Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
LEADERS AND SERVANTS: ANTONYMS OR SYNONYMS?
INVESTIGATING SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN LEBANESE SCHOOLS
1
Norma Ghamrawi and 2Khalil Al-Jammal
1&2
Faculty of Education, Lebanese University
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate servant leadership within a sample of private schools in
Beirut, Lebanon. For that purpose, 46 school principals and 276 teachers from 46 private schools in
Beirut participated in the study. An adapted version of the Leadership Skills Inventory (LSI) (Hunter,
2004) was employed to assess the shape of the servant leadership skills of school principals through
their own lens and through that of their teachers. Additionally, teachers and school principals
responded to an open-ended question pertaining to servant leadership. The quantitative data thus
collected was analyzed with the help of SPSS 21.0. Qualitative data generated through the openended question was analyzed using thematic analysis. Results indicate that some school principals
enjoyed attributes of servant leaders, despite the fact that the concept of servant leadership was
unknown to the majority of the participant sample. Few participants, however, suggested
explanations for the term, utilizing Christian and Islamic faith. Recommendations for practice and
future research are proposed.
Key Words: servant leadership- teacher satisfaction- school improvement- leadership development
Introduction
The words servant and leader have always been used as antonyms. Bringing those words together,
Robert Greenleaf gave birth to the paradoxical term servant-leadership (SL) (Spears, 1998). Servant
leaders lead their organizations with a special emphasis on followers, making them of prime concern
to them (Patterson, 2003). They are characterized with ‗servant hearts‘ that make them show care and
concern for others and sacrifice their time and efforts to build and develop their sub-ordinates
(Waterman, 2011); as they view the capacity-building of their followers as ends in themselves and
not only means to ends (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008). For this reason, servant
leadership has been considered to be value-laden, fostering the spirit of servant hood among
individuals beyond their organizations and hence impacting communities at large (Liden et al., 2008).
Thus servant leadership implies leading with a strong sense of moral purpose; a notion highly valued
by Fullan ( 2003) who states that: ―One of the great strengths one needs, especially in troubled times,
is a strong sense of moral purpose‖ (p. 19).
Page | 207
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
The literature of leadership is loaded with accentuates pertaining to its key role in the establishment
of any success within organizations (Douglas & Fredendall, 2004; Gupta, et al., 2005; Moreno,
Morales, & Montes, 2005; Politis, 2003; Ghamrawi & Al-Jammal, 2013). Servant leadership has be
underscored additionally because of the research finding that suggest that followers tend to respond
well to servant leaders because they view them trustworthy individuals (Pekerti and Sendjaya, 2010).
Servant leaders have been viewed in the literature as being influential in a non-traditional manner,
allowing them to motivate followers to act as risk-takers and hence contribute to organizational
growth (Russel & Stone, 2002). In addition, servant-led organization has been recognized by
Hamilton (2008) to possess the following characteristics: (1) mission and value focus; (2) creativity
and innovation; (3) responsiveness and flexibility; (4) commitment to both internal and external
service; (5) respect for employees; employee loyalty; and (6) celebration of diversity. Likewise,
Spears (1998) identified ten characteristics of servant-leadership: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3)
healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight, (8) stewardship, (9)
commitment to the growth of others, and (10) building community.
However, despite the fact that servant leadership has been related to successful leadership practices
and organizational development according to the literature cited above, the body of research
internationally is still very small (Crippen, 2005). This study aims at investigating servant leadership
within the Lebanese context. It aims to contribute to the body of the existing international literature
and at the same time providing stakeholders, policy-makers and practitioners within the Lebanese
context with data-based information about the investigated concept.
Purpose of the Study
Positive school culture has been considered by Deal and Peterson (2009) as premises for school
improvement. The realization of such cultures and their nourishment has been attributed primarily to
school leaders (Hebert, 2006). This could be established by creating a shared vision within the school
(Deal & Peterson, 2009; Salazar, 2008). Besides, they are people-oriented who build effective
relationships in their environments utilizing strong communication skills (Boreen, Johnson, Niday, &
Potts, 2009; Catano, Richard and Stronge , 2008). By doing so, school leaders act out as
transformational leaders (2007) characterized with high-morale followers (Guerrero & Rowe, 2011;
Yukl, 2009).
