THE INFLUENCE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEE

ENGAGEMENT: A QUALITATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF

RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES

by

Danon R. Carter

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

March 2012
 UMI Number: 3570203

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 3570203
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). 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
 © 2012 by Danon Carter
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 ABSTRACT

Servant leadership is one leadership philosophy, which addresses the concerns of ethics,

customer experience, and employee engagement while creating a unique organizational

culture where both leaders and followers unite to reach organizational goals without

positional or authoritative power. With employees viewed as one of the greatest assets

for organizations, maintaining loyal, productive employees while balancing profits

becomes a challenge for leaders, and drives the need to understand employee engagement

drivers. The experiences of 11 employees and two managers from Celebration

Restaurant in Dallas, Texas explored the qualitative phenomenological study of servant

leadership and its influence on employee engagement. The modified van Kaam method

contributed to data analysis, which examined manager and employee responses for

comparison and assessment. The themes that emerged from interviews and focus groups

found were:

1. Servant Leader Experience;

2. Why People Stay at Celebration;

3. Servant Leader Traits;

4. Impact of Servant Leadership;

5. Application of Servant Leadership.

The themes revealed servant leadership positively influences employee engagement

while contributing to employee loyalty to the workplace. Based on the servant leader

experience, participants were more committed, built healthy work relationships, and

actively participated in achieving organizational goals.

 v

DEDICATION

My dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Janice Renee Culberson, who is

amongst the “pioneers who blazed the way, all [the] veterans cheering [me] on” from

Heaven (Hebrews 12:1, MSG). To my favorite (and only) son, Zaire Alprentice, who

sacrificed time with me, while encouraging me to accomplish this feat. I can only pray I

have encouraged you to do more than you think you can, stay committed and focused on

the prize, and never give up. To “My Grammie,” I could not have done this without your

prayers and support. I love you all! Miss you Mommie!!!

 vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, Thank you Heavenly Father for Your Holy Spirit and Your

Son, Jesus. Through this journey, I have lived Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things

through Christ who gives me strength.” I never could have made it without You, Lord!

A big thank you to my mentor, Dr. Parham, and my committee Dr. Hakim and Dr.

Howard-Hamilton. Your motivation and encouragement kept me focused throughout the

most challenging process I have ever faced. Thank you for your patience, dedication,

diligence, and guidance. I appreciate each of you. And Dr. Howard-Hamilton, I will

always remember the “set-up” and how God brought us together. Thank you! Thank

you! Thank you!

To my son, Zaire, my brothers, Kenyan and Leon, sister, Cuqui, aunts, uncles,

cousins, and grandparents… thank you for your encouragement and support. To my

sisters in Christ, Patrice, Sherri, and Zelda – your prayers and support helped me to go on

when I thought I couldn’t. Thank you! My good friends, Alicia, Nikki, and Anthony – I

have felt your prayers over the miles. Thank you. And to my Covenant Church family

and my Life Team, “Women Trusting in God” – you are God’s gift to me. Thank you! I

am eternally appreciative of each of you and every contribution you have made to get me

here!
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................13

Background ............................................................................................................ 15

Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................... 19

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 20

Significance of the Problem................................................................................... 22

Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 22

Significance of the Study to Leadership ....................................................... 23

Nature of the Study ................................................................................................ 24

Overview of the Research Method ................................................................ 24

Overview of the Design Appropriateness ..................................................... 25

Research Questions ................................................................................................ 26

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 26

Definition of Terms ................................................................................................ 32

Assumptions............................................................................................................ 33

Scope and Limitations ........................................................................................... 35

Delimitations ........................................................................................................... 37

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 37

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................39

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals ............................ 39

Literature Review .................................................................................................. 40

Historical Overview ........................................................................................ 40

 viii

Leadership ....................................................................................................... 42

Servant Leadership ......................................................................................... 44

Characteristics of Servant Leadership .............................................................. 46

Additional Characteristics of Servant-Leaders ................................................. 51

Research Organization and Servant Leadership ............................................... 54

Employee Engagement .......................................................................................... 54

Key Drivers of Employee Engagement ............................................................ 59

Measurements of Employee Engagement ........................................................ 63

Employee Engagement and Leadership............................................................ 64

Servant Leadership and Employee Engagement .............................................. 66

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 67

CHAPTER 3: METHOD ......................................................................................... 69

Research Method and Design Appropriateness .................................................. 69

Research Questions ................................................................................................ 72

Population ............................................................................................................... 72

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

Informed Consent ........................................................................................... 74

Confidentiality................................................................................................. 75

Geographic Location ...................................................................................... 75

Pilot Study............................................................................................................... 76

Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 76

Validity and Reliability.......................................................................................... 80

Epochè .............................................................................................................. 81
 ix

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 83

Data Triangulation................................................................................................. 83

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 84

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ..........................................................................................86

Pilot Study............................................................................................................... 87

Demographics ......................................................................................................... 89

Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................... 90

Data Analysis Procedures...................................................................................... 90

Findings................................................................................................................... 91

Research Journal Notes .................................................................................. 91

Manager Responses versus Participant Responses ..................................... 92

Interview Summary Responses by Question .................................................... 95

Focus Group Responses .................................................................................. 103

Themes .................................................................................................................. 116

Theme One: Servant Leadership Experience ................................................. 117

Theme Two: Why People Stay at Celebration ............................................... 122

Theme Three: Servant Leader Traits .............................................................. 125

Theme Four: Impact of Servant Leadership ................................................... 126

Theme Five: Application of Servant Leadership ............................................ 131

Data Triangulation............................................................................................... 134

Chapter Summary ............................................................................................... 136

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................137

Findings................................................................................................................. 139
 x

Manager Responses versus Participant Responses ......................................... 139

Interview Responses ....................................................................................... 140

Focus Group Responses .................................................................................. 142

Themes .................................................................................................................. 143

Theme One: Servant Leadership Experience ................................................. 144

Theme Two: Why People Stay with Celebration ........................................... 146

Theme Three: Servant Leadership Traits ....................................................... 147

Theme Four: Impact of Servant Leadership ................................................... 147

Theme Five: Application of Servant Leadership ............................................ 148

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ................................................... 149

Servant Leadership Foundation and Leaders .................................................. 149

Honest Perceptions and True Experience ....................................................... 150

Limitations ...................................................................................................... 150

Summary of Findings .......................................................................................... 152

Implications and Significance of the Findings .............................................. 154

Recommendations for Leadership...................................................................... 155

Suggestions for Further Research ...................................................................... 157

Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................. 158

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................161

APPENDIX A: LEADERSHIP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................214

APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS ....................................................217

APPENDIX C: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO STUDY ..............................220

APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER - INTERVIEW .....................222

 xi

APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER – FOCUS GROUPS .............225

APPENDIX F: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE .........................................228

APPENDIX G: PERMISSION FORM ...................................................................230

APPENDIX H: NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT ..........................................232

APPENDIX I: REVISED LEADERSHIP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS................235

APPENDIX J: REVISED FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS....................................237

 xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Demographics ............................................................................................. 89

Table 2 Focus Group Responses on Servant Leader Qualities …………….........112

Table 3 Theme One, Servant Leader Characteristics ............................................ 118

Table 4 Theme Three – Impact of Servant Leadership .......................................... 123

Table 5 Theme Four – Servant Leader Traits........................................................ 126

Table 6 Theme Five – Reasons Why Participants Stay with Celebration ............. 128
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Servant leadership is a philosophy coined by Greenleaf in 1970. The leadership

philosophy is steadily gaining attention from scholars and practitioners based on the

unique approach of leading through serving. What is most noteworthy is 50 percent of

the top 10 companies in “100 Best Companies to Work For” have implemented servant

leadership as a foundational organizational guiding philosophy, including the number one

company on the list (Arkin, 2009; CNN Money, 2011; Lichtenwalner, 2011). The trend

is driven by the growing need for “leaders [who are] not motivated by self-interest and

the pursuit of power” (Arkin, 2009, p. 27). Followers also seek leaders who invest in

personal relationships with his or her followers in an effort to build loyalty, trust,

commitment, and growth (Antelo, Prilipko, & Sheridan-Pereira, 2010; Rofcanin &

Mehtap, 2010). Committed followers contribute to organizational success and typically

have longer tenure with individual companies (Wefald & Downey, 2009).

Greenleaf (1998, 2002) proposed servant leadership begins with a heart that

seeks to minister to the needs of others, and through this service, people follow. Servant

leaders focus on how to help their followers achieve established organizational goals.

These leaders differ from other leaders through a focus on the development and growth of

others as a first priority versus a result or need to attain other goals. Servant leaders are

both authentic and ethical and enhance followership through unique leadership

characteristics (Autry, 2001; Greenleaf, 1998). The focus often connects emotionally to

followers, which is also one characteristic of employee engagement (Furness, 2008;

Hemsley, 2007; Loehr & Groppel, 2004). Employee engagement describes employees

who display a passion for their work and organization, which reflects in commitment and
 14

contribution to organizational success (Ayers, 2008). Engaged employees are involved,

provide better customer service, and protect the company through ethical and focused

input.

Servant leadership is one leadership philosophy, which addresses the concerns of

ethics, customer experience, and employee engagement while creating a unique

organizational culture where both leaders and followers unite to reach organizational

goals without positional or authoritative power. Researchers proposed employee

engagement as a key link to organizational success (Ayers, 2008; Bryce 2009; Federman,

2009; Groppel & Loehr, 2004). Employee engagement has several drivers that either

increase or decrease engagement. With employees viewed as one of the greatest assets

for organizations, maintaining loyal, productive employees while balancing profits

becomes a challenge for leaders, further stressing the importance of the adoption of a

resilient and effective leadership philosophy. Servant leadership just may be that

philosophy. Through a phenomenological study, the research aims to explore servant

leadership from both a follower and leader perspective through personal examples in an

effort to gain an understanding of the influence of servant leadership on employee

engagement (Bloom, 2009; Garza, 2007; Lindseth & Norberg, 2004).

Chapter 1 provides an overview of a qualitative, phenomenological study on the

influence of servant leadership (SL) on employee engagement in a servant leader based

organization in Dallas, Texas, USA. Provided is background on servant leadership and

employee engagement with an outline of the nature and significance of the study as well

as its application to leadership. The chapter concludes with the foundational research
 15

questions, conceptual framework, and assumptions of the study as well as scope,

limitations, and delimitations.

Background

The concept of servant leadership was born out of Robert Greenleaf’s personal

experiences, which began in 1970 and expanded throughout his career. Since then,

scholars, practitioners, and leaders have sought to learn more about this leadership

philosophy to apply its principles while measuring the results. Greenleaf (1998) defined

servant leadership as leadership born from a heart of servitude. “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”

(Greenleaf, 1998, p. 27). The concept contradicts popular belief that leaders are typically

those leading groups, not walking behind guiding or collaborating with employees.

Spears and Lawrence (2002) commented, “At its core, servant leadership is a

long-term transformational approach to life and work - in essence, a way of being - that

has the potential for creating positive change throughout our society” (p. 4). Researchers

have coined servant leadership as an oxymoron in that the two words seem to contradict

one another in the difficulty to conceive a servant who leads (Autry, 2001; Greenleaf,

2002; Spears & Lawrence, 2002). The premise alone distinguishes servant leadership

from other leadership philosophies. Servant leadership begins with a heart to serve and is

not necessarily a trained leadership but an internal transformation. Servant leaders are

not just leaders at work but are ones whose values carry over into their daily lives.

Organizational leaders who adopt this philosophy have done so when the characteristics

of SL have resonated with personal values and goals.

 16

Servant leadership connects loosely to various leadership philosophies and styles,

such as authentic, ethical, transformational, and even charismatic leadership.

Characteristics attributed to servant leadership are listening, empathy, healing, awareness,

persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment, and building

community (Blanchard & Hodges, 2003; Fisher, 2004; Greenleaf, 1998, 2002; Spears &

Lawrence, 2002). Of these characteristics, healing, stewardship, and empathy are unique

to servant leadership. Spears (2002) contended, “One of the great strengths of servant

leadership is its potential for healing oneself and others” (p. 5). This characteristic, in

addition to stewardship and empathy, connects with the emotional part of a person, which

is not common to other leadership styles.

The emotional connection of servant leadership relates to the theme of employee

engagement. The concept of employee engagement dates back to the 1990s with research

to help understand the relationship between an employee’s personal self and the

employee’s work (Kahn, 1990) with the latter possessing a direct correlation to an

employee’s level of engagement. Within the last 10 years, several articles have

attempted to understand what drives employee engagement and consequently what fuels

disengagement within the workplace. Studies show that organizations with high percent

of employee engagement experience less attrition, higher performance, increased profits,

and generally happier employees committed to the company (Lawson, 2008). The lack

of knowledge in how to increase employee engagement or how to understand the role

leadership plays can negatively influence an organization’s performance.

Engaged employees are less likely to leave an organization and typically perform

well above their disengaged peers in comparison (Gostick & Elton, 2007). Organizations
 17

with reports of high levels of engagement typically experience 71% lower turnover as

compared to other organizations in the same industry with low engagement (Federman,

2009). Loehr and Groppel (2004) confirmed based on approximately three decades of

experience, that engagement fuels talent, skills, and abilities of employees, whereas

disengagement stifles these same traits. Each organization has different triggers or

drivers that increase employee engagement (Lockwood, 2007). Each organization must

determine what drives employee engagement and the role of leadership, as this can affect

how an organization performs.

