of both constructs. The
strength of the correlative relationship between the two leadership constructs was
found to be dependent on a leader’s leadership position and gender. Post hoc analysis
revealed differences in servant leadership by a leader’s gender and the type and size of
organization. Differences in global leadership were found between leaders when
moderated by size of organization and number of countries the organization does
business with, but not the proportion of products or services sold to foreign countries.
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP v
Dedication
To the two strongest women in my life, my mother and my wife Betsy.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP vi
Acknowledgments
This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance,
assistance, support, and encouragement of many individuals.
I wish to thank Drs. Kenneth Rauch, Lillian Schumacher, and Mary Anna
Bradshaw for serving on my committee and for their invaluable help and guidance. I
am grateful to Drs. Dan Wheeler and Marshall Goldsmith for allowing me to utilize
their instruments for this research. I appreciate the assistance of Mike Landram,
president and CEO of the Greater Fort Wayne Chamber of Commerce and John
Sampson, president and CEO of the Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership for
submitting the leadership survey to their members.
My deepest appreciation goes to my family, my wife Betsy and our children
Anna, Laura, and Stefan. Completing this Ph.D. has taken much time and required
many sacrifices from our family. Without their support, tolerance, and
encouragement, this would not have been possible.
Although he did not know, the idea for this leadership research was initiated by
Ed Baker, president and CEO of the Nieco Corporation. I have always admired
Baker’s leadership style, but was unable to find a leadership concept or approach that
would describe or explain it until Dr. Rauch introduced me to servant leadership.
Baker’s personal and professional leadership exemplifies the qualities and
perseverance of a global and a servant leader.
I thank my Heavenly Father, the divine servant leader Jesus Christ, and the
Holy Spirit for transforming my life and guiding me on my journey.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP vii
Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
Chapter 1 - Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Significance of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Nature and Conceptual / Theoretical Framework of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 9
Servant Leadership Construct and Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Global Leadership Construct and Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Limitations and Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Dissertation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chapter 2 - Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Servant Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Origin and Basic Construct of Servant Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Overview of Servant Leadership Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Spears’s Servant Leader Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Barbuto and Wheeler’s 11th Construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Servant Leadership within the Organizational Context . . . . . . . . . . 23
Servant Leadership within the Global Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Servant Leadership: An American Concept? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Servant Leadership within Cross-Cultural Perspectives . . . . . . . . . 30
Servant Leadership from a Non-United States Perspective . . . . . . . 31
Servant Leadership: A Judeo-Christian Concept? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Servant Leadership within Religious Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Summary of Servant Leadership Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP viii
Impact of Globalization on Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Primary Challenges for Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Global Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Fundamental Global Leadership Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Overview of Global Leader Characteristics, Attributes,
and Abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Associative Relationship of Servant Leadership and Global Leadership . . 59
Leadership Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Community Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Diversity and Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Motivation, Empowerment, and Development of People . . . . . . . . 62
Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Empathy and Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Vision and Pioneering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Emotional Intelligence (EI) in Servant and Global Leaders . . . . . . 65
Overview of Servant Leadership Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Overview of Global Leadership Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Chapter Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Chapter 3 - Method of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Servant Leadership Instrument: Barbuto and Wheeler’s SLQ . . . . . . . . . . 78

Global Leadership Instruments: Goldsmith et al.’s GLFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Control Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Construct Validity, Internal Reliability of Instruments,
and External Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Construct Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Internal Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
External Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Correlative Method of Inquiry and Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Subjects, Population, and Sampling Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Population and Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Organization and Clarity of Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Institutional Review Board Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Quantitative Online Survey Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Pretest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Third Party Endorsement and Support of Leadership Research . . . . 93
Data Collection und Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Exclusion of Survey Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP ix
Chapter 4 - Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Demographic Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Assumptions for the Use of Parametric Statistical Data Analysis . . . . . . . . 101
Interval Scale Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Independence of Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Random Selection of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Homogeneity of Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Assessing Normality Assumptions, Internal Reliability, Subscale
Intercorrelations, and Factor Analysis of Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Servant Leadership SLQ Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Global Leadership GLFI Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Canonical Correlation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Standardized beta weights of GLFI dimensions on
SLQ subscales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Standardized beta weights of SLQ subscales on
GLFI dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Leadership Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Leader’s Years in Leadership Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Leader’s Years with Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
For-Profit and Not-For-Profit Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Type of Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Size of Leader’s Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Proportion of Products or Services sold to Foreign Countries by
Leader’s Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Number of Foreign Countries the Leader’s Organization does
Business with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Leader’s Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Leader’s Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Leader’s Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Leader’s Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Summary of Hypothesis 3 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Summary of Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP x
Chapter 5 - Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Summary of the Research Problem and Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . 216

Review and Discussion of the Principal Conclusions of the Study . . . . . . . 217
Research Question and Hypothesis 1: Association of Servant
Leadership and Global Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Research Question and Hypothesis 2: Association of Individual
Servant Leadership and Global Leadership Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Research Question Hypothesis 3: Correlation of Servant
Leadership and Global Leadership segmented by
Demographic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Analysis of Internal Consistency Estimate of Reliability and Factor
Analysis of Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Servant Leadership SLQ Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Global Leadership GLFI Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Operational Application of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Leadership Training and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Recruiting Talent and Succession Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Conclusions and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Appendices
Appendix A: Online Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Appendix B: Institutional Review Board – Letter of Approval . . . . . . . . . 298
Appendix C: Random Sequence for GLFI Instrument Items . . . . . . . . . . . 299
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP xi
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Scope of research study examining servant leadership and

global leadership characteristics, and sample factors affecting
organizational global market performance and competitiveness . . . 14
Figure 2.1. Complete reversal of the old paradigm of leadership to a

new model of servant leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 2.2. Leadership as a process of interaction between the leader,

the followers, and the situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 2.3. Expanded global leadership as a process involving the global

leader, cross-cultural employees, partners, alliances, customers,
suppliers, competitors, creditors, and globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 2.4. Servant leadership attributes and global leadership

dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 2.5. Future objectives of servant leaders and Goldsmith et al.’s

GLFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 3.1. Research design process and data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 4.1. Distribution of composite SLQ scores of data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 4.2. Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot of composite SLQ scores . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 4.3. Distribution of composite GLFI scores of data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 4.4. Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) Plot of composite GLFI Scores . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 4.5. Scatter plot matrix of composite SLQ and composite

GLFI scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 4.6. Standardized beta weights of GLFI dimensions on

individual SLQ subscales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure 4.7. Standardized beta weights of SLQ subscales on individual

GLFI dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Figure 4.8. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by leader’s
leadership position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP xii
Figure 4.9. Scatter plots of composite SLQ and GLFI scores for
individual groups of leader’s leadership position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Figure 4.10. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores across leader’s
Figure 4.11. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores across leader’s
Figure 4.12. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by leader’s
years in leadership position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 4.13. Scatter plots of composite SLQ and GLFI scores for individual
groups of leader’s years in leadership position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
years in leadership position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
years in leadership positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
years with the organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
years with the organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 4.18. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores for leaders
employed in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure 4.19. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores for leaders
employed in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure 4.20. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores for leaders
employed in organizations within different types of industries . . . . 175
Figure 4.21. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores for leaders
employed in organizations within different types of industries . . . . 176
Figure 4.22. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores for leaders across
different sizes of organizations by number of employees . . . . . . . . 180
Figure 4.23. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores for leaders across
different sizes of organizations by number of employees . . . . . . . . 181
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP xiii
organizations with different proportions of products and
services sold to foreign countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
organizations with different proportions of products and
services sold to foreign countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
organizations with different number of foreign countries
doing business with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
organizations with different number of foreign countries
doing business with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Figure 4.28. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by

leader’s gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Figure 4.29. Scatter plots of composite SLQ and GLFI scores for male and
female leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Figure 4.30. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores by for male and
female leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Figure 4.31. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores by for male and
female leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Figure 4.32. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by

leader’s age group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Figure 4.33. Scatter plots of composite SLQ and GLFI scores for individual
leader’s age groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Figure 4.34. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores across age
of leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Figure 4.35. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores across age
of leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
level of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Figure 4.37 Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores across leader’s
level of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP xiv
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Primary Servant Leadership Theorists and Their Acknowledged

Servant Leadership Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 2.2 Primary Global Leadership Theorists and Their Acknowledged

Global Leadership Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 2.3 Established Servant Leadership Instruments . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 2.4 Established Global Leadership Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table 3.1 Barbuto and Wheeler’s SLQ Subscales and Definitions. . . . . . . . . . 79
Table 3.2 Goldsmith et al.’s GLFI Dimensions and Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 4.1 Demographic Distribution of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Table 4.2 Distribution of Participants Related to Leadership Position and

Associated Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Table 4.3 Internal Reliabilities and Intercorrelations of SLQ Subscales . . . . . 106
Table 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Varimax Rotation Pattern

for SLQ Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Table 4.5 Internal Reliabilities and Intercorrelations of GLFI Dimensions . . . 112
Table 4.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Varimax Rotation Pattern

for GLFI Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 4.7 Tests of Canonical Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Table 4.8 Standardized Canonical Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Table 4.9 Correlations among Five SLQ Subscales and 15 GLFI

Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Table 4.10 GLFI Dimensions with Statistically Significant Contribution

to the SLQ Subscale Altruistic Calling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

to the SLQ Subscale Emotional Healing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP xv

to the SLQ Subscale Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

to the SLQ Subscale Persuasive Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

to the SLQ Subscale Organizational Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Table 4.15 SLQ Subscales with Statistically Significant Contribution

to the GLFI Dimension Thinking Globally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

to the GLFI Dimension Appreciating Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Table 4.17 SLQ Subscale with Statistically Significant Contribution

to the GLFI Dimension Developing Technological Savvy . . . . . . . 137

to the GLFI Dimension Building Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

to the GLFI Dimension Sharing Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

to the GLFI Dimension Creating Shared Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

to the GLFI Dimension Developing People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

to the GLFI Dimension Empowering People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

to the GLFI Dimension Achieving Personal Mastery . . . . . . . . . . . 143

to the GLFI Dimension Encouraging Constructive Dialogue . . . . . 144

to the GLFI Dimension Demonstrates Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

to the GLFI Dimension Leading Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP xvi

to the GLFI Dimension Anticipating Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

to the GLFI Dimension Ensuring Customer Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . 148

to the GLFI Dimension Maintaining Competitive Advantage . . . . . 149
Table 4.30 Correlations between Composite SLQ Score and Composite

GLFI Score by Leader’s Leadership Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Table 4.31 Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients

across Leader’s Leadership Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

GLFI Score by Leader’s Years in Leadership Position . . . . . . . . . . 159

across Leader’s Years in Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

GLFI Score by Leader’s Years with Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

across Leader’s Years with Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

GLFI Score by Type of Industry of the Leader’s Organization . . . . 172

across Type of Industry of the Leader’s Organization . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Table 4.38 Correlations between Composite SLQ Score and Composite GLFI
Score by Number of Employees in Leader’s Organization . . . . . . . 177
Table 4.39 Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across

Number of Employees in Leader’s Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

GLFI Score by Proportion of Products and Services sold to
Foreign Countries by Leader’s Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP xvii

across Proportion of Products and Services Sold to Foreign
Countries by Leader’s Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

GLFI Score by Number of Countries the Leader’s Organization
Does Business with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

across the Number of Countries the Leader’s Organization
Does Business with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

GLFI Score by Leader’s Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Leader’s Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

GLFI Score by Leader’s Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Leader’s Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Table 4.48 Summary of Findings for Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
With globalization embedded at all levels of the economy and society in
general, successful global leadership will require leaders to no longer think as
individuals, but rather to think of leadership as a team process (Hess &
Bandyopadhyay, 2010). Global leaders think and act beyond culture, gender, religion,
or social classes and search for the greater good, whether it is defined as that of their
company, their customers, or humanity as a whole (Hopper, 2007). Maak and Pless
(2009) argued for the need for responsible global leaders who act as agents of world
benefits and take an active role in generating solutions to problems. These global
leaders understand the pressing problems in the world, care for the needs of others,
enhance human values on a global scale, and act as responsible global citizens (Maak
& Pless, 2009). These requirements of successful global leaders seem to resonate with
the characteristics of servant leaders.
Servant leadership is a leadership style in which the leader is primarily focused
on identifying and meeting the needs of others (Keith, 2010). As it represents an
ethical, practical, and meaningful way to live and lead, Keith (2010) saw servant
leadership as a key for a better world, with less violence, starvation, sickness, and
environmental degradation. Irving (2010a) considered servant leadership to hold great
promise in meeting the distinctive leadership challenges that global communities face.
Irving promoted “the great need and opportunity for future research” (p. 129) to
advance the understanding and practice of servant leadership within the global
context. Van Dierendonck and Patterson (2010) illustrated the importance of servant
leadership and the perspectives of solid, global, and inspiring service to others: “Our
world might be crying out for more servant leaders” (p. 7).
This empirical quantitative research study attempted to determine whether
there is an association between the attributes of servant leaders and global leaders.
This first chapter provides the necessary framework for conducting this study. It
consists of the problem statement, the purpose of the study, the significance of its
research, the research questions, the study’s limitations and delimitations and the
definitions of terms. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature associated with the
constructs of servant leadership and global leadership. It includes a discussion of
servant leadership in organizations and its applicability across continents, cultures, and
religions. Chapter 2 also includes a discussion of organizational and leadership
challenges of globalization. The construct of global leadership is presented with
essential global leadership competencies and the characteristics, attributes, and
abilities of global leaders. Chapter 2 concludes with a theoretical overview of
associations between servant leadership and global leadership and between available
servant leadership and global leadership research instruments. In chapter 3, the
study’s methods of research and the research parameters of this research proposal are
explained and an overview of the research design process is provided. The results of
each hypothesis testing are presented in chapter 4. Finally, in chapter 5 the findings of
the each hypothesis testing and the practical application of the findings and the
implications for future research are discussed.

Statement of the Problem
The increased economic, social, technical, and political interdependence
between nations (Northouse, 2009) is shifting the global economy to more
interdependence and integration, which Hill (2007) referred to as globalization. With
the emergence of the global economy, globalization is leading to increased global
competition and rapid technological changes that provide opportunities and threats for
many organizations (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2010). This trend requires the
development of global leaders who can respond to challenges of the complexity of
globalization (Mendenhall, 2008) and calls for global leaders who can encounter the
dynamics of global integration, rapidly changing conditions, new competitors, and
cultural diversity in the global market (Cateora, Gilly, & Graham, 2011; Friedman,
2006; Northouse, 2009). Absent of an agreed-upon definition of global leadership
(Mendenhall, 2008), Mendenhall, Bird, Oddou, and Maznevski (2008) asked, “What
are the skills that global leaders should possess in order to be successful” (p. xi)?
Instead of particular global leadership skills, a unique leadership style, such as servant
leadership, may provide the answer. Molnar (2007) claimed that servant leadership
holds the potential to act as an intellectual and emotional bridge between worldviews,
benefitting organizations entering new, international markets, and leading and
managing people into the 21st century.
In 2002, for the 25th anniversary of Robert K. Greenleaf’s seminal work on
servant leadership, Servant Leadership – A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate
Power & Greatness, Covey (2002) argued that success in the competitive global
market with its constant drive for higher productivity, higher quality, and lower cost
will require “an empowerment philosophy that turns bosses into servants and coaches,
and structures and systems into nurturing institutionalized servant processes” (p.2).
Keith (2010) valued servant leadership as a key to a better world; one that is freer,
healthier, more humane, and more prosperous. Patterson, Dannhauser, and Stone
(2007) opined that servant leadership must be considered as a viable option in the
global marketplace and explained:
Knowing that the entire premise of servant leadership is a focus on followers,
as well as understanding that global leadership requires a focus on
understanding and respect for others, the current paradigm for a global
perspective ought to catch leadership from a servanthood approach. (p. 3)
Patterson et al. (2007) raised specific questions to encourage further research
to help organizations succeed in their quest for effective leaders and leadership
outcomes in a global environment.
Is there an attributional correlation between servant leadership and global
leadership?
Do successful servant leaders have an attributional advantage in becoming a
successful global leader?
What core values are required for success as a global leader (Patterson, et al.,
2007, pp. 15-16) ?
The health of organizations and societies increasingly depends on the health of
other individuals, organizations, and global communities (Sendjaya, 2010). Sendjaya
(2010) presented servant leadership as an approach to the unprecedented challenges
that today’s contemporary leaders face, pointing to the increasing amount of servant
leadership research throughout the world in broader global and cross-cultural settings.
This includes Ngunjiri’s (2006) examination of servant leadership as practiced by
female leaders in Africa, Irving and McIntosh’s (2010) investigation of the adoption of
servant leadership in Latin America, and Molnar’s (2007) cross-cultural study of
national cultural dimensions and servant leadership. However, Sendjaya (2010)
reiterated the need for further clarification and refinement of the servant leadership
construct in the global context to help establish it as a suitable model of leadership for
future organizations.
To date, no published work or study has empirically examined the association
between servant leadership and global leadership or whether servant leader
characteristics would create better global leaders. No empirical data currently
supports an association between servant leadership and global leadership. Thus, a
need exists for empirical research that examines the relationship between servant
leadership and global leadership characteristics. By exploring the association between
leadership attributes and characteristics of servant leaders and global leaders, the
findings of this leadership research may help establish servant leadership as the “best
fitting model of leadership” (Sendjaya, 2010, p. 51) for future organizations within a
global context.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this research study is to relate servant leader attributes to global
leader attributes for leaders and executives of organizations. Control variables
comprised of leader’s leadership position, years in leadership position, duration with
the organization, size of the organization, for-profit or not-for-profit status of the

organization, type of industry, number of employees in the organization, proportion of
products or services the organization sells abroad, number of foreign countries the
organization conducts business with, and the leaders’ gender, age, education, and race.
In addition, this study provides data related to the reliability of Goldsmith, Greenberg,
Robertson, and Hu-Chan’s (2003) global leadership instrument.
For practitioners, this study may demonstrate how the understanding of the
attributional relationships can inform the development of leaders in organizational
settings. It may inform whether servant leadership characteristics in global leaders can
assist them in thriving in the complex global competitive environment and whether
global leadership characteristics can assist servant leaders in succeeding in the
complex global environment.
Significance of Research
Businesses continue to globalize at a relentless pace, complicating the
competitive environment (Hitt, et al., 2010). Hitt et al. (2010) described the need for
research on leadership that will help businesses compete in today’s global
marketplace. Company leaders and managers are tasked with engaging and
empowering their employees to utilize the vast opportunities and deflect the immense
threats of the global competitive environment. However, many organizations struggle
with preparing their leaders and executives to succeed in the global environment
(Robinson & Harvey, 2008).
In order to sustain and achieve organizational competitiveness in the global
economy, Ismail, Mohamed, Sulaiman, Mohamad, and Yusuf (2011) pointed to
followers’ empowerment in managing organizational functions as a critical aspect of

the organizational leadership style. This view is supported by Leskiw and Singh
(2007), who claimed that increasing competition in the local and global marketplace
requires organizations to flatten their organizational structures with leadership skills
throughout the organization that emphasize employee empowerment. With the focus
on employee empowerment as one of the key attributes of servant leaders, can the
servant leadership approach provide essential skills for global leaders? This research
study aimed to begin the process of answering this important question.
Savage-Austin and Honeycutt (2011) described servant leaders as thriving on
the opportunity to share their ideas, including followers in the decision-making
process, and acting in the best interest of their followers. Servant leadership holds the
promise of positively revolutionizing interpersonal work relations and organizational
life (Russell & Stone, 2002). Russell and Stone (2002) even claimed that “servant
leadership is a concept that can potentially change organizations and societies” (p.
154).
Trompenaars and Voerman (2010) presented servant leadership as the world’s
most powerful management philosophy, with its ability to integrate opposites to a
stronger synergy. Servant leaders are not tempted to make a choice between opposing
values, but rather excel by combining opposing opinions, points of views, and
concepts. Trompenaars and Voerman argued that servant leadership is applicable for
leaders facing the ever-increasing importance of cooperation in a world characterized
by globalization and in which cultural differences may require the integration of
opposing values.
Quist (2008) described the need for servant leaders who successfully engage
and lead global organizations in the changing cross-cultural world. However, Irvin
(2010a) cautioned that literature and research is not yet sufficiently extensive to
answer the question whether servant leadership is a valid and viable approach across
cultures. Empirical research of servant leadership and global leadership may provide a
better understanding “why some individuals function more effectively than others in
culturally diverse situations” (Bücker & Poutsma, 2010, p. 264).
If leadership skills can be taught and learned, a positive relationship between
the attributes of servant leaders and global leaders may encourage organizations to
train and coach their global leaders and executives in servant leadership characteristics
and apply the gained servant leadership attributes to succeed in the complex global
environment. Today, many companies embrace servant leadership principles
(Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010). These include many listed in Fortune’s 100 Best
Companies to Work For in America such as SAS, Wegmans Food Market, REI,
Whole Foods Market, TD Industries, Intel, Marriott International, Nordstrom,
Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, and Synovus (CNNMoney, 2011; Lichtenwalner,
2011; Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010). A positive association between servant and
global leadership attributes may encourage other organizations to embrace servant
leadership in their operational endeavors in the global context and join the ranks of
successful global companies. This study may also encourage future studies to develop
and establish training programs in servant leadership as tools for global leaders and
organizations operating in the complex global environment.

Nature and Conceptual / Theoretical Framework of the Study
The current research study was designed to collect and analyze data related to
servant leadership and global leadership constructs and to present the findings in a
correlative format. An online survey, Appendix A, was used to collect data. The
context of this study was limited to leaders and executives of companies and
organizations in northeast Indiana in the United States.
Servant leadership construct and measurement. Servant leadership
attributes of leaders and executives were measured using Barbuto and Wheeler’s
(2006) Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ). The SLQ instrument is based on the
foundational principles of servant leadership expressed in Greenleaf’s (1970, 1972,
1977) writings which has been examined further through Spears’s (1995b, 1996)
widely accepted research. Barbuto and Wheeler rigorously tested the SLQ instrument
for reliability and validity, and it has been used in numerous empirical research studies
(A. R. Anderson, 2009; Beck, 2010; Bugenhagen, 2006; Daubert, 2007; Hayden,
2011; Huckebee, 2008; McCann & Holt, 2010; Ostrem, 2006; Searle, 2011; Westfield,
2010). The SLQ self-rater survey contains 23 items. Barbuto and Wheeler
determined the internal reliability with alpha coefficients for the self-rating SLQ
instrument and its five-factor structure ranging from .68 to .87 for individual factors.
Intercorrelations between the subscales were established with a range of r = .28 and r
= .53 for the self-rater SLQ instrument. Confirmatory factor analysis found that the
“data appeared to support the five-factor structure” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p.
314).
Global leadership construct and measurement. The Goldsmith et al. (2003)
Global Leader of the Future Inventory (GLFI) was developed with the help of thought
panels and focus and dialogue groups with high-potential leaders of global companies.
In addition to these groups, more than 200 specially selected, high-potential leaders
from 120 international companies were interviewed regarding global leadership
competencies. The GLFI consists of 15 leadership dimensions covered via 72 items in
a self-rater instrument. Statistical analysis determined the reliability for the
dimensions ranging from a minimum of .76 to a maximum of .97, indicating that
“items composing a dimension were highly correlated” (Goldsmith, et al., 2003, p.
336).
Research Questions
This study gathered data from leaders and executives of organizations in
northeast Indiana and attempted to answer the following questions:
1. How does the overall presence of global leadership characteristics of
leaders in organizations relate to their overall presence of servant
leadership characteristics?
2. How do individual global leadership attributes of leaders in organizations
relate to individual servant leadership attributes?
3. Do demographic factors such as leader’s leadership position, years in a
leadership position, duration with an organization, size of the organization,
for-profit or not-for-profit status of the organization, type of industry,
number of employees in the organization, proportion of products or
services the organization sells abroad, number of foreign countries the

organization does business with, and the leader’s gender, age, education or
race affect the strength of the relationship between servant leadership and
global leadership?
In relation to the research question, the following hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1
H1O: There is no statistically significant correlative relationship between
the overall presence of servant leadership characteristics and the overall
presence of global leadership characteristics.
H11: There is a statistically significant correlative relationship between the
overall presence of servant leadership characteristics and the overall
Hypothesis 2
individual servant leadership attributes and individual global leadership
attributes.
H21: There is a statistically significant correlative relationship between
attributes.
Hypothesis 3
H3O: There is no statistically significant difference in the strength of the
correlative relationship between servant leadership and global leadership,
when segmented by demographic factors that include a leader’s leadership
position, years in a leadership position, duration with an organization, for-

profit or not-for-profit status of the organization, type of industry, size of
the organization, proportion of products or services the organization sells
abroad, number of countries the organization does business with, leader’s
gender, age, level of education, or race.
H31: There is a statistically significant difference in the strength of the
when segmented by demographic factors that include a leader’s leadership
Limitations and Delimitations
The research study included executives of companies and organizations in
northeast Indiana, connected to or members of the Greater Fort Wayne Chamber of
Commerce and the Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership (a regional economic
development organization). Thus, any potential generalization of this study may be
limited to this particular population. The study’s findings are also limited to the type
of instruments used to collect data in that alternate instruments might have produced
different data.
A delimitation of the research study is the subjects’ influence on ratings. The
subjects’ self-reporting response to questions about their leadership characteristics
might not have accurately reflected their actual behaviors. In addition, internet
surveys may be biased toward participants who are young, educated, and of middle to
high socioeconomic status (R. T. Howell, Rodzon, Kurai, & Sanchez, 2010). Internet
surveys are also beset by low response rates and, therefore, carry a nonresponsive bias
(Bech & Kristensen, 2009). Another delimitating factor is the use of a limited number
of control variables. This study included 12 demographic questions related to the
leader and the organization. The number of demographic questions was held to 12 to
allow the survey to be completed within a reasonable time. The fact that the research
study was conducted under the direction of Indiana Tech’s Global Leadership PhD
program might have influenced subjects’ answers to global leadership questions.
This research study attempts to correlate servant leadership and global
leadership attributes at the individual leader level instead of at the organizational level.
Research at an organizational level within a global context would require the inclusion
and discussion of organizations’ global market performance and company
competitiveness. Many factors affecting a firm’s global performance are unrelated to
leadership. Controlling for these factors, including a firm’s type of product, its
competitive environment, market position, and financial conditions, would be difficult
across industry segments and could make a correlational relationship between servant
and global leadership difficult to detect. Thus, this research study focuses on
individual leadership characteristics and not organizational leadership dimensions, as
presented in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. Scope of research study examining servant leadership and global
leadership characteristics, and sample factors affecting organizational global market
performance and competitiveness. Globe with world flags image copyright 2012 by
iStockphoto.com/scanrail. Reprinted with permission.
Definition of Terms
Attributes in leaders are defined as observable characteristics and behaviors in
leaders that are distinctive (Russell & Stone, 2002).
Correlation is defined as a statistical test to determine the tendency or pattern
for two or more variables or two sets of data to vary consistently (Creswell, 2008).
Culture refers to a collective programming of the mind which distinguishes
one group from another (Hofstede, 1980). It denotes a surfeit of meanings, including
education, experience, age, skill sets, ethnicity, religion, race, gender, marital status,
geography, income, language, knowledge, occupation, generation, and communication
and learning styles (Hyatt, Evans, & Haque, 2009). House and Javidan (2004) defined
culture “as shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings
of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives
that are transmitted across generations” (p. 15).
Globalization, according to Hill (2007), is the shift towards a more integrated
and interdependent world economy. It is the development of interaction and mixing of
people, corporations, and governments of different nations and cultures (Y.-C. Chen,
Wang, & Chu, 2011) and increased economic, social, technical, and political
interdependence (Northouse, 2009).
Global leaders are individuals who effect significant positive change in
organizations by building communities through the development of trust and the
arrangement of organizational structures and processes in a context involving multiple
cross-boundary stakeholders, multiple sources of external cross-boundary authority,
and multiple cultures under conditions of temporal, geographic, and cultural
complexity (Mendenhall, 2008).
Global leadership is defined by Javidan (2008) as the process of influencing
individuals, groups, and organizations inside and outside the boundaries of the global
organization, representing diverse cultural/political/institutional systems to contribute
towards the achievement of the organization’s goals.
Global leadership competencies refer to the core abilities, attributes, and skills
of leadership that enable an individual to adapt quickly to new and different cultural
settings and function effectively within an intercultural global environment (Alon &
Higgins, 2005; Earley & Peterson, 2004; Suutari, 2002).

Servant leadership is defined as a leadership style in which the leader is
primarily focused on serving his or her followers individually and organizational
concerns peripherally (Patterson, 2003a).
Dissertation Summary
This dissertation is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 provided the
necessary framework for conducting this study. This framework consisted of the
problem statement, the purpose of the study, the significance of its research, the
research questions, the study’s limitations, and delimitations and the definitions of
terms.
Chapter 2 provides a literature review that introduces the constructs of servant
leadership and global leadership. It includes a discussion of servant leadership in
organizations and its applicability across continents, cultures, and religions. The
literature review also encompasses a discussion of globalization with its impact on
organizations, in particular the challenges for leaders facing cultural diversity, cross-
cultural knowledge transfer, and converging global management practices in the
global economy. The construct of global leadership is presented with the essential
global leadership competencies, characteristics, attributes, and abilities of global
leaders. The literature review includes a theoretical overview of associations of
servant leadership and global leadership and concludes with an overview of available
servant leadership and global leadership research instruments.
In chapter 3, the study’s methods of research and the research parameters of
this research proposal are explained and the selected survey instruments for measuring
servant leadership and global leadership described. Chapter 3 concludes with an
overview of the research design.
Chapter 4 presents the research results and includes an overview of the data
collection process, the target population, and the demographics of the sample. The
methods selected for the statistical data analysis and the evaluation of the selected
instruments also are discussed. This chapter provides the results of each hypothesis
testing and concludes with a summary of the research findings.
In chapter 5, the findings and the implication of the each hypothesis testing is
discussed. Also, the limitations of the study, the practical application of the findings,
and implications for future research are presented.

Chapter 2
Review of Literature
Servant Leadership
The following review of literature on servant leadership describes the
leadership style’s origination, its basic construct and attributes, and the characteristics
of servant leaders. It also examines the application of servant leadership in
organizations within the global context and cross-cultural perspectives, across
continents and regions, and among different religious belief systems.
Origin and basic construct of servant leadership. The servant leadership
approach was originated by Greenleaf (1977) who based it on Hermann Hesse’s
(1956) novel Journey to the East. Hesse’s story depicted a group of explorers on an
adventurous and mythical expedition. This spiritual pilgrimage was not only a
geographic excursion to the East, but was also a journey to the inner soul of the
characters. The central figure of this novel was the servant Leo, a person of
remarkable presence, who performed all basic chores and whose spirit and courage,
guided the group through trials and tribulations. The novel’s narrator described the
challenges of travelling abroad and reflecting on new experiences via the axiom: “He
who travels far will often see things far removed from what he believed was truth”
(Hesse, 1956, p. 4). In this novel, Leo disappeared suddenly and the group fell into
complete disarray. Without their servant leader, the members began to feel that their
impending destiny was a hopeless disaster. Thus, the journey lost its meaning and was
abandoned. After years of hopeless wandering, the narrator, one of the original
pilgrims, found Leo and the Order, the group that had sponsored the expedition. He
discovered that Leo, who he first knew as his servant, was the great and noble leader
of the Order.
Greenleaf posited that Hesse’s story supported his idea that great leaders are
servants first (Spears, 1996). Greenleaf showed how the novel illustrates that through
the apparently absurd and irrational coexistence of servanthood and leadership, a
profound sense of serving first emerges and overcomes the desire for formal
leadership (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008).
It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then
conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. The difference manifests itself
in the care taken by the servant–first to make sure that other people’s highest
priority needs are being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, and more
autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants. (Greenleaf, 1970, p.
13)
The servant leader’s primary objective is to serve, rather than wanting power,
influence, fame, or wealth (Senge, 2002). Servant leaders put other people’s needs,
aspirations, and interests above their own (Greenleaf, 1977). They are interested in
the growth, development, and well-being of their followers (Patterson, Redmer, &
Stone, 2003). Servant leaders want their followers to become stronger, healthier, more
autonomous, more self-reliant, and more competent (Greenleaf, 1977). Hayden
(2011) confirmed Greenleaf’s articulation of the growth of followers with the four
personal outcomes of health, wisdom, freedom-autonomy, and service orientation. He
tested these outcomes against established servant leadership dimensions and found a
significant and positive association.

Overview of servant leadership attributes. Although Greenleaf (1970, 1972,
1977) never formally described or defined the characteristics of a servant leader
(Hayden, 2011), a large number of researchers (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Bradshaw,
2007; Irving, 2005; Laub, 1999; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Patterson,
2003; Rauch, 2007; Spears, 1995b) considered Greenleaf’s work on servant leadership
important. Table 2.1 lists primary theorists and researchers on servant leadership and
the attributes their research associated with servant leaders.