Transformational leadership entails four major aspects including: (1) individualized consideration or
the ability to act as a mentor or coach; (2) intellectual stimulation or the leader‘s ability to be a
creative risk-taker; (3) inspirational motivation or leaders with strong purpose; and (4) idealized
influence or a leader who provides role models for high ethical behaviors (Bass & Bass, 2008). As
such, servant leadership is an extension of transformational leadership, focusing in the first place on
serving followers (Frick & Sipe, 2009) and making sure that their most pertinent needs are served
(Blanchard, 2010).
The purpose of this study was to investigate servant leadership within a sample of private schools in
Beirut, Lebanon. As this concept was never approached in any earlier study within the Lebanese
context, plural empathetic understanding of the concept was the target.
Page | 208
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study was guided with the following research questions:
1. What percentage of a selected sample of private school principals in Beirut, exhibit qualities
of servant leadership?
2. How do school principals and teachers within private schools in Beirut conceptualize servant
leadership?
Importance of the Study
The advancement of schools has been attributed to school leadership according to the literature
(Kowalski, 2010). One leadership model recognized in the literature is servant leadership through
which school leaders ―distance [themselves] from using power, influence and position to serve self,
and instead gravitating to a position where these instruments are used to empower, enable and
encourage those who are within one‘s circle of influence‖ (Rude, 2003 in Nwogu, 2004, p.2). Servant
leaders invest in trusting relationships within their contexts and focus on followers before focusing on
organizational objectives (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2004).They believe that by doing so, the latter
is guaranteed as a bi-product (Stone et al., 2004).
As stated earlier, the body of research related to servant-leadership in educational organizations is
small (Crippen, 2005).The literature of servant leadership springs mainly from the business sector
(Autry, 2001; Block, 1993; Bennis & Goldsmith, 1997; De Pree, 1992; Pinchot, 1998; Senge, 1990;
and Sturnick,1998). Recently, some dissertation research went beyond the theoretical development of
the model focusing empirically on servant leadership. Examples include the works of Patterson
(2003), Bryant (2003), Nelson (2003), and Smith (2003) and others. In addition, studies have been
criticized for lack of support from "published, well designed, empirical research" (Northouse, 1997,
p.245) and its reliance on examples that are mostly "anecdotal in nature" (Northouse, 1997, p. 245).
This study addresses the notion of servant leadership empirically and aims at contributing to the
building up of its literature. Moreover, as this concept has never been addressed earlier within the
Lebanese educational context; this study introduces it via robust and data-based information. It is of
great benefit to stakeholders, policy-makers and practitioners within the Lebanese context who are
interested in school improvement matters.
Review of Literature
Servant Leadership
Leadership requires the provision of support to subordinates to realize and expand their potential
(Liden et. al., 2000). Servant leadership is a leadership model that provides sustenance for employees
to develop their potentials in the areas of task effectiveness, community stewardship, self-motivation,
and future leadership capabilities (Liden et.al., 2008). It positions prominence on the holistic
development of followers including, strong follower-centric, altruistic, moral/ethical, and spiritual
Page | 209
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
values (Smith et al., 2004); utilizing relational power that facilitates post-conventional moral
reasoning and spiritual considerations in others (Pekerti and Sendjaya, 2010).
Characteristics of Effective Servant Leaders
Based on the works of several authors, effective servant leaders enjoy some common characteristics:
(1) They are equipped with the ability to see when new things are not working and when new things are
required; (2) They stay ahead of the game. They are able to foresee issues before they arise with
customers, society, and the world; (3) They have a set of attributes that both male and female share; (4)
They have a strong sense of purpose that they articulate clearly to all stakeholders; (5) They are caring and
are trustworthy individuals; (5) They are communicative and trustful; (6) They are reflective practitioners;
(7) They continually seek feedback from the stakeholders who they serve; (8) They create a vision with
meaning that actively involves stakeholders and reward those who meet the criterion of the vision; (9)
They are abreast technology; (9) They can lead small and large organizations; (10) They make federations
of organizations who combine the best traits of large and small organizations (Greenleaf 1997; Lawrence
& Spears, 2002; Frick & Sipe, 2009; Prosser, 2010; French, Rayner, Rees, & Rumbles, 2011; Laine,
Lasagna, & Behrstock-Sherratt, 2011).