Taylor, Martin, Hutchinson, and Jinks (2007) suggested organizations require

forward thinking leaders to effect change within his or her organization. Many scholars

on servant leadership believe this leadership philosophy positively influences the

achievements and attitudes of employees (Blanchard, 2000; Taylor et al, 2007;

Whetstone, 2002), thus contributing to many influential factors of employee engagement.

According to Blanchard (2000), servant leaders “help [followers] become freer, more

autonomous, more capable, and more effective” (p. 4).Servant leadership places emphasis

on the follower’s success while maintaining focus on the overall organizational goals.

The focus breeds additional leaders within the organization, thus strengthening the

organization from the inside out (Anderson, 2005; Autry, 2001; Blanchard & Hodges,

2003; Greenleaf, 1998; Spears & Lawrence, 2002). Servant leadership has a prominent

place in our ever-changing economic and culturally diverse environment, while offering a

different approach to leadership.

Quantitative surveys measure servant leadership and employee engagement for

common or general characteristics with large group comparisons (Gable, Seung, Marker,
 18

Winiecki, 2010; Gallup, 2010; Laub, 1998; Nicholls, 2009). Responses obtained from

both leaders and followers through closed-ended questions provide a consensus of agreed

traits (Chu, 2008, Inbarasu, 2008; Johnson, 2008). The perspective not commonly

explored is how one describes servant leadership as a personal experience through open-

ended questions. Other questions explored through open-ended questions are in what

ways does servant leadership contribute to healing, commitment, engagement or feelings

of worth? In addition, how does servant leadership influence an employee’s overall

engagement level? How may servant leadership make a person more dedicated, loyal,

and committed? What characteristics of servant leadership create an emotional

attachment? How does servant leadership influence another person to serve? These and

other open-ended questions help provide insight into the how, why, and what of servant

leadership through participants with at least five years of experience in this type of

environment.

Through a phenomenological study, evaluation of employee experiences

determined the influence of servant leadership on employee engagement. A

phenomenological study helped explore how servant leadership transformed both leaders

and followers within the researched organization and the impact of servant leadership on

the personal lives of the participants (Garza, 2007; Finlay, 2009). Data analysis revealed

themes of learning experiences and servant leadership success. A desired outcome of the

research was to obtain rich detailed examples of servant leader application, which

provides insight into why some organizational leaders are adopting servant leadership

and possible organizational gain in employee engagement. The qualitative study can help
 19

organizations improve employee engagement through application and cultural

transformation of servant leadership.

Statement of the Problem

According to the National Restaurant Association (2012), the restaurant industry

accounts for about 4% of the United Stated gross domestic product, contributes $1.7

billion dollars a day and employs over approximately 12.9 million people. Restaurant

employees, particularly those who interact face-to-face with customers, directly influence

the service and satisfaction of customers. Chan and Wan (2012) stated, “Frontline

employees’ attitudes and behaviors significantly affect customers’ perceptions of the

service, so service firms must find ways to manage their employees effectively and

ensure that their attitudes and behaviors are conducive to the delivery of quality service

(p 119). Both the attitude and behavior of employees directly contribute to employees’

commitment to their organization (Sabir, Sohail, & Khan, 2011).

Researchers suggested employees’ commitment increases employee loyalty, trust,

and job security (Panayiotis, Pepper, & Philips, 2011; Sabir et al, 2011). Organizational

leaders are critical in establishing and creating cultures that increase the commitment

level of employees (Carlos & Filipe, 2011; Panayiotis, Pepper, & Philips, 2011; Sabir et

al, 2011). Servant leaders promote high employee commitment cultures through values

of integrity, trust, and honesty (Autry, 2001; Blanchard & Hodges, 2003; Greenleaf,

1998, 2002). Employees with an emotional connection to an organization typically

possess high levels of engagement and longer tenure (Robison, 2009). Servant leaders

connect to the emotions of a person through the nature of serving. The problem the

research aimed to explore is the experience of employees in a servant leader based

 20

company. Celebration Restaurant, a well-established servant-led organization, was

chosen for the study to determine how servant leadership contributes to the customer

service to customers and to the loyalty of employees. To fulfill the purpose, a qualitative

phenomenological study examined the influence of servant leadership on employee

engagement as experienced by employees in Celebration Restaurant.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the phenomenological study was to understand the engagement of

employees at a Dallas restaurant through their experience of servant leadership. The

central phenomenon in the study was the experience of employees employed by an

organization with servant leadership as a guiding philosophy. Servant leadership is

generally defined as “the skills of influencing people to enthusiastically work toward

goals identified as being for the common good, with character that inspires confidence”

(Hunter, 2004, p. 290). All leaders and employees within the chosen organization are

supplied material to read and discuss the principles of servant leadership on a regular

basis. The training process increases comprehension of the principles of servant

leadership as well as an understanding of the leadership philosophy. The chosen

participants had a minimum of five years’ experience working in the servant leader

environment within Celebration Restaurant. Understanding these lived experiences was

critical to employee engagement strategies and the leadership philosophies adopted

within organizations.

A qualitative method was appropriate for the study as this method relied on an

introspective view from employees familiar with the phenomena studied (Finlay, 2009).

The adopted perspective provided insight into the experiences of servant led employees
 21

and the corresponding contribution to engagement. Personal perspectives gained through

open-ended questions provided a broader understanding of how servant leadership

contributes to the engagement level of employees. Analysis of information obtained

from these participants provided meaning and understanding and resulted in a collection

of words and themes. To understand the servant leader experience of employees in the

study, a qualitative method provided the flexibility of obtaining data through both

observations and interviews.

A phenomenological design examined the shared experience of the selected

participants. Celebration Restaurant’s leadership adopted servant leadership as the

guiding philosophy for the organization. The organization markets itself as a servant

leader company and credits servant leadership as the reason for the organization’s

success. Employees within the organization are “partners” of the company versus

subordinates. Annually, the organization conducts surveys to gauge the effectiveness of

servant leadership of the leaders as well as within the organization. The surveys, used in

feedback sessions for the leaders, help make the necessary changes within the

organization to further promote and improve servant leadership. The surveys

administered are based on a rating scale with structured questions and do not allow

comments to be made.

Blanchard (2010) believed face-to-face interaction versus surveys alone provided

better insight specifically to servant leadership. Servant leadership is not limited to a

one-time event and is not necessarily a process or occurrence but is more of a way of life

and leading from the heart (Blanchard & Hodges, 2003). A phenomenological design

aided in accomplishing the purpose of the study through asking open-ended semi-
 22

structured questions about the lived-experience of these employees to understand how

they viewed the principles of servant leadership and if the view contributed to or negated

engagement levels.

A phenomenological design allowed the exploration of psychological concepts

such as shared experiences or feelings of confidence and inspiration as well as what

specific action encouraged these feelings (Ajjawi & Higgs, 2007). Focus groups

explored the different servant leader experiences of restaurant employees individually

and by department.

Significance of the Problem

Significance of the Study

The study contributes to current and future studies on both servant leadership and

to a smaller degree, employee engagement by obtaining a firsthand experience of

employees in the environment. The current research on employee engagement reveals its

link to productive and loyal employees actively invested in the success of their

organization (Esty & Gewirtz, 2008; Hemsley, 2007; Lockwood, 2007). Current research

also supports the importance of the role of leadership in driving performance and creating

an ethical work environment. Most research on employee engagement approaches from a

quantitative point of view with responses grouped and generalized (Anderson, 2005; Chu,

2008; Ghormley, 2009; Inbarasu, 2008; Johnson, 2008). Limited research on servant

leadership or employee engagement results from observations and lived experiences

(Mannelly, 2009; Stahl, 2008).

The leaders of Celebration Restaurant reviewed in the study practiced servant

leadership fifteen years. Annually, the leaders of the organization monitor and assess the
 23

effectiveness of servant leadership through surveys and feedback sessions. The survey

used measures specifically servant leadership although some questions relate to employee

engagement. Results from the last three years showed the principles of servant leadership

as understood and identified by the “partners” with the organization and leadership

receiving high marks from “partner” ratings. Through triangulation, the study revealed

connections between servant leadership and employee engagement as gained from the

existing surveys and through the research focus groups and interviews, which contribute

to the success of Celebration Restaurant. The results are not limited to only the study

organization but can apply to similar organizations that practice servant leadership as an

operating foundation or those considering a different leadership approach. The study

design provided personal employee experiences of servant leadership while allowing

leaders of organizations to examine further the applicability of servant leadership to

driving employee engagement.

Significance of the Study to Leadership

The study adds to leadership knowledge and literature by providing firsthand

information of employees in a servant leader environment. Current literature typically

takes the practitioner and scholar point of view and not necessarily from participants’

point of view. Information gathered provided further insight into the effectiveness of

servant leadership and additional data on the motivating traits of servant leadership.

Assessment instruments derived and validated servant leadership characteristics

through surveys that grouped common themes – some from open-ended questions but

many from closed-ended questions or multiple choice (Chu, 2008; Laub, 1998; Savage-

Austin & Honeycutt, 2011; Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora,
 24

2008). There is limited literature on the influence of servant leadership on employee

engagement specifically. Increased knowledge of servant leadership and lived

experience data obtained from the study can help leaders create strategies to change the

culture of organizations in which leaders have not practiced a leadership born from

service to others.

Although the study is limited to a restaurant, the data gathered can contribute to

theoretical discussions, practical applications of servant leadership, and a greater

knowledge of engagement drivers, which may benefit other servant leader organizations.

The new information gained from the study may prove beneficial to any organization

creating leadership-training plans while establishing an importance for servant leadership

to today’s workforce.

Nature of the Study

Overview of the Research Method

The study used a qualitative approach to explore the perceptions of employees

and understand the construct of servant leadership. According to Bansal and Corley

(2012), “Data narrative situates data in a unique context, narrates skillfully, and reveals

something new and powerful about management and organizations” (p 512) through the

data gathered through qualitative research. A qualitative approach was relevant for the

study as this type of research allowed an inductive assessment of servant leadership

through the firsthand experiences and responses of employees in a servant leader

environment.

A qualitative research method “[facilitated] the interviewees to share their

perspectives, stories and experience regarding a particular social phenomena … observed

 25

by the interviewer” (Wahyuni, 2012, p 73). Interviews, using broad exploratory

questions, collected data from employees who volunteered to participate. By exploring

the themes developed through the interview and focus group responses, the researcher

obtained an in-depth understanding of lived servant leader experiences and the internal

forces that shaped these experiences. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research

seeks the personal experiences of a few versus a general response of many. These

responses may differ through the manner in which each participant chooses to express his

or her experience while providing a human side to the theory of servant leadership.

Overview of the Design Appropriateness

Finlay (2009) stated, “The aim of phenomenological research is to capture lived

experience in all its ambiguity, urgency, and immediacy… Phenomenological research

aims to capture subjective, ‘insider’ meanings and what the lived experience feels like for

individuals’ (p 475). A phenomenological design provided the latitude to explore

common themes from participants with firsthand experience working for a servant leader

employer. A phenomenological approach distinguishes the study from others as the

design provided an avenue for participants to describe their experience with servant

leadership in their own words, versus answering multiple-choice questions through a

quantitative, correlational approach, for example.

The typical quantitative approach seeks to obtain a large response rate to

generalize the results to the whole population. The study sought to examine a small

population with a minimum of five years within Celebration Restaurant and obtained

their personal perspectives of servant leadership and the corresponding influence of on

employee engagement. A phenomenological approach helped to accomplish the goal.

 26

Research Questions

The following research questions, explored through the research, serve as the

bases for the study:

RQ1: How do employees of a servant leader based company describe their

experience?

RQ2: How do participants describe the influence of servant leadership on their

engagement?

These questions explored the experiences of employees in a servant led

organization to understand how employees defined servant leadership and how their

experience influenced engagement levels. These research questions provided an initial

direction for the study while taking into consideration that phenomenological study

research questions may evolve based on obtained information.

Theoretical Framework

Leadership theories have existed for centuries and new theories continually

evolve. The discussion of leadership is prominent both in public and private forums.

Debates continually spark over the definition, characteristics, and development of a

leader. Some believe leaders possess inherent qualities while others believe leaders are

developed. The one agreement on the topic is that a “perfect” leader does not exist.

What is becoming more apparent over time is leadership approaches differ based on the

values, beliefs, experience, and skills of the individual. The reality is people conform to

a leadership style or theory based on internal and external influences as well as the

culture of the organization.

 27

Some of the most discussed leadership approaches are transformational,

situational, charismatic, transactional, and servant leadership (Bolden, 2004; Northouse,

2010; Yukl, 2010). James McGregor Burns birthed the concept of transforming

leadership, which was further refined into Transformational leadership by Downton in

1973 (Northouse, 2010). Transformational leadership is a prominent approach based on

its characteristics to create a shared vision on changes needed within an organization’s

culture while progressing and motivating followers (Kent, Crotts, & Azziz, 2001).

The goal of transformational leadership is to connect organizational values and

priorities to the followers while aligning to the vision of the leader. Accomplishing this

requires developing and fostering trust to create an environment to motivate employees

and drive performance. In the quest to reach their vision, transformational leaders tend to

dominate to fulfill the need for success, often neglecting the emotional needs of followers

(Whetstone, 2002). The effectiveness of this type of leader is often successful change,

growth, and direction of an organization. Business history reflects success may not

always be in the best interest of the organization long-term, as many transformational

leaders have led organizations astray through unethical conduct (Avolio & Yammarino,

2002; Bolden, 2004; Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Ethics is not an inherent characteristic of

transformational leadership. Many theorists believe that successful and effective leader

possess qualities of transformational and transactional leaders (Avolio & Yammarino,

2002; Kavanagh, 2010; Yukl, 2010).