Table 2.1
Primary Servant Leadership Theorist and Their Acknowledged Servant Leadership
Attributes
Theorist Servant Leader Attributes
Graham (1991) Inspirational, Moral
Spears (1995a, 1995b, 1996) Listening, Empathy, Healing, Awareness, Persuasion,

Conceptualization, Foresight, Stewardship,
Commitment, Community Building
Buchen (1998) Self-Identity, Capacity for Reciprocity, Relationship

Builders, Preoccupation with the Future
Farling, Stone, and Wilson Vision, Influence, Credibility, Trust, Service

(1999)
Laub (1999) Valuing People, Developing People, Building

Community, Displaying Authenticity, Provides
Leadership, Shares Leadership
Russell (2001) Vision, Credibility, Trust, Service, Modeling,

Pioneering, Appreciation of Others, Empowerment
Russell and Stone (2002) Vision, Honesty, Integrity, Trust, Service, Modeling,
Pioneering, Appreciation of Others, Empowerment,
Communication, Credibility, Competence,
Stewardship, Visibility, Influence, Persuasion,
Listening, Encouragement, Teaching, Delegation
Barbuto and Wheeler (2002, Calling, Listening, Empathy, Healing, Awareness,

2006) Persuasion, Conceptualization, Foresight,
Stewardship, Commitment, Community Building
Sendjaya (Sendjaya, 2003), Voluntary Subordination, Authentic Self, Covenantal

(Sendjaya, et al., 2008) Relationship, Responsible Morality, Transcendent
Spirituality, Transforming Influence
(table continues)
Theorist Servant Leader Attributes
Patterson (2003) Agapao Love, Humility, Altruism, Vision, Trust,

Empowerment, Service
Wong and Page (2003) Developing and Empowering Others, Visionary

Leadership, Servanthood, Responsible Leadership,
Integrity-Honesty, Integrity-Authenticity,
Courageous Leaders. It includes an inverse construct,
identified as Abuse of Power and Egoistic Pride
Dennis (2004) Love, Empowerment, Vision, Humility, Trust
Whittington, Frank, May, and Other-Centeredness, Facilitative Environment, Self-

Goodwin (2006) Sacrifice, Affirmation
Van Dierendonck and Heeren Competence, Autonomy, Relatedness, Inner

(2006) Strength, Passion, Intuition, Integrity, Authenticity,
Courage, Objectivity, Humility, Empowerment,
Emotional Intelligence, Stewardship, Conviction
Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Emotional Healing, Creating Value for the
Henderson (2008) Community, Conceptual Skills, Empowering, Help
Subordinates Grow and Succeed, Putting
Subordinates First, Behaving Ethically
Reed, Vidaver-Cohen, and Interpersonal Support, Building Community,

Colwell (2011) Altruism, Egalitarianism, Moral Integrity
Van Dierendonck and Nuijten Empowerment, Humility, Standing Back,

(2011) Authenticity, Forgiveness, Courage, Accountability,
Stewardship
Spears’s servant leader characteristics. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006)
claimed that Greenleaf (1970, 1977) and Spears (1995b, 1996) represent the most
accepted views on servant leadership. Spears (1995b, 1996), the chief executive
officer (CEO) of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership from 1990–
2007, analyzed the writings of Greenleaf and identified 10 characteristics of servant

leaders: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,
foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community.
Beaver (2007) opined that Spears’s 10 characteristics are commonly referenced in
servant leadership literature and most often addressed in research. Contee-Borders’s
(2003) case study confirmed Spears’s 10 characteristics as essential to servant
leadership in competitive for-profit businesses.
Barbuto and Wheeler’s 11th construct. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) added
an 11th construct, calling, to Spears’s original 10 servant leadership characteristics.
Calling is operationalized as a desire to serve and the willingness to sacrifice self-
interest for the benefit of others (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Motivation of a servant
leader begins with a conscious choice to serve others (Greenleaf, 1970). It is the
selfless and sacrificial roles that leaders play in organizations that help servant leaders
gain respect and loyalty from followers (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998).
Servant leadership within the organizational context. Leadership theories
are shifting from leader-centered to follower-centered (Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2010).
Leaders are faced with achieving a vision and setting a direction that require them to
motivate and inspire their employees (Kotter, 2001). Servant leadership holds the
primary promise of business creating a positive impact on its employees and the
community (Fry, 2003). It is based on the belief that organizational goals can be
achieved through leaders who serve, develop, inspire, and empower others (Greenleaf,
1977). Greenleaf (1977) advocated breaking down hierarchical structures and making
work more significant for employees. Leaders of successful businesses “will need to
evolve from being the chief into the builder of the team” (p. 85). For Spears (1995b),
the traditional autocratic and hierarchical modes of leadership are yielding to a
leadership model that attempts to simultaneously enhance the personal growth of
workers and improve the quality and caring of the organization. This is accomplished
through a combination of teamwork, community, participative decision making, and
ethical and caring behavior, all of which are integral to servant leadership (Spears,
1995b).
Instead of a command-and-control environment, servant leadership places
greater emphasis on collaboration, orchestration, and teamwork (Pelletier, 2005).
Hunter (1998) went even further by suggesting a complete reversal of the old
paradigm of leadership to a new model of servant leadership, as illustrated in Figure
2.1.
Figure 2.1. Complete reversal of the old paradigm of leadership to a new model of
servant leadership. Adapted from The servant: A simple story about the true essence
of leadership, by J. C. Hunter, 1998, Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing. Copyright
1998 by James C. Hunter.
The inverted pyramid depicts a servant leader CEO at the bottom who serves
and meets the needs of others. In this upside-down pyramid, an organization’s front-
line employees are truly serving the customer, and the front-line supervisors see their
employees as their customers, an approach that continues throughout the organization
(Hunter, 1998). For Hunter (1998), this new paradigm shifts the role of a leader from
ruling and controlling to serving. Instead of an unilateral power model tilting heavily
towards leading, servant leadership balances through “serving by leading and leading
by serving” (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010, p. 14), resulting in a more harmonious
management style.
Hamilton (2008) specified the advantages to servant-led organizations as
mission and value focused, with high levels of creativity, innovation, responsiveness,
and flexibility. Organizations that embrace servant leadership demonstrate a
commitment to both external and internal service, a respect for employees, employee
loyalty, and a celebration of diversity (Hamilton, 2008). Patterson (2003) determined
that servant leadership is a belief that organizational goals will be achieved on a long-
term basis only by first assisting the growth, development, and general well-being of
the organization’s employees. Numerous researchers (Chu, 2008; Irving, 2005; Irving
& Longbotham, 2006; Johnson, 2008; Jones, 2011; Joseph & Winston, 2005; Miears,
2004; Rauch, 2007; Searle, 2011; R. R. Washington, 2007, 2008) have related
empirically the presence of servant leadership to organizational performance and
employee satisfaction. Patterson, Redmer, and Stone (2003) concluded that servant
leaders display some similarities to what Collins (2001) termed great or “Level 5” (p.
17) leaders. Both, servant and Level 5 leaders are role models, stand for high levels of
trust, delegation, empowerment, teaching, listening, and persuasion, and present
dynamic leadership that can “bring about real change in organizations” (Patterson, et
al., 2003, p. 19).
Servant leaders seek to involve their followers in decision making and enhance
their followers’ growth while improving the caring and quality of organizational life
(Spears, 2010). Buchen (1998) concluded that servant leaders have a strong service
orientation and are influenced by the needs of their organization and their followers.
For Buchen, employee empowerment is servant leadership’s most important
characteristic. Stone et al. (2003) confirmed the focus of servant leaders on followers
by emphasizing that “servant leaders trust their followers to undertake actions that are
in the best interest of the organization, even though the leaders do not primarily focus
on organizational objectives” (p. 5).
Servant leadership is both a product and antecedent of leader and
organizational trust (Joseph & Winston, 2005). Covey (2002) asserted that servant
leadership represents a kind of employee empowerment that can serve as a key
decisive principle “between an organization’s enduring success or its eventual demise”
(p. 2). Today, many well-known companies practice servant leadership principles,
including SAS, Wegmans Food Market, REI, Whole Foods Market, TD Industries,
Intel, Marriott International, Nordstrom, Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, and Synovus
(Lichtenwalner, 2011; Servant-Leader Associates, 2010; Trompenaars & Voerman,
2010).
The servant leadership approach within the organizational context is not
without critics, however. Eicher-Gatt (2005) rejected servant leadership as being a
deceptive linguistic wordplay of opposing terms, servant and leadership. For Eicher-
Gatt, this linguistic irony creates sufficient ambiguity to allow politically-motivated
members to advance their own agenda in the context of organizational confusion and
anonymity (Eicher-Gatt, 2005). Eicher-Gatt saw servant leadership as promoting a
theology of leadership that is insidiously religious, patriarchal, and oppressive, while
hiding behind neutral spiritual connotations. It does not present a revolutionary mode
of leadership reflecting an appreciation of organizational culture, diversity, and

heterogeneity of interests and motivations. Eicher-Gatt called servant leadership an
operational myth and questioned its integration into common management practices.
In contrast, Trompenaars and Voerman (2010) pointed to the integration of
opposites, serving and leading, to achieve an enriching synthesis. It allows servant
leaders to bridge cultural differences, different opinions, viewpoints, and concepts
(Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010). Trompenaars and Voerman explained that in a
world characterized by globalization, global organizations face a myriad of challenges.
The cooperation across cultures and integration of opposing values is becoming
increasingly important for global organizations and entrepreneurs in the international
market (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010).
Servant leadership within the global context. The increasing complexity of
global business and technological advances requires a shift from a traditional to a new
leadership model, one based on teamwork, community, joint decision making, strong
ethical and caring behavior, and a focus on personal growth (Spears, 1996; Vidic,
2007). Patterson, Dannhauser, and Stone (2007) advocated for a servanthood
approach to global leadership. With the focus of servant leadership on followers,
“global leadership requires a focus on understanding and respect for others” (p. 3).
Servant leadership must be considered as a practical opportunity to succeed in the
global marketplace (Patterson, et al., 2007).
The applicability of servant leadership in today’s era of globalization and rapid
economic changes is explained by Trompenaars and Voerman (2010). By integrating
opposing viewpoints, concepts, and value systems, servant leaders are able to identify
and satisfy the needs of employees from different cultures, overcome cultural bias, and
build cross-cultural communities through stewardship (Trompenaars & Voerman,
2010). For Molnar (2007), servant leadership offers the opportunity to bridge
incommensurate, intractable, interminable moral orders and diverse worldviews that
are part of globalization and the socio-economic complexities of the 21st century.
Servant leadership: An American concept? House and Aditya (1997)
cautioned that leadership research is authored primarily by scholars in the United
States who do not address whether this research can be generalized to other cultures.
Almost all of the established leadership theories and empirical research is derived
from an American perspective, including the focus on individualism versus
collectivism, the stressing of follower responsibilities rather than follower rights, and
the assumption of hedonism before altruistic motivation (House & Aditya, 1997).
Moran, Harris, and Moran (2007) explained that researchers in the United States
should not assume that American management techniques are necessarily the best for
American managers or for managers from other countries. American management
techniques are based on American values and assumptions that may not hold true for
managers from other countries.
Sendjaya (2010) confirmed that servant leadership, like a large number of
other leadership theories, was originally a U.S.-centric theory, mostly studied and
practiced by companies in the United States. Winston and Ryan (2008) warned that if
servant leadership is considered to be primarily a Western concept, with the authors
indicating a North American and Western European bias, there will be reluctance to
accept it and world leaders may miss out on a human form of leadership. Winston and
Ryan demonstrated the overlap of servant leadership characteristics and the global
acceptance of the humane orientation across different cultural concepts as evidence
that servant leadership is a global rather than a Western concept.
Irving (2010a) explained that research on servant leadership has gradually
moved from theoretical discussions, model development, and initial empirical research
in North American and European contexts to a broader global and cross-cultural
setting. Irving presented servant leadership research and its application within
regional and cultural perspectives and concluded that literature and research is not yet
sufficiently extensive to conclude whether servant leadership is applicable across all
cultural and global perspectives. The following chapters present theoretical reviews
and empirical research works of servant leadership across cultures, geographic
regions, and religions.
Servant leadership within cross-cultural perspectives. Alas, Tafel, and
Tuulik (2007) opined that leadership is contingent on culture: “The status and
influence of leaders vary considerably as a result of cultural forces in the countries or
regions in which the leaders function” (Alas, et al., 2007, p. 50). Manning (2003)
acknowledged that effective global leadership requires the ability to manage across
cultural diversity. Global managers must be flexible enough to work with people from
other cultures (Adler & Gundersen, 2007). However, are servant leaders flexible
enough to manage cross-cultural diversity? “Is [servant leadership] relevant cross-
culturally” (Sendjaya, 2010, p. 50)?
Irving (2010a) stated that engaging in cross-cultural perspectives on servant
leadership is a valuable exercise, especially when considering the impact of
globalization. Trompenaars and Voerman (2010) identified the respect for diversity as
a core principle for servant leaders. Servant leaders are willing and eager to listen to
others’ opinions and different viewpoints (Hunter, 2004). Hannay (2009) discussed
the cross-cultural applications of servant leadership, especially as the U.S. economy
becomes more integrated with the international economy due to globalization.
Hannay’s theoretical review was based on Hofstede’s (1993) five national cultural
dimensions. It concluded that servant leadership is best applied in countries with
national cultures constituting low power distance, low to moderate individualism, low
to moderate masculinity, low uncertainty avoidance, and a moderate to high long-term
orientation. Hannay’s review concluded by stating that servant leadership theory
based on American research “does not appear [to be] a model that is only applicable to
the American leader or even one that is necessarily best suited to the American
workplace” (Hannay, 2009, p. 9). Among the countries and regions that Hofstede
examined—United States, Germany, Japan, France, the Netherlands, Hong Kong,
Indonesia, West Africa, Russia, and China—none represented the ideal cultural
environment for servant leadership application. However, the Netherlands provided
the best fitting settings (Hannay, 2009).
Servant leadership from a non-United States perspective. Sendyaja (2010)
maintained that servant leadership, like many other leadership theories, was developed
in the United States and is mostly studied and practiced by companies in the United
States. When examining servant leadership as a global concept, the enormous
differences between the United States and other countries in the world in terms of
national culture needs to be considered (Sendjaya, 2010). Thus, Sendjaya asked an

important question for this study: “Is this theory applicable in non-U.S. countries”
(Sendjaya, 2010, p. 50)?
In recent years, numerous empirical research studies have attempted to
examine the application of servant leadership across countries and many regions in the
world, as presented below. These studies confirmed the relevance of servant
leadership outside the United States (Sendjaya, 2010).
Africa. Ngunjiri (2007) illustrated with her research of women leaders in
Africa that servant leadership is also practiced by leaders in a non-Western context in
the business, education, government, and non-profit sectors. African women in
Ngunjiri’s study demonstrated that servant leadership is not counter-cultural in the
traditional African context. Creff (2004) and Mumley (2007) found close assimilation
of the servant leadership construct with the indigenous values of ubuntu, a concept
that describes the group solidarity of African communities. Creff recommended that
African leaders model servant leadership principles to compliment African values and
utilize the potential of the African continent.
Hale and Fields (2007) explored the extent to which followers in Ghana
experienced the constructs of service, humility, and vision. Hale and Fields found
three interesting perspectives related to servant leadership: Ghanaians experienced
servant leadership behaviors significantly less frequently than North Americans, the
construct of vision had a significantly stronger relationship with leader effectiveness
compared to North Americans, and North American and Ghanaians related to the
construct of service and humility similar to leader effectiveness.

Okafor-Dike (2008) identified servant leadership characteristics among the
majority of civilian presidents of Nigeria in contrast to the authoritarian/dictatorial
leadership of military regimes. Okafor-Dike concluded that pockets of servant
leadership existed and were practiced in Nigeria despite numerous military
intercessions.
Koshal (2005) explored the acceptability and applicability of the servant
leadership construct of service in Kenya. Leaders and managers in this study from
positions in corporate organizations, government, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and academic institutions indicated service as their fundamental career and
leadership goals. Koshal claimed a close relationship of servant leadership to the
Kenyan philosophy of harambee, which embodies and reflects on the strong ancient
values of mutual assistance, joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community
self-reliance (Koshal, 2005).
Similarly, Nelson (2003) found acceptance of the servant leadership constructs
among black leaders in South Africa. However, practicing and adopting the servant
leadership construct of trust remained a challenge among black leaders in South
African organizations (Nelson, 2003).
Asia. Han, Kakabadse, and Kakabadse’s (2010) case study showed that the
Western concept of servant leadership holds similar meaning in the public sector in the
People’s Republic of China (PRC). The study suggested that the development and
formulation of servant leadership in China was enthused by elements of
Confucianism, Daoism, and Communist ideology. Han, Kakabadse, and Kakabadse
found that servant leadership is a powerful philosophy and practice in the PRC in
recruiting, keeping, and motivating high performance employees, and restoring
employee’s trust, commitment, and confidence in management.
Chen (2002) examined the concept of servant leadership as a ministerial model
in Taiwan’s Mennonite Churches. Chen found that the hierarchical culture of Taiwan,
and the opposing concept of servant and leader in the Chinese mindset were
challenges to the servant leadership concept. However, Chen concluded that servant
leadership would be an appropriate strategy to facilitate the collaborative leadership
style in churches, even if many pastors see authority as necessity.
Pinner (2003) concluded that in Japan servant leadership resonates well with
the culture when examining Total Quality Management (TQM) and organizational
culture dimensions. Some tenets of servant leadership, identified as empowerment
within a group setting, participative management, community development, service
learning, healing, listening, intuitive foresight, humility, and building the capacity of
the company, correspond to elements of Japanese culture (Pinner, 2003). Pinner stated
that servant leadership is an acceptable style of leadership with the Japanese cultural
bias of not promoting one’s self and fits well with elements of preserving kao. Kao is
the most precious commodity a Japanese person has, encompassing pride, self-esteem,
and reputation (Pinner, 2003). Pinner concluded that servant leadership fits well into
the core tenets of Japanese culture with a focus on harmony of organization and
teamwork.
In India, the servant leadership concept is viewed as closely related to the
traditional ethical leadership (Chatterjee, 2009). Chatterjee (2009) claimed that

servant leadership presents a striking resemblance to the Ramakrishna movement with
the organizational leader depicted as Dasasya-Das, or servant of servants.
Latin America. Marinho (2005) described the struggle of introducing the
concept of servant leadership into the corporate environment in Brazil, especially
because the term servant conflicts with Brazilian’s long period of slavery throughout
its colonial history. However, Marinho asserted that the political, economic, and
social environment in Brazil is in the midst of a dynamic change and ready to embrace
servant leadership.
Serrano (2005) examined Patterson’s (2003) construct of servant leadership
and determined that it is conceptually feasible within Panamanian culture. In order to
develop servant leaders, Serrano concluded that empowerment as one of servant
leadership’s characteristics needs appropriate understanding and political leaders in
Panama need to embrace servant leadership.
Irving and McIntosh (2010) found that participants at a leadership conference
in Lima, Peru, recognized the value of servant leadership, but struggled with how to
adopt servant leadership within the Peruvian context. Similarly, K. R. Anderson’s
(2006) interviews with Latin American leaders revealed the recognition of value in the
servant leadership model. However, doubts were raised about how well servant
leadership would work in an area where the caudillo or cacique approach, a form of
authoritarian power and political leadership, had dominated for a long period of time
(K. R. Anderson, 2006). McIntosh and Irving (2010) suggested conducting more
research to determine the obstacles that servant leadership faces in Latin America,
especially with the infant nature of servant leadership research in the Latin American
context.
Australia and Indonesia. Pekerti and Sendjaya (2010) investigated the
existence of servant leadership in Australia and Indonesia. Both, Australian and
Indonesian effective leaders endorse, exhibit, and practice servant leadership (Pekerti
& Sendaya, 2010). However, Pekerti and Sendjaya found that culture influences
people’s perception of servant leadership. Leaders in Australia and Indonesia view
self-sacrificial, follower-centric, and altruistic behaviors as an important practice in
their organizations (Pekerti & Sendaya, 2010). Dillman (2003) investigated cross-
cultural implications of servant leadership among Australian pastors. The pastors
confirmed some familiarity with the concept of servant leadership and strongly
identified themselves as servant leaders. The constructs of service, selfless
motivation, and empowerment were seen as important leadership components, with
vision and trust as unique components with lesser support (Dillman, 2003).
Eastern Europe. Dimitrova (2008) conducted an empirical study of Bulgarian
university students to examine the causal relationship of Patterson’s (2003) theoretical
leadership model. Dimitrova’s research supported the causal relationship among the
elements of servant leadership, except the association of vision and altruism.
Servant leadership: A Judeo-Christian concept? Eicher-Gatt (2005)
rejected servant leadership as originating from religious doctrine with the objective to
infuse and regulate the corporate world with a leadership practice and organizational
ethics steeped in religious thought. Eicher-Gatt claimed that servant leadership is
“politically motivated to reproduce an androcentric, Judeo-Christian doctrine” (p. 18).

Wallace (2006) examined five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity,
Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, for their ability to provide a philosophical foundation
for servant leadership. Wallace’s theoretical review claimed that servant leadership
holds close association with Judaism and Christianity, but significant contradictions
within Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. Wallace concluded that these contradictions
do not preclude the practice of servant leadership within these religions, but rather
merely showed that servant leadership may not serve as a philosophic base.
On the other hand, Kurth (2003) posited that most world religions, non-
religious belief systems, and many well-known philosophers have promoted service to
others aligned with a higher purpose as a means for fulfillment. Senjaya (2010)
claimed that the majority of publications associate servant leadership with Judeo-
Christian theology but that recent publications also relate it to other religious
teachings. Sendjaya concluded that the practice of servant leadership does not require
an association with a particular religion or even a religious belief because it originates
from certain meaningful and significant human core values, ideals, or causes.
Servant leadership within religious context. Zohar and Marshall (2004)
held that servant leaders find new ways for human beings to relate to each other, for
companies to serve society, and for societies to develop. Zohar and Marshall pointed
to Buddha, Moses, and Jesus as past religious servant leaders, and Mahatma Gandhi,
Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama as
modern exemplars. Greenleaf (1996) encouraged the application of the servant
leadership approach because “with all the diversity of religious beliefs and non-
beliefs, there is a chance that substantial consensus could be achieved in searching for
a basis for this idea in our history and myth” (p. 44).
Christianity. Greenleaf (1977) frequently referred to Jesus of Nazareth when
illustrating the concept of servant leadership. Sendjaya and Sarros (2002)
demonstrated the conceptual roots of servant leadership using numerous biblical
accounts. Powerful instructions from Jesus to his disciples teach that a leader’s
greatness is measured by the total commitment to service of others (Sendjaya &
Sarros, 2002). Senjaya and Sarros referred to biblical verses such as “whoever wants
to become great among you must be your servant” (NIV Bible, Matthew 20:26) and “I
am among you as one who serves” (NIV Bible, Luke 22:27). For Blanchard and
Hodges (2005), Jesus provided the foremost model of servant leadership.
Judaism. Bekker (2010) described the traditional Jewish approach to
leadership as a system of communal leadership. According to Bekker, the concept of
service as leadership in Judaism is embodied in the biblical figure of Moses as
shepherd who led and liberated his followers from slavery. Eyre (2011) presented
Moses as a servant leader. Moses was committed to empowering followers and
nurturing others for leadership for the long-term benefit of the community (Lewis,
2007).
Islam. Analyzing the Bedouin-Arab culture, Sarayrah (2004) concluded that
servant leadership is deeply rooted in Arab-Islamic culture with many similarities
between pre- and early Islamic leadership and servant leadership styles. These
similarities include serving for a cause, whether for the benefit of an organization or a
nation; an emphasis on listening; and the use of persuasion as an effective tool in

decision-making. However, the positive servant-like type of leadership in early Arab
societies was diluted by external events and influences after Islam spread, as well as
the absorption of foreign practices and customs (Sidani & Thornberry, 2009).
Unpopular bureaucratic procedures and practices resulted in alienated
leadership in the Middle East (Sarayrah, 2004). Sarayrah recommended that necessary
administrative reforms could be greatly facilitated by servant leadership, which truly
complies with the Arab value system and tradition. According to Beekun and Badawi
(1999), the two primary roles of a leader in Islam are those of a servant leader and a
guardian leader. The leader as a servant of his followers–sayyid al qawn
khadimuhum–is part of Islam and is reflected in seeking followers welfare and guiding
them toward what is good (Beekun & Badawi, 1999).
Buddhism. According to Kriger and Seng (2005), a Buddhist leader is selfless
and promotes interconnectedness with everyone and everything in the world with four
immeasurable Buddhist virtues of states of mind, the brahmaviharas: loving,
compassion, joy, and equanimity. For Bekker (2010), the willingness of Buddha to
defer entrance to nirvana in order to serve others by showing the way is a critical link
between Buddhist leadership and Greenleaf’s (1970) servant leadership. Greenleaf
(1977) claimed that the idea of servant leadership was first formulated as the right
vocation, or right livelihood, as one step of the noble eightfold path in the Buddhist
ethic.
Other religions and philosophies. Kurth (2003) claimed that service is a
natural expression of spirituality and can be found in all major religions and
philosophies, including Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, and

Siddha yoga. Zohar (1997) connected the servant leadership paradigm with ancient
Eastern religions, centering on values like compassion, humility, gratitude, and
service. Wicker (1998) claimed that advocates of servant leadership or the
stewardship business movement quote “Jewish mystics, Buddhist masters, Hebrew
prophets, Jesus, and Albert Einstein” (p. 147).
Rarick and Nickerson (2008) confirmed the association of servant leadership
with the Bhagavad Gita. In this 700-verse Hindu scripture, a leader acts in the role of
a servant “in a manner which at all times benefits the followers” (Rarick & Nickerson,
2008, p. 62). According to Rarick and Nickerson, these leaders as servants often
sacrifice their own interests in order to promote the well-being of the group.
Summary of servant leadership applicability. The preceding integrative
literature review about the applicability of the servant leadership construct from
global, cross-cultural, and religious perspectives is by no means exhaustive. However,
it shows support for servant leadership or particular construct dimensions that seem to
be applicable and relevant globally and cross-culturally. Irving (2010a) explained that
servant leadership is a valid and viable approach across cultures, but it requires more
research for qualification. Irving stated that the servant leadership mode finds
challenges in high power-distance relationships in which it is associated with a weak
form of leadership. The paradigm is counter-intuitive to culturally familiar
hierarchical structures and in a linguistic context in which the language of service and
servant is closely associated with the language, images, and histories of slavery.
Irving argued that servant leadership theory and practice need to become culturally
contingent as well as able to adapt to diverse cultural contexts and societal variety.
Sendjaya (2010) pointed to the increasing number of qualitative and quantitative
studies currently conducted on the application of servant leadership across different
continents that will further clarify and refine its construct and establish it as an
exceptional leadership model for future organizations.
In an interview (Dittmar, 2006), Spears stated that he had not encountered any
cultural differences suggesting that there is any particular country or culture where
servant leadership would be perceived differently. Spears claimed that “servant
leadership increasingly has a global face” (p. 117).
Globalization
Globalization is not only an economic phenomenon, but also has social,
cultural, political, and environmental implications (Friedman, 2006; Gitsham, 2008).
Goldsmith et al. (2003) claimed that the global business arena is becoming a melting
pot for people with different cultures, races, ages, socioeconomic statuses, and
religious backgrounds. Hitt et al. (2010) claimed that the competitive landscape of the
21st century, with the emergence of the global economy and rapid technology
changes, will provide opportunities and threats within firms striving to meet today’s
competitive challenges. Organizations and their leaders face the dynamics of global
integration, rapidly changing conditions, new competitors, and cultural diversity in the
global market (Cateora, et al., 2011; Friedman, 2006; Northouse, 2009).
Impact of globalization on organizations. Globalization is the most
predominant trend affecting today’s businesses (Palthe, 2009). Hess and
Bandyopadhyay (2010) asserted that future businesses will be more globalized and
multinational with every business being affected by globalization either directly or

indirectly. Mendenhall (2008) claimed that the need for developing global leaders
who can respond to challenges of complexity of globalization is imminent. With
technology allowing capital and labor to flow easily across the world, globalization
renders the global economy interconnected, borderless, and invisible, and global
leaders are unable to navigate the new challenges with traditional leadership
characteristics (Wanasika, 2009). The emerging global world, in which “everybody is
competing with everyone, from everywhere, and for everything” (Jurse & Korez Vide,
2010, p. 1154), is entering an era of fundamentally changing global competitive
context that enables global access to markets, knowledge, and talent as a key strategic
resource of the future. Any leadership model that may find application in
organizations, whether domestically or globally, needs to reflect on the impact of
globalization.
Primary challenges for organizations. Globally operating companies and
exporters face unique challenges in each market given the differences in cultures,
languages, laws, economies, and business customs (Bellin & Pham, 2007). Global
companies find themselves embedded in a complex set of global political, economic,
and cultural networks (Werhane, 2007). Multi-national corporations (MNCs) need to
integrate and coordinate geographically dispersed operations with a culturally diverse
workforce (Levy, Beechler, Taylor, & Boyacigiller, 2007) and utilize the benefits of a
global teamwork (Northouse, 2009). The primary challenges of the impact of
globalization on leaders and organizations include complexity, diversity, cross-cultural
knowledge transfer, and converging global management practices.

Complexity. Lane, Maznevski and Mendenhall (2004) stated that globalization
is a manifestation of complexity. They described the complexity of globalization as
flowing from interrelated conditions of (a) multiplicity–dealing with different
competitors, customers, governments, and stakeholders, and different modes of
worldwide operations; (b) interdependence–complex system of human and
technological interaction; and (c) ambiguity–equivocality of information and cross-
cultural difference in interpretation. These conditions are in a state of constant change
and generate a multiplier effect, responsible for the dynamic complexity of the global
business environment.
Diversity. The globalization of economies and marketplaces are transforming
the workplace culture and workforce worldwide and increasing the diversity in society
and within organizations (Moran, et al., 2007). With the marketplace becoming more
globalized, international companies must face the challenges of a multi-cultural
environment, not only at the customer relationship level, but also at the employee level
(Albescu, Pugna, & Parachiv, 2009). Lin, Tu, Chen, and Tu (2007) stated that “the
complexities of dealing with cross-cultural consumers and employees can be
overwhelming and, yet, crucial to a company's success” (p. 27). Diversity needs to be
managed to bring out the best of employees’ talent, abilities, skills, and knowledge for
the well-being of the organization (Pathak, 2011). Managing teams effectively across
borders, finding and retaining cross-cultural talent, and understanding customer
demand in multiple territories are considered to be the greatest challenges for global
businesses (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006). Gardenswartz and Rowe (2009)

stated that diversity “when ignored or mismanaged . . . brings challenges and obstacles
that can hinder the organization’s ability to succeed” (2009, p. 36).
Cross-cultural knowledge transfer. An organization’s ability to exchange and
transfer knowledge has become crucial to success in today’s global business
environment (Millar & Choi, 2010). Millar and Choi (2010) explained that today’s
global, diverse, and cross-cultural setting increases the complexity of communication
through differences in cross-cultural interpretations, informational constraints, and
communication distortions. Schleimer and Riege (2009) confirmed that “cross-
cultural differences such as language, general practices and other culture-bound issues
are commonly known to influence intra-organizational knowledge transfer” (p. 33).
Converging global management practices. Gatignon and Kimberly (2004)
predicted a greater harmonization of global regulations, such as the standardization of
international accounting rules, a convergence of cultures with the sharing of products,
experiences, travel, communications, and the use of the English language as the
primary mode of global communication. Advanced communication technologies, like
the internet, might trigger an “endogeneity of preferences” (Tedlow & Abdelal, 2004,
p. 26) with economic globalization being convergent and transformative with an
increase of economic interactions among societies.
Global management practices are critical when organizations want to apply
certain leadership models and theories across their operations, which Synovus, a full-
service financial services company with headquarters in the United States and
subsidiaries in Mexico, Japan and the United Kingdom, discovered (Hamilton & Bean,
2005). Hamilton and Bean (2005) illustrated how the implementation of the servant
leadership model into Synovus’s larger organizational paradigm, in particular its
introduction to the subsidiary in the United Kingdom, faced significant impediments.
References to Christianity and quotations from the New Testament in the United
States training material led to an initial rejection of the leadership model among
British managers. Hamilton and Bean concluded that servant leadership is particularly
sensitive to context in which ethical and moral foundations are expressed differently.
This is an important finding if servant leadership continues to expand internationally.
Global Leadership
Northouse (2009) defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p.3). Hughes, Ginnett,
and Curphy (2006) argued that leadership, seen as a process, involves an interaction
between the leader, followers, and the situation, as presented in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2. Leadership as a process of interaction between the leader, the followers,
and the situation. Adapted from Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience, 5th
edition, by R. L. Hughes, R. C. Ginnett, and G. J. Curphy, 2006, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill. Copyright 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Global leadership differs from domestic leadership related to issues of
“connectedness, boundary spanning, complexity, ethical challenges, dealing with
tension and paradoxes, pattern recognition, and building learning environments, teams,
community and leading large-scale change efforts—across diverse cultures” (Osland
& Bird, 2006, p. 123). Javidan et al. (2006) defined global leadership as “the ability to
influence people who are not like the leader and come from different cultural
backgrounds” (p. 85). Global leadership is “the process of influencing the thinking,
attitudes and behaviors of a global community to work together synergistically toward
a common vision and common goals” (Osland & Gaines, 2011, p. 3).
With organizations worldwide converging (Adler & Gundersen, 2007), “the
global economic playing field . . . being leveled” (Friedman, 2005), and the world
economy shifting towards integration and interdependence (Hill, 2007), corporations
must increasingly cope with diverse cross-cultural employees, customers, suppliers,
competitors, and creditors (Javidan, et al., 2006). Global leadership will require
effective collaboration, building relationships, alliances, and partnerships within the
new, complex, and shifting social architecture of globalization (Goldsmith, et al.,
2003). Global leaders need to handle the dynamic complexity of globalization with its
“multiplicity” (Mendenhall, 2008, p. 14), when facing different competitors,
customers, governments, and stakeholders on all aspects along the value chain. The
impact of globalization necessitates the expansion of the simplistic leadership model
of the leader, followers, and the situation to a global leadership model that includes
global leaders and global partners in a global context, as presented in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Expanded global leadership as a process involving the global leader,
cross-cultural employees, partners, alliances, customers, suppliers, competitors,
creditors, and globalization.
Fundamental global leadership competencies. Today’s global leaders face
an increasingly complex, ambiguous, and multicultural environment (Osland, 2008).
This has triggered a variety of global leadership models and frameworks with
numerous leadership skills, attributes, competencies, and qualities, as illustrated by
Osland (2008) in her review of global leadership literature. Despite Jokinen (2005),
McCall and Hollenbeck (2002a), Osland (2008), and Tubbs and Schulz (2006)
cautioning against the missing agreement on imperative global leader competencies,
various research studies of global leadership, including those by Bird (2008), Kets de
Vries, Vrignaud, and Florent-Tracy (2004), Mendenhall and Osland (2002), and
Rhinesmith (2003), show recurring discussions of certain competencies for successful
global leadership. Among these are intercultural competence and cultural awareness,
cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, global mindset, and the managing of
change and complexity. Numerous researchers, such as Alon and Higgins (2005),
Matear (2010), Ngunjiri, Schumacher, and Bowman (2009), Javidan et al. (2006), and
Townsend and Cairns (2003), advocated for the combination of selected global
leadership competencies.
Intercultural competence and cultural awareness. Intercultural competence
is “the ability to communicate effectively in cross-cultural situations and to relate
appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts” (Bennett & Bennett, 2003, p. 149). For
Bennett and Bennett (2003), it refers to the combination of concepts, attitudes, and
skills necessary for effective cross-cultural interaction. The increase in global trade
transactions has resulted in integrated cultural exchanges, new cultural partnerships,
and unique cultural interactions, making old, superficial generalities less accurate
(Rudd & Lawson, 2007). Intercultural competence is critical for global leaders with
the expanding international level of economic, educational, and cultural interaction
(Carey, Newman, & McDonough, 2004). Critical for successful global leadership is
the ability to understand and appreciate “cultural differences and communicate
successfully across and work within different cultures” (Barrett, 2010, p. 10), and it
may be unattainable without intercultural competence (Moodian, 2009).
Effective global leadership requires the ability to manage across cultural
diversity (Manning, 2003) and the flexibility to work with people from other cultures
(Adler & Gundersen, 2007). Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) explained that cultural
diversity will manifest within the global marketplace, which makes intercultural
competence an extremely important skill. It increases the ability to achieve business
objectives across cultures, to succeed with the management of cross-cultural aspects in
an international environment, and can be a source of competitiveness (Albescu, et al.,
2009). Albescu et al. (2009) described elements of intercultural competence including
(a) awareness of cultural values, (b) ability to avoid cross-cultural misunderstanding,
(c) knowledge of cross-cultural fundamentals, tools, and country/region specific
knowhow, and (d) specific cross-cultural communication or behavior skills necessary
to build trusting, sustainable, and long-term relationships. Pusch (2009) identified the
critical elements of interculturally competent leaders as the mind-set, heart-set, and
skill-set to function in a global intercultural environment with its diverse population,
needs, and values, which encourages a shift in worldviews and perspectives and the
ability to achieve clarity and integrity in complex situations.
Bhawuk, Landis, and Munusamy (2009) described the importance of learning
about cultural differences for international managers, “because behavioral mistakes
and misattribution can lead to dysfunctional relationships and can be a cause of poor
organizational performance” (p. 7). Bennett (2009) affirmed that intercultural
competence can be learned.
Lorange (2003) stated that future leaders need to possess cultural awareness
and global perspective to bring together people from different cultures, backgrounds,
understandings, and geopolitical viewpoints. Hyatt, Evans, and Haque (2009) opined
that cultural awareness will enhance adaptability, multiple-perspective thinking,
effective communication, diplomacy, and culturally influenced decision making.