Spears (2012) identified ten hierarchal characteristics of servant-leadership: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3)
healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight, (8) stewardship, (9)
commitment to the growth of others, and (10) building community.
6
Persuasion
Listening
1
Characteristics
7
Conceptualization
Empathy
2
of Effective
8
9
10
Commitment to growth
of Others
Stewardship
Building Community
Healing
3
Servant Leaders
Awareness
Foresight
4
5
Figure (1): Characteristics of Effective Servant Leaders (Spears, 2012)
In other words, servant leaders act out as effective listeners, be able to put themselves in the shoes of
those to whom they listen to, and provide the support needed to heal them. Throughout that, servant
leaders remain aware of their direction and do not lose track of it. Because of their inner direction,
they enjoy the ability to see things others may not be able to see. They convince their followers
without practicing coercion on them. In addition, they can dream big and portray those dreams to
their followers. Besides, they show strong commitment to the professional growth of their followers
Page | 210
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
not as means to ends but rather as ends. They are accountable and share control. Finally, based on all
the previous features, servant leaders succeed in bringing sustainable changes within their
communities that embrace trust and commitment to collaboration and growth.
Servant Leadership and Teachers‟ Satisfaction
Effective leadership is central feature of operative schools (Al-Jammal & Ghamrawi, 2013;
Ghamrawi, 2010; 2011). It has been considered as a significant predictor of teacher satisfaction and a
guarantee of teacher retention (Ghamrawi & Al-Jammal, 2013; Tickle, 2008). It can also warrant
teacher commitment to schools (Behrstock-Sherratt et al., 2011). Unfortunately, traditional schooling
has put emphasis on management rather than on leadership (Senge, 2005; Al-Jammal & Ghamrawi,
2013). Leadership that inaugurates trust in subordinates constitutes the fulcrum for upgrading their
effectiveness (Ghamrawi, 2011).
Given the above, then servant leadership is of great value for schools as its premise is the
establishment of trusting relationships in staff (Ferch & Spears, 2011; Kiang & Lian, 2011; Giacalone
& Jurkiewicz, 2010; Sergiovanni, 2006). In reality, servant leaders have been recognized as ones who
are able to provide continuous improvement in the organization (Brumley, 2012). It paves the way
towards opportunistic approaches to fulfilling teachers‘ expectations (Tey, 2006) and ensures highest
levels of trust in schools (Patterson, et al., 2004).
In other words, servant leaders are viewed as figures that are able to create positive school cultures
(Autry, 2004), which possess the potential to act as robust foundations for teacher satisfaction and
retention (Lawrence & Spears, 2002; Hunter, 2004).
Methodology
The Sample and the Research Instrument
Quantitative surveying was employed for the purpose of this study. An adapted version of Hunter‘s
(2004) Leadership Skills inventory (LSI), containing an open-ended question, was administered to 46
private schools in Beirut, Lebanon. In each school one survey was directed to the school principal and
the same questionnaire was directed to their teachers. The teacher questionnaires were administered
to two teachers from each level within the participating schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary).
All participant school principals bear an administrative experience that exceeded 10 years. Teachers
participating in the study shared a commonality relating to teaching experience and certification. In
fact, participating teachers were certified with a Teaching Diploma (TD) or its equivalence and had a
teaching experience that exceeded 5 years. As such the sample consisted of 46 private school
principals 276 teachers.
Hunter‘s (2004) adapted LSI version was completed by school principals; whereby they rated their
personal servant leadership skills using a Likert-scale, with anchors that included: strongly agree,
agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. According to Hunter (2004), if the school principal scores 3.4 4.0, then principal‘s leadership is in excellent shape; in good shape, 3.0 - 3.3; 2.5 - 2.9 indicates there
is a potential problem area; and 0.0 - 2.4 indicates an urgent problem area. This same questionnaire
Page | 211
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
was also completed by teachers who validated or disproved information collected from school
principals about their own servant leadership attributes.