Transactional leaders, unlike transformational leaders, involve exchange from

leader to follower in return for performance and motivation. Transactional leaders

connect achievement and rewards to the behavior of the follower as well as consequences
 28

when set goals are not achieved (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Kent, Crotts, & Azziz,

2001). Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko (2004) stated, “The transactional leader

clarifies performance expectations, goals, and a path that will link achievement of the

goals to rewards” (p. 80). The focus of the transactional leader is motivating the follower

to accomplish the desired goals as defined by the leader.

Descriptions of transactional leaders by some theorists are coercive and

manipulative in their efforts to use rewards for performance (Avolio & Yammarino,

2002; Kanungo, 2001; Kent et al., 2001). The ethics of transactional leaders are also

questionable in the methods used to attain the desired goals. Transactional leadership is

prominent in many organizations and practices, including political and educational. The

leadership approach rewards moral behavior and punishes poor behavior.

Charismatic is a different leadership approach established in 1947. Sociologist

Max Weber defined charismatic leadership as those who possess am “inspired gift”

(Nahavandi, 2006, p. 230). The ‘inspired gift’ reflects through the ability of charismatic

leaders to communicate a vision in which people follow based on the person and not

necessarily the vision. In 1976, Robert House further theorized that charismatic

leadership through its behavior characteristics, had a direct effect or draw on followers,

which included trust, belief, blind allegiance, and an emotional attachment to the leader’s

vision (Bolden, 2004; Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2010). Charismatic leadership is similar to

transformational leadership because of its effect in changing an organization and

motivating followers to reach a desired goal.

The challenge with charismatic leaders begins with the assessed moral values

(Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Bolden, 2004; Northouse, 2010). The ‘blind allegiance’
 29

reflects a trust in the leader often with an unknown destination. Charismatic leaders

garner belief in their cause, which results in unyielding support. Charismatic leaders are

few, as history records only a small number who set out to change and transform the

work based on their vision while garnering a large support base of followers and

believers. Those classified as charismatic leaders include Gandhi, Hitler, Fidel Castro,

Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Among the short list is a range of

moral and immoral values. Hitler, for example, gained a huge following of supporters in

his mission to eradicate the world of Jews. Considering the examples mentioned, the

charismatic leader thinly defines morals, as actions may not always be ethical.

Fiedler (1964) first presented the theory of situational leadership arguing one

leadership approach does not fit every situation, therefore the leader must adapt based on

the presented situation. What the leadership approach lacks is the ability to determine

when the organization or followers must change based on an ethical or moral pursuit

(Bolden, 2004). The leadership approach reflects that leaders must possess a host of

different traits and characteristics to manage effectively in different situations.

Situational leadership, further developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in

1969, defines a theory, which “demands that leaders match their style to the competence

and commitment of the subordinates” (Northouse, 2010, p. 89). The leadership approach

requires adaptability and flexibility. Leaders move from directing to supporting, based

on the skill and commitment of followers. The model created by Blanchard (1985)

reflects leaders can move from delegating and supporting to coaching and directing based

on the development level of followers.

 30

Servant leadership is a different approach developed by Robert Greenleaf in 1970.

Some agreed upon characteristics of servant leaders to include consist of visionary,

strategic, trustworthy, ethical, and have a heart to serve others (Autry, 2001; Blanchard &

Hodges, 2003; Fisher, 2004; Greenleaf, 2002). Greenleaf (2002) stated, “Servant leaders

are functionally superior because they are closer to the ground – they hear things, know

things and their intuitive insight is exceptional. Because of this, they are dependable and

trusted” (p. 56). Followers connect to servant leaders based on the personal examples of

the leader and leadership traits to include integrity, high ethical values, and a servant

heart aimed at both follower development and organizational goals.

Servant leadership tends to be more prevalent in nonprofit and religious

organizations, as these establishments are typically more accepting of servants as leaders.

A contradiction with servant leadership is the concept of leaders whose primary objective

is to serve versus lead (Greenleaf, 1998, 2002). Controversy with servant leadership

arises over this label of a leader being a “servant,” which creates healthy discussion

within the business realm of the pros and cons of having leaders whose primary focus is

meeting the needs of followers as a top priority, especially the emotional needs (Sipe &

Frick, 2009). Employees who have an emotional investment, particularly within service

organizations, tend to provide better customer service (Chan & Wan, 2012).

Currently, many organizational leaders are seeking to establish “Proactive

customer service performance (PCSP) [which] is characterized by a self-starting, long-

term-oriented, and forward-thinking approach to service delivery (Raub & Liao, 2012).

Servant leadership empowers employees through development and trust. Servant

leadership places a value on people by serving their needs and building their confidence
 31

(Keith, 2008b). This in turn “sends a positive, inspiring message to those who interact

with customers and make thousands of decisions each day that affect the future of the

organization (Keith, 2008b, p51).

The concern and need for committed employees is steadily becoming an

opportunity. Employee engagement has increasingly become a major focus in many

organizations. Kowske, Lundy, and Rasch (2009) defined employee engagement as “the

extent to which employees are motivated to contribute to organizational success and are

willing to apply discretionary effort to accomplishing tasks important to the achievement

of organizational goals” (p. 50). The effort often takes either a mental and emotional

attachment or allegiance to the leader for employees to go beyond basic expectations.

For full or high engagement, employees must connect both their hearts and heads to the

vision and goals of the organizations, which encourages their hands (Blanchard &

Hodges, 2003). In contrast, disengaged employees can have the adverse effect of

contributing to the destruction of the company through nonparticipation, absenteeism,

unethical behavior, providing poor customer service, and often infecting other employees

with their negative attitude.

The concept of employee engagement dates back to the 1990s with research that

sought to understand the relationship between an employee’s personal self and the

employee’s work (Kahn, 1990). Within the last 10 years, several articles have attempted

to understand what drives employee engagement and consequently what fuels

disengagement within the workplace. Leaders in each organization have the challenge of

determining what drives high engagement and what causes disengagement. By

understanding these key drivers, leaders can both drive performance and create an
 32

organizational culture that breeds commitment in all areas of success. Leaders own the

challenge of determining these drivers for their individual organizations or groups of

people.

Very limited research is available on the relationship of employee engagement to

servant leadership specifically. The numerous articles and research available on

employee engagement all generally seek to link engagement to employee commitment

and performance in the workplace, which translates often into profits for the company.

As employee engagement deals with the emotional attachment of employees to their

organizations, understanding the values and needs of employees becomes essential.

Responses obtained from employees through the study gained an understanding of how

employee engagement connects to servant leadership.

The study contributes to the overall body of knowledge regarding servant

leadership and to a small extent, employee engagement. The information gained from the

research contributes to current servant leadership knowledge and research as well as

existing research on employee engagement. The focal topic for literature review in

Chapter 2 provided evidence for the problem and sought answers to the following

questions. Who are servant leaders? What is employee engagement? What is the

importance of ethics to leadership? A description of servant leadership within the

research company is also included. Within the realm of leadership, Chapter 2 will

highlight research found on the subject of servant leadership and its significance to

employee engagement.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions provide a consistency of the terminology used within the study:
 33

Employee engagement: is “the extent to which employee are motivated to

contribute to organizational success, and are willing to apply discretionary effort to

accomplishing tasks important to the achievement of the organizational goals” (Kowske,

Lundby, & Rasch, 2009, p. 50).

Epochè: “means the suspending, bracketing, putting aside the natural attitude

towards the mental acts which tend to give validity to our habitual knowledge and

drawing back our attention to the unprejudiced sources of the experience” (Mortari, 2008,

p. 6).

Followers and Followership: “A follower is an individual who coordinated his

actions with actions of another individual, the leader. And this means setting aside your

own goals and adopting the objectives of the leader” (van Vugt & Ahuja, 2011, p. 67).

Leadership: “is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals

to achieve a common goal. [Leadership is] … a transactional event that occurs between

the leader and the followers” (Northouse, 2010, p. 3).

Servant leadership: As defined by Greenleaf (1998) is “servant first… It begins

with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice

brings one to aspire to lead… 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” (p.

27).

Assumptions

There were four major assumptions made in the study. First, assumption was the

organization had strong servant leadership foundation. Celebration Restaurant, along

with eight other organizations in Dallas, are part of a learning community for Servant
 34

Leadership (McGee-Cooper, Looper, & Trammell, 2007). Leaders of Celebration

Restaurant incorporated Servant Leadership training into the company’s new hire

programs as well as conduct monthly discussion sessions on servant leader traits in an

effort to help partners understand and apply the principles, as documented in the

company’s internal documents. The study focused specifically on employees within a

servant leader operation, meaning the organization must have servant leadership as the

underlying philosophy that governs its business (Keith, 2008b). The assumption of the

strength of the servant leader foundation was unknown and not measured against other

organizations. The chosen organization practiced servant leadership for ten years and

attributes to servant leadership as adding to a strong foundation (McGee-Cooper et al,

2007).

The second assumption was all participants were knowledgeable of servant

leadership. The assumption was based on the company’s training material, which depicts

servant leadership as the organization’s core values and governing philosophy. Partners

were given a copy of Greenleaf’s “The Servant as Leader” (2008) and hold monthly

discussions on the individual characteristics of servant leadership. For a

phenomenological study, lived-experiences explore the views of servant leadership by

participants. Participants chosen for the study must have a high level of knowledge and

expertise with the central phenomena – servant leadership. The assumption is knowledge

and expertise comes from years of working in a servant leader environment (McGee-

Cooper et al, 2007). What was known was that all employees attended regular sessions

on servant leadership and that the organization uses surveys annually to rate the
 35

organization and its leadership. The survey measured servant leadership characteristics

of each leader.

The third assumption was that all of the leaders practice servant leadership. The

owner of Celebration Restaurant classifies himself as a servant leader and expects his

leaders to live the same philosophy. McGee-Cooper et al (2007) documented, “At a

Servant Leadership Learning Community (SLLC) session hosted by Celebration, Ed

Lowe, owner of the restaurant, sat with five of his partners… one by one, they told their

stories” (p 41). Each partner gave their story of how they became servant leaders. Since

the first assumption was that servant leadership was the governing philosophy for the

organization, another belief was all managers in the site are servant leaders by definition.

The fourth assumption was that the participants would respond openly and

honestly to the questions on servant leadership qualities and about personal experiences.

Since the participants volunteered, the belief was that the participants willing consented

to provide their stories and experiences. In qualitative studies, specifically with

interviews, essentially important is that participants freely share their experiences, while

providing a “deeper understanding of the issues” (Wahyuni, 2012, p 74). Details of the

study and information about the dissertation process were provided to the participants in

an effort to explain the importance of obtaining their experiences. This helped the

participants relax and share their experiences.

Scope and Limitations

The purpose of the phenomenological study was to understand how servant

leadership influenced engagement through examining the lived experiences of employees

within a servant leader organization. The scope of the study was to restrict the focus to
 36

one selected marketed servant leader organization in the Dallas, Texas, USA and to

restrict the participation population to employees with a minimum of five years of

service.

There were several limitations within the study. The first limitation was the

sampling method. Although a nonrandom purposeful sampling obtained participants, the

organizational leader sent the solicitation for participants. Thus, participants may have

felt obligated to participate versus on their own free will. Participants were given the

opportunity to withdraw their participation at the start of each session. The sample size

was restricted to 10 to 12 employees of the total 100 employees and 2 managers that

represented these employees with a minimum of five years’ experience with the

organization. The service criteria provided participants with five years of servant

leadership experience. Previous employees were out of scope of the proposed research

and thus, excluded.

Another limitation was the interpretation of the study phenomenon. Although

participants may be familiar with servant leadership, they may not be familiar with the

concept of employee engagement. The limitation could inhibit open conversation. The

word “employee engagement” was removed from the interview and focus group

questions and replaced with “employee satisfaction.” A final limitation was the

researcher had years of experience in both management and leadership, and may have

held a bias to a particular leadership style. To alleviate the concern, the researcher

refrained from commenting or expanding on responses from the participants, other than

asking clarifying questions to ensure a clear understanding of the responses. The

researcher also held no connection to the organization, which presented the researcher as
 37

a neutral party. The stated fact helped to put participants at ease and opened the flow of

the conversation. Further, the results of the survey were limited to generalization to

employees within servant leader organizations, specifically in the restaurant industry.

Delimitations

Delimitations of the study included a small sample size due a larger sample may

cost the organization due to pulling employees from current restaurant duties. Use of

focus groups bear the risks of partial participation, thus, unlike surveys or one-on-one

interviews, some participants may choose not to respond in depth to many of the

questions asked. Participants who do not agree with the majority may be resistant to

share an opposing view. This approach was chosen in spite of the possible limitation as

focus groups also hold many benefits to include the “discussion in the group allows

synthesis and validation of ideas and concepts (Halcomb et al, 2007, p 1008).

Chapter Summary

Leadership is a discussion debated for centuries. Scholars and practitioners often

differ on the definition of leadership or the most effective leadership philosophy. Chapter

1 introduced the research topic of servant leadership and its importance to the study of

leadership. Servant leaders are unique in their approach that seeks to serve others and

through the service servant leaders guide followers to accomplish their best while

achieving organizational goals. In a current environment where instability is common

and customer service is critical to the restaurant industry and profitability, a requirement

is an effective leadership philosophy unlike leaders of the past. The problem the research

aimed to explore is the experience of employees in servant leader based company. To

fulfill the purpose, a qualitative phenomenological study examined the influence of

 38

servant leadership on employee engagement as experienced by these restaurant

employees.

Provided was a brief background on servant leadership, employee engagement

and the significance of the study. A theoretical framework using servant leadership

helped to position the research question of how employees in a servant-led organization

viewed servant leadership and what influence did servant leadership have on employee

engagement. Chapter 1 concluded with a brief overview of the nature of the study,

definitions of key words discussed, and assumptions, scope, limitations and delimitations

found in the study.