House (2004) explained that leadership is contingent on culture and that “the status
and influence of leaders vary considerably as a result of cultural forces in the countries
or regions in which the leaders function” (p. 5).
Adler and Gundersen (2007) reiterated the need for cultural awareness that
includes self-awareness, the understanding of one’s own culture. Adler and
Gundersen explained that recognizing one’s own cultural conditioning will help to see
and understand cultures from the perspective of people from other cultures, allowing
the modification of behavior, emphasizing the most appropriate and effective
characteristics and minimizing the least helpful ones. Earley and Peterson (2004)
cautioned that an awareness of cultural values is not a substitute for interpersonal
interaction.
Cultural intelligence. Earley (2002) argued that forms of intelligence such as
social intelligence, emotional intelligence, and practical intelligence do not capture the
complexity of understanding that can arise from intercultural interaction and travels.
Earley introduced and explored the implications of cultural intelligence (CQ), defining
it as “a person’s capacity to adapt to new cultural settings based on multiple facets
including cognitive, motivational and behavioral features.” (p. 271). CQ captures this
cross-cultural adaptive ability by reflecting a person’s capability to gather, interpret,
and act upon the differences to function effectively across cultural or in multicultural
settings (Earley & Peterson, 2004). For Van Dyne, Ang, and Koh (2009), CQ is
associated closely with culture, but it is not an emic, indigenous, culture-bound, or
culture-specific construct. CQ focuses on adaptive capabilities. Successful global
leaders adapt to the cultural variety embedded in the global context (Alon & Higgins,
2005) and align leadership processes with cultural demand (Walumbwa, Lawler, &
Avolio, 2007). Cross-cultural skills and the effectiveness of global leaders are closely
related (Thomas & Fitzsimmons, 2008). Successful interaction across cultures
requires CQ, supported with cognitive, affective, and behavioral training (Triandis,
2006). De La Garza Carranza and Egri (2010) found that small business managers
engaged in international business exhibit a higher cultural intelligence than small
business managers at domestic-only firms.
Ang et al. (2007) divided CQ further into four CQ dimensions: metacognitive,
cognitive, motivational, and behavioral. Correlating with three intercultural
effectiveness outcomes, the authors found that metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ
predicted cultural judgment and decision making; motivational CQ and behavioral CQ
predicted cultural adaptation; and metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ predicted task
performance. Earley (2002) claimed that cognitive flexibility is critical to CQ in order
to constantly adapt to new cultural situations and settings. It also requires motivation
to produce a culturally appropriate response to the new surroundings and the
capability to acquire or adapt behavior appropriate for the new culture. Brislin,
Worthley, and Macnab (2006) posited that CQ can increase with experience, practice,
and a positive attitude toward lifelong learning, and can be developed as a capability
for the next generation of global leaders (Mannor, 2008).
Emotional intelligence. Global businesses and global business leaders need to
be culturally and emotionally competent to succeed in the global market (Alon &
Higgins, 2005; Ngunjiri, et al., 2009). Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) found
that emotional intelligence is the most important leadership skill in the United States.
Salovey and Pizarro (2003) defined emotional intelligence as “the ability to perceive
and express emotion accurately and adaptively, the ability to understand emotions and
emotional knowledge, the ability to use feelings to facilitate thought, and the ability to
regulate emotions in oneself and in others” (p. 263). Gabel, Dolan, and Cerdin (2005)
found emotional intelligence important for intercultural adjustment and success of
internationally assigned managers. Emotional intelligence helps to diminish cultural
differences between the host and home culture of global managers and improve cross-
cultural adjustment (Gabel, et al., 2005). McCall and Hollenbeck (2002a) confirmed
that cross-cultural interaction requires emotional learning rather than merely
intellectual and cognitive learning. In a global environment, emotional intelligence is
linked to effective leadership (Reilly & Karounos, 2009) and a company’s success
(Adler & Gundersen, 2007).
Global Mindset. As explained by Osland, Bird, Mendenhall, and Osland
(2006), “the term ‘global’ encompasses more than simply geographic reach in terms
of business operations. It also includes the notion of cultural reach in terms of people
and intellectual reach in the development of a global mindset” (p. 197). Gupta and
Govindarajan (2002) described global mindset as combining “an openness to and
awareness of diversity across cultures and markets with a propensity and ability to
synthesize across this diversity” (p. 117). Hitt, Javidan, and Steers (2007) defined
global mindset as “a set of individual attributes that enable an individual to influence
individuals, groups, and organizations from diverse social/cultural/institutional
systems” (pp. 2–3). According to Beechler and Javidan (2007), a global mindset is an
individual’s collection of “knowledge, cognitive and psychological attributes that

enable him/her to influence individuals, groups, and organizations from diverse
sociocultural systems” (p. 152). For Rhinesmith (2003), it is the combination of
intellectual intelligence and global emotional intelligence, including cultural self-
awareness, cultural adjustment, cross-cultural understanding, and cross-cultural
effectiveness. Individuals with global mindsets have an awareness of diversity across
businesses, countries, cultures, and markets (Beechler & Javidan, 2007). Executives
need global mindsets and cross-cultural abilities to understand the variety of cultural
and leadership paradigms, and legal, political, and economic systems, as well as
different competitive frameworks (Javidan, et al., 2006). Javidan et al. (2006)
suggested preparing global leaders with information on cross-cultural and global
issues and country specific reports.
According to Cruse (2009), a global mindset also encompasses geopolitical
knowledge and the understanding of global sociopolitical and cross-cultural issues
impacting an organization. Individuals with a global mindset have the cognitive
ability to mediate and integrate across multiplicity, and thus are better equipped to
deal with the complexity of multiple organizational environments, structural
indeterminacy, and cultural heterogeneity (Levy, et al., 2007). Having a global
mindset also implies the recognition of organizational benefits from encouraging and
valuing cultural diversity (Kapoor, 2011). Nummela, Saarenketo, and Puumalainen
(2004) determined that the global mindset of a firm’s management seems to be a key
parameter in the firm’s international performance.
Managing change and complexity. Jurse and Korez Vide (2010) described
today’s businesses as operating in an increasingly turbulent world market that is

influenced by a variety of trends and strategies surrounded by an array of strategic
interests, actions, and stakeholders in both the market and global society. Jurse and
Korez Vide envisioned continued “heterogeneity and dynamics in an increasingly
globalized world economy” (p. 1152). Ahn, Adamson, and Dornbusch (2004)
explained that the accelerated pace of change in globalization, communication,
disruptive technologies and innovations, cross-border capital flows, alliances, and
partnerships will continue to create fundamental shifts on business operations.
The continuous dramatic changes in the global competitive landscape require
leaders to initiate frequent supportive organizational changes amid challenging
economic and competitive conditions (Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley, 2009). Global
managers must be flexible enough to alter their approach when crossing national
borders and to work with people from different cultures (Adler & Gundersen, 2007).
Lane, Maznevski, and Mendenhall (2004) claimed that complexity caused by
globalization requires global leaders to manage organizational processes of
collaborating, discovering, architecting, and system thinking. Lane, Maznevski, and
Mendenhall believed that the key element to binding and managing the processes of
such complexity in globalization are people who will decipher complex and
ambiguous information and execute appropriate action plans. Global leaders need to
understand the risk and opportunities of changes in the external context, including
social, political, cultural, and environmental trends and need to lead in the face of
complexity and ambiguity (Gitsham, 2008). Ahn, Adamson, and Dornbusch (2004)
explained that the challenge of managing chance, with its impact on organizational
structure, culture, and management style, is one of the most fundamental aspects of
leadership.
Overview of global leader characteristics, attributes, and abilities. Global
leaders face an international context that is multifaceted, entailing different cultural
norms and values, misunderstandings due to language, and behaviors that are
acceptable in one culture but not others (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002b). Leading
globally is complex and fraught with disorienting challenges (Osland, et al., 2006).
Globalization and its demands have shifted the necessary skill set that leaders need in
the twenty-first century (Mendenhall, et al., 2008). Mendenhall et al. (2008) asked
“what are the skills that global leaders should possess in order to be successful and
what exactly is global leadership” (p. xi)?
Mendenhall (2008) claimed that there is no agreed-upon definition of global
leadership. Osland (2008) opined that “there is less consensus what global leaders do
and the competencies they should possess” (p. 53). McCall and Hollenbeck (2002b)
maintained that the research of global leadership failed to identify and agree upon a
“universal set of competencies . . . because there is no universal global job” (p. 34).
Nonetheless, future global leadership research is essential (Osland, 2008).
Osland et al. (2006) recognized that global leadership is an emerging research
topic and compared it to the domestic leadership research that began with trait theories
before expanding into more complex research theories. These authors identified the
path for future global leadership research, including construct definition, identifying
global leader behaviors, thought processes, and contingencies, antecedents, and global
leader developmental training methodologies. An overview of recent primary

theorists and their findings on global leadership characteristics and attributes is
presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2
Primary Global Leadership Theorist and Their Acknowledged Global Leadership
Attributes
Global Leader Competencies, Attributes, Capabilities,

Theorist
Skills
Yeung and Ready (1995) Articulate vision, values and strategy; catalysts for
strategic and cultural change; empower others; results and
customer orientation
Black, Morrison, and Inquisitiveness–love of learning and intrigued by

Gregersen (1999) diversity; embracing duality–invigorated by uncertainty;
exhibiting character–connect emotionally with diverse
group of people and personal integrity; business and
organizational savvy
Rosen et al. (2000) Global Literacies: Personal–self-awareness, open, honest,

and committed to learning; social–challenge and engage
others, collaborative relationships; business–focus and
mobilization; cultural–valuing and leveraging cultural
differences
McCall and Hollenbeck Open-minded and flexible; culture interest and sensitivity;
(2002a) able to deal with complexity; resilient, resourceful,
optimistic, energetic; honesty and integrity; stable
personal life, value-added technical and business skills
Mendenhall and Osland 54 individual competencies within the dimensions of

(2002) and Osland cross-cultural relationship skills, traits, global business
(2008) expertise, global organizing expertise, cognitive
orientation, visioning
(table continues)

Theorist
Skills
Goldsmith et al. (2003) Thinking globally, appreciating diversity, developing

technological savvy, building partnerships, sharing
leadership, creating a shared vision, developing people,
empowering people, achieving personal mastery,
encouraging constructive dialogue, demonstrating
integrity, leading change, anticipating opportunities,
ensuring customer satisfaction, maintaining a competitive
advantage
Bikson, Treverton, Substantive depth (professional or technical knowledge)

Moini, and Lindstrom related to organization’s primary business processes;
(2003) managerial ability with emphasis on teamwork and
interpersonal skills; strategic international understanding;
cross-cultural experience
Bueno and Tubbs (2004) Communication skills, motivation to learn, flexibility,

open-mindedness, respect for others, sensitivity
Kets de Vries, Vrignaud, Envisioning, empowering, energizing, designing,

and Florent-Treacy rewarding, team building, outside orientation, global
(2004) mindset, tenacity, emotional intelligence, life balance,
resilience to stress
Osland and Bird (2004) Global knowledge; threshold traits–integrity, humility,

inquisitiveness, resilience; attitudes and orientation–
cognitive complexity, global mindset, cosmopolitanism;
interpersonal skills–mindful communication, create and
build trust, multicultural teaming; system skills–lead
change, span boundaries, architecting, build community,
make ethical decisions, influence stakeholders
Jokinen (2005) Competencies: Fundamental–self-awareness, engagement

in personal transformation, inquisitiveness; mental–
optimism, self-regulation, social judgment skills, empathy,
motivation to work in an international environment,
cognitive skills, acceptance of complexity and its
contradictions; behavioral–social skills, network
management skills, knowledge
(table continues)

Theorist
Skills
Javidan et al. (2006) Ability to influence people from different cultural

backgrounds, global mindset, tolerance of ambiguity,
cultural adaptability, and flexibility
Tubbs and Schulz (2006) 50 competencies under meta-competencies:

Understanding the big picture, attitudes are everything, the
driving force, communication and the leader’s voice,
innovation and creativity, leading change, and teamwork
and followership
Caligiuri (2006) Culture-general knowledge, international business

knowledge, intercultural interaction skills, foreign
language skills, cognitive ability, extroversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability,
openness, and intellect
Keys and Wellins (2008) Intellectual grunt, contextual chameleon, people black
belt, global explorer, master mobilize, visionary, humility,
solid as a rock, company poster child, unbridled energy
Note. Adapted and expanded from “Overview of global leadership literature” by J. S.
Osland, 2008, in M. E. Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, B. Allan, G. R. Oddou, & M. L.
Maznevski (Eds.), Global leadership research, practice, and development (pp. 34-63).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Associative Relationship of Servant Leadership and Global Leadership
Covey (2002) argued that the competitive global market is constantly driven in
a quest for higher productivity, higher quality, and lower cost. He claimed that the
only way to succeed in such a market is through empowerment of people, “and the
only way you get empowerment is through high-trust culture and an empowerment
philosophy that turns bosses into servants and coaches, and structures and systems into
nurturing institutionalized servant processes” (Covey, 2002, p. 2). However, this does
not mean that leaders will relinquish leading. Tompenaars and Voerman (2010)
explained that the integration of serving and leading will lead to a stronger synthesis.
Servant leadership can be used to bridge opposing values and viewpoints. It works in
different cultures because it allows for different starting points (Trompenaars &
Voerman, 2010). Trompenaars and Voerman illustrated the different starting points
within Chinese and Dutch culture. According to Trompenaars and Voerman, Chinese
culture has a need for more participative-serving but less authoritative-leading to reach
a balance between serving and leading. On the other hand, Dutch culture has people
participate, but it is a challenge to have them follow direction. In Dutch culture, there
is a need for strong and clear leadership to reach a balance.
This leaves the question whether servant leadership is an ideal leadership
approach for organizations in the a global context (Sendjaya, 2010). To answer this
question, it is beneficial to review the numerous parallel constructs that indicate a
promising attributional relationship between servant leadership and global leadership
characteristics from a theoretical perspective:
Leadership style.
Servant leadership. Hays (2008) confirmed that the servant leader persuades
through dialogue in creating positive outcomes for leaders and followers: “Servant
leaders don’t push; they pull” (p.125). Servant leaders emphasize the power of
persuasion and seek consensus instead of coercive decision making through
hierarchical authoritative powers (Spears, 2002).
Global leadership. Goldsmith et al. (2003) asserted that global leaders rely on
persuasion and partnerships rather than command and control management. Fu and
Yukl (2000) confirmed that rational persuasion was rated the most effective influence
tactic among American managers in multinational companies.
Community building.
Servant leadership. Greenleaf (2002) explained that servant leaders hold their
organizations in trust for the greater good of society:
All that is needed to rebuild community as a viable life form for large numbers
of people is for enough servant-leaders to show the way, not by mass
movements, but by each servant-leader demonstrating his or her unlimited
liability for a quite specific community-related group. (p. 53)
Global leadership. Hess and Bandyopadhyay (2010) stated that “global
leaders need to think beyond their own organization” (p. 184). Globalization will
require successful global leaders to strive for integration, rather than control,
especially in view of global alliance structures and networks (Goldsmith, et al., 2003).
Mazilu (2010) described the social dimensions of globalization with a world that has
become a “global village” (p. 191) and innovative networks of communication adding
to traditional communities, like family and neighborhood. Companies worldwide
strive to fulfill their organizational and societal missions as global corporate citizens
(Adler & Gundersen, 2007).
Diversity and flexibility.
Servant leadership. Trompenaars and Voerman (2010) explained that the
respect for diversity is a core principle for servant leaders in that they know how to
bring people with different viewpoints together and transform resulting tension into a
productive dynamic. Servant leaders are willing and eager to listen to others’ opinions
and different viewpoints (Hunter, 2004).
Global leadership. Adler and Gundersen (2007) claimed that global managers
must be flexible enough to work with people from other cultures. Manning (2003)
posited that effective global leadership requires the ability to manage across cultural
diversity. Future global leaders need to augment their skill set with promoting
international relations and valuing diversity of perspectives created by people from
vastly different backgrounds (Lajtha & Carminati-Rabasse, 2008). Successful global
leaders are able to unleash the power and wealth of multicultural diversity and create
synergy of productive collective performance (Carey, et al., 2004).
Motivation, empowerment and development of people.
Servant leadership. Graham (1991) and Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999)
asserted that servant leadership, similar to transformational leadership, encourages
collaboration between leaders and followers to reach higher levels of motivation and
morality. Servant leaders seek to assist their followers “to grow healthier, wiser, freer,
more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants” (Sendjaya &
Sarros, 2002, p. 58).
Buchen (1998) described employee empowerment as servant leadership’s most
important characteristic. Servant leaders entrust powers to others, involving effective
listening, making people feel significant, and emphasizing teamwork (Russell &
Stone, 2002). By entrusting followers with authority and responsibility and
emphasizing teamwork, servant leaders’ goal of empowerment is to create many
leaders at all levels (Russell, 2001).

Global leadership. Global businesses have realized the importance of
motivating and communicating with diverse employees so that individual and
combined work reflects each employee’s highest potential (Moran, et al., 2007).
There is a need for globally minded and interculturally competent leaders to manage
virtual global teams as well as the multicultural context of regional teams and
organizations (Irving, 2010b). Global leaders recognize that employee empowerment
is critical to the success of their organization (Carey, et al., 2004). Encombe (2008)
explained that the 21st century provides challenging business complexities that
effective global leaders must approach by invigorating organizational cultures that
attract, motivate, and inspire employees.
Uncertainty, ambiguity, and flexibility.
Servant leadership. Zohar (1997) claimed that servant leadership requires a
high tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and flexibility to allow the dynamics of a
situation to transpire. De Pree (1992) listed “comfort with ambiguity” (p. 224) as an
important attribute for effective servant leadership. With the instabilities of today’s
work environments, increasing competition, heightened uncertainty, and stress in the
workforce, servant leaders tend to the growing needs of employees for psychological
security and stability (Smith, 2005).
Global leadership. Javidan et al. (2006) asserted that “global leaders need to
have a global mindset, tolerate high levels of ambiguity, and show cultural
adaptability and flexibility” (p. 85) to succeed. With constant change in the
competitive environment due to globalization, global leaders need to manage greater
ambiguity and uncertainty (Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004). Global leaders have
the ability to provide followers with the guidance and resources necessary and then
utilize the collective wisdom to navigate through uncertainty and complexity
(Patterson, et al., 2007).
Empathy and trust.
Servant leadership. Andersen (2009) explained that a servant leader
demonstrates empathy and develops trust by showing concerns for others and putting
their needs and interest first. Spears (2003) described servant leaders as skilled
empathetic listeners, striving to understand and empathize with others. Trust is an
essential component to servant leadership, establishing leader credibility, fostering
collaboration and providing the foundation for people to follow their leaders with
confidence and enthusiasm (Russell, 2001).
Global leadership. Manning (2003) and Jokinen (2005) illustrated that global
leaders are able to build trust by emotionally connecting with people of different
backgrounds and viewpoints. Empathy is a fundamental leadership construct of
today’s global leaders who work in global organizations or across cultural boundaries
and need to connect to the local workforce and those in other countries (Gentry,
Weber, & Sadri, 2010). Trust is a central construct in building international buyer-
seller relations (Katsikeas, Skarmeas, & Bello, 2009).
Vision and pioneering.
Servant leadership. Russell and Stone (2002) identified vision and pioneering
as important servant leadership attributes. Servant leaders are pioneers who venture
out, take risk, embark on challenges, and demonstrate courage (Russell & Stone,
2002). Greenleaf (2002) used the term foresight when describing vision for the
servant leader “to have a sense for the unknowable and be able to foresee the
unforeseeable” (p. 35).
Global leadership. Karp (2004) stated that foresight in organizations can lead
to competitive advantages, especially for firms that are entrenched in the increasing
complexity and competitive pressure in the global business environment. Lee (2011)
explained that leaders of global organizational teams must be able to communicate the
vision and goals in a manner that establish a group identity with all having a sense of
ownership, regardless of the diverse cultural framework.
Emotional Intelligence (EI) in servant and global leaders.
Servant leadership. Van Dierendonck and Heeren (2006) argued for EI as an
essential competency for servant leaders. “Emotionally intelligent people are good
listeners, show empathy, and take care of others” (p. 159). Waddell (2009)
determined a positive relationship between a leader’s servant leadership attribution
and emotional intelligence. On the contrary, Johnson (2008) found no significant
relationship between servant leadership and emotional intelligence and no significant
relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction.
Global leadership. Reilly and Karounos (2009) and Adler and Gundersen
(2007) confirmed the link of emotional intelligence to effective leadership and
organizational success. Success in the global market requires emotional intelligence
for global business leaders (Alon & Higgins, 2005; Ngunjiri, et al., 2009).
The preceding theoretical parallel constructs encourage the research on the
correlative relationship of attributes of servant leaders and global leaders. Figure 2.4
illustrates the examination of the attributional correlation for this research study. It
includes Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) servant leadership attributes and Goldsmith et
al.’s (2003) global leadership dimensions.
Figure 2.4. Servant leadership attributes (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006) and global
leadership dimensions (Goldsmith, et al., 2003).
Overview of Servant Leadership Instruments
This research study attempted to measure the level of servant leadership in
leaders with an established instrument. Nine different servant leadership instruments
were identified and are presented in Table 2.3. These instruments measure servant
leadership characteristics either within organizations and groups or at the individual
leader level or both, and are applied either as self-rater or other-rater measure.
Table 2.3
Established Servant Leadership Instruments
Servant Leadership # of Items and

Researcher Servant Leadership Instrument
Dimensions
Laub (1999) Servant Organizational Leadership 60 items within

Assessment (SOLA) 6 dimensions
Sendjaya (2003), Servant Leadership Behavior Scale 35 items within

Sendjaya et al. (2008) (SLBS) 6 dimensions
Wong and Page (2003) Revised Servant Leadership Profile 99 items within
(RSLP) 12 dimensions
Dennis and Bocarnea Servant Leadership Assessment 42 items within

(2005) Instrument (SLAI) 5 dimensions
Barbuto and Wheeler Servant Leadership Questionnaire 23 items within

(2006) (SLQ) 5 dimensions
Whittington et al. Servant Shepherd Leadership Scale 30 items within

(2006). (SSLS) 4 dimensions
Liden et al. (2008) Servant Leadership Assessment (SLA) 28 items within

7 dimensions
Reed et al. (2011) Executive Servant Leadership Scale 25 items within

(ESLS) 5 dimensions
Van Dierendonck and Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) 30 items within

Nuijten (2011) 8 dimensions
Laub’s (1999) Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA)
measures servant leadership at the organizational level and is available as an other-
rater version only. Its six subscales include the servant leadership characteristics:
someone who values people, develops people, builds community, displays
authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership. With the focus of this study
on leaders instead of organizations or groups, the SOLA instrument is not applicable.
No convergent or divergent validity was reported, and no confirmatory factor analysis
was performed (Hayden, 2011).
Sendjaya (2003) and Sendjaya et al.’s. (2008) Servant Leadership Behavior
Scale (SLBS) includes the six dimensions of voluntary subordination, authentic self,
covenantal relationships, responsible morality, transcendent spirituality, and
transforming influence. The SLBS development was guided by themes offered by
Buchen (1998), Farling et al. (1999), Looper and McGee (2001), Russell (2001), and
Spears (1995b). Expert interviews supported content validity, however data are
missing to show criterion validity, convergent, and divergent validity (Searle, 2011).
According to Beck (2010), no empirical research has been published utilizing this
instrument.
Wong and Page’s (2003) Revised Servant Leadership Profile (RSLP)
instruments are based on Page and Wong’s (2000) earlier conceptual framework of the
Servant Leadership Profile (SLP), based on four fundamental, functional processes of
character-, people-, task-, and process-orientation of a servant leader. A factor
analysis determined eight subscales for the RSLP, specified as developing and
empowering others, visionary leadership, servanthood, responsible leadership,
integrity-honesty, integrity-authenticity, courageous leaders, and an inverse construct,
identified as abuse of power and egoistic pride. This antithetical construct,
operationalized as power and pride, measures an individual’s absence of these two

non-servant characteristics, instead of directly measuring servant leader
characteristics. According to Sendjaya et al. (2008) content validation was achieved
through literature review and personal experience. No convergent or divergent
validity was reported, and no confirmatory factor analysis was performed. The author
found only limited empirical research utilizing the RSLP instrument.
Dennis and Bocarnea’s (2005) Servant Leadership Assessment (SLA)
instrument, available as an other-rater version only, is based on Patterson’s (2003)
servant leadership model and its dimensions of agapao love, humility, altruism, vision,
trust, empowerment, and service. An exploratory factor analysis supported five
factors, but failed to measure altruism and service. A confirmatory factor analysis was
not conducted (Hayden, 2011; Searle, 2011). The author found only limited research
utilizing the SLA instrument.
Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) SLQ instrument is based on Greenleaf’s (1977)
seminal work on servant leadership and Spears’s (1995a, 1995b, 1996) studies of
Greenleaf’s published and unpublished works. It found application in numerous
empirical research works (A. R. Anderson, 2009; Beck, 2010; Bugenhagen, 2006;
Daubert, 2007; Hayden, 2011; Huckebee, 2008; McCann & Holt, 2010; Ostrem, 2006;
Searle, 2011; Westfield, 2010). Literature review and the use of an expert panel
supported content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported all
five subscales—altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping,
and organizational stewardship—and that “data appeared to support the five-factor
structure” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p. 314). Convergent and divergent validity was
determined using transformational leadership and leader-member-exchange (LMX).

The analysis of criterion-related validity included motivation to perform extra work,
employee satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Barbuto and
Wheeler determined the internal reliability with alpha coefficients for the self-rating
SLQ instrument and its five-factor structure ranging from .68 for emotional healing to
.87 for wisdom. Intercorrelations between the subscales were established with a range
of r = .28 and r = .53 for the self-rater SLQ instrument.
The Whittington et al. (2006) Servant Shepherd Leadership Scale (SSLS) is
centered around four subscales, identified as other-centeredness, facilitative
environment, self-sacrifice, and affirmation. According to Sendjaya et al. (2008)
content validation was not determined. The author did not find any empirical research
utilizing this instrument.
Liden et al.’s (2008) Servant Leadership Assessment (SLA) instrument is
based on works by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Ehrhart (2004), Page and Wong
(2000), and Spears and Lawrence (2002). A literature review and a subsequent
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, providing construct validity, supported
seven dimensions: conceptual skills, empowering, helping subordinates to grow and
succeed, putting subordinates first, behaving ethically, emotional healing, and creating
value for the community. Convergent and divergent validity was determined using
transformational leadership and leader-member-exchange (LMX) (Searle, 2011). The
author found no empirical research published utilizing this instrument.
Reed et al. (2011) were especially concerned with the emotional, relational,
and moral dimensions of leadership when developing their Executive Servant
Leadership Scale (ESLS) with a focus on the ethical conduct of top executives in
organizations. The survey underwent construct validity testing via a jury and
subsequent exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to arrive at
five ESLS subscales: interpersonal support, building community, altruism,
egalitarianism, and moral integrity. The instrument development was based on a
survey of adult learners at and alumni of a college who were asked about their top
executive of the organization they are affiliated with. Reed et al. did not discuss
whether the participants had worked with or even knew the top executive or their
organizations. Data are missing to support criterion validity as well as convergent and
divergent validity. The author did not find any published empirical research to date
utilizing this recently developed instrument.
Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) developed the Servant Leadership
Survey (SLS) via an extensive literature review and expert judgment; it comprises of
eight dimensions: standing back, forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability,
authenticity, humility, and stewardship. The SLS was supported by exploratory and
confirmatory factor and followed by an analysis of criterion-related validity. The
authors claimed convergent validity with other leadership measures. The author did
not find any published empirical research to date utilizing this recently developed
servant leadership instrument.
Among the above mentioned servant leadership instruments, there exist only
two, the Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) SLQ instrument and the Liden et al. (2008) SLA
instrument, that are available as self-rater and leader level oriented instruments and
seem most psychometrically sound. The researchers for both instruments have applied
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in their development while establishing

discriminate and convergent validity (Searle, 2011). The Barbuto and Wheeler (2006)
SLQ instrument has been widely applied in numerous empirical research studies (A.
R. Anderson, 2009; Beck, 2010; Bugenhagen, 2006; Daubert, 2007; Hayden, 2011;
Huckebee, 2008; Ostrem, 2006; Searle, 2011; Westfield, 2010). In contrast, Liden et
al.’s (2008) SLA instrument, according to Searle (2011), was applied only in limited
research to date. The author did not find any empirical research using the SLA
instrument.
Overview of Global Leadership Instruments
This research study attempted to measure the level of global leadership
competency in leaders with an established instrument. There are various instruments
that measure certain segments or components of global leadership, including the
Global Mindset Inventory (Thunderbird, 2011), the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Van
Dyne, et al., 2009), the Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory (Hammer, 2005), and the
Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). Three
comprehensive global leadership instruments were identified and are presented in 2.4.
These instruments measure multiple characteristics of global leadership at the leader
level and can be applied either as a self-rater or as an other-rater measure.

Table 2.4
Established Global Leadership Instruments
Global Leadership # of Items and

Researcher Global Leadership Instrument
Dimensions
Kozai Group (2011) Global Competencies Inventory (GCI) 180 items within
17 dimensions
Kets de Vries (2005) Global Executive Leadership Inventory 100 items within
(GELI) 12 dimensions
Goldsmith et al. (2003) Global Leader of the Future Inventory 72 items within
(GLFI) 15 dimensions
The Global Competencies Inventory (GCI) was developed in 2000 by global
leadership researchers Allen Bird, Michael Stevens, Mark Mendenhall, and Gary
Oddou (Bird, 2008). It is commercially available through the Kozai Group (2011).
According to Bird (2008), the GCI is based on Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou’s
(1991) expatriate adjustment model and Bird and Osland’s (2004) global management
competency model.
The GCI contains 180 items within 17 dimensions, categorized as (a)
perception management–nonjudgmentalness, inquisitiveness, tolerance to ambiguity,
cosmopolitanism, and category inclusiveness, (b) relationship management–
relationship interest, interpersonal engagement, emotional sensitivity, self-awareness,
and behavioral flexibility, and (c) self management–optimism, self-confidence, self-
identity, emotional resilience, non-stress tendency, stress management, and interest
flexibility. Bird (2008) reported internal reliability alpha coefficients for the GCI
individual dimensions ranging from .70 for category inclusiveness to .85 for
cosmopolitanism. Information or data to confirmatory factor analysis and data
validity, convergent and divergent validity were not reported. The Kozai Group
(2011) claimed a large number of commercial customers that have used the GCI.
Nonetheless, the author did not find any empirical research utilizing this instrument.
Konyu-Fogel (2011) had considered using the GCI for his research but found the cost
of the instrument prohibitive as it is based on a per participant fee, and the number of
the items was too voluminous for his study. Permission to use the GCI instrument for
this study was granted via email response by the Kozai Group on September 9, 2011.
However, the cost to use this instrument was confirmed as based on a per-participant
fee and was prohibitively costly even with the educational discount. Therefore, the
use of this instrument for this study was rejected.
Kets de Vries’s (2005) Global Executive Leader Inventory (GELI) is based on
the 360-degree feedback Global Leadership Life Inventory instrument (Kets de Vries,
et al., 2004). The GELI is applied commercially in leadership programs to identify the
operational mode of individual executives and determine areas of leadership behavior
with need for improvement. The GELI comprises of 100 items within 12 dimensions:
visioning, empowering, energizing, designing and aligning, rewarding and feedback,
team building, outside orientation, global mindset, tenacity, emotional intelligence,
life balance and resilience to stress. Bird (2008) reported internal reliability alpha
coefficients for the GELI individual dimensions ranging from .77 for visioning to .91
for emotional intelligence. Information to confirmatory factor analysis and data
validity, convergent and divergent validity were not reported. According to Bird,
results for this commercially available instrument have not been made available
through empirical studies or published in peer-reviewed journals, making it not
possible to confirm their validity. The author did not find any empirical research
utilizing this instrument. The licensing cost for the use of this commercial instrument
is based on a per-participant basis. Even with a volume discount, the cost of the GELI
instrument was prohibitively costly for this study and it was therefore rejected.
The Goldsmith et al. (2003) Global Leader of the Future Inventory (GLFI)
consists of 72 items within 15 leadership dimensions: thinking globally, appreciating
diversity, developing technological savvy, building partnerships, sharing leadership,
creating a shared vision, developing people, empowering people, achieving personal
mastery, encouraging constructive dialogue, demonstrates integrity, leading change,
anticipating opportunities, ensuring customer satisfaction, and maintaining a
competitive advantage. Goldsmith et al. determined the internal reliability alpha
coefficients for the dimensions ranging from .76 to .97, indicating that “items
composing a dimension were highly correlated” (Goldsmith, et al., 2003, p. 336). It is
applied as a self-rater or a 360-degree feedback instrument. Information to
confirmatory factor analysis and data validity, convergent and divergent validity were
not reported. The author did not find any empirical studies published in peer-reviewed
journals or dissertations utilizing this instrument.
Among these existing global leadership assessment instruments, the Goldsmith
et al. GLFI is the only one that examined “future CEOs and executives who will be
running the organizations in the future [emphasis added]” (Goldsmith, et al., 2003, p.
xxxi). Certain servant leadership characteristics also carry future objectives, based on
Greenleaf’s (1970, 1972, 1977) writings that servant leaders want their followers to
become stronger, healthier, more autonomous, more self-reliant, and more competent
(Greenleaf, 1977). Servant leaders are concerned with the growth, development, and
well-being of their followers (Patterson, et al., 2003). Figure 2.5 illustrates the future
objectives of the GLFI construct and servant leadership.
Figure 2.5. Future objectives of servant leaders and the Goldsmith et al. GLFI.
Servant leaders use foresight to anticipate challenges and envision the future of
their organizations (Spears, 1995b). Similarly, successful global leaders need to
anticipate rapid technological, economic, and conditional changes in the global market
due to increasing globalization (Hitt, et al., 2010).
The Goldsmith et al. (2003) GLFI instrument contains, for an online survey, a
manageable 72 items. In comparison, the GCI with 180 items within 17 dimensions
(Kozai Group, 2011) and the GELI with 100 items in 12 dimensions (Kets de Vries,
2005) may require more time from executives and leaders to complete the survey.
Because of the cost involved and the size of the instrument, the Goldsmith et
al.’s (2003) GLFI instrument was selected for this study to determine global leadership
competencies in leaders and executives. In addition, Patterson et al. (2007) referred
to the GLFI when discussing global leader competencies and considering servant
leadership as a viable option for global leadership. In an email dated March 3, 2011,
to the researcher, the Goldsmith office confirmed Marshall Goldsmith’s ownership of
the copyrights of the Global Leader of the Future Inventory. Goldsmith permitted the
use of the GLFI for this study for no additional cost or fees, under the condition that
proper credit is given to the authors and the book in which it was published.
Chapter Conclusion
This chapter presented an overview and a literature review of servant
leadership, global leadership and the impact of globalization on organizations. It
presented the associative relationships of servant leadership and global leadership
attributes. The chapter concluded with an overview of servant leadership and global
leadership instruments and the selection of instruments for this study.