The open-ended question included: How do you explain the term: Servant leadership? and was
included in the principals‘ and teachers‘ versions of the LSI.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using SPSS 21.0 for windows. Descriptive statistics were used to describe and
summarize the properties of the mass of data collected from the respondents. Means scores, standard
deviations and percentages were calculated per each item of the survey instrument.
Results and Analysis
Research Question 1: What percentage of a selected sample of private school principals in Beirut,
exhibit qualities of servant leadership?
Table 1 enlists survey items of Hunter (2004) as completed by school principals, along with the mean
scores obtained per each item and the corresponding standard deviation. Table 2 enlists the results of
data obtained from the same questionnaire completed by teachers as they describe servant leadership
attributes of their school principals.
Table 1. Servant Leadership Attributes of School Principals through their Own Lens
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Statement
I give appreciation to others.
I engage students/parents with problems/situations as they arise.
I stay close to students and/or teacher activities
I give encouragement to others
I make clear to students/teachers what is expected
I am a good listener
I coach/counsel my students/teachers to ensure compliance
I treat people with respect
I am actively involved in the development of students/teachers
I hold students/teachers accountable for set standards
I give the credit to those who deserve it.
I show patience and self-control with others
I am a leader students/teachers feel confident to follow
I have the technical skills necessary to do the job
I meet the legitimate needs (as opposed to wants) of others
I am able to forgive mistakes and not hold grudges
I am someone students/teachers can trust.
I do not engage in backstabbing others
I give positive feedback to students/teachers
I do not embarrass/punish students/teachers publically
I set high goals for self/teachers/students
I have a positive attitude on the job
I am sensitive to the implications of my decisions on others
I am a fair and consistent leader and lead by example.
I am not an over controlling or over domineering person
Mean Score
SD
3.00
2.56
2.41
2.92
2.74
2.87
2.00
2.42
2.30
2.18
2.63
2.66
2.63
2.05
2.97
2.54
2.15
2.26
2.55
2.58
2.17
2.94
2.26
2.47
2.66
.778
1.076
.911
.563
1.169
1.284
.841
.713
.870
.672
1.228
.934
1.228
.770
1.068
1.158
.657
.645
.539
.606
.766
1.179
.676
.594
1.007
Page | 212
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
Table 2. Servant Leadership Attributes of School Principals through the Lens of their Teachers
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Statement
The School Principal…..
gives appreciation to others.
engages students/parents with problems/situations as they arise.
stays close to students and/or teacher activities
gives encouragement to others
makes clear to students/teachers what is expected
is a good listener
coaches/counsels students/teachers to ensure compliance
treats people with respect
is actively involved in the development of students/teachers
holds students/teachers accountable for set standards
gives the credit to those who deserve it.
shows patience and self-control with others
is a leader students/teachers feel confident to follow
has the technical skills necessary to do the job
meets the legitimate needs (as opposed to wants) of others
is able to forgive mistakes and not hold grudges
is someone students/teachers can trust.
does not engage in backstabbing others
gives positive feedback to students/teachers
does not embarrass/punish students/teachers publically
sets high goals for self/teachers/students
has a positive attitude on the job
is sensitive to the implications of my decisions on others
is a fair and consistent leader and leads by example.
is not an over controlling or over domineering person
Mean Score
SD
1.89
1.98
2.66
2.12
2.02
1.93
1.50
2.01
2.05
2.01
2.11
2.06
2.12
1.65
2.21
2.14
3.00
2.01
2.10
1.58
2.01
2.01
2.20
2.41
2.36
.178
.076
.411
.263
.169
.284
.541
.113
.270
.272
.218
.214
.018
.170
.018
.058
.157
.045
.219
.026
.226
.179
.236
.504
.017
Both principals and teachers gave a relatively positive image about school principals‘ servant
leadership attributes. However, the image portrayed by school principals was more exaggerated than
that offered by their teachers. Table 3 provides a comparison.