Chapter 2 provides a literature review expanding on the theoretical framework of

servant leadership and employee engagement by analyzing research found through

scholarly reviewed articles and journals, books on the study subject, and other research,

which helps to support the purpose and importance of the qualitative study. The chapter

begins with keyword searches, a historical overview, and current findings on servant

leadership and employee engagement. Opposing views offer different views on the study

topic. Chapter 2 provides a detailed analysis of literature found on the subject of servant

leader and employee engagement.

 39

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of the phenomenological study was to understand the engagement of

servant leader employees in a restaurant establishment. The central phenomenon

examined in the study was the experience of employees employed by an organization

with servant leadership as a guiding philosophy. Servant leadership is defined as “the

skills of influencing people to enthusiastically work toward goals identified as being for

the common good, with character that inspires confidence” (Hunter, 2004, p. 290).

Understanding these lived experiences is critical to employee engagement strategies and

the leadership philosophies adopted within organizations.

Chapter 2 provides an in-depth discussion on servant leadership and places

servant leadership in the context of leadership philosophies. An historical overview led

the discussion on current findings of servant leadership, its characteristics, and

corresponding leadership traits. A description of employee engagement with

corresponding traits and characteristics provides an overview of employee engagement

coupled with engagement drivers with significance to engagement. The literature review

provided in the chapter framed the research question of what impact servant leadership

has on the experiences and engagement of employees at a servant led company.

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals

According to Creswell (2005), “A literature review is a written summary of

journal articles, books, and other documents that describes the past and current state of

information, organizes the literature into topics, and documents a need for a proposed

study” (p. 79). The reference total is 337 with 287 published 2007 or later. Eighty-five

percent of the research comes from current material as defined as within the last five
 40

years. Within the 337 sources, over ninety percent are books, dissertations, or peer-

reviewed scholarly articles. Key word searches include “servant leadership”,

“leadership”, “transformational leadership”, “employee engagement”, “ethical

leadership”, “authentic leadership”, “situational leadership”, “focus groups”,

“qualitative”, and “phenomenological”.

Literature Review

Historical Overview

Robert Greenleaf originated the theory of servant leadership in 1970. Greenleaf

was inspired by a story with a character named Leo. Leo accompanied a group of men on

their travel and served them. Leo cared for the basic needs of the men. When Leo

disappeared, the men stopped their travels. They were lost without Leo, their servant.

What Greenleaf gained from the story was that Leo’s service transformed him into the

leader by those he served and the men had trouble continuing without Leo (Greenleaf,

2002; Spears & Lawrence, 2002). Greenleaf applied the understanding to not only his

personal life but also to the business world. Greenleaf gained insight that leaders are not

born nor created. Leaders evolve based on their service to others. Servant leaders are not

seekers of personal gain or promotion. The concept of servant leadership is the degree to

which a person serves in direct proportion to that person chosen as a leader by those

served (Greenleaf, 2002). According to Greenleaf (2002), the difference of servant

leaders

Manifest … in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s

highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer,

is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they while being served, become
 41

healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, [and] more likely themselves to become

servants? (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 27).

Over the years, scholars and practitioners alike, have explored and expanded upon

servant leadership. The leadership philosophy of servant leadership does not fit the

typical description of leaders labeled by his or her positional power and driven by

personal success and promotion. Greenleaf (2002) commented that servant leaders are

not often aware of leadership titles or positions as the focus is not on the leader role but

of meeting the basic needs of others. The focus becomes a natural progression to

leadership and develops from a sincere heart and not self-serving or self-seeking heart.

Servant leaders are heart seekers and lead from the heart. The characteristics of

servant leaders does not contain the typical traits found in other leadership philosophies,

which often include dominance, coercion, manipulation, or driven focus (Northouse,

2010). Instead, descriptions of servant leaders include compassionate, empathetic,

helpers, partners, and collaborators (Greenleaf, 2002; Marturano & Gosling, 2008; Yukl,

2010). Servant leaders seek to touch the heart of their followers. The goal of a servant

leader becomes “How can I help you become better in what you do?” versus “How can

you help me become better so I can do more?” The relationship between leader and

follower becomes an emotional connection versus a positional or power relationship,

meaning people want to follow servant leaders regardless of their position or title.

The emotional connection relates to the theme of employee engagement. The

concept of employee engagement dates back to the 1990s with research which sought to

understand the relationship between an employee’s personal self and the employee’s

work (Kahn, 1990), with the latter having a direct correlation to an employee’s level of
 42

engagement. Within the last 10 years, several articles have attempted to understand what

drives employee engagement and consequently what fuels disengagement within the

workplace. Studies show that organizations with high percent of employee engagement

experience less attrition, higher performance, increased profits, and overall happier

employees committed to the company (Lawson, 2008). Without the knowledge of how

to increase employee engagement or the role of leadership in engagement, the

performance of an organization can suffer.

Leadership

According to Yukl (2006), “Social scientists have attempted to discover what

traits, abilities, behaviors, sources of power, or aspects of the situation determine how

well a leader is able to influence followers and accomplish task objectives” (p. 2).

Scholars maintain various theories on leadership and what makes an effective leader,

what leadership philosophy subordinates respond to most, and what leadership

philosophy is most effective within specific organizations based on the culture of the

organization (Bolden, 2004; Marturano & Gosling, 2008; Nahavandi, 2006; Northouse,

2010; Yukl, 2010). Most agreed is leadership takes a level of influence, vision, and

relationship to achieve the desired goals. Methods to accomplish the goal may differ by

organization and person. Ultimately, organizational leaders must choose which

leadership philosophy best suits current and long-term needs.

What scholars are learning is “leadership is not a fixed entity, but rather a flowing

and evolving process whereby different ‘leaders’ may be revealed over time as a

consequence of group interaction” (Bolden, 2004, p. 12). Leadership is an emergent

theory often defined by the organization but also emerges through one’s experience and
 43

skills. Leaders may practice different leadership philosophies over a span of time and

their philosophy may change with experience. Bolden (2004) believed “choice of

leadership goes both to personal beliefs and experience [as well as] empirical evidence”

(p. 12). An important consideration often overlooked is how the leadership experience

influences followers. Group interaction translates into relationships that leaders have

with followers. Often relationships form from positions of authority and degrees of

influence. The relationship, coupled with the overall experience of the follower,

comprises employee engagement. Leadership has a direct influence on the level of

engagement of employees.

The degree of influence can often translate to ethical or unethical behavior.

Leaders often maintain both a positional and authoritative power, as stated above. The

extent and degree of power define the leader’s level of morality (Greenleaf, 2002).

Abuse of power by leaders has occurred through history with many examples. In recent

years, as corrupted organizations went bankrupt, the common denominator was unethical,

greedy leaders. These leaders were for personal own gain and not that of the employees

or the long-term benefits of the organization, the investors, or customers. Toor and Ofor

(2009) stated, “growing complexity of the businesses… and greater pressure for

performance [has] increased the probability of conscious and sometimes unconscious -

ethical slipups in decisions, actions, and behaviors of leaders” (p. 533), requiring a more

ethical, moral leader in organizations.

Unethical leadership has cost organizations billions of dollars from examples of

Enron to Lehman Brothers (Darcy, 2010). In each case, leaders once thought to have the

skill and ability to lead an organization to success allowed greed to blind them and
 44

compromised their values to meet board expectations. Leader responsibilities include

improving competitive advantage for his or her organization, exceeding corporate goals –

under budget, producing high returns for stockholders, and producing record numbers

year over year. These expectations may be in spite of economic challenges, advances in

technology, or lack of sufficient resources. A need for a visionary leader who possesses

the skill to lead others to goal, while maintaining integrity is often hard to find. Servant

leadership is a possible theory that may fit the need.

Scholars suggest various operating systems to improve performance within

organizations. Some favor systems such as Six Sigma or Total Quality Management,

which may miss the role of the leader in leading these systems. Others may incorporate

leadership training to include communication or coaching and development skills. The

focus may include change management, ethics training, or performance management.

Employees may receive countless hours of training to improve his or her skills, while

their hearts remain detached. Servant leadership is one leadership philosophy that aims at

the heart of both the leader and the follower and often requires an internal transformation.

Servant Leadership

Leadership descriptions include “influencing people to contribute their hearts,

minds, spirits, creativity, and excellence to give their all for their team. Leadership is

getting people to commit to the mission… to be all they can be” (Hunter, 2004, p. 33). In

the corporate world, those who serve others do not correlate to the most successful. In

the past two decades, more corporations are changing their culture to embrace servant

leadership (Lichtenwalner, 2011). Scholars can now find conferences and discussion
 45

sites on servant leadership, which is rare with other leadership philosophies such as

transformational, authentic, or even charismatic leadership (Lichtenwalner, 2011).

Servant leaders do what is right in spite of the unpopularity of a decision. The

value of servant leadership has increased with the many unethical practices of leaders in

the news from Enron to AIG. According to Blanchard (2010), “Organizations led by

servant leaders, ward off unethical leadership. When the vision and values are clearly

defined, ethical and moral dilemmas are less likely to emerge” (p. 280-281).The question

becomes what has created these heightened discussions and cultural changes within the

corporate world. One contributor can be the increase in unethical leadership cases, which

have caused major corporations to fail. Another contributor could be the change in

employee values that connects them with an employer. Industry competition is yet

another contributor, which raises the bar from customer service to a customer experience.

Many senior leaders and practitioners seek a leadership philosophy that addresses the

above contributors.

As stated above, servant leadership is steadily becoming a prominent topic of

discussion amongst scholars. What makes servant leadership unique is the focus of

developing an organization from the bottom up versus using a top down approach.

According to Blanchard (2002), “Servant leadership has never been more applicable to

the world of leadership than it is today” (xi). In a world where companies are going

bankrupt, some due to unethical practices, and others needing government bail-out

money to wars and rumors of wars, not to mention unstable economic and environmental

factors, people are looking for what can add purpose and meaning to their lives. Servant

leadership is one leadership philosophy that connects with the hearts and not just the
 46

hands and minds of employees. With employees viewed as one of the greatest assets for

organizations, maintaining loyal, productive employees while balancing profits becomes

a challenge for leaders, further stressing the importance of the adoption of a resilient and

effective leadership philosophy. The study provides an in-depth review on servant

leadership and employee engagement, reviewing prevalent themes by scholars.

Characteristics of Servant Leadership

Characteristics of servant leadership vary by author with many commonalities.

Those defined by Greenleaf and his followers are listening, empathy, healing, awareness,

persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of others,

and building communities (Blanchard & Hodges, 2003; Fisher, 2004; Greenleaf, 1998,

2002; Spears & Lawrence, 2002). Exploration of each of these characteristics in detail

provides a better understanding. Through the study, the goal is to obtain a realistic and

applicable view of these characteristics as applied to lived-experiences and as viewed

from others.

Listening, as part of communication, often requires silence. An effective listener

seeks to understand versus trying to be understood. Listening is the beginning of two-

way communication. Effective listening makes the speaker feel valued and cared about.

Ultimately, a servant leader listens to understand the meaning and feelings behind the

words.

Kouzes and Posner (2002) stated listening is “in a sense, leaders [holding] up a

mirror and [reflecting] back to their constituents what they say they most desire” (pp.

148-149). In this manner, leaders listen for what matters most to the follower, thus

identifying what motivates the follower. Servant leaders never assume they have all the
 47

answers or can succeed without the active participation of his or her followers. Through

effective listening, servant leaders communicate they value the opinions and knowledge

of followers and enlist followers in both decision-making and strategizing (Greenleaf,

1998; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Spears, 2002).

Empathy and healing are additional characteristics of servant leadership.

Empathy is not just sharing the emotions of someone but rather feeling with the person

and understanding that people have feelings. Spears (2002) stated, “People need to be

accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirits” (p. 4). Empathy is about

accepting and valuing the differences of others reflected through emotions and

experiences. Empathy is also an emotional connection between the person expressing

and the person empathizing. Empathy can also bring about healing.

Healing is unique to servant leadership. The healing referred to by Greenleaf

(1998) is not a physical healing but one of emotion. Greenleaf believed everyone needs

healing for brokenness. Servant leaders often help others heal while healing themselves

through expressing empathy and listening intently. Servant-leader and follower share the

desire for wholeness (Greenleaf, 1998). Helping someone heal emotionally requires

building a trusting relationship where the needs of the one hurt become a priority. This is

not to imply servant leaders become a counselor but through listening and expressing

empathy, a servant leader can help a person heal by just giving the person the ability to

discuss and face past hurts. Healing begins with awareness.

Cashman (2008) stated, “as leaders, we are constantly faced with the task of

building awareness… of changing market conditions, emerging economic realities… and

operational issues dominates our time and attention. But often the greatest task … is in
 48

the human, interpersonal domain” (p. 181). Self-awareness strengthens the leader by

making the leader more aware of personal strengths and areas of opportunity. Servant

leaders strive for both self-awareness and awareness of others. Change often has to begin

on the inside before change can manifest on the outside. True self-awareness allows

people to come face-to-face with their personal flaws and acknowledge imperfections.

Leaders often hold one image of themselves while his or her followers hold a very

different image. The combination of both images coupled with leader transparency,

creates true growth in relationship. Awareness of others begins by the leader seeking to

know a person beyond a surface-level. For example, a surface-level may know a

person’s goal of promotion to a specific position. A deeper level explores why and what

motivates the desire promotion and encourages that desire. The understanding creates a

connection that can persuade followers into action.