Chapter 3
Method of Research
This research study employed a correlational, hypothetical-deductive, cross-
sectional quantitative research strategy and analysis between the constructs of servant
leadership and global leadership. This chapter will introduce the methods of research,
including the research parameters, describe the selected instruments to measure
servant and global leadership in individuals, and present the organization and clarity of
the research design.
Servant Leadership Instrument: Barbuto and Wheeler’s SLQ
The Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) SLQ instrument was selected for this study
because it is based on the foundational principles of servant leadership expressed in
Greenleaf’s (1970, 1972, 1977) writings and Spears’s widely accepted (1995b, 1996)
research. The SLQ instrument has been widely applied in numerous empirical
research studies (A. R. Anderson, 2009; Beck, 2010; Bugenhagen, 2006; Daubert,
2007; Hayden, 2011; Huckebee, 2008; Ostrem, 2006; Searle, 2011; Westfield, 2010).
The SLQ instrument consists of five distinct servant leadership subscales: altruistic
calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational
stewardship. These subscales are described in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1
Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) SLQ Subscales and Definitions
Subscale Definition
Altruistic A leader’s deep-rooted desire to make a positive difference in

Calling others’ lives. It is a generosity of the spirit consistent with a
philanthropic purpose in life. Because the ultimate goal is to serve,
leaders high in altruistic calling will put others’ interests ahead of
their own and will diligently work to meet followers’ needs.
Emotional A leader’s commitment to and skill in fostering spiritual recovery

Healing from hardship or trauma. Leaders using emotional healing are
highly empathetic and great listeners, making them adept at
facilitating the healing process. Leaders create environments that
are safe for employees to voice personal and professional issues.
Followers who experience personal traumas will turn to leaders
high in emotional healing.
Wisdom A combination of awareness of surroundings and anticipation of

consequences, similarly described by the philosophers Plato (1945)
and (Kant, 1978; Plato, 1945). When these two characteristics are
combined, leaders are adept at picking up cues from the
environment and understanding their implications. Leaders high in
wisdom are characteristically observant and anticipatory across
most functions and settings (Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000).
Wisdom is the ideal of perfect and practical, combining the height
of knowledge and utility.
Persuasive The extent to which leaders use sound reasoning and mental
Mapping frameworks. Leaders high in persuasive mapping are skilled at
mapping issues and conceptualizing greater possibilities and are
compelling when articulating these opportunities. They encourage
others to visualize the organization’s future and are persuasive,
offering compelling reasons to get others to do things.
(table continues)
Subscale Definition
Organizational The extent to which leaders prepare an organization to make a

Stewardship positive contribution to society through community development,
programs, and outreach. Organizational stewardship involves an
ethic or value for taking responsibility for the well-being of the
community and making sure that the strategies and decisions
undertaken reflect the commitment to give back and leave things
better than found. They also work to develop a community spirit in
the workplace, one that is preparing to leave a positive legacy.
Note. Adapted and quoted from “Scale Development and Construct Clarification of
Servant Leadership,” by J. E. Barbuto and D. W. Wheeler, 2006, Group &
Organization Management, 31(3), pp. 318-319. Copyright 2006 by Sage Publications.
The framework for the servant leadership SLQ instrument is based on Spears’
(1995b, 1996) original 10 constructs with the 11th construct, calling. For Barbuto and
Wheeler (2006), calling is fundamental to Greenleaf’s early writings: “The natural
feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 13). A calling to
serve is deeply rooted and value-based (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002). Barbuto and
Wheeler explained that servant leaders desire to make a positive difference for other
people, but not for their own gain. Hayden (2011) confirmed Greenleaf’s articulation
of the growth of follower with the four personal outcomes of health, wisdom,
freedom-autonomy, and service orientation. These correlated positively and
significantly against Barbuto and Wheeler’s five distinct servant leadership subscales
of the SLQ instrument.
The SLQ instrument contains 23 items and measures the occurrence of servant
leadership characteristics that a leader is believed to exhibit. Barbuto and Wheeler
(2006) used data from 80 leaders, and 388 raters were used to test the internal
consistency, confirm factor structure, and assess convergent, divergent, and predictive
validity. Barbuto and Wheeler’s analysis produced five servant leadership subscales
that the researchers named altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping,
wisdom, and organizational stewardship. The individual SLQ items, each utilizing a
five-point Likert scale, were applied in the same random order as presented by
Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) scale development.
Global Leadership Instrument: Goldsmith et al.’s GLFI
The development of the GLFI instrument employed thought leader panels,
focus groups, and dialogues with CEO’s of global companies (Goldsmith, et al.,
2003). In addition, Goldsmith et al. (2003) interviewed high-potential leaders of
international companies in great depth to determine dimensions that are critical for
global leadership. Furthermore, “since each company could nominate no more than
two future leaders, these were some of the highest potential leaders in the world”
(Goldsmith, et al., 2003, p. xxxi).
Questionnaires were distributed to more than 200 high potential leaders, future
CEOs, and executives from 120 international companies (Goldsmith, et al., 2003).
Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) method for analysis included basis statistical analysis,
reliability analysis, two-tailed T-tests, factor analyses with Varimax rotation and
Kaiser normalization, and multiple analyses of variances. Goldsmith et al.’s GLFI
includes 15 dimensions of future effective global leaders, as presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2
Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) GLFI Dimensions and Descriptions
Dimension Description
Thinking The trend toward globally connected markets will become stronger.
Globally Leader will need to understand the economic, cultural, legal, and
political ramifications. Leaders will need to see themselves as
citizens of the world. (p. 2)
Appreciating Future leaders will need to appreciate cultural diversity, defined as

Cultural diversity of leadership style, industry style, individual behavior and
Diversity values, race and sex. They will need to understand not only the
economic and legal differences, but also the social and motivational
differences that are part of working around the world and across
nations, states, and regions of diverse people and cultures. (p. 2)
Developing Organizations with technologically savvy leaders will have a

Technological competitive advantage. Without, the future of integrated global
Savvy partnerships and networks will be impossible. (p. 3)
Building The ability to negotiate complex alliances and manage complex

Partnerships and networks of relationships is becoming increasingly important . . .
Alliances Developing and operating efficiently under new, complex, and
shifting social architectures means that tomorrow’s leaders will
function inside of alliances, partnerships, and ventures like never
before. (p. 3)
Sharing CEOs are no longer the sole decision makers; they have to create an
Leadership environment in which other leaders, who subscribe to the common
vision and purpose, collaborate to make effective decisions. Unlike
individualistic leaders today, successful leaders in the future will
strive for integration, not control. (p. 4)
Creating a Creating a share vision is the integral to any company’s success,

Shared Vision because it aligns the company’s stakeholders, operations, and
structures with its mission and vision. In the future, the strongest
companies will be those with a common vision, an effective
strategy, and a workforce that shares in the commitment to
accomplishing the vision. (p. 119)
(table continues)
Developing Every successful global leader understands that highly committed,

People highly competent people create financial rewards. An
organization’s investment in its people creates this commitment and
competence. (p. 142)
Empowering Trusted, responsible, knowledgeable—empowered—workers are

People the foundation upon which successful companies are based.
However, only if employees feel that their abilities and
contributions are fully valued will they share their ideas and
expertise. (p. 164)
Achieving Personal mastery essentially means having a heightened self-

Personal awareness–a deep understanding of one’s own behavior, motivators,
and competencies–and having “emotional; intelligence” that allows
Mastery
one to monitor and manage—rather than controls or suppress—
one’s emotional state. (p. 175)
Encouraging The global leader will need to keep tabs on his or her ability to
Constructive accept, listen to, and respect feedback from many different sources,
because the global success of his or her company may be highly
Dialogue
dependent on the leader’s ability to encourage constructive
dialogue, listen without judgment or defensiveness, and appreciate
and understand the many different viewpoints and perspectives of
his or her own culture as well as the many cultures around the
world. (p. 204)
Demonstrating Integrity rests partly on courage, partly on honesty, and greatly on

Integrity integrating one’s beliefs with one’s actions. It will not be enough to
simply espouse values. To be successful, the global leader of the
future will not have the added responsibility of influencing others
through personal example. (p. 220)
Leading Change The challenge for global leaders today is to guide and direct their
organizations and employees in this era of unprecedented
complexity and fast-paced world change. (p. 238)
Anticipating A global leader’s capacity to lead a company toward success and

Opportunities longevity is in part dependent on his or her recognition of future
opportunities. (p. 253)
(table continues)
Ensuring Ensuring customer satisfaction means ensuring global business

Customer success, for without a customer, there can be no business. The
global leader understands that this simple formula for success
Satisfaction
entails excellent customer service, inspired employees, quality
products and services, customer feedback, commitment, and
understanding the competition. (p. 273)
Maintaining a To maintain a competitive advantage, the global leader must guide

Competitive the organization to produce better results faster; share knowledge;
train and empower others to improve existing systems, products,
Advantage
and services, streamline the company; eliminate waste and
unneeded cost; provide high-quality, unique products; and achieve
results that will add long-term value to the shareholder.
(p. 287)
Note. Adapted and quoted from “Global Leadership: The Next Generation,” by M.
Goldsmith, C. L. Greenberg, A. Robertson and M. Hu-Chan, 2003, Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Copyright 2003 by Pearson Education, Inc.
The GLFI instrument allows six answers to each item: Five Likert-style
answers—highly dissatisfied, dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, satisfied,
and highly satisfied—plus an added “no information” answer option. A preliminary
pre-test of the questionnaire showed that numerous participants initially
misunderstood the six answers. Some participants misread the horizontally oriented
answer boxes as six-point visual analog response levels. Such misunderstanding
would cause an overall shift of actual answers compared to intended answers by a ½
answer level towards the right portion of the scale—highly satisfied. In addition,
some participants reported confusion between the highly dissatisfied and no
information answer options for a number of items. To avoid participants’ confusion
and the potential skewing of answers, the no information answer option was removed
from the scale. Thus, the modified GLFI instrument reflected a typical five-level
Likert scale with theoretically equal intervals among responses (Creswell, 2008). In
addition, pre-test participants reported that the title of each GLFI dimension had a
guiding effect when answering the subsequent items. To avoid such guiding effect,
the titles of each dimension were removed and the items were applied in random
order.
Control Variables
Control variables are used to measure and understand the impact of other
factors (Adams, Khan, Raeside, & White, 2007). Others factors potentially
influencing global leadership characteristics include size of firm (Bonaccorrsi, 1992),
team size (Nemanich & Dusya, 2009), and leader’s age (Goldsmith, et al., 2003).
Other factors potentially influencing servant leadership characteristics could be gender
(Eicher-Gatt, 2005), socioeconomic status, educational level, and domicile (McCuddy
& Cavin, 2009). Considering these prior studies, this research study attempted to
control for leader’s leadership position, years in a leadership position, duration with an
organization, for-profit or not-for-profit status of the organization, type of industry,
size of the organization, proportion of products or services an organization sells
abroad, number of foreign countries the organization does business with, leaders’
gender, age, education, and race.
Research Questions
This study gathered data from leaders and executives of organizations in
northeast Indiana in the United States and attempted to answer the following
questions:
1. How does the overall presence of global leadership characteristics of leaders in
organizations relate to their overall presence of servant leadership
characteristics?
relate to their individual servant leadership attributes?
3. Do demographic factors such as a leader’s leadership position, years in a
leadership position, duration with an organization, for-profit or not-for-profit
status of the organization, type of industry, size of the organization, proportion
of products or services the organization sells abroad, number of foreign
countries the organization does business with, and leaders’ gender, age,
education, or race affect the strength of the relationship between servant
leadership and global leadership?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
the overall presence of servant leadership characteristics and the overall
overall presence of servant leadership characteristics and the overall

Hypothesis 2
attributes.
attributes.
Hypothesis 3
when segmented by demographic factors that include leader’s leadership
when segmented by demographic factors that include leader’s leadership

Construct Validity and Internal Reliability of Instruments and External Validity
Construct validity. Construct validity can be established by determining the
relationship between the operationalized concept of the study and the actual
relationship targeted for the study (Adams, et al., 2007). Construct validity is assessed
by using both statistical and practical procedures and verifying that that “scores of an
instrument are significant, meaningful, useful, and have a purpose” (Creswell, 2008, p.
173).
Construct validity of Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) SLQ instrument was
established via an expert panel of 11 judges, including faculty members from three
universities and advanced leadership doctoral students. The construct validity was
further demonstrated with numerous past studies (A. R. Anderson, 2009; Beck, 2010;
Bugenhagen, 2006; Daubert, 2007; Hayden, 2011; Huckebee, 2008; McCann & Holt,
2010; Ostrem, 2006; Searle, 2011; Westfield, 2010). In addition, Barbuto and
Wheeler conducted tests for convergent, divergent, and criterion validity.
The construct validity of the Goldsmith et al. (2003) GLFI instrument was
determined with the help of thought panels, focus groups, and dialogue groups with
high-potential leaders of global companies. In addition to these groups, more than 200
specially selected high-potential leaders from 120 international companies were
interviewed regarding global leadership competencies.
Internal reliability. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) determined the internal
reliability with alpha coefficients for the self-rating SLQ instrument and its five-factor
structure with altruistic calling (α = .77), emotional healing (α = .68), wisdom (α =
.87), persuasive mapping (α = .83), and organizational stewardship (α = .83).
Numerous past studies reported high levels of internal reliability (A. R. Anderson,
2009; Beck, 2010; Bugenhagen, 2006; Daubert, 2007; Hayden, 2011; Huckebee, 2008;
McCann & Holt, 2010; Ostrem, 2006; Searle, 2011; Westfield, 2010). In addition,
Barbuto and Wheeler conducted and reported data from exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis of the instrument.
Goldsmith et al. (2003) determined the reliability for the GLFI instruments
dimensions ranging from a minimum of .76 to a maximum of .97, indicating that
“items composing a dimension were highly correlated” (Goldsmith, et al., 2003, p.
336). Goldsmith et al. conducted factor analyses with Varimax rotation and Kaiser
normalization but further information to confirmatory factor analysis were not
reported.
External validity. External validity of a study exists when the findings of a
study hold true for other groups, populations, or settings (Chambliss & Schutt, 2010).
This research study examined servant leadership and global leadership characteristics
from a sample of leaders and executives of companies and organizations in northeast
Indiana associated with the Greater Fort Wayne Chamber of Commerce and the
Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership. The findings of the study are limited to the
selected population and a specific point in time of the survey and cannot be
generalized over other populations or other time periods. Future replications of this
study with other populations could strengthen the generalizability of the initial
findings.
Correlative Method of Inquiry and Data Analysis
A review of the frequency distribution, the skewness and kurtosis values, the
Q-Q plots, and the box plots demonstrated proximate alignments to a normal
distribution pattern of the composite SLQ score, the individual SLQ subscales, the
composite GLFI score, and individual GLFI dimensions. This formed the basis for the
researcher’s decision to conduct subsequent statistical procedures assuming a
parametric data set. The internal reliabilities and latent construct of all subscales of
both instruments were determined with Cronbach’s (1951) alpha coefficient. In
addition, a confirmatory factor analysis via Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization
was conducted on both instruments.
The statistical treatment used in evaluating the hypotheses included
independent-samples t test, ANOVA, MANOVA, bivariate linear regression, multiple
linear regression, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Pearson product-
moment partial correlation coefficient, canonical correlation coefficient, and the test
for equality for multiple correlations. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS), provided by IBM (2012), Version 20.0, was utilized for statistical analysis.
Subjects, Population, and Sample Size
Subjects. Adhering to the primary research objective of examining servant and
global leadership among leaders, the research study’s subjects were leaders and
executives of companies and organizations. The context of the research study was
limited to leaders and executives of companies and organizations in northeast Indiana
that are associated with the Greater Fort Wayne Chamber of Commerce and the
Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership. The subjects were not selected by any other
specific characteristics, whether age, gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, or any social
or economic qualification.
Population and sample size. The population of this research study included
executives of companies and organizations in northeast Indiana related to or as
members of the Greater Fort Wayne Chamber of Commerce and the Northeast Indiana
Regional Partnership. The participants were not randomly, but conveniently selected.
A total of 4,058 executive and leaders received invitations from the aforementioned
organizations to participate in the online survey. Responses were received from 453
participants, but only 413, the sample size, completed the survey.
Organization and Clarity of Research Design
The organization of the research design process is presented in Figure 3.1. It
included the review, defense, and approval of the qualifying paper (QP) and the three-
chapter dissertation paper, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. It
continued with a coordinated approach of identifying and contacting leaders and
executives, the development and pretesting of the online survey, the administration of
the survey tool, the collection of the data, a follow-up contact procedure for missing
surveys, and the data analysis.

Figure 3.1. Research design process and data collection.
Institutional Review Board approval. Before contacting the participating
organization or participants, the researcher sought the IRB approval through Indiana
Tech. The IRB approval was granted on December 4, 2011, and a copy of the
approval letter is presented in Appendix B.
Quantitative online survey tool. SurveyMonkey (2011), an established
electronic web-based survey tool, was used to collect and manage the survey data.
The use of an outside survey provider helped to prevent jeopardizing data
confidentiality, unauthorized access, or the loss, inadvertent disclosure, or
modification of data, thereby ensuring a trouble-free survey process.
Pretest. Before developing and implementing the survey tool, questions
assigned for the survey were pretested in paper-and-pencil form with approximately10
participants to determine if the survey instructions were logical and the individual
questions were comprehensible. In addition, the actual electronic survey tool was
pretested with 10 participants for smooth operation and functioning.
Third party endorsement and support of leadership research. After the
research design and the survey was approved by the IRB, the author contacted the
executive leaders of the Greater Fort Wayne Chamber of Commerce and the Northeast
Indiana Regional Partnership and asked for their endorsement and support of
leadership research from the Indiana Tech Global Leadership Ph.D. program.
Discussed were the objectives of the research and the timing and setup of the online
survey. The executives were asked to directly contact their members and associates to
encourage them to participate in the survey. The goal was to have these organizations
endorse the research and directly contact their members to potentially increase the
response rates (Adams, et al., 2007).
Data collection and confidentiality. All data were saved on data servers at
SurveyMonkey (2011). Access to the database was restricted to the researcher via
user identification (ID) and password. Additional data confidentiality was provided
by not requiring participants to disclose their names.
Exclusion of Survey Responses. All surveys were reviewed for responses
that would indicate same or patterned answering. A survey entry was called
suspicious and subject to elimination when more than two sets of answers carried the
same responses, such as 2-2-2-2-2, or a pattern, such as 1-2-3-4-5. The review did not
determine any such same or patterned answering. No survey entry was eliminated or
removed from data analysis.

Chapter Conclusion
This chapter introduced the methods of research, including research
parameters. It described the selected instruments to measure servant and global
leadership in individuals and the control variables. The construct validity and internal
reliability of the instruments and the external validity of the study was discussed. This
chapter introduced the subjects, population and sample size and presented the
organization and clarity of the research design.

Chapter 4
Results
The purpose of this research study was to relate servant leader attributes to
global leader attributes for leaders and executives of organizations in northeast Indiana
in the United States. Quantitative survey data were used to answer the following
research questions:
1. How does the overall presence of global leadership characteristics of leaders in
organizations relate to their overall presence of servant leadership
characteristics?
relate to their individual servant leadership attributes?
3. Do demographic factors such as leader’s leadership position, years in a
leadership position, duration with an organization, for-profit or not-for-profit
status of the organization, type of industry, size of the organization, proportion
of products or services the organization sells abroad, number of countries the
organization does business with, and leader’s gender, age, level of education,
or race affect the strength of the relationship between servant leadership and
global leadership?
In this chapter, the data collection process, the target population, and the
demographics of the sample are reviewed. The chapter continues with the discussion
of the assumptions requisite for parametric data analysis. It also includes the
assessment of normality, the analysis of the internal consistency estimate of reliability,
the instruments’ intercorrelations, and the confirmatory factor analysis of Barbuto and
Wheeler’s (2006) servant leadership SLQ instrument, Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) global
leadership GLFI instrument, and their subscales and dimensions. Finally, the results
of each hypothesis testing will be presented, and the chapter concludes with a
summary of the research findings.
Data Collection
After receiving the Indiana Tech IRB’s approval to conduct the research study,
the CEOs of the Greater Fort Wayne Chamber of Commerce and Northeast Indiana
Regional Partnership were contacted to discuss the survey, its questions, the sampling
method, and the timing of the online survey distribution. The CEOs agreed to contact
their members and associated partners via an email that included a hypertext link to
the online survey. The online survey was administered by SurveyMonkey (2011) and
was set to collect data for a maximum of 30 days.
Following the hypertext link in the email invitation, participants entered the
online survey. The survey’s introduction explained that it was part of leadership
research doctoral dissertation through Indiana Tech. An informed consent form
followed the introduction. By agreeing and acknowledging the consent form, the
participants entered the online survey. The entire online survey with introduction and
informed consent form is presented in Appendix A.
The online survey commenced with eight demographic questions about the
participant’s leadership position and organization. It was followed by 72 randomly
arranged global leadership survey items from Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) GLFI
instrument, the sequence of which determined by an online random sequence
generator (Haahr, 2011) as presented in Appendix C. The subsequent 23 servant

leadership survey items of the SLQ instrument were sequenced in random order as
presented by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006). The survey concluded with four
demographic questions related to the participant’s gender, age, level of education, and
race. At the conclusion of the survey, the participants could submit their name and
email address if they wished to receive a copy of their survey scores and a copy of the
dissertation. Participants were asked if they had any questions about the survey or the
Ph.D. program, and whether they would refer a leader or executive of their or another
organization who they felt could benefit from participating in the survey (a snowball
sampling method (Chambliss & Schutt, 2010)). The researcher decided to analyze
responses from initial participants only to avoid any potential conflict of independence
among subjects.
Population and Sample
The population of this research study included leaders and executives of
companies and organizations in northeast Indiana related to or members of the Greater
Fort Wayne Chamber of Commerce and the Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership.
The participants were not randomly but conveniently selected. A total of 4,058
executive and leaders received invitations from the aforementioned organizations to
participate in the online survey. Participation was voluntary and not incentivized.
Responses were received from 453 participants, with 413 completed surveys,
representing a response rate of 10.2%. This response rate is consistent with the
researcher’s expectations for surveys conducted online and with executives. Anseel,
Lievens, Schollart, and Choragwicka (2010) confirmed lower survey response rates
among executive respondents versus managers and non-managerial employees. Shih

(2008) found a considerably lower response rate for online surveys versus traditional
paper-and-pencil surveys.
Demographic Statistics
Table 4.1 illustrates the demographic distribution of the participants. Table 4.2
describes the participants related to the leadership position and their associated
organization.
Table 4.1
Demographic Distribution of Participants
Variable Category n %
Gender Male 249 60.3%
Female 164 39.7%
Age 60 years and older 60 14.5%
50-59 years old 139 33.7%
40-49 years old 127 30.8%
30-39 years old 63 15.3%
29 years and younger 24 5.8%
Highest Education Doctoral degree 13 3.1%
Masters degree 138 33.4%
Baccalaureate degree 188 45.5%
Less than baccalaureate degree 74 17.9%
Race White, Caucasian 389 94.2%
Black, African-American 6 1.5%
Asian 4 1.0%
Hispanic 3 .7%
Other 11 2.7%
Table 4.2
Distribution of Participants Related to Leadership Position and Associated
Organization
Leadership Position President, CEO 70 16.9%
Executive, COO, CFO, VP 139 33.7%
Director, Senior Management 117 28.3%
Middle Management 68 16.5%
Other 19 4.6%
Years in Position 10 years or more 67 16.2%
5-9 years 149 36.1%
1-4 years 154 37.3%
Less than 1 year 43 10.4%
Years with Organization 10 years or more 136 32.9%
5-9 years 146 35.4%
1-4 years 99 24.0%
Less than 1 year 32 7.7%
Designation of Organization For-Profit 304 73.6%
Not-For-Profit 109 26.4%
Type of Industry Mining and Farming 3 .7%
Refining, Construction, and 119 28.8%

Manufacturing
Services and Distribution 179 43.3%
Research, Design, and Development 22 5.3%
Not-for-Profit Activities 90 21.8%

(table continues)
Number of Employees 500 or more 49 11.9%
100-499 113 27.4%
10-99 164 39.7%
Fewer than 10 87 21.1%
Percentage of Products or 50% or more 5 1.2%

Services the Organization
Sells to Foreign Countries 20-49% 24 5.8%
5-19% 60 14.5%
1-4% 102 24.7%
0% 222 53.8%
Number of Countries the 10 or more 81 19.6%

Organization Does Business
with 4-9 97 23.5%
1-3 117 28.3%
0 118 28.6%
Assumptions for the Use of Parametric Statistical Data Analysis
Numerous researchers of servant leadership (A. R. Anderson, 2009; Beck,
2010; Bugenhagen, 2006; Daubert, 2007; Hayden, 2011; Huckebee, 2008; McCann &
Holt, 2010; Ostrem, 2006; Searle, 2011; Westfield, 2010) have applied parametric
statistical methods to Barbuto and Wheeler’s SLQ instrument. Both instruments,
Barbuto and Wheeler’s SLQ and Goldsmith et al.’s GLFI, were developed applying
parametric statistical methods.
The use of parametric statistical procedures requires satisfying several
assumptions, including the measurement of variables on interval or ratio scales, the
independence of observations, the random selection of subjects, the approximate

normal distribution of the sample data, and the homogeneity of variances (Ravid,
2011). Various statistical analyses were conducted to assess the validity of these
assumptions.
Interval scale assumption. The statistical analyses assume an interval scale
of measurement of Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) servant leadership SLQ instrument
and Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) global leadership GLFI instrument. Both instruments
measure item responses on a five-point Likert scale. Likert scales are widely accepted
standardized research instruments with equal intervals between response categories
(Abbott, 2011; Creswell, 2008). In addition, the horizontal distribution of each item in
the online survey with visually equal distances between response categories further
supported the interval character of the measurement.
Independence of observation. Each participant received an invitation to
participate in the survey, independent of other participants. Participants had the
opportunity to refer others, but the researcher decided to analyze responses from
initially invited participants only to avoid any potential conflict of independence
among subjects.
Random selection of subjects. The data was not randomly but rather
conveniently sampled in order to compensate for an anticipated low response rate
typical for online surveys. Creswell (2008) explained that the researcher may select
participants who are willing and available to be studied. The individuals may not be
representative of the target population, although “convenience sampling can provide
useful information for answering questions and hypotheses” (Creswell, 2008, p. 155).
Normal distribution. SPSS (IBM, 2012) provided two statistical procedures
to analyze the normality of the dataset, the Kolmogrov-Smirnov test and the Shapiro-
Wilk test. D’Agostino and Stephens (1986) criticized the unreliability of the
Kolmogrov-Smirnov test for normality. Elliott and Woodward (2007) recommended
using the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality for small sample size of n < 50. In addition,
both procedures will not provide the researcher with an explicit conclusion whether
certain violations to the primary assumption will require the use of certain parametric
or nonparametric statistical procedures.
Instead of relying on statistical methods, D. C. Howell (2010) recommended
visual inspections of the frequency distribution for alignment to a normal distribution,
and the Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plots for proximate alignment of percentiles of the
data with the percentiles of the standard normal distribution. In addition, Morgan,
Leech, Gloeckner, and Barrett (2007) advised for the initial inspection of a dataset for
normal distribution and use for parametric statistical analysis by determining a
unimodal frequency distribution, whether the values for mean, median, and mode are
nearly identical and that the skewness value ranges from -1.0 to +1.0. Moderately
larger leptokurtic or platykurtic values do not seem to affect the results of most
statistical analyses (Morgan, et al., 2007).
Homogeneity of variances. SPSS (IBM, 2012) provided the Levene’s test to
analyze the assumption of equal variances in the different groups of the dataset. It
tested the null hypothesis of equal variances, also called the homogeneity of variances.
Assessing Normality Assumptions, Internal Reliability, Subscale
Intercorrelations, and Factor Analysis of Instruments
Abbott (2011) suggested assessing the assumptions and the reliability of the
instruments prior to using statistical procedures. The following sections describe the
assessment of the normality of the servant leadership SLQ subscales and the global
leadership GLFI dimensions and their respective composite scores. It is followed by
an analysis of internal consistency estimate of reliability (known as Cronbach’s (1951)
alpha coefficient) for the composite score and each subscale, the intercorrelations of
the subscales, and a confirmatory factor analysis of each instrument.
Servant leadership SLQ instrument. The individual subscales of the servant
leadership SLQ instrument showed means ranging from 3.66 for emotional healing to
4.22 for organizational stewardship. The standard deviations across the subscales
ranged from .69 for wisdom to .85 for emotional healing. Wisdom and organizational
stewardship were the highest reported characteristics of the SLQ instrument.
Normality of SLQ subscales. The frequency distribution of each SLQ
subscale was determined as unimodal, each with nearly identical mean, medium, and
mode. The skewness values ranged from -.83 for organizational stewardship to -.24
for wisdom. The kurtosis values ranged from -.59 for wisdom to .51 for
organizational stewardship. The visual inspection of the frequency distributions, the
Q-Q plots, and the box plots of each SLQ subscale demonstrated an acceptable
alignment to a normal distribution pattern. The Q-Q plots showed a proximate
alignment of percentiles of the data with the percentiles of the standard normal
distribution for the SLQ subscales altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, and
persuasive mapping. The Q-Q plot for the subscale organizational stewardship
indicated minor deviations from a normal distribution, especially for lower subscale
values, due to a larger negative skewness value. The box plots pointed to a small
number of outliers for the subscales persuasive mapping and organizational
stewardship at lower subscale scores.
Abbott (2011) claimed that many statistical procedures, including t tests,
analysis of variances (ANOVAs), and correlation are robust and can provide
meaningful results even if there are minor violations to primary assumptions,
including normal distribution. Based on the frequency distribution, the skewness
values, the visual inspections of the Q-Q plots, and the box plots, the researcher
decided that the SLQ dataset is appropriate for conducting correlational statistical
procedures assuming a parametric dataset.
Internal consistency estimate of reliability and intercorrelations of SLQ
subscales. The individual reliability statics of the SLQ subscales was acceptable with
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ≥ .82 for all subscales. These values exceeded
Nunnally’s (1978) minimum criteria and generally acceptable level of .70 for internal
reliability in exploratory research.
The SLQ subscale intercorrelations were assessed with the Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficient analysis. The Bonferroni (1936) correction method for
Type I error was applied across the 10 ( ) intercorrelations. A p value of
less than .005 (.05/10 = .005) was required for statistical significance. All
intercorrelations, as presented in Table 4.3 were determined to be positive and
statistically significant at the p < .1E-5 level with the exception of the intercorrelation
between persuasive mapping and emotional healing, which showed no statistically
significant association. The greatest intercorrelation of the SLQ subscales was found
between wisdom/persuasive mapping with r(411) = .44, p < .1E-5 and the lowest
statistically significant intercorrelation between wisdom/altruistic calling with r(411)
= .27, p < .1E-5.
Table 4.3
Internal Reliabilities and Intercorrelations of SLQ Subscales
SLQ Subscale M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Altruistic Calling 3.97 .76 .85
2. Emotional Healing 3.66 .85 .32*** .87
3. Wisdom 4.06 .69 .27*** .39*** .82
4. Persuasive Mapping 3.96 .79 .09 .37*** .44*** .88
5. Organizational Stewardship 4.22 .75 .38*** .34*** .40*** .28*** .83

Note. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are in boldface and reported along the diagonal axis.
*** Correlation is significant at the p < .1E-5 level
Confirmatory factor analysis of SLQ instrument. The dimensionality of the
23 items of the SLQ instrument was examined with a confirmatory factor analysis via
Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization. To allow for a substantial approach in
confirming factor loadings, the extraction criteria was set for eigenvalues ≥ 1.0 instead
of limiting the analysis to a number of factors. The rotation converged in six iterations
and resulted in five extracted components. The rotated solution, as presented in Table
4.4, confirmed the five factors as described by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006).
Table 4.4
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Varimax Rotation Pattern for SLQ instrument
SLQ Component
Item Subscale 1 2 3 4 5
S18 PM .856 .017 .169 .108 -.009
S40 PM .837 .048 .187 .157 .042
S29 PM .787 .070 .199 .160 -.020
S7 PM .738 .076 .311 .109 .104
S8 PM .720 .271 -.020 .102 -.065
S43 OS .076 .790 .101 .116 .177
S21 OS -.035 .735 .114 .105 .153
S54 OS .187 .716 .222 -.032 .110
S34 OS .064 .712 .140 .140 .110
S45 OS .162 .707 .096 .176 .108
S6 W .032 .061 .808 .157 -.015
S28 W .190 .143 .762 .049 .076
S17 W .194 .167 .727 .124 .149
S50 W .171 .114 .655 .172 .084
S9 W .215 .232 .626 .117 .134
S16 EH .140 .159 .112 .836 .117
S27 EH .090 .165 .138 .822 .084
S5 EH .166 .059 .165 .774 .120
S38 EH .196 .115 .168 .773 .165
S3 AC -.005 .205 .073 .053 .808
S35 AC -.040 .178 .068 .117 .805
S1 AC -.042 .049 .062 .190 .802
S46 AC .132 .190 .161 .094 .798
Note. Item numbers adapted from “Scale Development and Construct Clarification of Servant
Leadership” by J. E. Barbuto and D. W. Wheeler, 2006, Group & Organization Management,
31(3), pp. 318–319. Factor loadings > .40 are in boldface. PM=Persuasive Mapping,
OS=Organizational Stewardship, W=Wisdom, EH=Emotional Healing, AC=Altruistic
Calling. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Extraction method: Principal
component analysis with eigenvalues ≥ 1.0.
Normality and internal reliability of composite SLQ score. The composite
SLQ score (M = 91.80, SD = 9.69) is derived from the sum of all SLQ items. The
internal consistency estimate of reliability for the composite SLQ instrument was
determined with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .89. The frequency distribution of
the composite SLQ is illustrated in Figure 4.1. The skewness value was determined at
-.31 and the kurtosis value at -.42. The Q-Q plot of the composite SLQ score is
presented in Figure 4.2. The visual inspection of the frequency distribution, the Q-Q
plot, and the box plot of the composite SLQ score indicated an acceptable alignment to
a normal distribution pattern. Based on these findings and the fact that the correlation
is a robust statistical procedure that can provide meaningful results, even if there are
slight violations to primary assumptions (Abbott, 2011), the researcher decided to
conduct correlational statistical procedures assuming a parametric dataset when
involving the composite SLQ score.

Figure 4.1. Distribution of composite SLQ scores of data set.
Figure 4.2. Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot of composite SLQ scores.

Global leadership GLFI instrument. The individual dimensions of the
global leadership GLFI instrument demonstrated means ranging from 3.17 for thinking
globally to 4.33 for demonstrating integrity. The standard deviations across the
subscales ranged from .66 for sharing leadership to .83 for developing technological
savvy. Demonstrates integrity, sharing leadership, and empowering people were the
highest reported characteristics of the GLFI instrument.
Normality of GLFI dimensions. The frequency distribution of each GLFI
dimension was determined as unimodal, each with nearly identical mean, medium, and
mode. The skewness values ranged from -.72 for empowering employees to .36 for
thinking globally. The kurtosis values ranged from -.50 for sharing leadership to .87
for leading change. The visual inspection of the frequency distributions, the Q-Q
plots, and the box plots of each GLFI dimension revealed an acceptable alignment to a
normal distribution pattern. The Q-Q plots for appreciating diversity, demonstrates
integrity, leading change, and ensuring customer satisfaction indicated minor
deviations from a normal distribution, mostly for lower subscale values, due to a few
outliers within these dimensions, confirmed by a visual inspection of the box plots.
Based on the robustness of correlational statistical procedures to slight violations to
primary assumptions (Abbott, 2011), the researcher decided to utilize parametric
statistical methods involving GLFI dimensions.
Internal consistency estimate of reliability and intercorrelations of GLFI
dimensions. The internal reliability statistics of the GLFI dimensions determined
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ≥ .70 for all GLFI dimensions with the exception of
sharing leadership that exhibited an alpha coefficient of .65. Nunnally’s (1978)

minimum criteria and generally acceptable level of .70 for reliability in exploratory
research was exceeded by 14 out of 15 GLFI dimensions.
The intercorrelations of the GLFI dimensions were assessed with the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient analysis. The Bonferroni (1936) correction
method for Type I error across the 105 ( ) correlations was applied. A p
value of less than .5E-3 (.05/105 = .5E-3) was required for significance. All
intercorrelations, as presented in Table 4.5 were determined to be positive and
statistically significant at the p < .5E-3 level with the exception of the intercorrelations
between thinking globally/demonstrates integrity, and thinking globally/creating a
shared vision that showed no statistically significant association. The greatest
intercorrelation between the GLFI dimensions was found between creating a shared
vision/ empowering people with r(411) = .63, p < .1E-5, and creating a shared
vision/leading change with r(411) = .63, p < .1E-5. The lowest statistically significant
intercorrelation was determined between thinking globally/developing technological
savvy with r(411) = .17, p < .5E-3.