Table 3. Comparison of Mean Scores Obtained from Teachers‘ and Principals‘ Surveys
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Statement
The School Principal…..
gives appreciation to others.
engages students/parents with problems/situations as they arise.
stays close to students and/or teacher activities
gives encouragement to others
makes clear to students/teachers what is expected
is a good listener
coaches/counsels students/teachers to ensure compliance
treats people with respect
is actively involved in the development of students/teachers
holds students/teachers accountable for set standards
gives the credit to those who deserve it.
shows patience and self-control with others
is a leader students/teachers feel confident to follow
has the technical skills necessary to do the job
meets the legitimate needs (as opposed to wants) of others
is able to forgive mistakes and not hold grudges
is someone students/teachers can trust.
does not engage in backstabbing others
gives positive feedback to students/teachers
does not embarrass/punish students/teachers publically
Mean Score
Teachers‘ Lens
1.89
1.98
2.66
2.12
2.02
1.93
1.50
2.01
2.05
2.01
2.11
2.06
2.12
1.65
2.21
2.14
3.00
2.01
2.10
1.58
Mean Score
Principals‘ Lens
3.00
2.56
2.41
2.92
2.74
2.87
2.00
2.42
2.30
2.18
2.63
2.66
2.63
2.05
2.97
2.54
2.15
2.26
2.55
2.58
Page | 213
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
21
22
23
24
25
sets high goals for self/teachers/students
has a positive attitude on the job
is sensitive to the implications of my decisions on others
is a fair and consistent leader and leads by example.
is not an over controlling or over domineering person
Average
2.01
2.01
2.20
2.41
2.36
2.08
52.00%
2.17
2.94
2.26
2.47
2.66
2.61
65.25%
Both school principals and teachers manifested that school principals scored on average more than
50% on Hunter‘s (2004) servant leadership scale. The overall mean score obtained from teachers was
2.08 (52%) compared to 2.61 (65.25%) obtained from principals. Principals gave higher scores for
themselves than the ones provided by their teachers about them except for 2 items: items 3 and 17.
Teachers were more confident than principals that the latter were involved in activities of students
and that they were well trusted by their teachers.
Research Question 2: How do school principals and teachers within private schools in Beirut
conceptualize servant leadership?
Data collected through the open-ended question was used to respond to this research question.
Principals‟ Responses
Responses of principals were classified as falling into the right domain of definition of servant
leadership versus incorrect explanations of the concept. Results are presented in figure 1.
As figure 1 shows, 41% of principals‘ responses fell into the correct category, whereby school
principals considered the term to be related to serving teachers (7.2 %), supporting the school
community (6.5%), caring for the school community (4.2%), respecting students and their families
(4.2%), respecting teachers (4.2%), sacrificing for the sake of others (2.1%), equality (2.1%), trusting
people in school (2.1%), prioritizing others (2.1%), adopting a value-oriented leadership (2.1%),
modelling integrity with staff (2.1%) and distributing leadership.
On the other hand, incorrect responses (37.4%) included: dealing with teachers as servants (17.4%),
all acting out as servants to students (11.6%), and all serving the leader (8.4%). Finally, 21.6% of
principals did not give any answer to this question.
Page | 214
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
Equality in
schools
Sacrificing for
others and make
them grow
2.1 %
Serving teachers
2.1 %
7.2%
Supporting
school
community
6.5%
Trusting people
2.1%
Priority to others
Value-oriented
principals
Servant
Leadership
2.1 %
2.1 %
Caring for school
community
Respecting
teachers
4.2 %
Integrity in
dealing with staff
4.2%
Respecting
students and
families
4.2%
2.1 %
Distributing
leadership
2.1 %
No Answer
21.6%
Dealing with
teachers as
servants
17.4 %
All should serve
the Leader
All should serve
students
8.4%
11.6 %
Figure 1. School Principals‘ Explanations of the Concept of Servant Leadership
Teachers‟ Responses
Again the responses of teachers were classified as falling into the right domain of definition of
servant leadership versus incorrect explanations of the concept. Results are presented in figure 2.