Persuasion is very different from intimidation, coercion, and manipulation.

Greenleaf (1998) stated, “One is persuaded… upon arrival at a feeling of rightness about

a belief or action through one’s own intuitive sense… the one being persuaded must take

the intuitive step alone, untrammeled by coercion” (p. 85). Servant leaders do not use

positional or authoritative status to force behavior. Through efforts to build cooperation

and consensus within the group, individuals are convinced or persuaded to make the right

decisions. Persuasion flows with conceptualization that the leader has envisioned for the

organization and follower based on interactive knowledge. The emotional connection

between a leader and follower creates a collaborative effort towards the communicated

vision.
 49

Conceptualization is the ability of a servant leader to not only envision the future

but also communicate and create a path to reach the end-state goals. Servant leaders are

also visionary, which is necessary to guide and lead their followers (Blanchard, 2010;

Sendjaya et al, 2008). The visions derive from dreams, often-shared dreams of both the

leaders and followers. Dreams should inspire one to greatness and not limit the dreamer

or those hearing the dream. Greenleaf (1998) stated, “It is the communicated faith of the

leader in the dream that enlists dedicated support needed to move people toward

accomplishment of the dream” (pp. 87-88). This entails not only communication of the

vision but having followers who believe in both the dreamer and the dream enough to

strive for high goals. Conceptualization cannot exist without foresight.

Foresight is similar to awareness and conceptualization while incorporating the

‘what ifs” into the equation. “Foresight is a characteristic that enables the servant leader

to understand lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely

consequence of a decision for the future” (Spears & Lawrence, 2002, p. 6). The

characteristic can encourage moral and ethical behavior. Looking at the Enron failure as

an example, leadership foresight to anticipate the result of the poor decisions and

investments, which caused cover-ups that lead to future disaster, could have avoided the

eventual collapse of the organization. The lack of foresight, in the example, increased the

number of unethical behavior and the leaders did not adequately identify the future

consequences of his or her actions.

Another characteristic is stewardship. Stewardship is, in short, a person who

looks after the needs of another. Stewards give freely of their time and talents to aid in

the growth of others (Ebener, 2011). As a steward on a plane takes care of passengers by
 50

providing food, drinks, safety, and comfort; servant leaders’ care for the needs of

followers through their service. The sincerity of the action produces loyal followers. The

stewardship “emphasizes the use of openness and persuasion, rather than control” (Spears

& Lawrence, 2002, p. 7). The act of service is what breeds additional servants as the

characteristics demonstrates a sincere desire to help others achieve and grow.

Commitment to the growth of others is another characteristic of servant

leadership. Blanchard (2010) stated, “Servant leaders … feel their role is to help people

achieve their goals … servant leaders want to make a difference in the lives of their

people and, in the process, impact the organization” (p. 262). Having a servant attitude

means one is not about self but about the needs of others first, those others also include

the organization. Servant leaders provide development and growth of employees as

leaders seek to see their followers promoted and successful. Thus, servant leadership

becomes people-focused through contributions to the followers’ development and

growth.

Coaching and development aid the employee in improving or reaffirming

performance achievements while displaying a concern for the employee’s growth. An

example can be the investment made in an employee to develop personal writing or

communication skills or offer cross training for other areas of the business. Although

organizations benefit from employee growth and development, employees typically

garner skills applicable outside of the organization. The connection reinforces the value

of the employee to the organization. The importance of the emotional connection,

mentioned above, connects employees with their organization causing employees to want
 51

to perform at higher levels and invest in the success of the organization through building

communities.

Building communities, according to Greenleaf, is bringing people together inside

the organization. This is reinforcing a “we all work for the same team” attitude.

Building communities is more than just building teamwork; it is about collaboration and

cohesiveness. Greenleaf (1998) stated, “A particular strength of servant leadership is that

it encourages everyone to actively seek opportunities to both serve and lead others,

thereby setting up the potential for raising the quality of life throughout society” (p. 12).

The trait follows the definition of servant leadership by serving others thus inspiring

others to serve and become leaders.

Additional Characteristics of Servant-Leaders

Additional traits or characteristics of servant leaders overlap other leadership

theories such as transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and authentic leadership.

These leadership theories share more critical characteristics than other leadership

theories. Below are a few of the characteristics of these theories that overlap with servant

leadership as well as some of the differences.

Northouse (2010) stated, “ethics is central to leadership because of the nature of

the process of influence, the need to engage followers in accomplishing mutual goals, and

the impact leaders have on the organization’s values” (p. 383). Northouse (2010)

correlated servant leadership to ethical leadership, thus overlaying many of the

characteristics to include serving others, building community, honesty, respect, and

justice. The latter, justice, is not directly linked to servant leadership but rather implied

through the principles of servant leadership.

 52

Authentic leadership comprises three main characteristics: self-awareness, self-

regulation, and self-development. Self-awareness and self-development directly link to

servant leadership. Self-regulation is the leader’s ability to control his or her own

behavior through self-awareness. Authentic leaders also serve others; they are

transparent and true to their values as well as passionate and self-disciplined (Sabatier,

2010). These characteristics help authentic leaders build trusting relationships with

followers and those with whom they interact. The commitment of authentic leaders to

their values often makes these leaders moral and ethical. Difficulty exists in measuring

the overall effectiveness and organizational impact of authentic leadership (Northouse,

2010).

Transformational leadership, unlike authentic and ethical leadership, is a well-

established leadership theory. The leadership theory may have the most differences and

the fewest similarities to servant leadership but is included as it is one leadership theory

frequently discussed and researched. Transformational leadership has four main

characteristics: idealized influence (often related to charisma), inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002;

Northouse, 2010; Washington, 2007). Additional characteristics include visionary,

influential, motivational, and driven. Transformational leaders drive change in

organizations, often through the buy-in of their followers.

Transformational leadership theory differs from servant leadership in a few ways.

First, criticism of transformational leadership is the focus on the leader and often

negligence of the role of the follower whereas servant leadership begins with a focus on

the follower. Second, although the leadership theory maintains an ethical and moral
 53

component, the changes initiated within organizations can still lead others astray

(Northouse, 2010). As the leadership theory is not rooted in serving others and self-

sacrifice, transformational leadership can be strong in authority and positional power

(Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Northouse, 2010).

Followers connect to servant leaders based on the personal examples of the

leader, which include integrity, high ethical values, and a servant attitude aimed at the

follower development. Employees want to work for an organization that fosters integrity

and trust. The trust reflects an open, honest, consistent behavior from the leader. How an

employee responds to his or her organizational climate and specifically leadership can

define the employee’s level of engagement.

Dr. Jim Laub created a survey instrument to measure servant leadership in 1998.

Through survey validation, Laub (1998) found six key characteristics of servant

leadership to include display authenticity, value people, develop people, build

community, provide leadership, and share leadership. Authenticity reflects through

integrity, honesty, trust, transparency, humility, openness and accountability as well as

the willingness to learn from others. Value in people reflects though empathetic and

respective listening, service of others first, and belief and trust in people. By providing

new learning opportunities, leading by example, and using affirmations to encourage and

recognize accomplishment, growth results. Building community is collaboration and

cohesiveness through respecting and valuing diversity and building relationships.

Leadership results through establishing and clarifying goals, taking initiative, and

envisioning the future. Share leadership includes the vision, power, and status in an

effort to build additional leaders. These characteristics comprise what Laub called a
 54

healthy organization, Laub (2011) defines a healthy organization as one “in which

characteristics of servant leadership are displayed through the organizational culture and

valued and practiced by the leadership and workforce” (para. 2).

Research Organization and Servant Leadership

The organization researched as part of the study takes satisfaction surveys

annually. These surveys measured servant leadership and employee satisfaction. The

survey covered many questions related to both servant leadership and employee

engagement, segmented by department. Demographics include the department while

excluding race, sex, and age. The survey covers empowerment, ethical leadership, and

decision-making. Only one direct question related specifically to servant leadership.

Of the characteristics listed above for both servant leadership and Laub’s survey

excluded are healing, conceptualization, and foresight. Healing may be difficult to

measure as well as to compare over time as one-time events could cause a need for

healing but the rating for this may not be the same the following year. This could be the

result of employees feeling that unless a new event occurred, there was not a need to rate

again. The survey contained questions that focused on job satisfaction, the leaders of the

organization, and the company, as a whole, which measured engagement levels. Servant

leadership characteristics reflect in the questions asked, while also including engagement

or employee satisfaction.

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement, an organizational strategy that describes an employee’s

devotion and allegiance to his or her organization, is a critical factor to maintaining

employee commitment and active contribution to the organization, especially during

 55

turbulent economic climates. The economy downfall has contributed to the restructuring

of organization and the direct need to maintain and increase both competitiveness and

profitability to survive. By improving engagement levels organizations can experience

less attrition and breed more loyal, productive employees (Colan, 2009). Employee

engagement manifests itself in job satisfaction, ownership, and promotion of the

organization to its customers and others. To increase engagement levels above the

average of one-third, employers need to understand what connects these employees to

respective employers (Gallup, 2010; Gallup Consulting, 2008). For improved

engagement, companies must take into consideration the leadership philosophy applied in

their organization to devise an effective engagement strategy.

Research by Loehr and Groppel (2004) found that engaged employees currently

account for only one third of employees in the workplace with disengagement costing

approximately $350 billion annually due to low performance and the negative impact to

profits. The connection translates into organizational profits through investments in

employees’ talents, skills, abilities, and energies that aid organizations to meet and

exceed stated objectives and goals (Sanchez & McCauley, 2006). Engaged employees

feel not only a part of their organization; they also take personal responsibility in

contributing to the success of the organization.

Engaged employees provide better customer service and are champions of the

organization. Engaged employees buy-in and contribute to the success of the end-state

goals of the business. These employees take personal responsibility in the growth of the

organization, thus increasing the corporate citizenship or corporate social responsibility,

as discussed above. They act as stakeholders of the business and make personal
 56

investments in the long-term success of the organization. Engaged employees maintain

high ethical behaviors and attitudes, while encouraging others to do the same. They

readily share information and knowledge with their peers and leaders for the benefit of

the organization as a whole. Coupled with trust in leadership and customer focus,

engaged employees are empowered to deliver excellent customer service, thus promoting

the brand image of their company. A major part of an organizational strategy becomes

improving or increasing the number of engaged employees through identifying specific

attributes that drives employee engagement.

Harter and Schmidt (2010) identified, in a recent Gallup study, 12 areas that drive

or influence employee engagement. These attributes gained through numerous surveys

across various organizations are:

1. I know what is expected of me at work.

2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.

3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.

4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition and praise for doing

good work.

5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.

6. There is someone at work who encourages my development.

7. At work, my opinions seem to count.

8. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is

important.

9. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.

10. I have a best friend at work

 57

11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my

progress.

12. In the last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

(Harter & Schmidt, 2010, p. 3)

In assessing the above drivers of engagement, several of these attributes link

broadly back to servant leader. As mentioned earlier, characteristics of servant leaders

are effective listeners, maintaining a commitment to the growth of their followers and

including their followers in striving for the success of the organization. Research also

links positive employee relationships with his or her leader and peers to engagement

levels (Harter & Schmidt, 2010). While these attributes may vary within each

organization, the need to learn to fuel and drive engagement still exists. Through creating

an organizational culture that nurtures the skills and talents of employees while

encouraging employees to challenge the status quo, engagement results.

By understanding what not only drives performance but also what instills a

commitment to the success of the organization, organizational leaders can foster

employee engagement. Research shows employees perform better with attainable goals,

knowledge of their job, and an environment that fosters trust, support, and fairness

(Fisher, 2004; Gallup Consulting, 2008; Robison, 2009). When employees understand

the expectations and have the commitment for the success of the organization, they are

more apt to promote the organization to others. There is a need to breed a culture of trust

and empowerment for employees to flourish and grow. Employees want to know that

their organizational leaders are willing to invest in the talents and abilities of the

employee. Employees must know the leaders within their organization will treat them
 58

fairly and with respect as shown by both interaction and by the example of the leader.

The above attributes meet and address the needs of engaged employees, while

contributing to both job satisfaction and motivation.

Another definition of employee engagement is “the extent to which employees are

motivated to contribute to organizational success and willing to apply discretionary

effort to accomplishing tasks important to the achievement of the organizational goals”

(Kowske, Lundby, & Rasch, 2009, p. 50). The effort often takes a mental and emotional

attachment or allegiance for employees to go above the basic expectations. High

engagement in organizations reflects loyal, committed employees who invest their talents

and skills in an effort to make the organization successful (Federman, 2009; Gostick &

Elton, 2007; Robison, 2010a). Disengaged employees can have the adverse effect of

contributing to the destruction of a company through non-participation, absenteeism,

unethical conduct, providing poor customer service and brand image and in some

instances, infecting others with a negative attitude. According to Robison (2010b), these

actively disengaged employees seek to promote their non-interest or lack of alignment

with the company and its goals. Company leaders have to assess his or her organization

to determine what the percent engaged, disengaged, or actively disengaged and how to

reverse the negative trends, if any.

If employees do not feel the leaders of the organization have their best interest at

heart, disengagement, the opposite of engagement, can occur. According to Gallup

(2010), disengagement cost companies billions of dollars a year in lost productivity, poor

performance, attrition, morale, and other damaging impacts to organizations.

Disengagement increases the demand for organizational leaders to focus on actively

 59

disengaged and engaged employees. Organizations must identify which attributes

increase engagement and which, if absent, decrease engagement. The goal should be to

reduce the attributes that fuel disengagement, which may be a leader who is negatively

influencing employees or making the work environment unbearable, while actively

contributing to the drivers of high engagement. Organizational leaders have to make the

tough decisions to first assess their organization for the disengaged drivers and then make

the necessary changes or corrections, which may include removing leaders, changing

processes, or addressing the diverse needs of its employees.