Table 4.5
Internal Reliabilities and Intercorrelations of GLFI Dimensions

Confirmatory factor analysis of GLFI dimensions. A confirmatory factor
analysis via Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization was employed to examine the
dimensionality of the 72 items of the GLFI instrument. To allow for a substantial
approach in confirming factor loadings, the extraction criteria was set for eigenvalues
≥ 1.0 instead of limiting the analysis to a number of factors. The rotation converged in
15 iterations and extracted 17 factors. The rotated solution and the proportion of
variance accounted for by each of the rotated factors are presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Varimax Rotation Pattern for GLFI Instrument
(table continues)
(table continues)
The factor analysis confirmed 12 of Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) 15 GLFI
dimensions. The GLFI dimensions sharing leadership, creating a shared vision, and
maintaining a competitive advantage experienced cross-loading and non-loading of
factorial items. An examination of the involved items led to the following suggestions
to improve the component factor loadings and internal consistency estimates of
reliability. These suggestions will require more research and were not implemented
for subsequent analysis in this research study.
Reposition two items to GLFI dimension empowering employees. Item G25 of
the GLFI dimension sharing leadership and item G29 of the GLFI dimension
developing people loaded with the GLFI dimension empowering people. Item G25,
expressed as “effectively involve people in decision making,” and item G29,
expressed as “consistently treat people with respect and dignity,” may support
Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) intent for the dimension empowering people. Adding items
G29 and G25 to the dimension empowering people would slightly improve the
internal consistency estimate of reliability for this dimension from Cronbach’s alpha
.80 to .82.
Replace dimension creating a shared vision with new GLFI dimension.
Only three items of the GLFI dimension creating a shared vision, item G24, expressed
as “create and communicate a clear vision for our organization,” item G27, expressed
as “develop an effective strategy to achieve the vision,” and item G28, expressed as
“clearly identify priorities,” loaded together. These were extracted with item G58,
expressed as “effectively translate creative ideas into business results” and item G69,
expressed as “hold people accountable for their results.” The researcher suggested
replacing the description for this dimension to focusing on business success to reflect
these five items and their expressions. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient would
slightly improve to .83 from currently .81. It would create the 13th dimension of a
revised global leadership instrument.
Replace dimension maintaining a competitive advantage with new GLFI
dimension. Item G70, expressed as “successfully eliminate waste and unneeded cost,”
and item G72, expressed as “achieving results that lead to long-term shareholder
value” of GLFI dimensions maintaining a competitive advantage loaded with item
G20, expressed as “willingly share leadership with business partners.” The researcher
suggested forming a new dimension that may result in a 14th global leadership
dimension of a revised global leadership instrument. It would encase topics of cost
effective partnership and outsourcing. These three items currently exhibit a
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .56. Different item expressions and the inclusion of
additional items may increase its internal reliability.
Item G19, expressed as “create a network of relationships that help to get
things done” loaded with the GLFI dimension anticipating opportunities. This may
reflect the sample of leaders and executives in this survey who may anticipate
opportunities not based on tasks or products, but through the building of relationships
and networking. More research is required to analyze and confirm this claim. Item
G48 of the GLFI dimension encouraging constructive dialogue exhibited a factor
loading of ≥ .4, but did not load with other items. Item G17 of the GLFI dimension
building partnership, item G26 of the GLFI dimension creating a shared vision, item
G34 of the GLFI dimension developing people, and item G23 of the GLFI dimension
sharing leadership loaded on more than one component with factor loadings < .4.
These items may require improved item expressions and additional research with
confirmatory factor analyses to establish a revised global leadership instrument.
Normality and internal reliability of composite GLFI score. The composite
GLFI score (M = 283.95, SD = 26.02) was derived from the sum of all GLFI items.
The internal consistency estimate of reliability for the composite GLFI instrument was
determined with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .95. The frequency distribution of
the composite GLFI score is illustrated in Figure 4.3. The skewness value was
determined at -.03 and the kurtosis value at .15. Figure 4.4 presents the Q-Q plot of
the composite GLFI score. The visual inspection of the frequency distribution, the Q-
Q plot, and the box plot of the composite GLFI score pointed to two outliers, but
otherwise an acceptable alignment to a normal distribution pattern. Based on these
findings and the robust nature of many statistical procedures that can provide
meaningful results even if there are slight violations to primary assumptions (Abbott,
2011), the researcher decided to conduct subsequent statistical procedures assuming a
parametric dataset when involving the composite GLFI score.

Figure 4.3. Distribution of composite GLFI scores of data set.
Figure 4.4. Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot of composite GLFI scores.

Hypothesis 1
H1O: There is no statistically significant correlative relationship between the
overall presence of servant leadership characteristics and the overall presence
of global leadership characteristics.
Hypothesis testing. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was
computed between the composite SLQ and the composite GLFI score. To control for
Type 1 error, a p value < .05 was required for significance. The analysis showed that
the correlation between the composite servant leadership SLQ and composite global
leadership GLFI scale was positive and statistically significant with r(411) = .621, p <
.001, indicating a large effect size. Figure 4.5 presents the scatter plot matrix with
regression line. A bivariate linear regression analysis determined a statistically
significant linear relationship between the composite SLQ and the composite GLFI
score at p < .001. Approximately 39% (r2 = .386) of the variance of one composite
score is associated with the variance of the other composite score.

Figure 4.5. Scatter plot matrix of composite SLQ and composite GLFI scores.
Canonical correlation analysis. A subsequent canonical correlation analysis
examined the dimensionality of both sets of variables, the subscales of the SLQ
instrument, and the dimensions of the GLFI instrument. Table 4.7 illustrates the tests
of dimensionality for the canonical correlation analysis, indicating that four out of five
canonical dimensions were statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

Table 4.7
Tests of Canonical Dimensions
Dimensions Correlation Rc F df1 df2 Sig. (2-

tailed)
1 .72 7.83 75 1886.6 <.001
2 .47 4.27 56 1534.8 <.001
3 .40 3.29 39 1170.4 <.001
4 .29 2.25 24 792.0 .001
5 .21 1.62 11 397.0 .091
The first dimension computed to a canonical correlation of Rc = .721, p < .001.
It represents the maximum canonical correlation between the canonical variates with
the weighted sums of the variables as illustrated in Table 4.8. With the minimum
loading of standardized beta weights of .30 for interpretation of canonical correlation
analysis (Lambert & Durand, 1975), the SLQ subscales persuasive mapping and
organizational stewardship and the GLFI dimensions anticipating opportunities and
creating a shared vision are the major contributors to the canonical correlation
coefficient.
Table 4.8
Standardized Canonical Coefficients
Dimension
Instrument 1 2 3 4
Servant Leadership
Altruistic Calling .02 .11 -1.03 .18
Emotional Healing .06 .21 .30 1.01
Wisdom .19 .22 -.28 -.63
Persuasive Mapping .66 -.85 -.08 .02
Organizational Stewardship .38 .68 .60 -.26
Global Leadership
Thinking Globally -.15 -.03 -.46 -.16
Appreciating Diversity .03 .60 .55 .44
Developing Technological Savvy -.12 .32 .12 .15
Building Partnerships .11 -.26 .09 .80
Sharing Leadership .14 -.13 -.45 .19
Creating a Shared Vision .32 -.25 1.04 -.10
Developing People .14 .11 -.24 -.11
Empowering People -.13 -.40 -.34 .20
Achieving Personal Mastery .21 -.09 -.38 .04
Encouraging Constructive Dialogue .05 .16 -.34 .05
Demonstrates Integrity .04 .73 -.04 -.75
Leading Change .04 -.15 .09 -.54
Anticipating Opportunities .31 -.09 .01 -.17
Ensuring Customer Satisfaction .24 .17 .09 .34
Maintaining a Competitive Advantage -.07 -.20 -.14 -.43

Note. Standardized beta weights ≥ .3 for Dimension 1 are in boldface.
Hypothesis 2
attributes.
attributes.
Hypothesis testing. A Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was
employed to determine the relationship between individual SLQ subscales and GLFI
dimensions. Correlation coefficients were computed among the five SLQ subscales
and the 15 GLFI dimensions. Using the Bonferroni (1936) correction approach for
Type I errors across the 75 (5 x 15 = 75) cross-instrument correlations, a p value <
.67E-3 (.05/75 = .67E-3) was required for statistical significance. Table 4.9 presents an
excerpt of the Pearson product-moment correlation matrix with correlation coefficients
equating the direct relationship between individual SLQ subscales and individual
GLFI dimensions. The results show that 61 correlations were statistically significant
at p < .67E-3, with 57 correlations reaching significance levels of p < .13E-3 and 50
attaining p < .13E-4. Out of 61 statistically significant correlations, 54 exhibited
correlation coefficients of r(411) > .2, 32 with r(411) > .3, and 10 with r(411) > .4.
All statistically significant correlations were positive.

Table 4.9
Correlations among Five SLQ Subscales and 15 GLFI Dimensions
(table continues)
A post hoc multiple linear regression analysis with stepwise extraction method
permitted a detailed analysis of the standardized beta weights for each individual SLQ
subscale and GLFI dimension. In a stepwise multiple linear regression, each variable
was entered in sequence and its statistical contribution assessed. Only variables that
represented statistically significant contributions to the model were retained to
determine the most parsimonious set of variables that are most effective. The
Bonferroni (1936) correction method was applied due to multiple comparisons in these
regression analyses. The stepwise inclusion criteria for variables was set at probability
p < .01 and the exclusion criteria was set at p >.05. The suitability of the multiple
linear regression analyses was examined by reviewing the Variable Inflation Factors
(VIF) for threats of multicollinearity that may impact the accuracy of the beta weights.
Multicollinearity refers to the successive inclusion of additional variables that increase
the collinearity of the full set of explanatory variables, threatening the reliability of the
regression analysis (Lauridsen & Mur, 2006). All VIFs computed to values less than
1.85, which is lower than 10 as the maximum limit suggested by Neter, Wasserman,
and Kutner (1996) for the existence of multicollinearity. In addition, the zero-order
correlation coefficients at less than < .65 indicated noncollinarity and supported the
accuracy of the beta weights and the use of multiple regression analysis. The
following sections describe the significant GLFI dimensional contributors of
individual SLQ subscales.

Standardized beta weights of GLFI dimensions on SLQ subscales
SLQ Subscale Altruistic Calling. Table 4.10 presents statistically significant
GLFI dimensions, the associated standardized beta weights, and zero-order, part, and
partial correlation coefficients for the SLQ subscale Altruistic Calling. The regression
model was statistically significant, F(4, 408) = 19.42, p < .001. The resulting R2 = .16
indicated that 16% of the variability of the SLQ subscale altruistic calling could be
accounted for by four GLFI dimensions sharing leadership, encouraging constructive
dialogue, creating shared vision, and achieving personal mastery.
Table 4.10
GLFI Dimensions with Statistically Significant Contribution to the SLQ Subscale
Altruistic Calling
Correlations
Standardized
Coefficient Sig. Zero- Partial Part
GLFI Dimension Beta t (2 tailed) Order
Sharing Leadership .24 4.05 <.001 .30 .20 .18
Encouraging
Constructive .20 3.43 <.001 .28 .17 .16
Dialogue
Creating Shared
-.27 -4.57 <.001 .05 -.22 -.21
Vision
Achieving Personal
.18 3.32 <.001 .25 .16 .15
Mastery
The occurrence of the negative regressor creating shared vision warranted
further examination. A review of the correlation matrix, as presented earlier in Table
4.9, determined that the global leadership dimension creating a shared vision did not
significantly correlate with the servant leadership dimension altruistic calling. With
all VIFs < 1.7 for the stepwise multiple linear regression the threat of multicollinearity
was limited. With beta weights determined significant with p < .001, linearity was
confirmed. A review of the five survey items, G24–G28 of the creating a shared
vision dimension determined that these focused on creating, communicating, people
committing to the vision of the organization, and involving people in decision making
and identifying priorities. Thus, it is likely that these counteract the servant leadership
subscale altruistic calling that is primarily focused on the follower (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006), taking precedence over organizational goals. Thus, potential
causality for the negative regressor was established.
SLQ Subscale Emotional Healing. Table 4.11 presents statistically
significant GLFI dimensions, the associated standardized beta weights, and zero-order,
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the SLQ subscale emotional healing. The
regression model was statistically significant, F(3, 409) = 27.35, p < .001. The
resulting R2 = .17 indicated that 17% of the variability of the SLQ subscale emotional
healing could be accounted for by three GLFI dimensions ensuring customer
satisfaction, appreciating diversity, and building partnerships.

Table 4.11
Emotional Healing
Correlations
Standardized
Ensuring Customer .21 3.94 <.001 .34 .19 .18
Satisfaction
Appreciating .16 3.33 <.001 .28 .16 .15

Diversity
Building .15 2.83 <.005 .32 .14 .13

Partnerships
SLQ Subscale Wisdom. Table 4.12 presents statistically significant GLFI
dimensions, the associated standardized beta weights, and zero-order, part, and partial
correlation coefficients for the SLQ subscale wisdom. The regression model was
statistically significant, F(4, 408) = 30.94, p < .001. The resulting R2 = .25 indicated
that 25% of the variability of the SLQ subscale wisdom could be accounted for by four
GLFI dimensions anticipating opportunities, developing people, demonstrates
integrity, and achieving personal mastery.

Table 4.12
Wisdom
Correlations
Standardized
Anticipating
.22 4.32 <.001 .40 .21 .19
Opportunities
Developing People .18 3.32 <.001 .39 .16 .14
Demonstrates
.15 3.10 .002 .31 .15 .13
Integrity
Achieving Personal
.14 2.68 .008 .36 .13 .12
Mastery
SLQ Subscale Persuasive Mapping. Table 4.13 presents statistically
significant GLFI dimensions, the associated standardized beta weights, and zero-order,
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the SLQ subscale persuasive mapping.
The regression model was statistically significant, F(6, 406) = 48.72, p < .001. The
resulting R2 = .42 indicated that 42% of the variability of the SLQ subscale persuasive
mapping could be accounted for by six GLFI dimensions creating a shared vision,
achieving personal mastery, anticipating opportunities, developing technological
savvy, building partnerships, and appreciating diversity.

Table 4.13
Persuasive Mapping
Correlations
Standardized
Creating a Shared
.35 6.99 <.001 .56 .32 .27
Vision
Achieving Personal
.17 3.60 <.001 .46 .18 .14
Mastery
Anticipating
.25 5.16 <.001 .45 .25 .20
Opportunities
Developing
-.15 -3.49 <.001 .11 -.17 -.13
Technological Savvy
Building
.16 3.20 .001 .42 .16 .12
Partnerships
Appreciating
-.12 -2.73 .007 .16 -.13 -.10
Diversity
SLQ Subscale Organizational Stewardship. Table 4.14 presents statistically
significant GLFI dimensions, the associated standardized beta weights and zero-order,
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the SLQ subscale organizational
stewardship. The regression model was statistically significant, F(5, 407) = 37.03, p <
.001. The resulting R2 = .31 indicated that 31% of the variability of the SLQ subscale
organizational stewardship could be accounted for by five GLFI dimensions
demonstrates integrity, ensuring customer satisfaction, appreciating diversity, thinking
globally, and anticipating opportunities.

Table 4.14
Organizational Stewardship
Correlations
Standardized
Demonstrates
.26 5.55 <.001 .42 .27 .23
Integrity
Ensuring Customer
.19 3.83 <.001 .41 .19 .16
Satisfaction
Appreciating
.21 4.26 <.001 .35 .21 .18
Diversity
Thinking Globally -.17 -3.55 <.001 .07 -.17 -.15
Anticipating
.17 3.41 <.001 .36 .17 .14
Opportunities
Figure 4.6 presents a graphic illustration summarizing the standardized beta
weights of GLFI dimensions on individual SLQ subscales found in stepwise multiple
linear regression analyses. Each SLQ subscale is associated with three or more GLFI
dimensional regressors. Within the servant leadership and global leadership
correlative analysis, altruistic calling found its largest contributors with sharing
leadership and encouraging constructive dialogue, but creating a shared vision as a
negative contributor. Emotional healing is primarily associated with ensuring
customer satisfaction, and wisdom with anticipating opportunities. For persuasive
mapping, creating a shared vision, and anticipating opportunities are strong GLFI
contributors. Organizational stewardship is primarily associated with appreciating
diversity and demonstrates integrity.

Figure 4.6. Standardized beta weights of GLFI dimensions on individual SLQ
subscales.
Standardized beta weights of SLQ subscales on GLFI dimensions.
GLFI Dimension Thinking Globally. Table 4.15 presents statistically
significant SLQ subscales, the associated standardized beta weights, and zero-order,
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension thinking globally.
resulting R2 = .05 indicated that 5% of the variability of the GLFI dimension thinking
globally could be accounted for by two SLQ subscales wisdom and altruistic calling.
Table 4.15
SLQ Subscales with Statistically Significant Contribution to the GLFI Dimension
Thinking Globally
Correlations
Standardized
SLQ Subscale Beta t (2 tailed) Order
Wisdom .15 5.55 .003 .19 .15 .14
Altruistic Calling .14 3.41 .007 .18 .13 .13
GLFI Dimension Appreciating Diversity. Table 4.16 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension appreciating diversity.
resulting R2 = .15 indicated that 15% of the variability of the GLFI dimension
appreciating diversity could be accounted for by two SLQ subscales organizational
stewardship and wisdom.

Table 4.16
Appreciating Diversity
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.29 5.91 <.001 .35 .28 .27
Stewardship
Wisdom .19 3.88 <.001 .28 .19 .18
GLFI Dimension Developing Technological Savvy. Table 4.17 presents the
statistically significant SLQ subscale, the associated standardized beta weight, and
zero-order, part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension
developing technological savvy. The regression model was statistically significant,
F(1, 411) = 29.74, p < .001. The resulting R2 = .07 indicated that 7% of the variability
of the GLFI dimension developing technological savvy could be accounted for by the
SLQ subscales organizational stewardship.
Table 4.17
SLQ Subscale with Statistically Significant Contribution to the GLFI Dimension
Developing Technological Savvy
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.26 5.45 <.001 .26 .26 .26
Stewardship
GLFI Dimension Building Partnerships. Table 4.18 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension building partnerships.
resulting R2 = .23 indicated that 23% of the variability of the GLFI dimension building
partnerships could be accounted for by three SLQ subscales persuasive mapping,
organizational stewardship, and emotional healing.
Table 4.18
Building Partnerships
Correlations
Standardized
Persuasive Mapping .31 6.64 <.001 .42 .31 .29
Organizational
.18 3.81 <.001 .32 .19 .17
Stewardship
Emotional Healing .15 3.03 .003 .32 .15 .13
GLFI Dimension Sharing Leadership. Table 4.19 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension sharing leadership.
resulting R2 = .24 indicated that 24% of the variability of the GLFI dimension sharing
leadership could be accounted for by three SLQ subscales persuasive mapping,
altruistic calling, and organizational stewardship.
Table 4.19
Sharing Leadership
Correlations
Standardized
Altruistic Calling .21 4.44 <.001 .30 .22 .19
Organizational
.17 3.46 <.001 .34 .17 .15
Stewardship
GLFI Dimension Creating Shared Vision. Table 4.20 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension creating shared
vision. The regression model was statistically significant, F(2, 410) = 117.71, p <
.001. The resulting R2 = .37 indicated that 37% of the variability of the GLFI
dimension creating shared vision could be accounted for by two SLQ subscales
persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship.

Table 4.20
Creating Shared Vision
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.22 5.46 <.001 .37 .26 .22
Stewardship
GLFI Dimension Developing People. Table 4.21 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension developing people.
developing people could be accounted for by three SLQ subscales persuasive
mapping, wisdom, and organizational stewardship.

Table 4.21
Developing People
Correlations
Standardized
Wisdom .19 3.77 <.001 .39 .18 .16
Organizational
.15 3.32 <.001 .32 .16 .14
Stewardship
GLFI Dimension Empowering People. Table 4.22 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension empowering people.
empowering people could be accounted for by two SLQ subscales persuasive mapping
and altruistic calling

Table 4.22
Empowering People
Correlations
Standardized
Altruistic Calling .15 3.30 .001 .18 .16 .15
GLFI Dimension Achieving Personal Mastery. Table 4.23 presents
statistically significant SLQ subscales, the associated standardized beta weights, and
zero-order, part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension achieving
personal mastery. The regression model was statistically significant, F(3, 409) =
50.71, p < .001. The resulting R2 = .27 indicated that 27% of the variability of the
GLFI dimension achieving personal mastery could be accounted for by three SLQ
subscales persuasive mapping, altruistic calling, and wisdom.

Table 4.23
Achieving Personal Mastery
Correlations
Standardized
Wisdom .15 3.07 .002 .36 .15 .13
GLFI Dimension Encouraging Constructive Dialogue. Table 4.24 presents
encouraging constructive dialogue. The regression model was statistically significant,
F(3, 409) = 41.94, p < .001. The resulting R2 = .24 indicated that 24% of the
variability of the GLFI dimension encouraging constructive dialogue could be
accounted for by three SLQ subscales organizational stewardship, persuasive
mapping, and altruistic calling.

Table 4.24
Encouraging Constructive Dialogue
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.26 5.30 <.001 .39 .25 .23
Stewardship
GLFI Dimension Demonstrates Integrity. Table 4.25 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension demonstrates
integrity. The regression model was statistically significant, F(2, 410) = 52.25, p <
.001. The resulting R2 = .20 indicated that 20% of the variability of the GLFI
dimension demonstrates integrity could be accounted for by two SLQ subscales
organizational stewardship and wisdom.

Table 4.25
Demonstrates Integrity
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.35 7.34 <.001 .42 .34 .32
Stewardship
Wisdom .17 3.59 <.001 .31 .18 .16
GLFI Dimension Leading Change. Table 4.26 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension leading change. The
regression model was statistically significant, F(3, 409) = 43.07, p < .001. The
resulting R2 = .24 indicated that 24% of the variability of the GLFI dimension leading
change could be accounted for by three SLQ subscales persuasive mapping,
organizational stewardship, and wisdom.

Table 4.26
Leading Change
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.18 3.68 <.001 .32 .32 .16
Stewardship
Wisdom .15 2.90 .004 .35 .35 .13
GLFI Dimension Anticipating Opportunities. Table 4.27 presents statistically
part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension anticipating
opportunities. The regression model was statistically significant, F(3, 409) = 55.20, p
< .001. The resulting R2 = .29 indicated that 29% of the variability of the GLFI
dimension anticipating opportunities could be accounted for by three SLQ subscales
persuasive mapping, organizational stewardship, and wisdom.

Table 4.27
Anticipating Opportunities
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.20 4.45 <.001 .36 .22 .19
Stewardship
Wisdom .17 3.54 <.001 .40 .17 .15
GLFI Dimension Ensuring Customer Satisfaction. Table 4.28 presents
zero-order, part, and partial correlation coefficients for the GLFI dimension ensuring
customer satisfaction. The regression model was statistically significant, F(3, 409) =
61.06, p < .001. The resulting R2 = .31 indicated that 31% of the variability of the
GLFI dimension ensuring customer satisfaction could be accounted for by three SLQ
subscales persuasive mapping, organizational stewardship, and emotional healing.

Table 4.28
Ensuring Customer Satisfaction
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.27 6.16 <.001 .41 .29 .25
Stewardship
Emotional Healing .12 2.72 .007 .34 .13 .11
GLFI Dimension Maintaining Competitive Advantage. Table 4.29 presents
maintaining competitive advantage. The regression model was statistically significant,
F(2, 410) = 45.80, p < .001. The resulting R2 = .18 indicated that 18% of the
variability of the GLFI dimension maintaining competitive advantage could be
accounted for by two SLQ subscales persuasive mapping and organizational
stewardship.
Table 4.29
Maintaining Competitive Advantage
Correlations
Standardized
Organizational
.17 6.16 <.001 .27 .18 .16
Stewardship
Figure 4.7 presents a graphic illustration summarizing the standardized beta weights of
SLQ subscales on GLFI dimensions found in stepwise multiple linear regression
analyses. Within the servant leadership and global leadership correlative analysis,
persuasive mapping is the foremost contributor for nearly all GLFI dimensions,
followed by organizational stewardship. Altruistic calling, emotional healing, and
wisdom exhibited a lesser role across the various GLFI dimensions when examining
the association between servant leadership and global leadership.

Figure 4.7. Standardized beta weights of SLQ subscales on individual GLFI
dimensions.
Hypothesis 3
correlative relationship between servant leadership and global leadership, when
segmented by demographic factors that include a leader’s leadership position,
years in a leadership position, duration with an organization, for-profit or not-
for-profit status of the organization, type of industry, size of the organization,
proportion of products or services the organizations sells abroad, number of
countries the organization does business with, leader’s gender, age, level of
education, or race.
years in a leadership position, duration with an organization, for-profit or not-
for-profit status of the organization, type of industry, size of the organization,
proportion of products or services sells abroad, number of countries the
organization does business with, leader’s gender, age, level of education, or
race.
Leadership position. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were
computed to assess the relationship between the composite SLQ and the composite
GLFI scores among leaders’ leadership positions according to the leadership position
variable. Table 4.30 represents the individual correlation coefficients by leadership
position. The relationships were determined to be statistically significant within all

groups of this category at p < .01, except the “other” group that showed no statistically
significant correlation.
Table 4.30
Correlations between Composite SLQ Score and Composite GLFI Score by Leader’s
Leadership Position
SLQ/GLFI
Control Variable Category
Correlation
Leadership Position President, CEO Pearson Corr. .757**
Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
N 70
Executive, COO, CFO, VP Pearson Corr. .753**

N 139
Director, Senior Management Pearson Corr. .624**

N 117
Middle Management Pearson Corr. .349**

N 68
Other Pearson Corr. .243

Sig. (2-tailed) .317
N 19
Note. ** Correlation is statistically significant at p < .01
The Pearson product-moment partial correlation coefficient showed that the
composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores statistically significantly correlated
when partialling out the effect of the leadership position, r Leadership Position (410) = .62, p
< .01. The test for equality of independent correlation coefficients with Fisher’s r-to-z
transformations (W. L. Hays, 1963) determined a statistically significant difference
among the correlations coefficients with χ2 (3, N = 394) = 19.67, p < .01. The “other”
leadership position group was excluded from this analysis due to its non-significant
correlation coefficient. The results of post hoc pair-wise testing of equality of
correlation coefficients are presented in Table 4.31. After applying the Bonferroni
(1936) correction method over the six possible combinations of statistically significant
correlations and testing at p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083), the tests showed statistically
significant larger correlation coefficients for leaders in the top two leadership groups
when compared to the correlation coefficient for leaders in middle management
positions.
Table 4.31
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across Leader’s Leadership
Position
Leader’s Leadership Position 1 2 3 4 5
1. President, CEO z 0
Sig. (2-tailed) 1
2. Executive, COO, CFO, VP z .06 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .95 1
3. Director, Senior Management z 1.67 1.96 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .09 .05 1
4. Middle Management z 3.59* 4.08* 2.36 0

Sig. (2-tailed) <.01 <.01 .02 1
5. Other z 0
Sig. (2-tailed) excl. excl. excl. excl. 1
Note. * Correlation statistically significant at p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083)
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 illustrate the scatter plots of the composite SLQ and
composite GLFI by leader’s leadership position. These confirm a closer alignment of
the data points with the depicted regression line for higher leadership positions. In
addition, the slopes of the regression lines of the servant and global leadership
association seemed to flatten for lower leadership positions, indicating overall lower
composite GLFI scores when SLQ scores held stable for lower leadership positions.
This tendency was further analyzed in post hoc MANOVA and ANOVAs.
Figure 4.8. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by leader’s leadership
position.
Figure 4.9. Scatter plots of composite SLQ and GLFI scores for individual groups of
leader’s leadership position.
A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to
determine the effect of the leadership position on the two dependent variables, the
composite servant leadership SLQ score and the composite global leadership GLFI
score. A statistically significant difference was found among the leadership positions
on the dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ = .95, F(8, 814) = 2.51, p = .011. However, the
multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s Λ was weak with .02.

Post hoc ANOVAs were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA.
Applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method, each ANOVA was tested at p <
.01 (.05/5 = .01). The first ANOVA revealed no statistically significant relationship
between the leader’s leadership position and the composite SLQ scores F(4,408) =
.68, p = .61. Figure 4.10 illustrates the box plots of the composite SLQ scores based
on the leader’s leadership position.
Figure 4.10. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores across leader’s leadership
position.
The second ANOVA revealed a statistically significant relationship between
the leadership position and the composite GLFI scores F(4,408) = 4.41, p < .01 with a
small to medium effect size with η2 = .04. The leader’s leadership position accounted
for 4% of the variance of the dependent variable, the leader's composite GLFI scores.
With the Levene’s test confirming equality of error variances across groups with the
composite GLFI score as dependent variable, a follow up Tukey HSD test was
conducted. The Tukey HSD test indicated greater GLFI means for the executive,
COO, CFO, and VP leadership position compared to the GLFI means for middle
management and other. It supports the tendency of the aforementioned flattening of
the regressions lines for lower leadership positions. However, the differences of the
GLFI means across the leadership positions variable did not prove statistically
significant after applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction and testing the composite
GLFI scores at p < .01. Figure 4.11 illustrates the box plots of the composite GLFI
scores based on leader’s leadership position.

Figure 4.11. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores across leader’s leadership
position.
Leader’s years in leadership position. Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficients were computed to assess the relationship between the composite SLQ and
the composite GLFI scores among the years leaders held their current leadership
position according to the years in position control variable. Table 4.32 presents the
individual correlation coefficients. The correlative relationships were determined
statistically significant for each group at p < .01, independent of the years the leader
held the leadership position.

Table 4.32
Years in Leadership Position
SLQ/GLFI
Correlation
Years in Leadership 10 years or more Pearson Corr. .725**
Position Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
N 67
5-9 years Pearson Corr. .699**

N 149

N 154
Less than 1 year Pearson Corr. .451**

N 43
The Pearson product-moment partial correlation coefficient between the
composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores, when holding constant the effect of
leaders’ years in leadership position, showed a statistically significant relationship
with r Years in Leadership Position (410) = .62, p < .01. The test for equality of independent
correlation coefficients based on Fisher’s r-to-z transformations (W. L. Hays, 1963)
determined a statistically significant difference among the correlations coefficients
with χ2 (3, N = 413) = 9.14, p < .05. The results of these tests are presented in Table
4.33, indicated that, when both top groups are combined, leaders holding their
leadership position for five or more years demonstrated greater correlation coefficients
than leaders with four years or fewer in their position. However, this finding was not
statistically significant after applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method and
testing at p <. 0083 (.05/6 = .0083).
Table 4.33
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across Leader’s Years in
Position
Leader’s Years in Position 1 2 3 4
1. 10 years or more z 0
Sig. (2-tailed) 1
2. 5-9 years z .35 0

3. 1-4 years z 2.01 2.13 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .04 .03 1
4. Less than 1 year z 2.14 2.13 .75 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .03 .03 .46 1
Note. No correlation statistically significant at p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083)
composite GLFI by leader’s years in leadership position. A visual inspection and
comparison of the individual scatter plots seems to indicate aforementioned greater
correlation coefficients for leaders with five or more years in the leadership position
than leaders with four years or fewer in their position. Although this trend was not
statistically significant.
Figure 4.12. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by leader’s years in
leadership position.
Figure 4.13. Scatter plots of composite SLQ and GLFI scores for individual groups of
leader’s years in leadership position.
A MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of a leader’s years in the
position on the two dependent variables, the composite servant leadership SLQ score
and the composite global leadership GLFI score. No statistically significant difference
was found among the leader’s years in the position on the dependent measures, with
Wilks’s Λ = .98, F(6, 816) = 1.57, p = .15.

Post hoc ANOVAs as follow-up tests to the MANOVA were conducted to
evaluate the relationship between a leader’s years in the leadership position and the
score on the composite SLQ and composite GLFI instruments. After applying the
Bonferroni (1936) correction method, each ANOVA was tested at p < .0125 (.05/4 =
.0125). The first ANOVA revealed no statistically significant relationship between a
leader’s years in the leadership position and the composite SLQ scores with F(3,409)
= 1.62, p = .18. Figure 4.14 presents the box plots of the composite SLQ scores based
on leader’s years in the leadership position.
Figure 4.14. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores across leader’s years in
A second ANOVA determined no statistically significant relationship between
leader’s years in the leadership position and the composite GLFI scores F(3,409) =
1.60, p = .19. Figure 4.15 shows the box plots of the composite GLFI scores based on
leader’s years in the leadership position. The Levene’s test confirmed the equality of
error variances for both ANOVAs.
Figure 4.15. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores across leader’s years in
Leader’s years with organization. Pearson product-moment correlation
the composite GLFI scores across the years the leaders were employed with the
organization according to the years with organization scale. Table 4.34 presents the
individual correlation coefficients. The relationships were determined to be
significant within all groups of this category at p < .01, independent of the years a
leader spent with the organization.
Table 4.34
Years with Organization
SLQ/GLFI
Correlation
Leader’s Years with 10 years or more Pearson Corr. .615**
Organization Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
N 136

N 146

N 99
Less than 1 year Pearson Corr. .619**

N 32
composite SLQ score and the composite GLFI score, partialling out the seniority
effect as identified with the leader’s years with organization control variable, was
determined statistically significant with r Years in Organization (410) = .61, p < .01. The test
for equality of independent correlation coefficients based on Fisher’s r-to-z
transformations (W. L. Hays, 1963) determined no statistically significant difference
among the correlations coefficients with χ2 (3, N = 413) = 1.83, p = .61. The results of
post hoc pair-wise testing of equality of correlation coefficients are presented in Table
4.35. These confirmed no statistically significant difference in the correlations among
leader’s years with organization after applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction
method and testing at p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083).
Table 4.35
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across Leader’s Years with
Organization
Leader’s Years with Organization 1 2 3 4
1. 10 years or more z 0
Sig. (2-tailed) 1
2. 5-9 years z -.54 0

3. 1-4 years z .84 1.35 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .40 .18 1
4. Less than 1 year z -.03 .29 -.56 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .98 .77 .57 1
Note: No correlation statistically significant at p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083)
A MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of a leader’s seniority
within the company as measured in years with the organization on the two dependent
variables, the composite servant leadership SLQ score, and the composite global
leadership GLFI score. A statistically significant difference was found among the
different years of a leader with the organization on the dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ
= .97, F(6, 816) = 2.38, p = .028. However, the multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s Λ
was weak with .02.
evaluate the relationship between a leader’s seniority as measured in years with the
organization and the scores on the composite SLQ and composite GLFI instruments.
The first ANOVA revealed a statistically significant relationship between a leader’s
years with the organization and the composite SLQ scores F(3,409) = 3.35, p < .05
with a small effect size, as assessed with η2 = .02. A leader’s years with the
organization accounted for 2% of the variance of the dependent variable, the leader's
SLQ. With the Levene’s test confirming the equality of error variances for the first
ANOVA, a follow-up Tukey HSD test was conducted. However, the test did not
reveal any significant difference in the means of the composite SLQ scores among
leaders with different years with the organization after applying the Bonferroni (1936)
correction method and testing at p < .0125 (.05/4 = .0125). Figure 4.16 presents the
box plots.
Figure 4.16. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores across leader’s years with the
organization.
A second ANOVA determined a statistically significant relationship between
leader’s years in organization and the composite GLFI scores F(3,409) = 4.01, p < .01
with a small effect size, as assessed with η2 = .03. Leaders’ years with the
organization accounted for 3% of the variance of the dependent variable, leaders’
composite GLFI score. With the Levene’s test determining inequality of the
composite GLFI scores across groups, a post hoc Dunnett’s C test was conducted and
revealed no statistically significant relationships between groups of the years in

position category and the composite GLFI scores after applying the Bonferroni (1936)
correction and testing at p < .0125 (.05/4 = .0125). Figure 4.17 presents the box plots.
Figure 4.17. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores across leader’s years with the
organization.
For-profit and not-for-profit-organization. The relationship between the
composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores was computed as statistically
significant for both, for-profit Organization with r For-Profit Organization (302) = .635, p <
.01and not-for-profit organizations with r Not-For-Profit Organization (107) = .600, p < .01.
The test for equality of independent correlation coefficients based on Fisher’s r-to-z
among both correlations coefficients with z = .58, p = .56.
An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare the difference of
means for the composite SLQ and the composite GLFI score for for-profit and not-for-
profit organizations. The Levene’s test determined equal variances for both the SLQ
and the GLFI composite scores. The t tests for equal variances revealed a statistically
significant difference of the mean of the composite SLQ scores with t(411) = -2.71, p
< .01 with a small effect size of η2 = .02. Whether a leader is employed in a for-profit
or a not-for-profit organization accounted for 2% of the variance of the dependent
variable, the leaders’ composite SLQ scores. Leaders employed in not-for-profit
organizations (M = 93.94, SD = 9.81) scored on average slightly greater means on the
composite SLQ score than leaders employed in for-profit organizations (M = 91.03,
SD = 9.56). There was no statistically significant difference between the means of the
composite GLFI scores for leaders employed in for-profit and not-for-profit
organizations. Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.19 present the box plots for leaders in for-
profit and not-for-profit organizations and their composite SLQ and GLFI scores,
respectively.
Figure 4.18. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores for leaders employed in for-
profit and not-for-profit organizations.
Figure 4.19. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores for leaders employed in for-
profit and not-for-profit organizations.