As figure 2 shows, 36.6% of teachers‘ responses fell into the correct category, whereby teachers
considered the term to be related to serving the benefit of the school (7.2 %), serving school
community (6.3%), demonstrating ethical leadership by principals (6.3%), serving students (4.2%),
serving teachers (2.1%), trusting teachers (2.1%), shared leadership (2.1%), democratic leadership
(2.1%), embracing values (2.1%), and respecting teachers (2.1%).
Page | 215
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
On the other hand, incorrect responses (55%) included: dealing with teachers as servants (17.4%),
and leaders serving their own benefit (16.8%). Finally, 8.4% of teachers did not give any answer to
this question.
Ethical
Leadership
Leaders should
serve teachers
6.3%
2.1 %
Leaders should
serve students
Trusting
Teachers
4.2%
2.1%
Serving the
school
community
6.3%
Servant
Leadership
Exhibition of
humane skills
Respecting
teachers
2.1%
Emphasis on
Values
2.1%
Serving the
benefit of the
school
7.2%
Democratic
leadership
2.1 %
2.1 %
No Answer
8.4%
Dealing with
teachers as
servants
17.4 %
Leaders serving
their own benefit
16.8%
Figure 2. Teachers‘ Explanations of the Concept of Servant Leadership
Interestingly, teachers and school principals whose answers fell into the correct domain of definition
gave along with their answers justifications relating to Christian and Islamic faith.
Following are some of the justifications that emanated from the Christian faith:
….as Jesus said: “I have come to give my life for many”
…Faith is serving the feet of Jesus by serving others
…Jesus serves us when we serve others
Page | 216
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
… “For even the son of Man did not come to be served , but to serve and to give life a bansom
for many”
…”Here I am among you as one who serves”
… Jesus said serve one another
…Jesus said “If anyone wants to be the greatest among you, they should serve others”
On the same page, following are some of the justifications that emanated from the Islamic faith faith:
… Prophet Mohammad PBUH said that the one who leads is the one who serves the community
…servant leadership is the prophetic way of leading muslims
…Prophet Mohammad Sirah PBUH is all about the leader serving his followers
… as Prophet Mohammad PBUH said that those who serve others are the ones who deserve to lead
them
…Prophet Mohamamd said no one deserves to be a leader of a „Kawm‟(community) until he serves
them
Profiling Servant Leadership based on Participants‟ Responses
Based on the responses of teachers and principals on the open-ended question of the questionnaire in
which they attempted to illustrate the concept of servant leadership, the following profile can built.
Ethics and values
Distributed Leadership
Humane Skills
Respecting
Trusting
Serving the community
Servant Leadership
Benefiting the School
Figure 3. Conceptualizing a Profile of Servant Leadership Using Participants‘ Responses
Comparing the model of servant leadership thus generated with Spear‘s (2012) model discussed
earlier shows that respondents did hit several of the descriptors provided. However, the ideas that
were not mentioned did not include extensions of terms that could in one way or another be set under
the umbrella some of Spear‘s terms. For example, humane skills and ethical leadership could be
further illustrated and hence could come to match empathy, listening, persuasion, and many others.
Page | 217
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
Summary and Conclusion
This study attempted to investigate servant leadership within the Lebanese context. It aimed at
distinguishing the degree school principals within a sample of private schools in Beirut, Lebanon;
enjoyed the attributes of servant leaders. Besides, a model of servant leadership was built utilizing
explanations of respondents of the term servant leadership. Results have shown that though principals
bear magnified self-images as servant leaders as compared to the image provided about them by their
teachers; it can be claimed that those principals seem to be encompassing at least half of those skills
attributed to servant leaders according to the literature. This in itself is a promising starting point as it
entails that the suitable ground is there and its cultivation is needed.