Key Drivers of Employee Engagement

Understanding employee engagement and its importance requires organizations to

define clearly relevant specific key drivers of engagement. Key drivers are those factors

that contribute to confidence in work roles, morale, and willingness to stay and contribute

to company’s success, as well as overall loyalty, which breeds an emotional connection

with employee to organization (Kowske et al., 2009; Lavigna, 2010). Interestingly,

driver influence include employee relationships, communication, and employee

appreciation. Organizational leaders need to find which metric holds the greatest weight

with employees, thus maintaining the focus of leaders to improve engagement. Through

comprehending the depth and weight of these drivers, action plans can focus specifically

on improving these isolated areas.

There are main influencers to increase or decrease employee engagement that

differ within each organization. James and Kowske (2009) state, “Identifying and acting

on key drivers of engagement can have a positive influence on employee behaviors and

subsequently on an organization’s bottom-line” (p. 1). Research shows drivers for

 60

engagement that rank the highest are often personal to the employee and encompass

work/life balance, general enthusiasm about work, opportunities for growth, and overall

certainty and belief in the company and its future (James & Kowske, 2009). For many

employees these drivers may include organizations with childcare options or flexible

hours, promotional opportunities and training to prepare for these promotions, and

overall, an honest and ethical organization in both its dealings internally and externally.

Identifying the key drivers becomes a critical step for employers in diagnosing an

organizational strategy to improve engagement. Ultimately, the organizational leaders

will need to categorize these key drivers in order to create action plans.

Employees want a diverse organization that encourages growth. For engaged

employees, the organization should support and reward ethical behavior, while not

tolerating unethical conduct, as an example. The job should provide challenges, allowing

a learning environment for failure, while encouraging employee contributions.

Organizational leaders can decipher the critical areas that will increase engagement by

understanding the intersection or overlap of engagement drivers and creating action plans

to address these areas. Different measurements are used within organizations to

determine which drivers mean the most to employees and thus, to employee engagement.

Surveys, with rankings of top five employee concerns, are tools that measures employee

engagement and aid in identifying these key drivers.

Research shows negative or harmful relationships in the workplace can damage

engagement by removing the safety and trust factor and bringing into question if

organizational leaders are truly concerned about the best interest of employees,

specifically if not dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner (Halbesleban & Wheeler,
 61

2008; Mannelly, 2009). This, in turn, distorts the view of the future of the organization

as well as many of the other drivers as these relationships, if not positive, can deter

employees causing disengagement and loss of confidence in the organization. Manager

and co-worker relationships can drive employee engagement up or down, depending on a

positive or negative of leader presence. Additional examples of drivers are

communication and trust.

Trust plays an important role in employee engagement as employees who have a

belief in the values and goals of the leaders of their organization, employees are more

loyal and dedicated than those who do not hold the same level of confidence in their

leaders (Federman, 2009). Trust in leadership is essential to organizations; organizations

suffer with internal turmoil and chaos in the absence of trust. Most crucial is open and

transparent communication – meaning no secret motives; room for learning from

mistakes; high accountability and no double standards; shared success; these traits bring

energy (Covey, 2006). These traits give employees the opportunity to be creative and

empowered without fear. Employees must have an atmosphere to ask questions and

learn, while knowing their opinions matter. Trust is a critical component to an

organizational environment that seeks to breed engaged employees. The absence of trust

will breed disengagement. For organizations with damaged trust, the rebuilding process

takes a long time and a great deal of effort.

Research also shows engaged employees want to feel part of the organization

(Bryce, 2009; Hemsley, 2007; Kong, 2009). The level of engagement requires consistent

open and honest communication. Another requirement is leaders acceptance of different

ideas and opinions as well as transparency. Leaders must also speak for understanding
 62

and validate the understanding, which is an additional step required in open, honest two-

way communication. This is essential in communicating expectations to employees

while allowing employees to ask questions without fear of retaliation. Open

communication of this type builds relationships and trust, both of which are essential

drivers of engagement.

In addition to communication, recognition and appreciation also fuel engagement.

Kouzes and Posner (2002) related recognition and appreciation to “Encourage the Heart.”

Through encouraging the heart, leaders recognize the contributions of the employee and

show appreciation for employee involvement. Recognition of small wins and

achievements encourages employee commitment (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Employees

need to know their contributions aid the business to achieve its goals, thus are important.

This promotes ownership and employees invest in the success of the organization, thus

increasing the emotional connection of employees. Additional drivers of employee

engagement may include training and development, opportunity for advancement or

growth, and even relationships with peers. Employees want organizational leaders who

make an investment in employee development and growth. Kenexa Research Institute

(2008) also found that engaged employees promote the company to others, thus

encouraging close friends and family to join the organization (James & Kowske, 2009).

Drivers may differ amongst organizations depending on the organization’s culture

and employee make-up, as well as the leadership styles present within the organization.

In general, organizational leaders are seeking what drives employees to perform, while

having employees own their performance. Organizational leaders need to identify the

metrics that hold the greatest potential to increase and sustain employee engagement
 63

through effective measurements. In addition, as mentioned above, part of the process of

identifying drivers of engagement is recognizing drivers or symptoms of disengagement.

Another way for organizations to view engagement is to assess what employees needs are

being met and which are being ignored. Maslow’s theory states there are five basic needs

to every individual: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization (Maslow,

1954). This entails organizations evaluating the weight of these needs against

engagement drivers. Each driver may have a different weight or level of influence on

engagement and by effective measurements; organizations can determine how to

prioritize the needs of his or her employees.

Measurements of Employee Engagement

Top companies in employee engagement have “a systematic way of measuring

the core drivers of retention and engagement, and a process for addressing these key

drivers with target actions” ("The E11 index", 2008, p. 1.) Employee engagement

measurements include organizational surveys, focus groups, leadership assessments,

feedback sessions, and exit interviews. Overall measuring what holds the greatest weight

to employees determines the key drivers for employee engagement.

Kenexa’s research suggests organizations should measure what matters most to

the best employees of the organization and tailor the questions specific to the

organization (Bryce, 2009). These questions may center on the employee’s loyalty to the

organization, his or her feelings about the leadership, trust, communication, and

development and training opportunities, as mentioned above. Specifically, organizational

leaders need to ask the tough questions to gauge engagement levels and typically,

questions that focus on loyalty, commitment, and support or promotion of the

 64

organization reveal the percent of population engaged. More important is reassuring

employees that honest feedback is welcomed and confidentiality will be maintained.

In addition to surveys, focus groups often provide deeper insight to the questions

answered on the surveys while, helping to dissect survey results. The face-to-face time

with employees reinforces that the organizational leaders care about employee responses

thus aiding in insightfulness of engagement drivers through a qualitative exploration of

the results. Clarification can be gained as to why a question was answered in a certain

way or if the responses were based on one particular instance or person. Focus groups

are good for gaining the buy-in from the employees on the importance of engagement and

soliciting their input on what means the most within the drivers (Esty & Gewirtz, 2008;

Gallup Consulting, 2008). The study sought to use focus groups to gain insight into the

engagement levels as experienced by the selected participants. A desired outcome was

gaining new knowledge that linked characteristics of servant leadership to employee

engagement levels.

Employee Engagement and Leadership

Wallace and Trinka (2009) claimed, “Unequivocally, the leadership of the

immediate manager is more important than any other organizational variable. Great

leadership engenders high levels [or percentages] of engagement that drive organizational

performance” (p. 10). Leaders play critical role in any improvements or declines in

employee engagement by the standard they set for his or her employees. This would

include all levels of the organization, as even involvement of leadership is important to

the success of organizations. By being able to replicate effective leadership skills or

employ an effective leadership philosophy, engagement improves within the organization

 65

as a whole. When benchmarking employee engagement by work groups, organizations

should identify leadership philosophies that drive the results. Organizations may find

certain leadership philosophies influence and increase engagement more than others may.

When examining the aspects needed for engagement according to the Gallup

research, engagement requires communication, empowerment, development, growth,

building trust, praise and recognition, and connection with humanness of employees

(Gallup Consulting, 2008; Robison, 2010a, 2010b). The above aspects require strong

leadership that effectively influence and inspire employees. Engagement further requires

empowerment, development, and growth opportunity. According to Blanchard (2010),

“empowerment is the process of unleashing the power in people – their knowledge,

experience, and motivation – and focusing that power to achieve positive outcomes for

the organization … Empowerment requires a major shift in attitude” (p. 58). For leaders,

this means providing the development and training to empower employees and giving

employees room for failure and growth.

Employees want to feel their manager has confidence in their abilities and the

confidence often comes from the leader investing time in development and training with

their followers (Antelo, Prilipko, & Sheridan-Pereira, 2010; Attridge, 2009; Kong, 2009;

Loftus, Dobb, & Lawson, 2011). If effective communication were in place, then leaders

could discuss expectations and receive feedback to encourage empowerment by placing

healthy boundaries for employees to make decisions. Most important is for leaders to

drive engagement through developing their employees and creating an atmosphere for

creativity and innovation through empowerment. This encourages employees to take

risks while knowing they have the support of their leadership. The support provided by
 66

leaders through empowerment, communication, development, and training aids in

building the connection between the leader and follower. As stated previously,

employees want to feel a connection, an emotional attachment to their organization and

the leadership within the organization, as the driver breeds engagement.

Research shows connections reinforce respect and support of the employee, while

opening discussions for work/life balance (Esty & Gewirtz, 2008; Wallace & Trinka,

2009; Wildermuth & Wildermuth, 2008). Employees have to feel connected to the

organization in both career growth and understanding how their contributions affect the

overall results of the organization. According to Nielson (2010), increased employee

engagement results from leaders relating to their employees on a daily basis. Employees

need to feel the connection. Leadership as well as leadership styles within an

organization may influence employee engagement positively or negatively depending on

the employee. Although employees contribute to engagement, organizational leaders are

responsible for driving a culture that fosters engagement.

Servant Leadership and Employee Engagement

In assessing the characteristics of employee engagement and of servant

leadership, an overlap of attributes exist, which could imply that servant leadership may

have a positive influence on employee engagement. The first research question sought to

specifically explore and paint a picture of the experience of servant leadership through

lived-experiences, meaning how leaders and followers described their experiences and

what impact did their experiences have on both personal and professional development.

The second research question explored the experience and perception of employees who

had firsthand experience working in a servant leader organization from both the
 67

perspective of leaders as well as followers. The level of engagement of these employees

was unknown. Through the study, questions were asked to determine their level of

engagement and if servant leadership influenced their level of engagement and if so, to

what extent. These questions required a phenomenological study to gain insight and

personal testimony from the participants through open and honest responses.

The similarities with employee engagement found are with communication,

ethics, trust, and belonging. These similarities are also drivers of engagement. Research

does not confirm or deny if servant leadership influences employee engagement although

research suggests leadership within an organization does possess an important role in the

employee/manager relationship and with the employee’s overall feelings towards an

organization (Ayers, 2008; Esty & Gewirtz, 2008; James & Kowske, 2009; Mannelly,

2009).

Chapter Summary

Servant leadership is an embedded theory that through serving others, leaders are

developed. The leadership theory, originally coined by Greenleaf in 1977, has grown

through a need for ethical and authentic leadership. Servant leaders aim at the heart of

followers through listening empathetically, healing emotional wounds, and a commitment

to develop and grow the follower. The theory suggests employees perform better with

leaders who focus on the success of the employee above the success of the leader.

Servant leaders are ethical and authentic in their approach. These leaders also are self-

aware and sacrificial in their service. What is unknown is the effect of servant leadership

on employee engagement.
 68

Employee engagement is an organizational strategy, which supports employee

involvement and retention in the workplace, while building long-term commitment.

Contributions to the success of the organization identify engaged employees with active

involvement in decision-making, and overall loyalty increases the desire of soliciting

employment of close friends or family. Disengaged employees, in comparison, cost

organizations billions of dollars through his or her unethical behavior, absenteeism, and

poor performance. Drivers of engagement differ within organizations based on the

culture of the organization and its leadership. In addition to surveys, focus groups

measure engagement levels within organizations.

Chapter 3 will provide details on the research design and process. Details of the

process for data collection and analysis provide steps to take in the research. The process

for selection of the participants includes the interview questions to ask to both employees

of the chosen organization and its leaders. Chapter 3 also provides details of the data

collection and themes found.

 69

CHAPTER 3: METHOD

The purpose of the phenomenological study was to understand the engagement of

servant leader employees at restaurant in Dallas, Texas. The central phenomenon in the

study was to examine the experience of employees employed by an organization with

servant leadership as a guiding philosophy. Servant leadership is defined as “the skills of

influencing people to enthusiastically work toward goals identified as being for the

common good, with character that inspires confidence” (Hunter, 2004, p. 290).

Understanding these lived experiences was critical to employee engagement strategies

and the leadership philosophies adopted within organizations.

The chapter describes the research method and design and its appropriateness to

the study expanded upon from Chapter 1. Details of the proposed population as well as

the sampling process and steps used for data collection are in the chapter. The researcher

provided a discussion on the data analysis process for use and any ethical concerns within

the scope of the research.

Research Method and Design Appropriateness

The study used a qualitative approach to explore the perceptions of employees

and understand the application of servant leadership as experienced by the participants.