Type of industry. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were
computed to assess the relationship between the composite SLQ and the composite
GLFI scores among leaders working in organizations in different type of industries.
Table 4.36 presents the individual correlation coefficients. The relationships were
determined to be significant within all groups of this category at the p < .01
significance level, independent of the type of industry. With N Mining and Farming = 3,
there were not enough data points to analyze a meaningful correlative relationship for
leaders within the farming and mining group.
Table 4.36
Correlations between Composite SLQ Score and Composite GLFI Score by Type of
Industry of the Leader’s Organization
SLQ/GLFI
Correlation
Type of Industry of Mining and Farming Pearson Corr. n/a
Leader’s Sig. (2-tailed) n/a
Organization N 3
Refining, Construction, and Pearson Corr. .667**

Manufacturing Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
N 119
Services and Distribution Pearson Corr. .621**

N 179
Research, Design, and Pearson Corr. .735**

Development Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
N 22
Not-for-profit Activities Pearson Corr. .594**

N 90
The Pearson product-moment partial correlation coefficient, when controlling
for the type of industry the leader’s organization does business in, determined a
statistically significant relationship with r Type of Industry (410) = .63, p < .01 between the
composite SLQ and the GLFI scores. The test for equality of independent correlation
coefficients based on Fisher’s r-to-z transformations (W. L. Hays, 1963) determined
no statistically significant difference among the correlations coefficients with χ2 (3, N
= 410) = 1.51, p = .68. The results of a post hoc pair-wise testing of equality of
correlation coefficients are presented in Table 4.37. There were no statistically
significant differences between correlations after applying the Bonferroni (1936)
correction method and testing at p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083).
Table 4.37
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across Type of Industry of
the Leader’s Organization
Type of Industry of Leader’s 1 2 3 4 5

Organization
1. Mining and Farming z excl.
Sig. (2-tailed)
2. Refining, Construction, and z excl. 0

Manufacturing Sig. (2-tailed) 1
3. Services and Distribution z excl. .66 0

4. Research, Design, and z excl. -.54 -.88 0

Development Sig. (2-tailed) .59 .38 1
5. Not-for-profit Activities z excl. .86 .33 1.01 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .39 .74 .31 1
A MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of the type of industry the
leaders’ organizations were operating in on the two dependent variables, the
composite servant leadership SLQ, and composite global leadership GLFI scores. A
statistically significant difference was found among the type of industry on the
dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ = .96, F(8, 814) = 2.13, p = .031. However, the
multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s Λ was weak with .02.
evaluate the relationship between the type of industry the leaders’ organizations were
operating in and the leaders’ scores on the composite SLQ and composite GLFI
instruments. Applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method, each ANOVA was
tested the p < .01 (.05/5 = .01). The analyses determined no statistically significant
relationship between the type of organization and the composite SLQ or the composite
GLFI scores. Figure 4.20 and Figure 4.21 present the box plots for leaders employed
in organizations within different types of industries and their composite SLQ score
and composite GLFI scores, respectively.

Figure 4.20. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores for leaders employed in
organizations within different types of industries.

4.21. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores for leaders employed in
organizations within different types of industries.
Size of Leader’s Organization. Pearson product-moment correlation
the composite GLFI scores among leaders in organizations of different sizes as
measured by the number of employees. Table 4.38 presents the individual correlation
coefficients. The associative relationships were determined to be significant within all
groups of this category at p < .01, independent of the number of employees in a
leader’s organization.
Table 4.38
Correlations between Composite SLQ Score and Composite GLFI Score by Number of
Employees in Leader’s Organization
SLQ/GLFI
Correlation
Number of 500 or more Pearson Corr. .425**
Employees in Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
Leader’s N 49
Organization
100-499 Pearson Corr. .695**

N 113
10-99 Pearson Corr. .546**

N 164
Fewer than 10 Pearson Corr. .643**

N 87
The Pearson product-moment partial correlation coefficient, when controlling
for the size of a leader’s organization as measured by the number of employees,
determined a statistically significant relationship between the composite SLQ and
GLFI scores with r Size of Organization (410) = .60, p < .01. The test for equality of
independent correlation coefficients based on Fisher’s r-to-z transformations (W. L.
Hays, 1963) determined no statistically significant difference among the correlations
coefficients with χ2 (3, N = 413) = 7.07, p = .07. The results of the post hoc pair-wise
testing of equality of correlation coefficients are presented in Table 4.39. These
confirmed the non-existence of any statistically significant differences between

correlations after applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method and testing at p <
.0083 (.05/6 = .0083).
Table 4.39
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across Number of Employees
in Leader’s Organization
Number of Employees in Leader’s 1 2 3 4

Organization
1. 500 or more z 0
Sig. (2-tailed) 1
2. 100-499 z -2.30 0
3. 10-99 z -.95 1.98 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .34 .05 1
4. Fewer than 10 z -1.69 .65 -1.12 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .09 .52 .26 1
A MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of the size of the leaders’
organization, specified in number of employees, on the two dependent variables, the
composite SLQ and GLFI scores. Statistically significant differences were found
among the size of the organization on the dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ = .93, F(6,
816) = 4.92, p < .001. However, the multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s Λ was weak
with .04.
evaluate the relationship between the size of the leaders’ organizations by number of
employees and leaders’ scores on the composite SLQ and composite GLFI
instruments. Applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method, each ANOVA was
tested at p < .0125 (.05/4 = .0125). The first ANOVA revealed a statistically
significant relationship between the size of the organization and the composite SLQ
score F(3, 409) = 6.79, p < .01 with medium effect size η2 = .05. The size of the
leader’s organization as measured with the number of employees accounted for 5% of
the leader's composite SLQ score. Because the Levene’s test determined inequality of
the error variances, a post hoc Dunnett’s C test was conducted. It determined a
statistically significant greater mean on the composite SLQ score for leaders in
companies with 100 or more employees, represented by group 500 or more (M =
94.55, SD = 6.59) and 100-499 (M = 94.25, SD = 9.38), than leaders in organizations
with fewer than 10 (M = 89.22, SD = 9.70) employees at p < .01. Figure 4.22 presents
the representative box plots.

Figure 4.22. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores for leaders across different
sizes of organizations by number of employees.
The second ANOVA also revealed a statistically significant relationship
between the size of the leaders’ organization and leaders’ composite GLFI score F(3,
409) = 8.63, p < .01 with a medium effect size η2 = .06. The size of the organization
as measured in the number of employees accounted for 6% of the leader's composite
GLFI score. With the Levene’s test determining equality of the error variances for this
ANOVA, a Tukey HSD test was conducted. It established that leaders working in
organizations with 100-499 employees (M = 292.48, SD = 27.14) scored statistically

significant greater means on the composite GLFI instrument than leaders working in
organizations with fewer than 100 employees, represented by group 10-99 (M =
279.77, SD = 24.96), and fewer than 10 (M = 277.38, SD = 25.84) at p < .01. Figure
4.23 presents the box plots.
Figure 4.23. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores for leaders across different
sizes of organizations by number of employees.
Proportion of products or services sold to foreign countries by leader’s
organization. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to
assess the relationship between the composite SLQ and GLFI scores among leaders
working in organizations that sell products or services at various proportions to
foreign countries. Table 4.40 presents the individual correlation coefficients. The
relationships were determined to be significant within all groups of this category at p <
.01, independent of the proportion of product or services sold to foreign countries.
With N50% or more = 5, there were not enough data points for organizations with sales of
more 50% to foreign countries to conduct at a meaningful analysis for leaders in that
group. This group was excluded from further correlative analyses.
Table 4.40
Correlations between Composite SLQ Score and Composite GLFI Score by
Proportion of Products and Services Sold to Foreign Countries by Leader’s
Organization
SLQ/GLFI
Correlation
Proportion of 50% or more Pearson Corr. .987**
Products or Services Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
Sold to Foreign N 5
Countries
20-49% Pearson Corr. .707**

N 24

N 60

N 102
Less than 1% Pearson Corr. .682**

N 222
composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores, partialling out the effect of the
proportions of products or services sold to foreign countries, was determined as
statistically significant with r Products/Services sold to Foreign Countries (410) = .62, p < .01. The
test for equality of independent correlation coefficients based on Fisher’s r-to-z
among the correlations coefficients with χ2 (3, N = 408) = 7.73, p = .052. The results
of a post hoc pair-wise testing of equality of correlation coefficients are presented in
Table 4.41. It illustrates that the correlation coefficients are not statistically
significantly different after applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method and
testing at p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083).

Table 4.41
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across Proportion of
Products and Services Sold to Foreign Countries by Leader’s Organization
Proportion of products and 1 2 3 4 5

services sold to foreign countries
1. 50% or more z excl.
Sig. (2-tailed)
2. 20-49% z excl. 0
Sig. (2-tailed) 1
3. 5-19% z excl. -.25 0

4. 1-4% z excl. 1.39 2.39 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .17 .02 1
5. Less than 1% z excl. .21 .76 -2.35 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .83 .45 .019 1
A MANOVA was conducted to determine the affect of leaders working for
organizations with different proportions of products and services sold to foreign
countries on the two dependent variables, the composite SLQ score and the composite
GLFI score. No statistically significant differences were found among the proportions
of products and services sold to foreign countries by the leader’s organization on the
dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ = .96, F(8, 814) = 1.94, p = .051.
evaluate the relationship between leaders working for organizations with different
proportions of products and services sold to foreign countries and the leaders’ score on
the composite SLQ and composite GLFI instruments. Applying the Bonferroni (1936)
correction method, each ANOVA was tested at p < .01 (.05/5 = .01). The first
ANOVA revealed no statistically significant relationship between the proportion of
products and services sold to foreign countries and the composite SLQ score F(4,408)
= .16, p = .96. Figure 4.24 illustrates the box plots for the composite SLQ scores for
different proportions of foreign business.
countries.
A second ANOVA revealed no statistically significant relationship between the
proportion of products and services sold to foreign countries and the composite GLFI
score F(4, 408) = 2.95, p = .02 after applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method
at p < .01 (.05/5 = .01). Figure 4.25 illustrates the box plots for the composite GLFI
scores for different proportions of foreign business. The Levene’s tests determined
equality of the error variances for both ANOVAs.
countries.
Number of foreign countries the leader’s organization does business with.
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to assess the
relationship between the composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores among
leaders in organizations that do business with a different number of foreign countries.
Table 4.42 presents the individual correlation coefficients. The relationships were
determined to be significant within all groups of this category at p < .01.
Table 4.42
Correlations between Composite SLQ Score and Composite GLFI Score by Number of
Countries the Leader’s Organization Does Business with
SLQ/GLFI
Correlation
Number of Countries 10 or more Pearson Corr. .606**
the Organization Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
does Business with N 81

N 97

N 117
0 Pearson Corr. .579**

N 118
composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores, controlling for the number of
countries the leader’s organization does business with, was determined as statistically
significant with r Number of Foreign Countries doing Business (410) = .62, p < .01. The test for
equality of independent correlation coefficients based on Fisher’s r-to-z
among the correlations coefficients with χ2 (3, N = 413) = 5.50, p = .13 across the
different number of foreign countries. The results of a post hoc pair-wise testing of
equality of correlation coefficients are presented in Table 4.43. These confirmed that
the correlation coefficients are not statistically significantly different after applying the
Bonferroni (1936) correction method and testing at p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083).
Table 4.43
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across the Number of
Countries the Leader’s Organization Does Business with
Number of countries the leader’s 1 2 3 4

organization does business with
1. 10 or more z 0
Sig. (2-tailed) 1
2. 4-9 z -.48 0
3. 1-3 z -1.70 -1.27 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .09 .20 1
4. 0 z .28 .82 2.21 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .78 .41 .03 1
A post hoc MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of the different
number of foreign countries the leader’s organization does business with on the two
dependent variables, the composite servant leadership SLQ score and the composite
global leadership GLFI score. Statistically significant differences were found among
the number of foreign countries the organization does business with on the dependent
measures, Wilks’s Λ = .96, F(6, 816) = 2.73, p = .012. However, the multivariate η2
based on Wilks’s Λ was weak with .02.
further evaluate the relationship between the different number of foreign countries the
leader’s organization does business with on the composite SLQ and composite GLFI
scores. Applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method, each ANOVA was tested
at p < .0125 (.05/4 = .0125). The first ANOVA revealed no statistically significant
relationship between organizations and their different number of foreign countries and
the leader’s composite SLQ score F(3,409) = 1.43, p = .23. Figure 4.26 illustrates the
box plots of the leaders’ composite SLQ scores across the different number of
countries the leaders’ organizations do business with.

organizations with different number of foreign countries it does business with.
A second ANOVA revealed a statistically significant relationship between the
proportion of products and services sold to foreign countries and the composite GLFI
score F(3, 409) = 5.29, p < .01 with a small to medium effect size of η2 = .04. An
organization’s number of countries it does business with accounted for 4% of the
leader's composite GLFI mean score. The Levene’s test determined equality of the
error variances for this ANOVA. The Tukey HSD test determined that leaders in
organizations that do business with 10 or more (M = 290.40, SD = 23.84) foreign

countries score greater composite GLFI means than leaders in organizations with no
foreign business (M = 277.44, SD = 28.73) exposure. Figure 4.27 illustrates the box
plots.
organizations with different number of foreign countries it does business with.
Leader’s gender. The strength of the relationship between the composite
SLQ score and the composite GLFI score was computed as being statistically
significant for both gender, male leaders with r Male (247) = .682, p < .01 and female
leaders with r Female (162) = .504, p < .01. The test for equality of independent
determined a statistically significant difference between the correlations coefficients
for male or female leaders with z = 2.73, p < .01.
composite GLFI scores by leader’s gender. A visual inspection and comparison of the
individual scatter plots supports the aforementioned greater correlation coefficients for
male leaders versus female leaders with the closer alignment of data points to the
regression line. In addition, many male leaders exhibited low SLQ scores, which was
further analyzed in post hoc MANOVA and ANOVAs. The slope of regression curve
was also determined to be flatter, indicating a larger emphasis on servant leadership
for female leaders than male leaders.

Figure 4.28. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by leader’s gender.
Figure 4.29. Scatter plots of composite SLQ and GLFI scores for male and female
leaders.
Post hoc independent-samples t tests were conducted to compare the difference
of means on the composite SLQ and the composite GLFI score for male and female
leaders. The Levene’s test determined that equal variances could not be assumed for
the SLQ composite score but for the GLFI composite score.
The t test for unequal variances revealed a statistically significant difference of
the mean of the composite SLQ scores with t(392.43) = -4.01, p < .01 with a small to
medium effect size of η2 = .04. Female leaders (M = 94.02, SD = 8.36) on average
scored greater means on the composite SLQ score than males leaders (M = 90.34, SD
= 10.24). Additional independent-samples t tests were conducted across the five SLQ
subscales. Females leaders scored significant higher means (M = 15.30, SD = 2.81) on
the subscale emotional healing than male leaders (M = 14.27, SD = 2.91) with t(411) =
-3.58, p < .001. Females leaders also scored significant higher means (M = 21.97, SD
= 2.06) on the subscale organizational stewardship than male leaders (M = 20.54, SD =
3.21) with t(410.76) = -5.52, p < .001.
The t test for equal variances found no statistically significant difference of the
mean of the composite GLFI scores between males and females leaders with t(411) = -
1.42, p = .16. Figure 4.30 and Figure 4.31 present the box plots based on gender of
leaders for the composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores, respectively.
Figure 4.30. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores for male and female leaders.
Figure 4.31. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores for male and female leaders.
Leader’s age. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were
computed to examine the relationship between the composite SLQ and the composite
GLFI scores among leaders in different age groups. Table 4.44 presents the individual
correlation coefficients. The relationships were determined to be significant in all age
groups at p < .01, but for the group of leaders 29 years and younger, which did not
exhibit a statistically significant correlation. This group was excluded from
subsequent correlative statistical analyses.
Table 4.44
Age Group
SLQ/GLFI
Correlation
Leader’s Age 60 years and older Pearson Corr. .752**
N 60
50-59 years old Pearson Corr. .741**

N 139

N 127

N 63
29 years and younger Pearson Corr. .025

Sig. (2-tailed) .91
N 24
composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores, controlling for age of the leader, was
determined as statistically significant with r Age (410) = .62, p < .01. The test for
equality of independent correlation coefficients based on Fisher’s r-to-z
transformations (W. L. Hays, 1963) determined a statistically significant difference
among the correlations coefficients with χ2 (3, N = 389) = 8.33, p < .05 across the
different age groups. The results of a post hoc pair-wise testing of equality of
correlation coefficients are presented in Table 4.45. After applying the Bonferroni
(1936) correction method and testing at the p < .0083 (.05/6 = .0083), these correlation
coefficients were found not to be statistically significantly different.
Table 4.45
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across Leader’s Age Group
Leader’s Age 1 2 3 4 5
1. 60 years and older z 0

Sig. (2-tailed) 1
2. 50-59 years old z .16 0

3. 40-49 years old z 2.01 2.39 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .05 .02 1
4. 30-39 years old z 1.62 1.77 .13 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .11 .08 .89 1
5. 29 years and younger z excl. excl. excl. excl. excl.

Sig. (2-tailed)
Figure 4.32 and Figure 4.33 illustrate the scatter plots of the composite SLQ
and composite GLFI scores by leader’s age group. A visual inspection and
comparison of the individual scatter plots seems to indicate aforementioned greater
correlation coefficients for older leaders than younger leaders. Although this trend
was not statistically significant.
Figure 4.32. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by leader’s age group.
Figure 4.33. Scatter plots of composite SLQ and GLFI scores for individual leader’s
age groups.
A MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of the leader’s age on the
two dependent variables, the composite servant leadership SLQ score and the
composite global leadership GLFI score. A statistically significant difference was
found among the leader’s age groups on the dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ = .94,
F(8, 814) =3.05, p = .002. However, the multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s Λ was weak
with .03 indicating that only 3% of the multivariate variance of the dependent
variables is associated with the age of the leader.

Post hoc ANOVAs as follow-up tests were conducted to evaluate the
relationship between a leader’s age group and the scores on the composite SLQ and
composite GLFI instruments. Applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method,
each ANOVA was tested at p < .01 (.05/5 = .01). The first ANOVA revealed no
statistically significant relationship between a leader’s age group and the composite
SLQ score F(4,408) = .55, p = .70. Figure 4.34 presents the box plots for the
composite SLQ scores based on the leader’s age.
Figure 4.34. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores across age of leaders.
leader’s age group and the composite GLFI score F(4, 408) = 3.40, p < .01 with a
small effect size of η2 = .03. A leader’s age group accounted for 3% of the leader's
composite GLFI mean score. The Levene’s test determined equality of the error
variances for this ANOVA. The Tukey HSD test revealed that leaders in age groups
60 years and older (M = 287.55, SD = 23.47) showed statistically significant greater
composite GLFI means than leaders 29 years and younger (M = 267.17, SD = 24.36)
at p < .01. Figure 4.35 presents the box plots for the composite GLFI scores based on
the leader’s age.

Figure 4.35. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores across age of leaders.
Leader’s level of education. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients
were computed to assess the relationship between the composite SLQ and the
composite GLFI scores among different education levels of leaders. Table 4.46
presents the individual correlation coefficients. The relationships were determined to
be significant for all groups and levels of education at p < .01.

Table 4.46
Level of Education
SLQ/GLFI
Correlation
Leader’s Level of Doctoral degree Pearson Corr. .813**
Education Sig. (2-tailed) <.01
N 13
Masters degree Pearson Corr. .665**

N 138
Baccalaureate degree Pearson Corr. .566**

N 188
Less than baccalaureate degree Pearson Corr. .613**

N 74
composite SLQ and the composite GLFI scores, controlling for the level of education
the leader, was determined statistically significant with r Leader’s Level of Education (410) =
.61, p < .01. The test for equality of independent correlation coefficients based on
Fisher’s r-to-z transformations (W. L. Hays, 1963) determined no statistically
significant difference among the correlations coefficients with χ2 (3, N = 413) = 8.33,
p = .29 across the different level of education groups. The results of a post hoc pair-
wise testing of equality of correlation coefficients are presented in Table 4.47. It
illustrates that the correlation coefficients are not statistically significantly different
when applying the Bonferroni (1936) correction method and testing at p < .0083 (.05/6
= .0083).
Table 4.47
Pair-wise Testing of Equality of Correlation Coefficients across Leader’s Level of
Education
Leader’s Level of Education 1 2 3 4
1. Doctoral degree z 0
Sig. (2-tailed) 1
2. Masters degree z 1.02 0

3. Baccalaureate degree z 1.52 1.41 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .13 .16 1
4. Less than baccalaureate degree z 1.25 .60 -.52 0

Sig. (2-tailed) .21 .55 .61 1
A MANOVA was conducted to determine and evaluate the effect of the level
of education of leaders on the two dependent variables, the composite servant
leadership SLQ score and the composite global leadership GLFI score. Statistically
significant differences were found among the leader’s age groups on the dependent
measures, Wilks’s Λ = .96, F(8, 814) =2.65, p = .015. However, the multivariate η2
based on Wilks’s Λ was weak with .02 indicating that only 2% of multivariate
variance of the dependent variables is associated with the level of education of the
leader.
evaluate the relationship between the leader’s level of education and the leader’s score
on the composite SLQ and composite GLFI instruments. Applying the Bonferroni
(1936) correction method, each ANOVA was tested at p < .0125 (.05/4 = .0125). The
first ANOVA revealed a statistically significant relationship between the level of
education and the composite SLQ score F(3, 409) = 3.90, p < .01 with a small effect
size η2 = .03. The leader’s level of education accounted for 3% of the leader's
composite SLQ score. Because the Levene’s test determined inequality of the error
variances, a post hoc Dunnett’s C test was conducted that determined a statistically
significant greater mean on the composite SLQ score for leaders with a master’s
degree (M = 93.82, SD = 8.62) scored than for leaders with less than a baccalaureate
degree (M = 89.27, SD = 10.65) at p < .0125. Figure 4.36 presents the box plots of
leaders’ composite SLQ scores based on level of their education.

Figure 4.36. Box plot matrix of composite SLQ scores across leader’s level of
education.
leader’s level of education and the composite GLFI score F(3, 409) = 4.14, p < .01
with a small effect size of η2 = .03. Because the Levene’s test determined inequality
of the error variances, a post hoc Dunnett’s C test was conducted. It determined
statistically significant greater means on the composite GLFI score for leaders with a
master’s degree (M = 289.90, SD = 22.23) than for leaders with a baccalaureate degree
(M = 281.53, SD = 26.02) at p < .0125. Figure 4.37 presents the box plots.
Figure 4.37. Box plot matrix of composite GLFI scores across leader’s level of
education.
Leader’s race. The majority of participants were White/Caucasian (94.2%)
and only a small number of participants in groups were other than White/Caucasian.
There were not enough data points to arrive at a meaningful analysis based on race of
the survey participants.
Summary of Hypothesis 3 findings. Table 4.48 presents a summary of the
statistically significant findings and non-statistically significant indications of the
research study. Differences in the strength of the correlative relationship and post hoc
findings for servant leadership and global leadership are categorized by the individual
control variable.
Table 4.48
Summary of Findings for Hypothesis 3
Statistically Significant Post Hoc Finding of Statistically Significant

Difference in Strength Difference across Groups
Control Variable of Correlative SLQ GLFI
Relationship
Greater correlation
Leadership coefficients for leaders in
Position top two groups versus
middle management
Indication of greater
Leader’s Years in correlation coefficients
Leadership for five or more years
Position versus four or fewer years
in position
Leader’s Years
with Organization
Greater means on SLQ

For-Profit / Not-
for leaders in not-for-
For-Profit
profit organizations
Indication of greater
SLQ means for service
& distribution and not-
Type of Industry for-profit activities
versus refining,
construction, and
manufacturing
Greater means on SLQ Greater means on

Number of
with 100 or more versus GLFI with 100-499
Employees in
fewer than 10 versus fewer than
Organization
employees 100 employees
(table continues)
Statistically Significant Post Hoc Finding of Statistically Significant

Difference in Strength Difference across Groups
Control Variable of Correlative SLQ GLFI
Relationship
Proportion of
Products/Services
sold abroad
Greater means on
Number of Foreign
GLFI for 10 or more
Countries doing
countries versus
Business with
none
Greater correlation
Leader’s Gender coefficient for male
for female leaders
versus female leaders
Greater means on
GLFI for leaders 60
Leader’s Age years and older
versus 29 years and
younger
Greater means on
GLFI for leaders
Leader’s Level of for leaders with
with master’s versus
Education master’s degrees versus
baccalaureate
less than baccalaureate
degrees
Note. Statistically significant findings are dark shaded. Non-statistically significant
indications are light shaded.
Summary of Research Findings
A review of the frequency distribution, skewness and kurtosis values, Q-Q
plots, and box plots demonstrated proximate alignments to a normal distribution
pattern of the composite SLQ, individual SLQ subscales, composite GLFI, and
individual GLFI dimensions. This formed the basis for the researcher’s decision to
conduct subsequent statistical procedures assuming a parametric dataset.
The internal consistency estimate of reliability for the composite SLQ
instrument was determined at a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .89. All individual

subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients measured > .82. A confirmatory factor
analysis via Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization confirmed Barbuto and
Wheeler’s (2006) five SLQ factors.
The internal consistency estimate of reliability for the composite GLFI
instrument was determined at a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .95. All but one GLFI
dimension exhibited Cronbach’s alpha coefficients > .70 with one dimension’s alpha
at .65. A confirmatory factor analysis via Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization
confirmed 12 of Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) 15 GLFI dimensions. An examination of
the factor loadings led to the following suggestions to improve the instrument
construct and internal consistency estimate of reliability for a revised global leadership
instrument: The researcher suggested combining items of the GLFI dimension
creating a shared vision with two items from other GLFI dimensions and renaming the
dimension focusing on business success. This could establish a 13th dimension for a
revised global leadership instrument. Remnants of the GLFI dimensions maintaining
a competitive advantage combined with one item of GLFI dimension sharing
leadership may result in a 14th dimension encasing topics of cost effectual
partnerships and outsourcing. Additional items may require a revision of their
expressions in their item statement to clarify the construct for improved factor loading
in future surveys. These suggestions will require more research and were not
implemented for subsequent analysis in this research study.
Research Question 1. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
determined a statistically significant and positive correlation between the composite
SLQ score and the composite GLFI score with r(411) = .621, p < .001, indicating a
large effect size. A bivariate linear regression analysis determined a statistically
significant linear relationship between both variables. A canonical correlation analysis
resulted in Rc = .721, p < .001, with SLQ subscales persuasive mapping and
organizational stewardship and the GLFI dimensions anticipating opportunities and
creating a shared vision as the major contributors to the canonical variates.
Research Question 2. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was
employed to determine zero-order correlations between individual servant and global
leadership attributes. Stepwise multiple linear regression analyses were used to
determine standardized beta weights and primary contributors to the individual
attributes. The statistical analysis resulted in 61 out of a possible 75 (5 x 15 = 75)
statistically significant zero-order correlations between individual SLQ subscales and
GLFI dimensions.
Stepwise multiple linear regression analyses revealed that the SLQ dimension
persuasive mapping is the foremost contributor to nearly all GLFI dimensions,
followed by organizational stewardship. Altruistic calling, emotional healing, and
wisdom showed a lesser role across the various GLFI dimensions when examining the
servant leadership and global leadership association.
The regression analysis also revealed that the primary contributors to servant
leadership are the global leadership dimensions appreciating diversity, sharing
leadership, encouraging constructive dialogue, anticipating opportunities,
demonstrates integrity, and creating a shared vision for the organization. The SLQ
subscale altruistic calling found its largest contributors with the GLFI dimensions
sharing leadership and encouraging constructive dialogue, but a negative regressor in

the GLFI dimension creating a shared vision. SLQ subscale emotional healing’s
primary contributor was the GLFI dimension ensuring customer satisfaction. GLFI
dimension anticipating opportunities is the largest contributor to the SLQ subscale
wisdom. For SLQ subscale persuasive mapping, the GLFI dimensions creating a
shared vision and anticipating opportunities are the primary driver. The SLQ subscale
organizational stewardship is primarily driven by two GLFI dimensions, appreciating
diversity and demonstrates integrity.
A further examination of the GLFI dimension creating a shared vision
determined that its five items focused on creating, communicating, people committing
to the vision of the organizations, and involving people in decision making and
identifying priorities. These items are motivated by organizational goals and
objectives and likely counteract the servant leadership subscale altruistic calling, the
deep-rooted desire to make a positive difference in the lives of others (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006).
Research Question 3. A comparative analysis of the correlation coefficients
revealed a greater strength of the correlative relationship between servant leadership
and global leadership for leaders in executive management versus middle
management, and male leaders versus female leaders. The study found indications
that the servant and global leadership association may be moderated by the leader’s
years in the leadership position and the leader’s age. However, these indications were
not statistically significant. The analysis showed no statistically significant
differences in the strength of correlative relationship when moderated by leader’s

years with the organization, size of the organization, type of industry, for-profit or not-
for-profit status of the organization, or leader’s educational level.
Post hoc analyses on servant leadership revealed that leaders employed at not-
for-profit organizations scored slightly greater means in the servant leadership score
than leaders employed at for-profit organizations. Greater means in servant leadership
score was also established for female leaders versus male leaders, and for leaders
working in organizations with 100 and more employees than leaders working in
organizations with fewer than 10 employees. Leaders with master’s degrees had
greater servant leadership means scores than leaders with less than a baccalaureate
degree. The means of the servant leadership score did not moderate for a leader’s
leadership position, years in leadership position, years with the organization, type of
industry, proportion of products or services the organization sells abroad, the number
of countries the organization does business with, or leader’s age.
Post hoc analysis on global leadership determined that leaders working in
organizations with 100-499 employees measured greater means on global leadership
than leaders working in organizations with fewer than 100 employees. Leaders in
organizations that do business with 10 or more foreign countries scored greater global
leadership means than leaders in organization with no foreign business contacts.
Global leadership seems to be moderated by leaders’ age and level of education. The
study found that leaders who were 60 years and older measured greater means in
global leadership than leaders 29 years and younger. Leaders with master’s degrees
scored greater global leadership means than leaders with a baccalaureate degree.
Indications for greater means of the global leadership score were observed for leaders
in higher leadership positions, but these findings were not statistically significant. The
means of the global leadership score did not moderate for leader’s years in leadership
position, years with the organization, for-profit or not-for-profit status of the
organization, type of industry, proportion of products or services the organization sells
abroad, or leader’s gender.
The effect of leaders’ race on the correlative servant and global leadership
relationship was not analyzed due to the small number of minority participants. The
large majority of participants were White/Caucasian and only a small number of
participants other than White/Caucasian.
Chapter Conclusion
This chapter presented an overview of the data collection process, the target
population, and the demographics of the sample. The chapter continued with the
discussion of the assumptions requisite for parametric data analysis. It included the
assessment of normality, the analysis of the internal consistency estimate of reliability,
the instruments’ intercorrelations, and the confirmatory factor analysis of the
instruments used in this study. The chapter concluded with the results of each
hypothesis testing and a summary of the research findings.

Chapter 5
Discussion
Summary of the Research Problem and Research Methodology
Servant leadership may hold great promise to meet the distinctive leadership
challenges that global communities face (Irving, 2010a). Patterson, Dannhauser, and
Stone (2007) opined that servant leadership must be considered as a viable option in
the global marketplace and encouraged further research to help organizations succeed
in their quest for effective leaders and leadership outcomes in a global environment.
This study focused on the relationship between servant leadership and global
leadership, the relationship between their individual attributes, and the moderation by
demographic factors. The research employed the servant leadership instrument, SLQ,
developed by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) and the global leadership instrument,
GLFI, developed by Goldsmith et al. (2003). The independent variables were leaders’
leadership position, years in a leadership position, duration with the organization, for-
profit or not-for-profit status of the organization, type of industry, size of the
organization, proportion of products or services the organization sells abroad, number
of countries the organization does business with, leader’s gender, age, level of
education, and race. The sample included 413 leaders and executives of organizations
in northeast Indiana in the United States.
The statistical treatment used in evaluating the hypotheses included
independent-samples t test, ANOVA, MANOVA, bivariate linear regression, multiple
linear regression, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Pearson product-
moment partial correlation coefficient, canonical correlation coefficient, and the test
for equality for multiple correlations. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and confirmatory
factor analysis were employed to measure to the reliability of the instruments.
Review and Discussion of the Principal Conclusions of the Study
A strong, positive, and statistically significant association was found between
servant leadership and global leadership among the participating leaders and
executives. The primary contributors to the canonical variates were persuasive
mapping and organization stewardship from the servant leadership instrument and
anticipating opportunities and creating a shared vision from the global leadership
instrument. A majority of individual servant and global leadership attributes
associated statistically significant and positively in zero-order correlations. Stepwise
multiple linear regression analyses determined multiple contributors for the individual
servant and global leadership attributes.
A comparative analysis of correlation coefficients revealed a greater strength
of correlative relationship between servant leadership and global leadership for leaders
in executive management versus middle management, and male leaders versus female
leaders. The study found non-statistically significant indications that a leader’s years
in the leadership position as well as a leader’s age may affect the correlative
relationship. No statistically significant differences between the correlation
coefficients were found when moderated by leader’s years with the organization, for-
profit or not-for-profit status of the organization, type of industry, size of the
organization, proportion of products or service the leader’s organization sells to
foreign countries, the number of foreign countries the organization does business with,
and the leader’s level of education.

Post hoc analyses indicated greater means on the servant leadership scale for
leaders employed in not-for-profit than for-profit organizations and working for
organizations with 100 or more employees versus fewer than 10 employees. Greater
means on servant leadership was found for female leaders versus male leaders and for
leaders with master’s degrees versus leaders with less than baccalaureate degrees.
Greater means on the global leadership scale were determined for leaders
working in organizations with 100–499 employees versus organizations with fewer
than 100 employees and working in organizations that do business with 10 or more
foreign countries versus no foreign business. Greater means in global leadership was
also found for leaders 60 years and older versus leaders 29 years and younger, and for
leaders with master’s degrees versus baccalaureate degrees. There was a non-
statistically significant indication that a leader’s leadership position may moderate
global leadership scores.
Leader’s years in the leadership position, leader’s years in the organization,
type of industry, or proportion of products or services the organization sells abroad did
not moderate the means of servant leadership or the means of global leadership. The
effect of a leader’s race on the correlative relationship between servant leadership or
global leadership was not analyzed due to the small number of minority participants.
Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) servant leadership SLQ instrument exhibited
acceptable internal reliability. Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) global leadership GLFI
instrument showed acceptable reliability across the majority of its individual
dimensions and holds great promise describing the many skills and talents that global
leaders may exhibit.