In fact, when school principals embrace servant leadership many improvements in schools are
suggested according to the literature. ― Teachers begin to believe in themselves and work to provide
them [students] with the best education possible‖ (MacNeil & Yelvington, 2012, p. 1). Servant
leadership allows prinipals to be more productive and move the organization milestones (Lawrence &
Spears, 2002; Prosser, 2007). Successful servant leaders foster collaboration in schools (Lawrence &
Spears, 2002; Prosser, 2007) and possess the capability to foresee critical issues before they arise
(Lawrence & Spears, 2002; Prosser, 2007). Finally, servant leadership has been considered as a vital
tool for motivating teachers and retains them (Saiyadain, 2009). All the previous benefits should raise
the temptation of stakeholders and policy makers to work towards the cultivation of servant
leadership in schools, especially that the ground seems to be ready for it.
Finally, respondents showed an appreciable awareness of the concept of servant leadership. They
approximated to a moderate degree Spear‘s (2012) descriptors of servant leadership attributes. The
attribution of servant leadership to benefitting others, students, teachers, and the school community
fairly dominated responses. In fact, ―working to benefit others is the core idea of servant leadership‖
(Baron, 2010, p. 87). This, once more, entails that the stage is set for servant leadership
establishment; and then serious steps should be taken towards the nourishment of leaders‘ knowledge,
skills and competencies of servant leadership.
Recommendations
This study suggests that school principals involved in the study exhibited some attributes that
characterize servant leaders according to the literature; and that schools involved seem to have a basic
understanding what servant leadership is. Based on this, it is suggested that policy-makers and stake
holders take advantage of this fact and work towards the nourishment of this concept through training
and policies that frame its importance. This being the case, it will be increasingly important to clarify
exactly what servant leadership is and how it works. It is more than a leadership style, it‘s not only
part of religious beliefs. Servant leadership is about promoting growth of every individual which
leads to organizational growth.
Future research should utilize larger and more representing samples of the Lebanese context. In fact,
only one governorate of Lebanon was addressed and only the private sector was investigated. It
Page | 218
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
would be useful to involve schools from other Lebanese governorates and to design a study that
involves public schools.
Qualitative research methodologies could be an asset for future research as it would provide plural
empathetic understanding of the concept and how it could support school improvement initiatives.
Finally, the relationships between servant leadership and concepts relating to school improvement
need to be addressed. Findings could serve as driving forces to encourage policy makers and stake
holders to adopt this promising concept and work towards its nourishment.
References
1. Al-Jammal, K., & Ghamrawi, N. (2013). Leadership versus management: Between selfconcept and actual practice of Lebanese school principals. International Journal of
Educational Research and Technology. International Journal of Educational Research and
Technology, vol.4 (3), pp. 56-72.
2. Anderson, J. (2006). Servant leadership in public schools: A case study. (Published doctoral
dissertation). University of Missouri.
3. Autry, J. A. (2004). The servant leader. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press
4. Baron, T. (2010). The art of servant leadership: Designing your organization for the sake of
others. Tucson, AZ: Wheatmark.
5. Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research &
managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
6. Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high
performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
7. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2011). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (4th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Borden, M., & Nandram, S. (2010). Spirituality & business: Exploring possibilities for a new
management paradigm. New York, NY: Springer.
9. Boreen, J., Johnson, M., Niday, D., & Potts, J. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers:
Guiding, reflecting, and coaching. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
10. Brown, F., & Hunter, R. (2006). No child left behind and other federal programs for urban
school districts. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
11. Brumley, C. (2012). Leadership standards for action: The school principal as servant leader.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12. Bryant, S. R. (2003). ―Servant Leadership and Public Managers.‖ Dissertation Abstracts
International, UMI No. 3082716.
13. Catano, N., Richard, H., & Stronge, J. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
14. Crippen, C. (2005). Servant-leadership as an effective model for educational leadership and
management: first to serve, then to lead. Management in Education, 18(5), 11-16.
15. Culver, M. (2009). Applying servant leadership in today‟s schools. Larchmont, NY: Eyeon
Education.
16. Deal, K., & Peterson, T. (2009). The shaping school culture field book. San Francisco CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Page | 219
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
17. Dierendorick, D., & Patterson, K. (2010). Servant leadership developments in theory
&research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Fairholm, G. (2011). Real leadership: How spiritual values give leadership meaning. Santa
Barbara, CA: Greenwood.