According to Creswell (2005), qualitative research is most appropriate when the research

depends on the interpretation of words and themes as gathered through interviews. A

qualitative approach was relevant for the study as this type of research allowed in

inductive assessment of servant leadership through the firsthand experiences and

responses of employees in a servant leader environment. Through a qualitative approach,

the study can increase dialogue on servant leadership and employee engagement.
 70

This type of research sought an in-depth understanding of emotions and

perceptions as gained through interviews, observations, and gathered data (Finlay, 2009).

By exploring the themes developed through the interview responses, the researcher

obtained an in-depth understanding of servant leadership and the external forces that

shape servant leadership. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research seeks the

personal experiences of a few versus a general response of many. Two traits of highly

engaged organizations are listening and soliciting responses from employees. Employees

want leaders who both hear and acknowledge what they say and feel. Surveys, alone,

often do not acknowledge employees. Through interviews and focus groups, participants

are able to provide stories to describe their experience that is not normally available with

surveys.

A qualitative method was appropriate for the study as the method is dependent on

the perspectives of participants through open-ended questions which allowed a deeper

understanding and allowed the participants to express themselves more fully than a

survey alone (Creswell, 2005). Analysis of information obtained from these participants

was for meaning and understanding and resulted in a collection of words and themes. To

understand the servant leader experience of employees in the study, a qualitative method

provided the flexibility of obtaining data through both observations and interviews and

focus groups.

Finlay (2009) stated, “Phenomenological research aims to capture subjective,

‘insider’ meanings and what the lived experience feels like for individuals” (p 475).

Based on the need to gain personal insight to the characteristics of servant leadership as

experienced through working in a servant leader environment for a minimum of five

 71

years, a phenomenological design was the best-fit choice. Observations of characteristics

such as healing and empathy occur over time but research requires witnessing both the

cause and situation that required healing or empathy as well as the subsequence actions

that addressed these feelings. Surveys are multiple-choice with closed-ended questions

that do not allow participants to expand on personal experience of servant leader

characteristics.

Grounded theory design was not applicable due to the design “is a ‘process’

theory – it explains an educational process of events, activities, action and interactions

that occur over time” (Creswell, 2005, p. 396). The proposed study only used isolated

observations but not observations over a continuous span of time and the influence of

servant leadership to employee engagement is unknown. The goal is not to establish or

prove a theory. Ethnographic research focuses on a culture of people rather than an

organizational culture formed by servant leadership. Narrative research was also not

considered as the study seeks to understand how individual perceptions of a shared

experience vary and relate to employee engagement levels.

Case study was considered as a viable option but ruled out due to the proposed

study is not examining the cause and effect of servant leadership through a one-time

event but rather the influence of servant leadership as established in an organization for a

specific number of years. If the study focused on an event or a group of people who all

experienced the same type of hurt, for example, then a case study could examine how the

implementation of servant leadership contributed to the healing of the group. Since the

study is limited to a restaurant, findings are not specific to all servant leader organizations
 72

as the servant leadership experience may vary by industry. Observations are difficult in a

restaurant environment without causing disruption or distraction to customers served.

A phenomenological method allowed a deeper understanding of servant

leadership through exploring the lived experiences of these employees by the words,

expressions, and languages used. Based on responses, the words, and languages will

triangulated with research material on servant leadership and employee engagement. The

themes obtained can provide future insight to the effectiveness of servant leadership and

the influence of servant leadership in employee engagement.

Research Questions

The following research questions, explored through the research, serve as the bases for

the study:

RQ1: How do employees of a servant leader based company describe their

experience?

RQ2: How do participants describe the influence of servant leadership on their

engagement?

These questions explored the experiences of employees in a servant led

organization to understand how employees defined servant leadership and how their

experience influenced their level of engagement. These research questions provided an

initial direction for the study while taking into consideration that phenomenological study

research questions may evolve based on obtained information.

Population

The following criteria determined the population of the study. First, the

participant must be a current employee of the research organization in Dallas, Texas,

 73

USA. Second, the participant must have a minimum of five years of service with the

restaurant. Demographics of the selected organization include Front of House (FOH),

Kitchen, Market, and Catering with 100 employees. Of these 100 employees, forty-three

have a minimum of five years of service with the organization. By department, twenty

are FOH; four are in Catering, two in Marketing, and seventeen in the Kitchen and four

are managers.

Sampling Frame

Sampling for qualitative research requires a selection of participants who are

knowledgeable of the phenomenon and who willingly volunteer (Finlay, 2009). The

knowledge is determined by having a minimum of five years of service with the chosen

organization, which would suggest the participant has lived the phenomenon a minimum

of five years with the same company. Purposeful sampling identifies participants who

are both experienced and knowledgeable about the chosen phenomenon (Redmond &

Curtis, 2009, Wahyuni, 2012). A purposeful sampling may prove valuable to data

collection within a qualitative study.

A homogeneous sampling is a purposeful sampling of “individuals or sites based

on a membership in a subgroup that has defining characteristics” (Creswell, 2005, p.

206). Maximal variation sampling is not an appropriate choice, as the option requires

participants who have different characteristics, which was not part of the study. Theory

sampling seeks to discover a theory through the sampling. The central phenomenon of

the study was an organization that practices servant leadership and the influences to the

engagement of employees.
 74

Invited participants joined the study through an introduction by the company’s

owner who provided broad details of the research as prepared by the researcher

(Appendix C). Volunteers received specific details of the research with the option of

declining participation anytime during the study prior to the publication of the results.

According to Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech, and Zoran (2009), “focus groups

should include enough participants yield diversity in information provided, yet they

should not include too many participants because large groups can create an environment

where participants do not feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and

experiences” (p 3). A selection of 11 participants were obtained with representation

from each department and were selected first come, first serve with additional volunteers

intended to be placed on a waiting list in case someone withdrew.

Informed Consent

Permission obtained from the company’s president allowed the study at

Celebration Restaurant. Participants received permission and confidentiality agreements

upon interest of participation in the study, with consent forms (Appendices C, D, E, and

G). Participants read and signed consent and confidentiality forms prior to the start of the

interview and focus groups to determine and confirm current participation by the

researcher (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Participants received full disclosure of the

purpose of the study. A waiting list was unnecessary due to 11 of the desired 12,

volunteered. Two managers out of four volunteered for the interviews one from each of

the larger departments.

 75

Confidentiality

Participants received written information on the research subject and subsequent

procedures for protecting the anonymity of participants (Appendices C, D and E). One

risk determined by participating in the study is the risk of invasion of privacy,

specifically by participation in the focus group. To reduce risks, data collection was

without the use of names and random numbers chosen (Houghton et al, 2010).

Explanation of the process was both verbally and in written form for the participants.

Participants chose a random number for use for identification during the interview and

the number placed in front of the sitting area for visual identification by the researcher

(Houghton et al, 2010). Another risk may be the breach of confidentiality by other

participants in the focus groups (Halcomb et al, 2007). Although difficult to control,

emphasis of confidentiality was both in writing and verbally for all participants stressing

respect of peer privacy.

The researcher committed to respecting the privacy and confidentiality of each

study participant and agreed to keep all notes, audio transcriptions and any related files in

a locked filing cabinet in the researcher’s home office (Wester, 2011). Three years

concluding the study, the researcher will destroy all material pertaining to the research.

The agreement was also included with the consent form (Appendices D and E) given to

each participant.

Geographic Location

The geographical location of the study was in a restaurant located in Dallas,

Texas, USA. Dallas is “The ninth-largest city [in the United States] and part of the
 76

fourth-largest metropolitan area in the nation, Dallas covers approximately 343 square

miles and has a population of 1,299,543” (Visit Dallas, 2011, para. 1).

Pilot Study

A pilot of the study was conducted prior to data collection focus group questions

found in Appendices B to allow refinement of the questions. Five emails were sent with

the focus group questions and two were returned. Pilot participants of the study were

employees with less than five years of service who were ineligible to participate based on

the criteria for the study. Pilot participants received the questions via email with a

request for return within five days.

Due to the similarity in questions, only the focus group questions were emailed.

Once received, perceived understanding by the pilot participants helped revise the

questions. The data from the pilot was not part of the study findings with the exception

of reframing questions that were vague or awkward. Upon revision of the questions, the

company owner arranged the scheduling of the focus groups and interviews through

sending the solicitation email to all perspective participants.

Data Collection

The data collection process focused on four sources: semi-structured interview

data, focus group data, documented data (previous company survey results and internal

documentation), and direct and non-obtrusive observations, which helped to triangulate

the research findings. A homogeneous sampling gained participants with the criterion of

a minimum of five years’ service with Celebration Restaurant. Two interviews with two

managers and two focus groups with 11 partners were conducted over a period of two

months. The focus groups split into two groups with five in one group and six in another,
 77

conducted several weeks apart. Criteria for participation for interviews remained

managers with a minimum of five years and for the focus groups, non-managers with a

minimum of five years.

The interviews and focus groups took place onsite in a designated training room

for the convenience of the participants as well as to maintain a level of comfort for the

participants (Shaha, Wenzel, & Hill, 2011). Interviews and focus groups were limited to

75 minutes, with part of the time dedicated to reading the consent and confidentiality

statements (Redmond & Curtis, 2009).

A semi-structured interview process allowed prepared questions to help guide the

interview, while allowing the participant the opportunity to add any relevant information

based on the topic and questions asked. Interviews were for the managers while the focus

groups were for non-managers. Typically, management level employees are comfortable

sharing in one-on-one interviews and do not necessarily need to be in a group to speak on

a subject (Redmond & Curtis, 2009). Frontline employees are often more comfortable

speaking in groups and building off the ideas of one another (Redmond & Curtis, 2009).

According to Rodrigues et al, (2010) “The focus group method… makes

interaction between several participants a key part of the data collection process, with

group discussion generating and testing new ideas and opinions” (p 77). Thus, interview

groups were used for managers and focus groups for partners. Interviews occurred prior

to the focus groups, and after the pilot study, to provide a manager perspective of servant

leadership and responses from these interviews added additional questions for the focus

groups.
 78

Managers received confidentiality and consent statements, listed in Appendix D

prior to scheduled interview and with time to ask questions at the start of each session.

Managers were allowed to ask any questions prior to and after the interviews. Manager

interviews coded by numbers protected the identity of the manager within the transcripts.

Questions listed in Appendix I guided the interviews and allowed participants to expand

on their responses as they saw fit. Interviews lasted approximately an hour each,

depending on the questions asked by the managers. Both interviews took place during

work hours. The professional transcriber signed the confidentiality form found in

Appendix H and received the audio files upon completion of each interview. The

transcriber returned the written transcripts, with original audio files to the researcher for

validation and analysis.

Non-management employees participated in the focus groups as the venue

allowed for interaction and researcher observations of the group (Bagnoli & Clark, 2010;

Rodrigues et al., 2010). For the focus groups to be effective, the researcher controlled the

group while ensuring full participation and responses to each question to the comfort

level of the participants. Focus groups lasted 60 to 75 minutes depending on the

questions asked by the participants, as part of the time also entailed the reading and

signing of the consent forms.

Focus groups are “a form of group interview where the aim is to understand the

social dynamic and interaction between participants through the collection of verbal and

observational data” (Redmond & Curtis, 2009, p. 57). To accomplish the task, questions

asked must be open-ended questions that allow both in-depth examination into the topic

as well as to allow the participants to discuss their feelings on the subject (Redmond &
 79

Curtis, 2009). Revised questions in Appendix L guided the focus groups with some

variations made for managers to target specific perceptions of servant leadership

application at a leader level. Questions one through six explored the servant leader

experiences of the participants, while gathering information for themes.

Once the researcher read aloud the consent and confidentiality statement,

participants had the opportunity to withdraw his or her participation as well as reserved

the right to withdraw his or her participation once the focus groups were completed.

Focus group participants received copies of the confidentiality and consent statement, as

listed in Appendix E, prior to the sessions, with time provided for signing of the forms

and questions. Participants received a number for identification on the audio recording

during the focus groups. The revised questions listed in Appendix L guided the focus

group discussions. Two focus groups divided participants with five in one and six in the

other group. Two focus groups achieved data saturation.

Responses from interviews and focus groups were tape recorded for professional

transcription. The researcher also took notes as able (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2009).

Participants received a number at the start of the session for use as identification prior to

speaking. Analysis of responses from the interviews and focus groups formed themes

and categories. Summaries of participants' responses by individual question evaluated

unique experiences, while themes generated from clustering the questions from the group

interaction. The analysis of the text used the modified van Kaam method to dissect each

theme (Creswell, 2007). Evaluation of emerging themes by group and by question

occurred for relevance to servant leadership and employee engagement.

 80

Focus groups occurred after the lunch hours, once the restaurant cleared of

customers and excess employees. Interviews with the managers occurred before the

restaurant opened to the public in private rooms. In exchange for the time of the

participants, the results of the study will provide insight to the effectiveness of servant

leadership and employee engagement drivers based on the participants’ responses. The

goal through data analysis was to gain a detailed understanding of how the participants

have experienced servant leadership. Responses obtained sought unique experiences that

described how servant leadership influenced the engagement level of participants.

Validity and Reliability

Validity of the data depends on the credibility of research data obtained

(Wahyuni, 2012). Participants were solicited via email by the company’s owner, which

could hinder the validity and reliability of the results. Participants could have felt

pressured to participate and not be completely open and honest. The researcher did not

have a connection with the research company, which provided an unbiased perspective

for the participants. Through the confidentiality agreement and the consent forms

participants had the opportunity to opt out of the study without any penalty (Halcomb et

al, 2007). Participants were encouraged to speak openly and honestly with the

knowledge that the researcher, as stated in the confidentiality agreement, would protect

their identity in the published results and transcripts were not shared with management.