Research question and hypothesis 1: Association of servant leadership and
global leadership. The first research question and hypothesis examined the
relationship of the overall presence of servant leadership and global leadership in
leaders and executives in organizations.
H1O: There is no statistically significant correlative relationship between the
Results. The first hypothesis was confirmed. The Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient determined a statistically significant and positive association
with r(411) = .621, p < .001, indicating a large effect size with 39% of the variance of
one leadership variable accounted for by the other leadership variable. A bivariate
linear regression analysis confirmed the linear relationship between the composite
SLQ and the composite GLFI score at the p < .001 significance level. The canonical
correlation coefficient was computed to Rc = .721, p < .001, with the servant
leadership SLQ subscales persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship and the
global leadership GLFI dimensions anticipating opportunities and creating a shared
vision as the major contributors to the canonical variates.
Discussion and Implications. The research findings of this study will add to
the research to clarify and refine the construct that may help establish servant
leadership as the best fitting leadership model for future organizations that Sendjaya
(2010) claimed. The findings support Irvin’s (2010a) and Patterson et al.’s (2007)
quest for more research to advance the understanding and practice of servant
leadership within the global context. Senjaya (2010) clarified that meeting global
leadership challenges will require the understanding of the relational, ethical,
emotional, and spiritual sides of followers. Tompenaars and Voerman (2010)
explained that it is the integration of serving and leading in servant leadership that will
lead to a stronger synthesis. It can be used to bridge opposing values and viewpoints,
that especially leaders in a global environment and different cultures will experience
(Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010).
The research findings not only demonstrated a strong and positive association
between servant leadership and global leadership attributes. This findings may also
indicate (a) the relevance of certain servant leadership attributes for organizations
operating in the global environment, and (b) the relevance for certain global leadership
attributes when extending the servant leadership paradigm globally. The findings
pointed to the combination of persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship of
servant leadership, and anticipating opportunities and creating a shared vision of
global leadership that may be especially powerful in strengthening the relationship
between these two leadership models.
Research question and hypothesis 2: Association of individual servant
leadership and global leadership attributes. The second research question and
hypothesis examined the relationship of individual servant leadership and global
leadership attributes in leaders and executives in organizations.

attributes.
attributes.
Results. The second hypothesis was confirmed for a large majority of servant
leadership and global leadership attributes. Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficients were conducted to compute the zero-order correlations between the five
servant leadership subscales and the 15 global leadership dimensions. A significance
level of p < .67E-3 (.05/75 = .67E-3) was required for the Bonferroni (1936) correction
method for Type I errors across the 75 (5 x 15 = 75) cross correlations. Of the
possible 75 cross correlations between servant and global leadership attributes, 61
correlation were statistically significant and positive at p < .67E-3, with 57 correlations
reaching significance levels of p < .13E-3 and 50 attaining p < .13E-4. Out of 61
statistically significant correlations, 54 exhibited correlation coefficients of r(411) >
.2, 32 with r(411) > .3 and 10 with r(411) > .4. Multiple linear regression analyses
with a stepwise selection procedure revealed the individual regressors for the servant
leadership subscales and the global leadership dimensions.
Discussion and Implications. Globalization, with the emergence of the global
economy, increased global competition and rapid technology changes, provides
opportunities and threats for many organizations (Hitt, et al., 2010). It requires the
development of global leaders who can respond to challenges of the complexity

presented by globalization (Mendenhall, 2008). Organizations need leaders with
abilities and competencies to lead globally (Patterson, et al., 2007).
The stepwise multiple linear regression analyses determined that the servant
leadership subscale persuasive mapping is the leading contributor to nearly all global
leadership dimensions, followed by organizational stewardship. The servant
leadership attributes of altruistic calling, emotional healing, and wisdom showed lesser
roles across the various global leadership dimensions. Referring to Barbuto and
Wheeler’s (2006) definition, persuasive mapping will encourage leaders to use sound
reasoning in conceptualizing and communicating the organization’s future and
opportunities, whereas organizational stewardship will support leaders in preparing
their organizations to make a positive contribution to society and take responsibility
for the well-being of the community in which the organization exists. Global leaders
with improved persuasive mapping aptitudes may enhance their capabilities to respond
to global challenges, see opportunities for their organizations, and communicate these
to their employees, colleagues and global business partners. Global leaders with
enhanced organizational stewardship aptitudes may be able to shift their leadership
capabilities from a strict organizational focus to a global perspective to include
incorporating the global community and global partners in their business decisions.
The enhancement of persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship aptitudes for
global leaders may be provided through servant leadership training and is discussed
more fully later in this chapter.
The research findings showed that certain global leadership capabilities may
enhance the effectiveness of servant leaders operating within the global context. The
servant leadership attribute altruistic calling found its largest contributors with the
global leadership dimensions sharing leadership and encouraging constructive
dialogue, but determined a negative regressor with creating a shared vision. The
servant leaders’ attribute of altruistic calling will be enhanced through sharing
leadership with less hierarchy and empowered individuals and, with encouraging
constructive dialogue, the ability to listen and welcome constructive feedback
(Goldsmith, et al., 2003). A further examination of the negative regressor creating a
shared vision dimension determined that its five items focused on creating,
communicating, people committing to the vision of the organization, and involving
people in decision making and identifying priorities. These items are driven by
organizational goals and objectives and likely counteract to altruistic calling, the deep-
rooted desire to make a positive difference in others’ lives (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
A servant leader’s first responsibility is relationships and people, which takes
precedence over tasks and products (Patterson, et al., 2007). Altruistic calling will not
be enhanced with a focus on business, but rather with the focus on the individual, the
follower.
A servant leader in a global context may improve emotional healing attitudes
by improving on the global leadership attribute ensuring customer satisfaction that
includes viewing business processes from the customer perspective, delivering on
commitments to customers, including the appreciation of customer preferences in
different cultures (Goldsmith, et al., 2003). It supports Hunter’s (1998) leadership
model with the customer on top of the inverted servant leadership pyramid, as
presented earlier in Figure 2.1. Both, a servant leader’s attitudes in wisdom and
persuasive mapping may be improved through the global leadership dimension
anticipating opportunities that investigates and recognizes future trends and prepares
leaders to develop ideas to meet the needs of the new environment (Goldsmith, et al.,
2003).
The largest contributor to a servant leader’s persuasive mapping is the global
leadership dimension creating a shared vision that, as indicated earlier, is primarily
focused on the organization, including setting priorities creating and communicating
the strategy and vision for the organization. Servant leaders that may want to improve
their organizational stewardship capabilities to achieve higher effectiveness when
operating in the global context, may need to focus on the global leadership dimensions
appreciating diversity and demonstrating integrity. Appreciating diversity may
include the understanding of the economic, legal, social, and behavioral differences in
the different parts of the world (Goldsmith, et al., 2003). Goldsmith et al. (2003)
explained that demonstrating honesty and ethics in both personal and business values
will help establishing trusting relationships with workers, peers, competitors, and
customers.
Research question and hypothesis 3: Correlation of servant leadership
and global leadership segmented by demographic factors. The third research
question and hypothesis examined the relationship of servant leadership and global
leadership in leaders and executives in organizations when segmented by demographic
factors.

years in the leadership position, duration with an organization, for-profit or
not-for-profit status of the organization, type of industry, size of the
organization, proportion of products or services the organization sells abroad,
number of countries the organization does business with, leader’s gender, age,
level of education, or race.
years in the leadership position, duration with an organization, for-profit or
not-for-profit status of the organization, type of industry, size of the
organization, proportion of products or services the organization sells abroad,
number of countries the organization does business with, leader’s gender, age,
level of education, or race.
Results. The third hypothesis was confirmed for the demographic factors of a
leader’s leadership position and gender. The test for equality of independent
determined a greater strength of correlative relationship between servant leadership
and global leadership for leaders in executive management, r President, CEO (68) = .76, p
< .01 and r Executive, COO, CFO, VP (137) = .75, p < .01 versus leaders in middle
management, r Middle Management (66) = .35, p < .01 with χ2 (3, N = 394) = 19.67, p < .01.
A stronger correlative association between servant and global leadership was found for
male leaders, r Male (247) = .68, p < .01, versus female leaders, r Female (162) = .50, p <
.01, with z = 2.73, p < .01. The analysis indicated a greater association between
servant and global leadership with a leader’s years in the leadership position and a
leader’s age, but these findings were not statistically significant after applying the
Bonferroni (1936) correction method. There were no statistically significant
differences in the strength of the correlative relationship when moderated by the
leader’s years with the organization, for-profit or not-for-profit status of the
organization, type of industry, size of the organization, proportion of products and
services the organization sells abroad, the number of countries the organization does
business with, or the leader’s level of education.
Post hoc independent-samples t tests, ANOVAs and MANOVAs were
employed to measure the leaders’ servant leadership and global leadership scores
moderated by demographic control variables. These revealed that leaders employed in
for-profit organizations (M = 91.03, SD = 9.56) scored on average slightly lower
means on servant leadership than leaders employed by not-for-profit organizations (M
= 93.94, SD = 9.81) with t(411) = -2.70, p < .01 and a small effect size of η2 = .03.
Leaders in organizations with 100 or more employees, as represented by group 500 or
more (M = 94.55, SD = 6.59) and 100–499 employees (M = 94.25, SD = 9.38),
measured greater means on the servant leadership than leaders in organizations with
fewer than 10 employees (M = 89.22, SD = 9.70) with F(3, 409) = 6.79, p < .01 and
medium effect size η2 = .05. Male leaders (M = 90.34, SD = 10.24) exhibited lower
means on servant leadership than female leaders (M = 94.02, SD = 8.36) with
t(392.43) = -4.01, p < .01 and low to medium effect size η2 = .04. Female leaders
scored greater means on the SLQ subscales emotional healing and organizational
stewardship. Leaders with master’s degrees (M = 93.82, SD = 8.62) scored greater
servant leadership means than leaders with less than a baccalaureate degree (M=89.27,
SD = 10.65) with F(3, 409) = 3.90, p < .01 and a small effect size η2 = .03. Leaders’
scores on servant leadership did not moderate statistically significantly for leadership
position, years in leadership position, leader’s years with the organization, type of
industry, proportion of product and services an organization sells abroad, the number
of countries the organization does business with, or the leader’s age.
Leaders measured greater means on global leadership when employed in
organizations with 100–499 employees (M = 292.48, SD = 27.14) versus leaders
working in organizations with fewer than 100 employees, as represented by group 10–
99 (M = 279.77, SD = 24.96) and fewer than 10 (M = 277.38, SD = 25.84) with F(3,
409) = 8.63, p < .01 and a medium effect size η2 = .06. Leaders in organizations that
do business with 10 or more foreign countries (M = 290.40, SD = 23.84) scored
greater means on global leadership than leaders in organizations with no foreign
business (M = 277.44, SD = 28.73) with F(3, 409) = 5.29, p < .01 and a small to
medium effect size of η2 = .04. Leaders who were 60 years and older (M = 287.55, SD
= 23.47) measured greater means in global leadership than leaders who were 29 years
and younger (M = 267.17, SD = 24.36) with F(4, 408) = 3.40, p < .01 and a small
effect size of η2 = .03. Leaders with master’s degrees (M = 289.90, SD = 22.23) also
scored greater global leadership means than leader with baccalaureate degrees (M =
281.53, SD = 26.02) at F(3, 409) = 4.14, p < .01 and a small effect size of η2 = .03.
The study found a non-statistical significant indication that the leader’s leadership
position may affect global leadership measures. Leaders’ scores on global leadership
did not moderate statistically significantly for leader’s years in leadership position,
years with the organization, for-profit or not-for-profit status of the organization, type
of industry, proportion of product and services the organization sells abroad, or the
leader’s gender.
Discussion and Implications. Leaders in executive management, president,
CEO and executive, COO, CFO, and VP groups, exhibited a stronger association
between servant leadership and global leadership than leaders in middle management.
Hopen (2010) explained that top managers in 21st century companies no longer view
their leadership position as part of a hierarchy, but rather as a position of significant
responsibility to a larger number of stakeholders with whom these leaders are
empowered to work with as partners. The research findings may already recognize the
change in leadership approach as predicted by Hopen.
The observed gender dependent association between the servant and global
leadership for male versus female leaders will require more research. Post hoc
analysis showed that a large number of male leaders exhibited a lower servant
leadership score that, combined with their lower global leadership scores,
demonstrated a closer alignment to the regression line and thus a higher correlation
coefficient. Future studies will need to show if male leaders exhibit greater global
leadership scores in regions with more international influence, such as New York,
Toronto, or Los Angeles that would lower the correlation coefficient when combined
with lower servant leadership scores.
The post hoc findings aside from the three hypotheses encourage further
discussion. Leaders employed at not-for-profit organizations exhibited greater means

in servant leadership than leaders at for-profit organizations. This may reflect the
typical mission and people-oriented objectives of not-for-profit organizations versus
organizational and performance objectives that take precedent at many for-profit
organizations. Servant leadership may need to be considered as an appropriate and
effective leadership style for not-for-profit organization (Schneider & George, 2011).
Schneider and George (2011) explained that intrinsic motivators are more important in
not-for-profit organization compared to the traditional exchange of performance for
compensation found in for-profit organization.
Leaders employed in organizations with a larger number of employees
demonstrated greater means in servant leadership than leaders in smaller
organizations. This finding may indicate that leaders in larger organizations deal with
a larger number of employees and, therefore it is likely they interact with increased
internal diversity and external business complexity in working with more customers,
clients, and outside business partners. Trompenaars and Voerman (2010) explained
that servant leaders know how to bring people with different viewpoints together.
Servant leaders understand how to transform resulting tension into a productive
dynamic. De Pree (1992) claimed that servant leaders are comfortable with the
ambiguity that business complexity can bring. However, no research could be found
that examined servant leadership in leaders based on the size of their organization.
The study found higher servant leadership scores for female leaders than male
leaders. The observed gender difference in servant leadership scores coincided with
Fridell, Belcher, and Messner’s (2009) findings of greater servant leadership scores for
female principals in midwestern U.S. public schools versus their male counterparts.
Washington, Sutton, and Field (2006) also confirmed greater means on servant
leadership scores for female than male supervisors in three public agencies in the
United States, but cautioned regarding the need for more research on gender
differences.
Additional statistical analyses found that female leaders scored significantly
higher on the servant leadership subscales emotional healing and organizational
stewardship. Sanches-Nunez, Fernandez-Berrocal, Montanes, and Latorre (2008)
found no clear gender differences in overall emotional intelligence. Their findings
confirmed Goleman’s (1998) earlier assertion that there are more similarities than
differences between men and woman when viewing the total emotional intelligence.
However, Goleman pointed to specific competencies in emotional intelligence that
seem to show gender differences: “Women, on average, tend to be more aware of
their emotions, show more empathy, and are more adept interpersonally” (Goleman,
1998, p. 7) than men. This study and its analysis of gender differences on the
emotional healing subscale supports that notion. For Barbuto and Wheeler (2006),
leaders who use emotional healing are highly empathetic and great listeners, making
them adept at facilitating the healing process. No other research has established or
analyzed the cause for gender differences in the servant leadership subscale
organizational stewardship.
The research found greater means in global leadership for leaders in larger
organizations by size of employees than smaller organizations. With the need for
increasing sales for their products and services, many companies explore the
international markets (Hitt, et al., 2010). With the increase of sales and size of the
business, many organizations face the increased challenges of globalization, such as
market differences in cultures, languages, law, economies, and business customs
(Bellin & Pham, 2007) and the need to integrate and manage a culturally diverse
workforce (Levy, et al., 2007). Thus, with the increase and size of their businesses,
leaders may face increased challenges from globalization, requiring greater global
leadership competencies.
In another finding of this study, leaders in organizations that do business with a
large numbers of foreign companies scored greater means in global leadership than
leaders in organizations with no foreign business contacts. However, the proportion of
products and service sold to foreign countries did not exhibit different means on the
global leadership score. The complexity of globalization is apparent with the complex
system of human interaction when dealing with increasingly diverse and cross-cultural
competitors, customers, employees, governments, and other stakeholders (Lane, et al.,
2004). Greater global leadership competencies are driven by these human
interactions, and not dominated by the sales of products or services internationally.
Leaders aged 60 and older exhibited greater means in global leadership than
leaders at age 29 and younger. So did leaders with master’s degrees versus
baccalaureate degrees. The findings of this study point to greater global leadership
competencies for leaders with more experience by age and more knowledge by
education. Leaders in the age group 60 years and older may have travelled more
internationally, have worked in a larger number of organizations, and may have
experienced more cross-cultural challenges in their careers than leaders in their
twenties. Additional education may allow leaders to reach higher positions in

management, with additional demands for global leadership to face the increased
challenges of globalization.
At present, this study is the first published empirical research study employing
a global leadership instrument across organizational and leader specific demographics.
Thus, no comparable research exists to confirm these findings.
Analysis of Internal Consistency Estimate of Reliability and Factor Analysis of
Instruments.
The discussion of the internal reliability and dimensionality of the instruments
may provide additional insight for future research. Researchers need reliable and valid
instruments as tools to collect, measure, observe, and document data for answering
research questions or addressing research hypothesis (Creswell, 2008).
Servant leadership SLQ instrument. The internal consistency estimate of
reliability for composite SLQ instrument was determined at a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .89, with all individual subscales exhibiting Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients greater than .82. A confirmatory factor analysis via Varimax rotation and
Kaiser normalization confirmed Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) five SLQ factors.
Global leadership GLFI instrument. The internal consistency estimate of
reliability for composite GLFI instrument was determined at Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .95. All but one individual GLFI dimension exhibited Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients greater than .70. The GLFI dimension sharing leadership exhibited a
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .65. A confirmatory factor analysis via Varimax
rotation and Kaiser normalization confirmed 12 of Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) 15 GLFI
dimensions. An examination of the factor loading of individual items led to the

following suggestions to improve the principle component factor loading and internal
consistency estimate of reliability: The researcher suggested combining items of the
GLFI dimension creating a shared vision with two items from other GLFI dimensions
and renaming it focusing on business success. This may establish the 13th dimension
for a revised global leadership instrument. Remnants of the GLFI dimension
maintaining a competitive advantage with one item of the GLFI dimension sharing
leadership may result in a 14th dimension, which could encase topics of cost effective
partnerships and outsourcing. In addition, survey items that loaded at more than one
component or did not align to other items, may require different expressions in their
item statement. This may enhance the clarity of the construct and improve the survey
results. These suggestions will require more research and were not implemented for
subsequent analysis in the research study.
Conclusions. The research supported the internal reliability of Barbuto and
Wheeler’s (2006) servant leadership SLQ instrument. The Goldsmith et al.’s (2003)
global leadership GLFI instrument showed acceptable reliability across the majority of
its individual dimensions. Additional research will be required to improve the
instrument for use in global leadership research. This is an important finding because
this research study is one of the first published research studies employing the GLFI
instrument. It proved to be a promising instrument with its multitude of dimensions
describing the many skills and talents that global leaders may exhibit. The increase of
global leadership research and the rising number of global leadership programs
worldwide will require the establishment of a global leadership instrument. Future
research may establish the GLFI instrument’s role in overcoming the absence of an
agreed-upon definition of global leadership (Mendenhall, 2008). It may also carry the
answer to Mendenhall et al.’s (2008) question: “What are the skills that global leaders
should possess in order to be successful” (p. xi)? The GLFI instrument may also serve
as a foundation to a time and task adaptable global leadership instrument that,
continuously and successively progressing, can respond to the challenges of
globalization (Hitt, et al., 2010) and the dynamics of global integration, rapidly
changing conditions, new competitors, and cultural diversity in the global market
(Cateora, et al., 2011; Friedman, 2006; Northouse, 2009).
Limitations of the Study
This research was conducted among executives and leaders of organizations in
northeast Indiana in the United States. The participants were not selected randomly,
but conveniently sampled among members and associates of the Greater Fort Wayne
Chamber of Commerce and the Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership. Thus, the
results cannot be generalized across these organizations or the northeast Indiana
region.
The research findings are limited to the leadership instruments employed in
this study. Both instruments were employed in their self-rater version. The leaders’
self-reporting leadership characteristics may not have accurately reflected their actual
behaviors. Some items, such as “demonstrates honest, ethical behavior in all
interactions” may have found different scores in the self- and other rater version in
light of Gregory’s (2003) quote: “Where I see a moral quandary, you see nothing to
excite moral concern” (p. 69).

Knowing that the survey was conducted under the direction of Indiana Tech’s
Global Leadership PhD program may have influenced subjects’ decision to participate
and the answers to the leadership items. In addition, as Howell et al. (2010) claimed,
internet surveys may have a bias toward participants who are young, educated, and of
middle to high socioeconomic status.
After thoroughly reviewing and analyzing the dataset, the researcher decided to
conduct correlational statistical procedures assuming a parametric dataset. Abbott
(2011) claimed that many statistical procedures are robust and can provide meaningful
results even if there are minor violations to primary assumptions. It is at the discretion
of the researcher to review the data and decide on appropriate statistical procedures to
answer the research questions and hypothesis.
This study is the first published empirical research study employing Goldsmith
et al.’s (2003) global leadership instrument across organizational and leader specific
demographics. Thus, no comparable research exists to confirm the reliability or
validity of this instrument.
Operational Application of Findings
The findings of this study augmented a better understanding of the attributional
relationship between servant leadership and global leadership. The found positive
association between servant and global leadership attributes may encourage other
organizations to embrace servant leadership in their operational endeavors in the
global context and join the ranks of successful global companies that apply servant
leadership principles. It may help improve the development and training of global
leaders in organizations to succeed in the complex global competitive environment

and overcome the challenge of globalization. The findings may assist organizations in
the development and training of servant leaders facing the challenges of a complex
global world. It may also inform in particular human resource departments when
selecting or recruiting candidates for global leadership position or engage in
succession planning in global companies.
Leadership training and development. Many organizations struggle with
preparing their leaders and executives to succeed in the global environment (Robinson
& Harvey, 2008). Patterson et al. (2007) identified the need for modern organizations
to find novel, less traditional ways to identify and train global leaders who will
succeed in complex environments. This research demonstrated the close association
between servant leadership and global leadership. Servant leadership is based on
universal values and is adaptable to different cultures (Keith, 2010). Servant
leadership is especially applicable for leaders facing global challenges, when opposing
viewpoints, concepts, and value systems that need to be integrated and for cross-
cultural complexities to be bridged (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010). Sendjaya
(2010) differentiated servant leadership training programs with an emphasis on
character instead of focusing on skills or concepts of other programs.
This study found that the servant leadership components persuasive mapping
and organizational stewardship are the primary contributors to global leadership.
Thus, servant leadership development and training for global leaders may need to
emphasize especially these characteristics.
The research results also suggested that servant leaders with the need to
operate globally may benefit from developing their skills and attitudes in appreciating
diversity, sharing leadership, encouraging constructive dialogue, anticipating
opportunities, demonstrating integrity, and creating a shared vision for the
organization. Focusing on these global leadership dimensions may improve the
effectiveness of servant leaders operating in the global context.
Accentuation of persuasive mapping. Persuasive mapping includes the use of
sound reasoning and mental frameworks when mapping issues and conceptualizing
greater possibilities (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Leaders with great persuasive
mapping characteristics are compelling when articulating opportunities. They
encourage others to recognize the organization’s future and persuade them toward
greater performance to accomplish the objectives without formal authority.
The ability to persuade rather than coerce others to complete tasks and achieve
goals and objectives forms the basis for persuasive mapping. Farling et al. (1999)
argued that persuasive communication is an important element of influence. A
leadership program that accentuate persuasive mapping will allow leaders to learn how
to build consensus, share their wisdom, and develop understanding without
manipulation, coercion, and control of others (Russell & Stone, 2002).
Accentuation of organizational stewardship. Organizational stewardship
involves the ability to view the organization as an entity that positively contributes to
society as a whole and toward the well-being of the community (Barbuto & Wheeler,
2006). It includes the development of team culture and cooperative spirit at the
workplace. In order to make a positive contribution in the community and society,
Searle and Barbuto (2011) suggested that organizations may accomplish this objective
by reaching out to the community through community development programs,

implementing outreach activities, and facilitating company policies that would benefit
the surrounding community, society, and the environment. A leadership development
and training program accentuating organizational stewardship will need to include
these aspects.
An example for the need to accentuate persuasive mapping and organizational
stewardship as the primary contributors to global leadership is the case study of
Synovus Financial Corporation, an international entity headquartered in Columbus,
Georgia in the United States. Hamilton and Bean (2005) described the firm’s attempt
to export the servant leadership concept and leadership training program to its U.K.
operations. Based on their description, the initial training program concentrated
heavily on the altruistic calling attributes. However, this research study showed that
altruistic calling contributes only little to the global leadership dimensions. Not
surprisingly, the Synovus management training program found antipathy and initial
rejection among British managers.
Hamilton and Bean (2005) concluded that Synovus’s leadership trainers had to
reframe the training content to improve interaction and communication of shared
meanings. The authors pointed to the importance of recognizing the ethics, values,
and beliefs of training participants. Expanding internationally, servant leadership
training content needs to consider the training context in which ethical and moral
foundations are expressed differently (Hamilton & Bean, 2005). The findings of this
research study showed that a focus on persuasive mapping and organizational
stewardship could have possibly supported the implementation of the servant
leadership paradigm in Synovus’s foreign subsidiary.

Accentuation of appreciating diversity. Effective global leaders are able to
manage across cultural diversity (Manning, 2003) and are flexible enough to work
with people from other cultures (Adler & Gundersen, 2007). The respect for diversity
is a core principle for servant leaders (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010).
Many diversity training programs have become “cultural competence
initiatives” (Bennett, 2009, p. 96) reflecting global thinking. Bennett (2009) described
the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) that could form the basis
for intercultural training design. The DMIS is comprised of six stages of increasing
sensitivity to cultural differences. It is based on the underlying assumption that the
learners’ intercultural competence increases when the experience of difference
becomes more sophisticated and cognitively complex. The first three phases include
ethnocentric stages—denial, defense, and minimization—with the last three
comprising ethnorelative stages—acceptance, adaptation, and integration. Successful
global leaders are able to unleash the power and wealth of multicultural diversity and
create synergy of productive collective performance (Carey, et al., 2004).
Accentuation of sharing leadership. Goldsmith et al. (2003) described
sharing leadership as the ability to maximize all human resources in an organization
by empowering its employees. With the increases in business complexity due to
globalization, the responsibilities for individual leaders have become too great.
Sharing leadership allows for the creation of flatter organizational structures in which
power, authority, and decision making are more widely and deeply dispersed
(Goldsmith, et al., 2003). Engaging in team building efforts, fostering collaboration,

understanding individuals’ strengths and capabilities, and delegating decision-making
power are components of training leaders in sharing leadership.
Accentuation of encouraging constructive dialogue. Effective global leaders
encourage constructive dialogue from different sources and “appreciate and
understand the many different viewpoints and perspectives of his or her own culture as
well as the many cultures around the world” (Goldsmith, et al., 2003, p. 204). Millar
and Choi (2010) explained that today’s global, diverse, and cross-cultural setting
increases the complexity of communication with differences in cross-cultural
interpretations, informational constraints, and communication distortions.
A training and development program for global leaders with the goal to
improve encouraging constructive dialogue should emphasize the improvement of
abilities to accept different viewpoints and listen to feedback from different sources.
It may include face-to-face dialogues and feedback surveys from different sources
such as the leader’s managers, team members, customers, and colleagues (Goldsmith,
et al., 2003).
Accentuation of anticipating opportunities. A myriad of new social, political,
cultural, and environmental issues and trends in the external business environment
offer risks and opportunities for many organizations (Gitsham, 2008). Organizations’
leaders and managers are tasked with engaging and empowering their employees to
utilize the vast opportunities and deflect the immense threats of the global competitive
environment (Hitt, et al., 2010).
Goldsmith et al. (2003) suggested that global leaders should focus on (a)
investigating future trends, (b) anticipating future opportunities, (c) inspiring people to
focus on future opportunities, and (d) developing ideas to meet the needs of the new
environment. This includes constant pursuit of knowledge to identify future trends
and recognizing customer needs and changes in the industry and organization. A
training and development program to accentuate anticipating opportunities may need
to emphasize components guiding global leaders to conduct research and obtain
knowledge on critical market forces, industry related trends, competitors’ product and
service offering, and strategic planning. It should include tools to help global leaders
engage and involve employees in thinking strategically and seeking new opportunities
for the organization.
Accentuation of demonstrating integrity. Pusch (2009) argued that global
leaders maintain clarity and integrity in complex situations with different worldviews
and perspectives and when dealing with uncertainty and managing stressful
circumstances. Hernez-Broome and Hughes (2004) identified the increasing interest
in the integrity and character of leaders as important aspects in the future
understanding and practice of leadership and leadership development.
Global leaders need to be able to build trust and respect in order to motivate
and lead (Goldsmith, et al., 2003). Trust cannot be achieved without demonstrating
integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior. Global leaders need to understand their
personal values and beliefs, and integrate these with compatible organizational values
and business practices. A training and development program to accentuate
demonstrating integrity will start with the definition of high ethical standards,
followed by development of an organizational code of ethics, and implantation of
ways to communicate these principles to all stakeholders. It will also include

coaching on the codes of conduct and different business practices across global
markets.
Accentuation of creating a shared vision. Global leaders need to create a
clear and compelling vision to inspire others across geographic borders and
organizational boundaries, promote collaborative decision making, adapt to changing
global trends, and motivate and empower culturally diverse workforces (Carey, et al.,
2004; Goldsmith, et al., 2003). Osland and Gaines (2011) described global leadership
as “the process of influencing the thinking, attitudes and behaviors of a global
community to work together synergistically toward a common vision and common
goals” (p. 3).
A training and development program to accentuate creating a shared vision
begins with the development of the organization’s mission, setting priorities, and
implementing the critical strategy of aligning the vision among the organization’s
employees, customers, and other stakeholders. Sharing the vision will include the
utilization of various communication tools, such as the Internet, blogs, and video
conferencing. These will allow global leaders to become capable and comfortable in
communicating a shared vision to a multitude of stakeholders.
Recruiting talent and succession planning. Globally operating organizations
face unique challenges across world markets given the differences in cultures,
languages, laws, economies, and business customs (Bellin & Pham, 2007). Human
Resources personnel are tasked with providing global organizations with needed
talent. The need for global leaders who can navigate these worldwide marketplaces is
imperative (Patterson, et al., 2007). The close association between servant and global
leadership, as presented by the findings of this study, may allow Human Resources
personnel to evaluate candidates for global leadership positions on certain servant
leadership attitudes as these relate to potential success in a global leadership role.
Likewise, Human Resources personnel may be interested in evaluating servant leaders
on particular global leadership attributes when assigned to roles in a complex global
environment. Human Resources personnel need to determined whether current
processes and approaches to leadership development are sufficient to build the
required leadership qualities and skills and which learning methods need to be utilized
(Gitsham, 2008). Gitsham (2008) advocated for current and aspiring leaders to
identify their current strengths and ask themselves which qualities and skills they
should prioritize as these may apply to their future work and career.
Implications for Future Research
More research is required to analyze the strength of the correlative relationship
between servant leadership and global leadership in different regions of the United
States and globally to confirm the findings of this study. Confirming these finding
will allow organizations to develop servant leadership and global leadership training
programs and enhance recruitment efforts for servant and global leaders.
This research study was based on an exploratory research design (Creswell,
2008) to examine the extent to which servant leadership and global leadership scores
and their individual attributes co-vary. Post hoc statistical analyses identified primary
contributors to the leadership scores and potential regressors to the individual
leadership attributes, but further research is required to analyze predictor variables and
related causality.
Further research is required to validate Goldsmith et al.’s (2003) global
leadership instrument for future research in the field of global leadership. In addition,
organizations could benefits from research that would extend this cross-sectional
research design to a longitudinal study.
Organizations may benefit from further research into applied global leadership
and servant leadership attributes. Future research is required to develop, provide, and
apply various leadership training and development processes on particular attributes.
The training and developing of leaders on servant leadership attributes and examining
the differences in gained global leadership capabilities may find strong application in
globally operating organizations. It will support the continuous needs for developing
effective global leaders.
Conclusions and Summary
The business world is becoming increasingly global and the cultures of the
world are becoming more interconnected (House, 2004). Global leaders face an
environment, that is “increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous, culturally
diverse, intricately intertwined, and advancing technologically at breakneck speed”
(Hoppe, 2007, p. 21). Successful global leaders will cross geographic and cultural
boundaries to inspire a shared vision, promote collaborative decision making, adapt to
changing global trends, and motivate and empower culturally diverse workforces
(Carey, et al., 2004).
This research study answered Irvin’s (2010a) call for “the great need and
opportunity for future research” (p. 129) to advance the understanding and practice of
servant leadership within the global context. It followed Patterson et al.’s (2007)
encouragement for more research to examine the relationship between servant
leadership and global leadership.
The research employed a correlational, hypothetical-deductive, cross-sectional
quantitative research strategy with two instruments to measure servant leadership and
global leadership attributes. The sample included 413 leaders and executives of
organizations in northeast Indiana in the United States.
The first hypothesis confirmed a close association between servant leadership
and global leadership. The second hypothesis confirmed the close association
between a majority of servant leadership attributes and global leadership attributes.
The third hypothesis found that the strength of correlative relationships between the
two leadership constructs was dependent on the leader’s leadership position and
leader’s gender. Post hoc analysis revealed differences in servant leadership by
leader’s gender, as well as type and size of organizations the leader was employed at.
Differences in global leadership were found in leaders when moderated by size of
organization and the number of countries the organization does business with, but not
the proportion of products or services an organization sells to foreign countries. The
findings indicated differences in global leadership associated with leader’s age and
level of education but more research is required to confirm.
The findings of this study advance the understanding of the attributional
relationship between servant leadership and global leadership. These findings may
assist organizations in the training, development, and recruitment of leaders to succeed
in the complex global competitive environment and overcome the challenge of
globalization.
The findings of this study may help mitigate the need for further clarification
and refinement of the servant leadership construct as a best fitting model of leadership
to the unprecedented challenges of today’s leaders (Sendjaya, 2010). In an era of
globalization with increased cultural diversification within and surrounding
organizations in the global market place, servant leadership, with its emphasis on
service and follower-orientation, has the potential of meeting today’s unique
leadership needs (Irving, 2010b).

References
Abbott, M. L. (2011). Understanding educational statistics using Microsoft Excel and
SPSS. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Adams, J., Khan, H., Raeside, R., & White, D. (2007). Research methods for graduate
business and social science students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2007). International dimensions of organizational
behavior (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Ahn, M. J., Adamson, J. S. A., & Dornbusch, D. (2004). From leaders to leadership:
Managing change. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4),
112-123.
Alas, R., Tafel, K., & Tuulik, K. (2007). Leadership style during transition in society:
Case of Estonia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 5(1), 50-60.
Albescu, F., Pugna, I., & Parachiv, D. (2009). Cross-cultural knowledge management.
Informatica Economica, 13(4), 39-52.
Alon, I., & Higgins, J. M. (2005). Global leadership success through emotional and
cultural intelligence. Business Horizons, 48, 501-512.
Andersen, J. A. (2009). When a servant-leader comes knocking . . . Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 4-15.
Anderson, A. R. (2009). Servant-leader development in an adult accellerated degree
completion program: A mixed-methods study. Unpublished Dissertation,
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Anderson, K. R. (2006). An exploration of the barriers which impede the effective
implementation of servant leadership in Latin American evangelical

organizations: A grounded theory study. Unpublished Dissertation, Barry
University, Miami, FL.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007).
Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and
decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and
Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Schollart, E., & Choragwicka, B. (2010). Response rates in
organizational science, 1995-2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for
survey researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 335-349.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2002). Becoming a servant leader: Do you have
what it takes? (Vol. G1481). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct
clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3),
300-326.
Barrett, D. J. (2010). Leadership communication (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. Theory, research, and
managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Beaver, T. L. (2007). Servant leadership in religious congregations: The effect on
donations. Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion,
IN.
Bech, M., & Kristensen, M. B. (2009). Differential response rates in postal and web-
based surveys in older respondents. Survey Research Methods, 3, 1-6.