19. Ferch, S., & Spears, L. (2011). The spirit of servant-leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
20. Frick, D., & Sipe, J. (2009). Seven pillars of servant leadership: Practicing the wisdom of
leading by serving. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
21. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, California:
Corwin Press, 3-47, 70-71.
22. Hunter, J. C. (2004). The world‟s most powerful leadership principle: How to become a
servant leader. New York, NY: Water Brook Press.
23. Ghamrawi, N. (2011-May). Trust me your school can be better: A message from teachers to
principals. British Educational Leadership Management & Administration Journal (EMAL),
vol. 39, no. 3, p. 333-348, London: Sage.
24. Ghamrawi, N. and Al-Jammal, K. (2013). Teacher turnover: Impact of school leadership and
other factors. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, vol.4 (1), pp.
312-326.
25. Giacalone, R., & Jurkiewicz, C. (2010). Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
26. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
27. Guerrero, L., & Rowe, W. (2011). Cases in leadership (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
28. Gut, D., & Wan, G. (2011). Bringing schools into the 21st century. New York, NY: Springer
29. Kiang, S., & Lian, L. (2011). Developing servant leaders in secondary schools for leadership
positions in the workforce. Retrieved from http://hkage.org.hk/en/index.html.
30. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it & why people
demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31. Kowalski, T. (2010). The school principal: Visionary leadership and competent management.
New York, NY: Routledge.
32. Kraemer, H. (2011). From values to action: The four principles of values-based leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33. Lawrence, M., & Spears, L. (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st
century. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
34. Lester, P. E. (1984). Development of an instrument to measure teacher job satisfaction.
Doctoral dissertation, New York University, NY.
35. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H. & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:
Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership
Quarterly 19, 161–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
36. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2011). Missouri School
Improvement Program. Fourth cycle information for school districts. Retrieved from
http://dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/c4039141.html
37. Nelson, L. (2003). ―An Exploratory Study of the Application and Acceptance of Servant
leadership Theory Among Black Leaders in South Africa.‖ Dissertation Abstracts
International, UMI No. 3082716.
Page | 220
Asia Pacific Journal of Research
Vol: I Issue XIV, February 2014
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
38. Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nwogu, O. (2004). The Role of Follower Self-esteem, Emotional Intelligence and Attributions
on Organizational Effectiveness.
39. http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_rou
ndtable/2004pdf/nwogu_servant_leadership.pdf
40. Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Doctoral dissertation,
Regent University (UMI No. 3082719).
41. Patterson, K., Russell, R., & Stone, A. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A
difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 4.
42. Pekerti, A. A. & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures:
comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 21, No. 5, 754–780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585191003658920
43. Prosser, S. (2010). Effective people: Leadership and organization development in healthcare
(2nd ed.). Oxon, United Kingdom: Radcliffe Publishing.
44. Rude, W. 2003. ―Paradoxical Leadership—The Impact of Servant-leadership on Burnout of
Staff.‖http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadershi
p_roundtable/2003pdf/rude_paradoxical_leadership.pdf
45. Russell, R. F., and A. G. Stone. 2002. ―A Review of Servant Leadership Attributes:
Developing a Practical Model.‖ Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3/4):
145-158.
46. Sergiovanni, T. (2006). Rethinking leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
47. Smith, P. R. (2003). ―Creating the ‗new IRS‘: A Servant-led Transformation.‖
DissertationAbstracts International, UMI No. 3090432.
48. Spears, L. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and servant
leadership.New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
49. Spears, L. (2004). Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and
forgiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50. Spears, L. (2005). School of leadership studies. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable,
3.Spears, L. (2012). 10 principles of servant leadership. Retrieved from
www.hillconsultinggroup.org
51. Tey, B. (2006). Dare to be a servant leader: An interview with Larry Spears. The International
Journal of Servant Leadership, 2(1), 45-54.
52. Waterman, H. (2011). Principles of servant leadership and how they can enhance practice.
Nursing management, Volume 17, Number 9
53. Wheeler, D. (2012). Servant leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
54. Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Page | 221