Beck, C. D. (2010). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed method study.
Unpublished Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Beechler, S., & Javidan, M. (2007). Leading with a global mindset. In M. Javidan, R.
M. Steers & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Advances in international management: The
global mindset (pp. 131-170). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
Beekun, R. I., & Badawi, J. A. (1999). Leadership: An Islamic perspective. Beltsville,
MD: Amana Publications.
Bekker, C. J. (2010). A modest history of the concept of service as leadership in four
religious traditions In D. Van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant
leadership: Developments in theory and research (pp. 55-66). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bellin, J. B., & Pham, C. T. (2007). Global expansion: Balancing a uniform
performance culture with local conditions. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 44-
50.
Bennett, J. M. (2009). Transformative training. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.),
Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp. 95-110).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2003). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An
integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis (Ed.),
Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 147-165). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Bhawuk, D. P. S., Landis, D., & Munusamy, V. P. (2009). Understanding the basics of
culture. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural

competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations (pp.
7-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning,
knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
13(6), 595-618.
Bikson, T. K., Treverton, G. F., Moini, J., & Lindstrom, G. (2003). New challenges for
international leadership: Lessons from organizations with global missions.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Bird, A. (2008). Assessing global leadership competencies. In M. E. Mendenhall, J. S.
Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou & M. L. Maznevski (Eds.), Global leadership:
Research, practice, and development (pp. 64-80). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bird, A., & Osland, J. S. (2004). Global competencies: An introduction. In H. W.
Lane, M. L. Maznevski, M. E. Mendenhall & J. McNett (Eds.), The handbook
of global management: A guide to managing complexity (pp. 57-80). Oxford,
United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model
of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives.
Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 291-317.
Black, J. S., Morrison, A. J., & Gregersen, H. B. (1999). Global explorers: The next
generation of leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2005). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest
leadership role model of all time. Nashhville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Bonaccorrsi, A. (1992). On the relationship between firm size and export intensity.
Journal of International Business Studies, 4th Quarter, 605-635.
Bonferroni, C. E. (1936). Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita
[Statistical theory of classification and calculation of probabilities].
Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali
di Firenze, 8, 3-62.
Bradshaw, M. A. (2007). Organizational leadership and its relationship to outcomes
in residential treatment. Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana Wesleyan
University, Marion, IN.
Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & Macnab, B. (2006). Cultural intelligence: Understanding
behaviors that serve people's goals. Group Organization Management, 31(40),
40-55.
Buchen, I. H. (1998). Servant leadership: A model for future faculty and future
institutions. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 128-131.
Bücker, J., & Poutsma, E. (2010). How to assess global management competencies:
An investigation of existing instruments. Management Review, 21(3), 263-291.
Bueno, C. M., & Tubbs, S. L. (2004). Identifying global leadership competencies: An
exploratory study. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,
5(1/2), 80-87.
Bugenhagen, M. J. (2006). Antedents of transactional, transformational, and servant
leadership: A constructive-development theory approach. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Caligiuri, P. (2006). Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management
Review, 16, 219-228.
Carey, C. E., Newman, P. M., & McDonough, L. M. (2004). Global leadership
capabilities: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Performance Improvement, 43(8),
13-18.
Cateora, P. R., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2011). International marketing (15th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Chambliss, D., & Schutt, R. (2010). Making sense of the social world (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Chatterjee, S. R. (2009). Managerial ethos of the Indian tradition: Relevance of a
wisdom model. Journal of Indian Business Research, 1(2/3), 136-152.
Chen, K. C.-C. (2002). An exploratory case study of servant leadership in Taiwan
Mennonite Churches. Unpublished Dissertation, Ashbury Theological
Seminary, Wilmore, KY.
Chen, Y.-C., Wang, W. C., & Chu, Y. C. (2011). Infiltration of the multicultural
awareness: Multinational enterprise strategy management. International
Journal of Business and Management, 6(2), 72-82.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice.
Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 1-20.
Chu, H.-W. (2008). Employee perception of servant leadership and job satisfaction in
a call center: A correlational study. Unpublished Dissertation, University of
Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

CNNMoney. (2011). 100 best companies to work for. Retrieved October 7, 2011,
from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2011/full_list/
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others
don't (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishing.
Contee-Borders, K. A. (2003). A case study defining servant leadership in the
workplace. Unpublished Dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Covey, S. R. (2002). Foreword In R. K. Greenleaf (Ed.), Servant Leadership: A
journey into the nature of legitimate power & greatness. New York, NY:
Paulist Press.
Creff, K. (2004). Exploring Ubuntu and the African renaissance: A conceptional
study of servant leadership from an African perspective. Paper presented at the
Servant Leadership Rountable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Cruse, S. (2009). In search of the global mindset: Predicting when a global context
will affect leader confidence and judgment. Unpublished Dissertation, Hofstra
University, New York, NY.
D'Agostino, R., & Stephens, M. A. (1986). Goodness of fit techniques. New York,
NY: Marcel Dekker.

Daubert, S. J. (2007). Exploring the relationship of motivation and environmental
attitudes to servant leadership. Unpublished Dissertation, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
De La Garza Carranza, M. T., & Egri, C. P. (2010). Managerial cultural intelligence
and small business in Canada. Management Revue, 21(3), 353-371.
De Pree, M. (1992). Leadership Jazz (1st ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday.
Dennis, R. S. (2004). Servant leadership theory: Development of the servant
leadership assessment intrument. Unpublished Dissertation, Regent
University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership
assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
26(7/8), 600-615.
Dillman, S. W. (2003). Leadership in the land of Oz: Cross-cultural study of servant
leadership in Australia. Unpublished Dissertation, Regent University, Virginia
Beach, VA.
Dimitrova, M. (2008). An empirical test of servant leadership theory in Bulgarian
context. Unpublished Dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Dittmar, J. K. (2006). An interview with Larry Spears. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 13(1), 108-118.
Earley, P. C. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations:
Moving forward with cultural intelligence. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 24, 271-299.

Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural
intelligence as a s new approach to intercultural training for the global
manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 100-115.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2006). CEO briefing: Corporate priorities for 2006 and
beyond. New York, NY: The Economist.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of
unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personal Psychology, 57(1), 61-
94.
Eicher-Gatt, D. (2005). The myth of servant-leadership: A feministic perspective.
Woman & Language, 28(1), 17-25.
Elliott, A. C., & Woodward, W. A. (2007). Statistical Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Encombe, J. (2008). Equipping leaders for the 21st century. Strategic HR Review,
7(5), 23-27.
Eyre, S. D. (2011). Moses: Calling and Character. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press.
Farling, M., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the
stage for empirical research. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 51-72.
Fridell, M., Belcher, R. N., & Messner, P. E. (2009). Discriminate analysis gender
public school principal servant leadership differences. Leadership &
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. On MITOpenSource. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Sloan School of Business.

Friedman, T. (2006). The world is flat (Updated and expanded): A brief history of the
twenty-first century (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14,
693-727.
Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. A. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the
United States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 251-266.
Gabel, R. S., Dolan, S. L., & Cerdin, J. L. (2005). Emotional intelligence as predictor
of cultural adjustment for success in global assignments. Career Development
International, 10(5), 375-396.
Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (2009). The effective management of cultural diversity.
In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural
competence (pp. 35-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gatignon, H., & Kimberly, J. R. (2004). Globalization and its challenges. In H.
Gatignon & J. R. Kimberly (Eds.), INSEAD-Wharton alliance on
globalization: Strategies for building successful global businesses (pp. 1-22).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Business Press.
Gentry, W. A., Weber, T. J., & Sadri, G. (2010). Empathy in the workplace: A tool for
effective leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center of Creative Leadership.
Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). Organizational change and
characterisitics of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 16(1), 38-47.

Gitsham, M. (2008, December 4-5). Developing the global leader of tomorrow. Paper
presented at the 1st Global Forum for Responsible Management Education,
New York, NY.
Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C. L., Robertson, A., & Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global
leadership: The next generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam
Dell.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & MvKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the
power of emotional leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral
Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as a leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1972). The institution as a leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf
Center.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). The servant as nurturer of the human spirit. In A. T. Fraker &
L. C. Spears (Eds.), Seeker and servant: Reflections on religious leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership (25th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY:
Paulist Press.
Gregory, I. (2003). Ethics in research. London, Uited Kingdom: Continuum.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan. (2002). Cultivating a global mindset. Academy of
Management Executive, 16(1), 116-126.
Haahr, M. (2011). True random number service. Retrieved November 17, 2011, from
http://www.random.org/sequences/
Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A
study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417.
Hamilton, F. (2008). Servant leadership. In A. Marturano & J. Gosling (Eds.),
Leadership: The key concepts (pp. 146-150). London, United Kingdom:
Routledge.
Hamilton, F., & Bean, C. J. (2005). The importance of context, beliefs and values in
leadership development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 336-347.
Hammer, M. R. (2005). The Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory: A conceptual
framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 675-695.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural
sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421-443.
Han, Y., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kakabadse, A. (2010). Servant leadership in the
People's Republic of China: A case study of the public sector. Journal of
Management Development, 29(3), 265-281.
Hannay, M. (2009). The cross-cultural leader: The application of servant leadership
theory in the international context. Journal of International Business and
Cultural Studies, 1, 1-12.

Hayden, R. W. (2011). Greenleaf's "best test" of servant leadership: A multi-level
analysis. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Hays, J. M. (2008). Teacher as servant - Application of Greenleaf's servant leadership
in higher education. The Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 113-134.
Hays, W. L. (1963). Statistics. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present,
and future. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 24-33.
Hess, K., & Bandyopadhyay, J. (2010). Future global leadership and gender issues:
An exploration. Competition Forum, 8(2), 183-190.
Hesse, H. (1956). Journey to the east. New York, NY: Amereon House.
Hill, C. W. L. (2007). International business: Competing in the global marketplace
(6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2010). Strategic management:
Competitiveness and globalization: Concepts (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-
Western Cengage Learning.
Hitt, M. A., Javidan, M., & Steers, R. M. (2007). The global mindset: An introduction.
In M. Javidan, R. M. Steers & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Advances in international
management: The global mindset (pp. 1-10). Oxford, United Kingdom:
Elsevier.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related
values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive, 7(1),
81-94.
Hopen, D. (2010). The changing role and practices of successful leaders. Journal for
Quality and Participation, 33(1), 4-9.
Hoppe, M. H. (2007). Adult development theory may boost global leadershp.
Leadership in Action, 27(3), 21-22.
Hopper, P. (2007). Understanding cultural globalization. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
House, R. J. (2004). Introduction. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 26 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo
vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.
House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J.
Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership,
and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 9-28). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Cengage Wadsworth.
Howell, R. T., Rodzon, K. S., Kurai, M., & Sanchez, A. H. (2010). A validation of
well-being and happiness surveys for administration via the internet. Behavior
Research Methods, 42(3), 775-784.
Huckebee, M. J. (2008). The well-being of servant leaders: A mixed methods study of
career success among the underserved. Unpublished Dissertation, University
of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2006). Leadership: Enhancing the
lessons of experience (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hunter, J. C. (1998). The servant: A simple story about the essence of leadership.
Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing.
Hunter, J. C. (2004). The world's most powerful leadership principle: How to become
a servant leader. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Hyatt, L., Evans, L. A., & Haque, M. M. (2009). Leading across cultures: Designing a
learning agenda for global praxis. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary
leadership and intercultural competence (pp. 111-124). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
IBM. (2012). IBM SPSS - the market leader for predictive analytics. Retrieved
February 1, 2012, from http://www-
01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/products/statistics/whats-new.html
Irving, J. A. (2005). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams. Unpublished
Dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Irving, J. A. (2010a). Cross-cultural perspectives on servant leadership. In D. Van
Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership: Developments in
theory and research (pp. 118-129). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Irving, J. A. (2010b). Educating global leaders: Exploring intercultural competence in
leadership education. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies,
3, 1-14.
Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2006, August). Team effectiveness and six
essential servant leadership themes. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership
Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA.
Irving, J. A., & McIntosh, B. (2010). Investigating the value of and hindrances to
servant leadership in the Latin American context: Initial findings from
Peruvian leaders. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 1-16.
Ismail, A., Mohamed, H. A.-B., Sulaiman, A. Z., Mohamad, M. H., & Yusuf, M. H.
(2011). An empirical study of the relationship between transformational
leadership, empowerment and organizational commitment. Business and
Economics Research Journal, 2(1), 89-107.
Javidan, M. (2008, May 15-16). What is global mindset? Why it is important? Paper
presented at the Annual Roundtables of Contemporary Research & Practice,
Virginia, Beach, VA.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of
the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE.
Academy of Management Perspectives, February, 67-90.
Johnson, L. R. (2008). An exploratory study of servant leadership, emotional
intelligence, and job satisfaction among high-tech employees. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion. Journal
of European Industrial Training, 29(2/3), 199-216.
Jones, D. C. (2011). The role of servant leadership in establishing a participative
business culture focused on profitability, employee satisfaction, and

empowerment. Unpublished Dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis,
MN.
Joseph, E., & Winston, B. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Journal, 26(1), 6-22.
Jurse, M., & Korez Vide, R. (2010, May 26-29). Strategic thinking as a requisite
management tool for managing international marketing in turbulent times.
Paper presented at the An Enterprise Odyssey. International Conference
Proceedings, Zagreb, Croatia.
Kant, I. (1978). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view (Victor Lyle Dowdell
Translation, original work from 1798 ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Kapoor, B. (2011). Impact of globalization on human resource management. Journal
of International Management Studies, 6(1), 1-8.
Karp, T. (2004). Building foresight abilities in organizations: A future opportunity for
future studies. Futures Research Quarterly, 20(2), 5-30.
Katsikeas, C. S., Skarmeas, D., & Bello, D. C. (2009). Developing successful trust-
based international exchange relationships. Journal of International Business
Studies, 40, 132-155.
Keith, K. M. (2010). Foreword. In D. Van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant
leadership: Developments in theory and research (pp. x-xi). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2005). Global Executive Leadership Inventory. San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., Vrignaud, P., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2004). The Global
Leadership Life Inventory: Development and psychometric properties of a
360-degree feedback instrument. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15(3), 475-492.
Keys, D. T., & Wellins, R. S. (2008). DNA of a global leader. T + D, 62(3), 37-42.
Konyu-Fogel, G. (2011). Exploring the effect of global mindset on leadership
behavior: An empirical study of business leaders in global organizations.
Unpublished Dissertation, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI.
Koshal, J. N. O. (2005). Servant leadership theory: Application of the construct of
service in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. Unpublished
Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Best of Harvard Business
Review(December), 85-96.
Kozai Group. (2011). The global competency inventory (GCI). Retrieved August 13,
2011, from http://kozaigroup.com/inventories/the-global-competencies-
inventory-gci/
Kriger, M., & Seng, Y. (2005). Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory
of leadership based on the worldviews of five religions. Leadership Quarterly,
16(5), 771-806.
Kurth, K. (2003). Spirituality renewing ourselves at work: Finding meaning through
serving. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace
spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 447-460). New York, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Lajtha, A., & Carminati-Rabasse, A. (2008). One step ahead of 2011: A new horizon
for working women. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from
https://microsite.accenture.com/NonSecureSiteCollectionDocuments/By_Subje
ct/Strategy/PDF/IWDResearch_final.pdf
Lambert, Z. V., & Durand, R. M. (1975). Some precautions in using canonical
analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(November ), 468-475.
Lane, H. W., Maznevski, M. L., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2004). Globalization: Hercules
meets Buddha. In H. W. Lane, M. L. Maznevski, M. E. Mendenhall & J.
McNett (Eds.), The handbook of global management: A guide to managing
complexity (pp. 3-25). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant
Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) Instrument. Florida Atlantic
University, Boca Raton, FL.
Lauridsen, J., & Mur, J. (2006). Multicollinearity in cross-sectional regressions.
Journal of Geographical Systems, 8(4), 317-333.
Lee, Y.-s. (2011). Creating and managing global organizational teams. Journal of
Global Business Issues, 5(1), 73-77.
Leskiw, S.-L., & Singh, P. (2007). Leadership development: Learning from best
practices. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 444-464.
Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). What we talk about
when we talk about 'global mindset': Managerial cognition in multinational
corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 231-258.

Lewis, H. M. (2007). A Jewish view on leadership. Journal of Jewish Communal
Service, 82(3), 244-251.
Lichtenwalner, B. S. (2011). Fortune's best companies to work for with servant
leadership. Modern Servant Leader Retrieved October 7, 2011, from
http://modernservantleader.com/servant-leadership/fortunes-best-companies-
to-work-for-with-servant-leadership/
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:
Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment.
Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.
Lin, C., Tu, R., Chen, K. A., & Tu, P. (2007). The changing expectations of
consumers in cross-cultural service encounters. International Marketing
Review, 3(3), 27-35.
Looper, G., & McGee-Cooper, A. (2001). The essentials of servant-leadership:
Principles in practice. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.
Lorange, P. (2003). Global responsibility - Business education and business schools:
Roles in promoting a global perspective. Corporate Governance, 3(3), 216-
226.
Maak, T., & Pless, N., M. (2009). Business leaders as citizens of the world. Advancing
humanism on a global scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 537-550.
Manning, T. T. (2003). Leadership across cultures: Attachment style influences.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(3), 20-30.
Mannor, M. J. (2008). Top executives and global leadership: At the intersection of
cultural intelligence and strategic leadership theory. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne
(Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and
applications (pp. 91-106). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Marinho, R. (2005). Servant leadership in a changing culture: Reflection on the
Brazilian context. The International Journal of Leadership, 1(1), 115-122.
Matear, D. W. (2010). An examination of cognitive, cultural, and emotional
intelligences, and motivation in the development of global transformational
leadership styles. Unpublished Dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis,
MN.
Mazilu, M. (2010). Globalization, where? European Research Studies, 13(1), 189-200.
McCall, M. W. J., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002a). Developing global executives: The
lessons of international experience. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
McCall, M. W. J., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002b). Introduction: A world of possibilities.
Developing global executives: The lessons of international experience, pp. 1-
18.
McCann, J. T., & Holt, R. A. (2010). Servant and sustainable leadership: An analysis
in the manufacturing environment. International Journal of Management
Practice, 4(2), 142.
McCuddy, M. K., & Cavin, M. C. (2009). The demographic context of servant
leadership. Journal of the Academy of Business Economics, 9(2), 129-139.
McIntosh, T. A., & Irving, J. A. (2010). Evaluating the instrumento de contribución al
liderazgo de siervo (ICLS) for reliability in Latin America. Journal of Virtues
& Leadership, 1(1), 30-49.

Mendenhall, M. E. (2008). Leadership and the birth of global leadership. In M. E.
Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou & M. L. Maznevski (Eds.),
Global leadership: Research, practice, and development (pp. 1-17). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Mendenhall, M. E., & Osland, J. S. (2002, June 29). Mapping the terrain of the global
leadership construct. Paper presented at the Academy of International
Business, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Oddou, G. R., & Maznevski, M. L. (2008).
Preface. In M. E. Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou & M. L.
Maznevski (Eds.), Global leadership: Research, practice, and development
(pp. xi-xii). New York, NY: Routledge.
Miears, L. D. (2004). Servant leaderhip and job satisfaction: A correlational study in
Texas education agency region X public schools. Unpublished Dissertation,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Millar, C. C. J. M., & Choi, C. J. (2010). Development of knowledge resources: A
conceptual analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(5), 759-776.
Molnar, D. R. (2007). Serving the world: A cross-cultural study of national culture
dimensions and servant leadership. Unpublished Dissertation, Capella
University, Minneapolis, MN.
Moodian, M. A. (2009). Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2007). Managing cultural differences:
Global leadership strategies for the 21st century (8th ed.). Burlington:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2007). SPSS for
introductory statistics (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mumley, W. E. (2007). Cross-cultural understanding of power in servant leadership
theory: Comparing the concept of empowerment and its implications upon
servant leadership Theory as applied in South Africa and the United States.
Global Missiology English, 1(5), 1-10.
Nelson, L. (2003). An exploratory study of the application and acceptance of servant
leadership theory among black leaders in South Africa. Unpublished
Nemanich, L., & Dusya, V. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in
the context of an acquisition. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 19-33.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1996). Applied linear statistical models.
Boston, MA: CRC Press.
Ngunjiri, F. W. (2006). Tempered radicals and servant leaders: Portraits of spirited
leadership amongs African women leaders. Unpublished Dissertation,
Graduate College of Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, KY.
Ngunjiri, F. W. (2007, November 17). Motherhood deconstructed: African women
finding fulfillment in serving humanity. Paper presented at the NCA, Chicago,
IL.
Ngunjiri, F. W., Schumacher, L., & Bowman, K. (2009, November 11-14). Global
business leadership: The need for emotional and cultural intelligence. Paper
presented at the International Leadership Association Conference, Prague,
Czech Republic.
Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2004). A global mindset - A
prerequisite for successful internationalization? Canadian Journal of
Administrative Science, 21(1), 51-64.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Okafor-Dike, L. C. (2008). The effect of leadership on economic development: A case
study in Nigeria. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Phoenix, Phoenix,
AZ.
Osland, J. S. (2008). Overview of the global leadership literature. In M. E.
Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, B. Allan, G. R. Oddou & M. L. Maznevski (Eds.),
Global leadership research, practice, and development (pp. 34-63). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2006). Global leaders as experts. In W. Mobley & E.
Weldon (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 4, pp. 123-142). Stamford,
CT: JAI Press.
Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M. E., & Osland, A. (2006). Developing global
leadership capabilities and global mindset. In G. K. Stahl & I. Björkman

(Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management
(pp. 197-222). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Osland, J. S., & Gaines, J. (2011, February 21). Passport to global leadership. Paper
presented at the AIEA Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Ostrem, L. M. (2006). Servant leadership and work-related outcomes: A multilevel
model. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Page, D., & Wong, P. T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant
leadership. In S. B. Adjibolosoo (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course
of history and evelopment (pp. 69-110). Washington, DC: American University
Press.
Palthe, J. (2009). Global human resource management. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.),
Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp. 75-92). Thousand
Pathak, S. (2011). Managing cultural diversities in internationalization of business.
International Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems, 1(1), 1-
16.
Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Unpublished
Patterson, K., Dannhauser, Z., & Stone, A. G. (2007). From noble to global: The
attributes of global leadership. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership
Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA.
Patterson, K., Redmer, T. A., & Stone, A. G. (2003). Transformational leaders to
servant leaders versus level 4 leaders to level 5 leaders - The move from good
to great. Paper presented at the CBFA Annual Conference, Virginia Beach,
VA.
Pekerti, A. A., & Sendaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures:
Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(5), 754-780.
Pelletier, R. (2005). It's all about service: How to lead your people to care for your
customers (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Pinner, J. W. (2003). TQM practices and organizational culture: Japanese versus
American perspectives. Unpublished Dissertation, Regent University, Virginia
Beach, VA.
Plato. (1945). The republic of Plato (Francis MacDonald Cornford Translation ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pusch, M. D. (2009). The interculturally competent global leader. In D. K. Deardoff
(Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 66-84). Thousand
Quist, A. H. (2008). The cosmopolitan servant leader. Journal of Strategic Leadership,
1(1), 46-55.
Rarick, C. A., & Nickerson, I. (2008). Expanding managerial consciousness:
Leadership advice from the Bhagavad Gita. Paper presented at the Allied
Academies International Conference, Tunica, MS.
Rauch, K. E. (2007). Servant leadership and team effectiveness: A study of industrial
manufacturing correlation. Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana Wesleyan
University, Marion, IN.

Ravid, R. (2011). Practical statistics for educators. Plymouth, United Kingdom:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Reed, L. L., Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A new scale to measure
executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, and implication for
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 415-434.
Reilly, A. H., & Karounos, T. J. (2009). Exploring the link between emotional
intelligence and cross-cultural leadership effectiveness. Journal of
International Business and Cultural Studies, 1(February), 1-13.
Rhinesmith, S. H. (2003). Global leadership and global emotional intelligence. In M.
Goldsmith, V. Govindarajan, B. Kaye & A. A. Vicere (Eds.), The many facets
of leadership (pp. 215-228). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Prentice
Hall.
Robinson, D. A., & Harvey, M. (2008). Global leadership in a culturally diverse
world. Management Decision, 46(3), 466-480.
Rosen, R., Digh, P., Singer, M., & Phillips, C. (2000). Global literacies: Lessons on
business leadership and national cultures. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Rudd, J. E., & Lawson, D. R. (2007). Communicating in global business negotiations:
A geocentric approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:
Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 23(3/4), 145-157.
Salovey, P., & Pizarro, D. (2003). The value of emotional intelligence. In R. J.
Sternberg, J. Lautrey & L. T. I. (Eds.), Models of intelligence: International
Perspectives (pp. 263-278). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Sanches-Nunez, M. T., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., Montanes, J., & Latorre, J. M. (2008).
Does emotional intelligence depend on gender? The socialization of emotional
competencies in men and women and its implications. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 15(6), 455-474.
Sarayrah, Y. K. (2004). Servant leadership in the Bedouin-Arab culture. Global Virtue
Ethics Review, 5(3), 58-79.
Savage-Austin, A. R., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A
phenomenological study of practices, experiences, organizational
effectiveness, and barriers. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(1),
49-54.
Schleimer, S., & Riege, A. (2009). Knowledge transfer between globally dispersed
units at BMW. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 27-41.
Schneider, S. K., & George, W. M. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational
leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 32(1), 60-77.

Searle, T. P. (2011). A multilevel examination of proactive work behaviors: Contextual
and individual differences as antecedents. Unpublished Dissertation,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Searle, T. P., & Barbuto, J. E. (2011). Servant leadership, hope, and organizational
virtuousness: A framework exploring positive micro and macro behaviors and
performance impact. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1),
107-117.
Sendjaya, S. (2003). Development and validation of servant leadership behavior scale.
Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable Virginia
Beach, VA.
Sendjaya, S. (2010). Demistifying servant leadership. In D. Van Dierendonck & K.
Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research
(pp. 39-51). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2008). Defining and measuring servant
leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2),
402-426.
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and
application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 9(2), 57-64.
Senge, P. M. (2002). Afterword. In R. K. Greenleaf (Ed.), Servant leadership: A
journey into the nature of legitimate power & greatness (25th Anniversary
Edition ed., pp. 343-359). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Serrano, M. (2005). Servant leadership: A viable model for the Panamanian context?
Unpublished Dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Servant-Leader Associates. (2010). Exemplary companies. Retrieved November 8,
2010, from http://www.servant-leaderassociates.com/Servant-
Leader_Associates/Exemplary_Companies.html
Shih, T.-H. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-
analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249-271.
Sidani, Y. M., & Thornberry, J. (2009). The current Arab work ethic: Antecedents,
implications, and potential remedies. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 35-49.
Smith, C. (2005). The leadership theory of Robert K. Greenleaf, Management of
Information Organizations. Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.
Spears, L. C. (1995a). Introduction: Servant leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In L.
C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory
of servant leadership influenced today's top management thinkers (pp. 1-14).
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Spears, L. C. (1995b). Reflection on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of
servant leadership influenced today's top management thinkers. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Spears, L. C. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33.
Spears, L. C. (2002). Introduction: Tracing the past, present, and future of servant
leadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership:

Servant leadership for the 21st century (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons.
Spears, L. C. (2003). Introduction: Understanding the growing impact of servant-
leadership. In R. K. Greenleaf (Ed.), The servant-leader within: A
transformative path. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of
effective, caring leaders. Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25-30.
Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for
the 21st century. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence.
In D. K. Deardoff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp.
2-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. F. (2003). Transformational versus
servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Paper presented at the Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA.
SurveyMonkey. (2011). Some things are too good to keep to yourself. Retrieved
January 10, 2011, from http://www.surveymonkey.com/TakeATour.aspx
Suutari, V. (2002). Global leader development: An emerging research agenda. Career
Development International, 7(4), 218-233.
Tedlow, R. S., & Abdelal, R. (2004). Theodore Levitt's 'The Globalization of
Markets': An evaluation after two decades. In J. A. Quelch & R. Deshpande
(Eds.), The global market: Developing a strategy to manage across borders
(pp. 11-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, D. C., & Fitzsimmons, S. R. (2008). Cross-cultural skills and abilities: From
communication competence to cultural intelligence. In P. B. Smith, M. F.
Peterson & D. C. Thomas (Eds.), The handbook of cross-cultural management
research (pp. 201-217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thunderbird. (2011). Global Mindset Inventory. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from
http://www.thunderbird.edu/knowledge_network/ctrs_excellence/global_minds
et_leadership_institute/global_mindset_inventory.htm
Townsend, P., & Cairns, L. (2003). Developing the global manager using a capability
framework. Management Learning, 34(3), 313-327.
Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group Organization
Management, 31(20), 20-26.
Trompenaars, F., & Voerman, E. (2010). Servant leadership across cultures:
Harnessing the strength of the world's most powerful management philosophy.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tubbs, S. L., & Schulz, E. (2006). Exploring a taxonomy of global leadership
competencies and meta-competencies. Journal of American Academy of
Business, Cambridge, 8(2), 29-34.
Van Dierendonck, D., & Heeren, I. (2006). Toward a research model of servant
leadership. International Journal of Servant Leadership, 2(1), 147-164.
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey:
Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2010). Servant leadership: An introduction. In
D. Van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership: Developments
in theory and research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2009). Cultural intelligence: Measuring and scale
development. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and
intercultural competence (pp. 233-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Vidic, Z. (2007). Developing tomorrow's leaders: Examining relationships between
servant, transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant leadership and
emotional intelligence, motivation and leadership opportunities. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Waddell, J. T. (2009). Exploratory study of the relationship between servant
leadership attribution and the leader's emotional intelligence. Unpublished
Wallace, J. R. (2006). Servant leadership: A worldview perspective. Paper presented at
the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA.
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Leadership, individual
differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross cultural investigation. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 56, 212-230.
Wanasika, I. (2009). In search of global leadership. Journal of International Business
and Cultural Studies, 1, 2-16.

Washington, R., Sutton, C., & Feild, H. (2006). Individual differences in servant
leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 27(8), 700-716.
Washington, R. R. (2007). Empirical relationships among servant, transformational,
and transactional leadership: Similarities, differences and correlations with
job satisfaction and organizational comittment. Unpublished Dissertation,
Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Washington, R. R. (2008). Empirical relationships between theories of servant,
transformational, and transactional leadership. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 1-6.
Werhane, P. H. (2007). Women leaders in a globalized world. Journal of Business
Ethics, 74(4), 425-435.
Westfield, D. (2010). The effects of participation in community service through
intercollegiate athletics on servant leadership behaviors. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Whittington, J., Frank, B., May, R., Murray, B., & Goodwin, V. (2006). Servant
leadership in organizations: Scale development and validation. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Wicker. (1998). Seeking the soul of business. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on
leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 246-250).
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Winston, B. E., & Ryan, B. (2008). Servant leadership as a humane orientation: Using
the GLOBE study construct of human orientation to show servant leadership is

more global than Western. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2),
212-222.
Wong, P. T. P., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model
and the revised servant leadership profile. Paper presented at the Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA.
Yeung, A. K., & Ready, D. A. (1995). Developing leadership capabilities of global
corporations: A comparative study in eight nations. Human Resource
Management, 34(4), 529-547.
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Sattle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the corporate brain. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2004). Spiritual capital: Wealth we can live by. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Appendix A
Online Survey (16 Pages)
(Appendix continues)
Appendix B
Institutional Review Board Approval
INDIANATECH
Fort Wayne, Indiana
December 4, 2011
Dr. Ken Rauch and Erik Magner,
The IRB application of Erik Magner for the project titled “A Quantitative
Correlative Analysis: Attributional Relationship between Servant Leadership
and Global Leadership” has been approved (as submitted) by the
Institutional Review Board of Indiana Tech. This research project, as
submitted, is exempt from further human subjects review by the IRB
Committee of Indiana Tech. Please note the following limitations of this
approval for exempt status for this IRB application.
This approval of the IRB Committee of Indiana Tech extends only to the
research plan as outlined in this specific IRB. This approval extends only to
those aspects of this research project as presented in this specific IRB
application including issues related but not limited to selected subjects,
intervention procedures, risks and/or benefits to the subjects, confidentiality,
information provided to the subjects and related consent forms, issues of
privacy, and potential conflicts of interest. This approval does not extend 1) to
any exempt research interventions or activities not outlined within or beyond
the scope of this specific application, 2) nor to any non-exempt issues which
have not been presented in this specific IRB application, nor to non-exempt
issues which might develop during or as a result of this research project, nor to
any further research projects proposed by the investigator and/or co-
investigator of record for this IRB application.
If "substantive" changes are made to this research plan an amended

application needs to be submitted to the IRB Committee of the University.
Speaking for the IRB committee I thank you for submitting your Application to
the IRB Committee and wish you the best in your research project.
James B. Schaffer, PhD

Full Professor
IRB Committee, Indiana Tech
Chairperson
Appendix C
Random Sequence for GLFI Instrument Items
1. GL30 19. GL54 37. GL27 55. GL9

2. GL37 20. GL52 38. GL58 56. GL63
3. GL11 21. GL66 39. GL59 57. GL48
4. GL45 22. GL61 40. GL35 58. GL23
5. GL46 23. GL33 41. GL7 59. GL25
6. GL22 24. GL4 42. GL39 60. GL55
7. GL57 25. GL3 43. GL20 61. GL29
8. GL21 26. GL14 44. GL72 62. GL71
9. GL26 27. GL18 45. GL42 63. GL15
10. GL60 28. GL10 46. GL49 64. GL65
11. GL70 29. GL16 47. GL68 65. GL34
12. GL44 30. GL32 48. GL43 66. GL40
13. GL53 31. GL8 49. GL31 67. GL17
14. GL51 32. GL62 50. GL64 68. GL47
15. GL50 33. GL69 51. GL56 69. GL13
16. GL41 34. GL38 52. GL1 70. GL2
17. GL5 35. GL12 53. GL24 71. GL67
18. GL6 36. GL19 54. GL28 72. GL36

Servant Leadership and Global Leader

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Servant Leadership and Global Leader

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Servant Leadership and Global Leader

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP i

A Quantitative Correlative Analysis:

Attributional Relationship between Servant Leadership and Global Leadership

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty

Division of Ph.D. studies in Global Leadership

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Indiana Institute of Technology

April 15, 2012

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

©Copyright by Erik Magner

All Rights reserved

leadership and global leadership. The research employed a correlational, hypothetical-

deductive, cross-sectional quantitative research strategy with two established

instruments to measure servant leadership and global leadership attributes. The

sample included 413 leaders and executives of organizations in northeast Indiana in

organization. Differences in global leadership were found between leaders when

moderated by size of organization and number of countries the organization does

To the two strongest women in my life, my mother and my wife Betsy.

assistance, support, and encouragement of many individuals.

submitting the leadership survey to their members.

My deepest appreciation goes to my family, my wife Betsy and our children

encouragement, this would not have been possible.

would describe or explain it until Dr. Rauch introduced me to servant leadership.

Baker’s personal and professional leadership exemplifies the qualities and

perseverance of a global and a servant leader.

Holy Spirit for transforming my life and guiding me on my journey.

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2 - Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Impact of Globalization on Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chapter 3 - Method of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Servant Leadership Instrument: Barbuto and Wheeler’s SLQ . . . . . . . . . . 78

Chapter 5 - Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Summary of the Research Problem and Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . 216

Appendix A: Online Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Figure 1.1. Scope of research study examining servant leadership and

Figure 2.1. Complete reversal of the old paradigm of leadership to a

Figure 2.2. Leadership as a process of interaction between the leader,

Figure 2.3. Expanded global leadership as a process involving the global

Figure 2.4. Servant leadership attributes and global leadership

Figure 2.5. Future objectives of servant leaders and Goldsmith et al.’s

Figure 3.1. Research design process and data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Figure 4.1. Distribution of composite SLQ scores of data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Figure 4.2. Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot of composite SLQ scores . . . . . . . . . 109

Figure 4.3. Distribution of composite GLFI scores of data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Figure 4.4. Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) Plot of composite GLFI Scores . . . . . . . . 120

Figure 4.5. Scatter plot matrix of composite SLQ and composite

Figure 4.6. Standardized beta weights of GLFI dimensions on

Figure 4.7. Standardized beta weights of SLQ subscales on individual

Figure 4.28. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by

Figure 4.32. Scatter plot of composite SLQ and GLFI scores by

Table 2.1 Primary Servant Leadership Theorists and Their Acknowledged

Table 2.2 Primary Global Leadership Theorists and Their Acknowledged

Table 2.3 Established Servant Leadership Instruments . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 2.4 Established Global Leadership Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Table 3.1 Barbuto and Wheeler’s SLQ Subscales and Definitions. . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 3.2 Goldsmith et al.’s GLFI Dimensions and Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . 82