Through the study, transcription of the interview and focus group responses

derived from audio recordings. A professional transcriber ensured accuracy by

transferring verbal data to written form (Mero-Jaffe, 2011). A non-disclosure agreement

completed by the transcriber ensured privacy protection of the participants (see Appendix
 81

H). The researcher used manual coding to analyze responses through keywords-in-

context (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2009) to improve the validity of the results versus the use of

automated or computerized software that may prohibit the detection of subtle themes.

The approach allowed the researcher to compare visual observations to written words for

deeper insight to the meaning of words and themes identified (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2009).

One of the main concerns with phenomenology and qualitative research is the ability for

the researcher to separate out personal bias or perceived conclusions based on prior

knowledge or experience with the phenomena. Epoche was applied to address this

concern.

Epochè

The key to ensuring the data obtained is valid is by ensuring the researcher does

not influence the participant’s responses as well as listens with an open ear to discover

new information (Wester, 2011). The researcher began the study with a level of

understanding and experience with leadership philosophies. Researcher views leaned to

the viability of servant leadership within an organization and a positive contribution to

employee engagement. To minimize bias throughout interviews and focus groups, the

researcher refrained from commentary on responses provided by participants and limited

remarks to encourage open and honest discussions. Focus group participants spoke at

will and without influence by the researcher. Empathy was used to aid in participants

expanding on thoughts or comments that were not complete through allowing a moment

of silence for participants to gather their thoughts without judgment or nodding to

provide encouragement.
 82

Through bracketing, objectivity was maintained by the researcher and biases

isolated. Data triangulation related findings and explored disconfirming views of the

researcher. Data analysis began with epochè, or bracketing, where the researcher isolated

any personal experiences or assumptions about the study to limit bias (Hamill and

Sinclair, 2010). Researchers must ensure self-inspection of how any views, biases, or

assumptions from personal knowledge or experience can influence the information

obtained from the participants as well as the questions asked. Empathy should be used to

bridge the gap between the researcher’s disconnect from the subject and an openness to

the participant.

Hamill and Sinclair (2010) stated, “Empathy should primarily benefit the client

by assisting them in coming face-to-face with their reality; bracketing should primarily

benefit the researcher in coming face-to-face with the participant’s reality” (pps. 22-23).

The use of empathy allowed open discussions without leading the participants. The

process led the some participants to be completely open and honest about their

experiences. Observations by the researcher and personal feelings were recorded in

researcher journal notes, which helped to identify and isolate biases.

In the study, the researcher maintained a journal to record observations as well

as personal feelings going into the interviews to use in bracketing, maintain objectivity,

and isolate biases. Analysis of interview and focus group responses occurred jointly and

individually. The approach will help to isolate leader responses from line employees to

identify unique experiences of each level. The combined data from the two groups

resulted in common themes that aided in triangulation of the data with the use of current

survey results and research on employee engagement. Through the clustering of

 83

participants’ servant leader experiences, understanding and meaning resulted. The

modified van Kaam method will be applied to each group of participants and then to data

in its entirety (Moustakas, 1994).

Data Analysis

The modified van Kaam method assisted in analyzing data (Moustakas, 1994).

The first step in the process was to list and group experiences from participants.

Responses from focus groups and interviews were assessed separately. The second step

reviewed the transcripts and removed non-descript words, unclear comments, or

irrelevant responses to the experience in question. The third step was to cluster the core

themes and experiences and begin coding. The fourth step was to identify invariant

constituents or reoccurring themes as found from step three.

Step five used the invariant constituents to construct individual textural

descriptions based on the responses from the participants and provided an individual

summary of experiences by participant by question. Step six involved constructing

individual structural descriptions based on the previous step, which resulted in a

summary of experiences for each individual participant. Step seven involved

constructing a textural-structural description, which combined steps five and six. From

the process, the researcher was able to “develop a Composite Description of the meanings

and essences of the experience representing the group as a whole” (Moustakas, 1994, p.

121). The process led to findings and themes based on the analyzed data.

Data Triangulation

Data triangulation is defined as “the process of corroborating evidence from

different individuals (e.g., a principal and a student), types of data (e.g., observational
 84

field notes and interviews) or methods of data collection (e.g., documents and interviews)

in descriptions and themes in qualitative research ” (Creswell, 2005, p.252). In the study,

interviews and focus group responses were compared to internal servant leadership

surveys, and completing the data triangulation with researcher direct and non-obtrusive

observations.

Internal surveys from the past two years contributed to data triangulation. The

research organization conducts annual surveys that measured both servant leadership and

employee satisfaction within the organization and of the leadership. These surveys

served as a baseline for the level of understanding of servant leadership as interpreted by

the partners in the organization. The surveys also revealed the study organization

received consecutive high marks in areas of servant leader characteristics.

A two-hour observation was conducted, one hour after the interviews and half

hour before each focus group. During these observations, partner interactions were

observed as well as interactions with customers. Observations were documented in the

researcher’s journal for future assessments. The observations did not interfere with the

operations of the participants nor the research organization.

Chapter Summary

Chapter 3 provided details of the research procedures. A qualitative method

allowed an in-depth exploration using words and themes as obtained through open-ended

questions. A firsthand experience of employees in a servant leader environment sought

to understand how these employees describe their experience and how the experience

influenced engagement levels. A phenomenological design aided in exploring the lived

experiences of these employees who have a minimum of five years’ service with the
 85

selected organization. The phenomena explored servant leadership and its corresponding

influence on employee engagement. The chosen design fit the study using focus groups

and interviews to gain person insight to how these employees describe their servant

leader experience.

The population of the study consists of 100 current employees of which 43 have a

minimum of five years of service. Both leaders and employees are part of the selected

population with representation from the major departments. Through homogeneous

sampling participants joined based on the determined criteria. The company’s president

and site manager provided a letter of introduction. The letter provided an overview of the

study, its purpose and any risks associated with participation in the study.

Interview and focus group questions were part of the data collection techniques.

Data analysis included Epochè or bracketing to remove or isolate biases as well as

personal assumptions based on previous experience with the subject. Data handled in an

ethical manner maintained the integrity of the data as well as the confidentiality of the

participants. Chapters 4 and 5 will detail the results of the study and any

recommendations based on findings, respectively.

 86

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The purpose of the phenomenological study was to explore the influence of

servant leadership on employee engagement within a restaurant, specifically Celebration

Restaurant. The central phenomenon in the study sought to understand the engagement

of Dallas’ restaurant employees. The owner of Celebration credited servant leadership as

the reason for the organization’s success and used the leadership philosophy in

marketing. Two leaders and 11 partners of Celebration Restaurant who had a minimum

of five years’ experience participated in the interviews and focus groups, respectively, to

understand the influence of their personal experiences on employee engagement.

A qualitative method was appropriate for the study as the method is dependent on

an introspective view from employees who have experienced servant leadership (Gable et

al, 2010). The method provided insight into the participants’ personal experiences and

the contribution to engagement. Personal perspectives gained through open-ended

questions provided a broader understanding of how servant leadership contributed to the

engagement level of employees. Analysis of information obtained from data through

both observations and interviews provided meaning and understanding through collection

of words and themes that helped to understand how these participants viewed the

behaviors of servant leadership and if the view contributed to or reduced engagement

levels.

A phenomenological design allowed the exploration of psychological concepts

such as shared experiences or feelings of confidence and inspiration as well as what

specific action encouraged these feelings (Ajjawi & Higgs, 2007). Through focus

groups, questions asked sought to obtain an understanding of how the servant leadership
 87

experience differed by person and possibly department and provide additional insight to

servant leadership as experienced in a restaurant environment.

Chapter 4 presents the detailed analysis of leader interviews and focus groups

with partners from Celebration Restaurant. A pilot study conducted with partners of less

than five years’ experience served to test the questions and provide a base for the focus

group and interview questions. Revised questions resulted upon completion of the pilot.

The analyzed data determined the emerging themes for ways the experience of

servant leadership influenced engagement levels. The analysis presented in Chapter 4

includes an explanation of the data analysis method used and how these results relate

directly research questions of the study. Chapter 4 examines how these questions

provided the structure for the conducted study and were the foundation for the research

and results. Chapter 4 also discusses the pilot study, the sample demographics, data

analysis procedures, and qualitative findings.

Pilot Study

A pilot study conducted prior to data collection helped to validate and clarify the

interview and focus group questions (Neuman, 2006). An email requested participants

with less than five years’ of service to complete the questions and return by email. The

two responses received assisted in rewording questions for clarification and eliminate

redundant questions. The revised questions provided clarification of the meaning of

“employee engagement,” which was a term the participants were not familiar. The term

“servant leadership” was well understood by all participants based on the company’s

introduction and on-going training on servant leadership. Participants within the five
 88

years had gained a deep understanding of servant leadership and its definition, thus the

researcher did not need to define.

With the interview protocol, Question one was revised from “What is your

experience of servant leadership?” to “What is your experience with servant leadership?”

Question five was revised from “In what ways does servant leadership increase your

engagement?” to “In what ways does servant leadership increase your personal

commitment?” Question seven changed from “Do you find servant leadership is

beneficial to your company? Why or why not? If so, why do you think more companies

don’t apply servant leadership?” to “Why do you think more companies don’t apply

servant leadership?” The original question assumed servant leadership was “beneficial,”

thus was revised to remove any bias. The latter part of the question seven was previously

addressed in other questions making question seven irrelevant to the study.

Question eight “What influence does servant leadership have on your level of

commitment to your organization?” was similar to Question five and was eliminated. A

final question was added, “Do you have any other servant leadership stories you would

like to share that express your experience?” to allow participants to add any last

comments that may not have been asked. The revised questions are in Appendix I.

Focus group questions only required a minimum adjustment. Question 4, “How

does working in a servant leader environment motivate you,” combined with Question 5,

which reads, “What about your experience with servant leadership has kept you with the

same employer for at least five years?” The questions derived similar responses. The

question asked was “What has kept you with this company for as long as you have been

here?” The sub-questions further explored the unique experiences of the participants,
 89

specifically asking, “What keeps you coming to work each day for five plus years?” also

helped with reframing the questions to derive deeper, thought provoking responses.

Appendix L lists the revised questions.

Demographics

Of the 43 employees listed with five years or more of service, the study explored

the experiences of 13 or 30% or the total qualified population. Of the 30%, one manager

is the owner of Celebration and two partners quit and returned to the company. One

partner quit after a year to work for a previous employer and then returned to Celebration.

The other partner left after several years to pursue another opportunity only to return to

Celebration. The sample provided ample representation from each department, including

those who have worked or work in various departments.

Of the 13 participants, eight were male and three female. Department

representation included nine from Front of the House (FOH), three from Catering, and

One from Kitchen. Two of the 13 had experience in multiple departments. The table

below depicts the range of years of service and those with prior servant leadership

experience.

Table 1

Demographics of Participants

Years with Number Prior Experience

Celebration with SL
20 to 40 3 0
10 to 19 3 0
5 to 9 7 1
 90

Data Collection Procedures

Two interviews with two managers and two focus groups with 11 partners were

conducted over a period of two months. The focus groups split into two groups with five

in one group and six in another, conducted several weeks apart. The researcher

documented key points and the participants’ numbers for reference when reviewing the

recordings. Researcher notes also contained observations of behaviors during the

interviews and focus groups. Recording the observations allowed comparisons of visual

observations to written words for deeper insight of the emotion behind words used or

non-use of words.

Data Analysis Procedures

The modified van Kaam method was applied to analyze the data (Moustakas,

1994). Step one reviewed focus group and interview responses verbatim to group and

summarize experiences. A comparison of partner and manager responses and provided

insight to differences in perspective of the study phenomenon was made. Through Step

two, the researcher reviewed written transcripts against the audio recording to validate

accuracy. Through this analysis, all non-descript words, unclear comments, or irrelevant

responses to the experience in question were removed. Additionally, any identifying

information was removed from the data to preserve confidentiality (Onwuegbuzie et al,

2009).

The third step clustered the core themes and experiences and began coding.

Coding used keywords-in-context and words used multiple times within each question,

separating interviews from focus groups. According to Onwuegbuzie et al (2009), “The

purpose of keywords-in-context is to determine how words are used in context with other
 91

words… the contexts within words are especially important in focus groups because of

the interactive nature of focus groups” (p 6). Thus, all words were reviewed for

reoccurrence and usage. Words that reoccurred five times or more were recorded as code

and identified in Step 4 as invariant constituents or reoccurring themes.

Step five used the invariant constituents to construct individual textural

descriptions based on the responses from the participants and provided an individual

summary of experiences by question (Moustakas, 1994). The data was further narrowed

through Step six, which involved constructing individual structural descriptions and

resulted in a summary of experiences for each individual participant. Step seven

involved constructing a textural-structural description, which combined steps five and

six. From the process, the researcher was able to “develop a Composite Description of

the meanings and essences of the experience representing the group as a whole”

(Moustakas, 1994, p. 121). The themes were narrowed to five main themes based on the

research questions. The process led to findings and themes based on the analyzed data.

Findings

The interview and focus group questions coupled with the research questions

aided in compiling the themes found and validated participants' responses.

Research Journal Notes

The researcher kept several notes throughout the study. Initial impressions upon

first meeting with restaurant owner were feelings of awe and wonder. The first site one

sees when entering the restaurant is a wall full of photos with employees with five years

and more of service. The photos reflect diversity in age, race, and gender as well as

represent various parts of the restaurant. Second encounter was with the host who was
 92

thrilled to have a visitor and who entertained with facts about the restaurant and his joy of

working with Celebration Restaurant.

Upon the second visit to conduct interviews, the researcher met additional

cheerful people. Both managers were very passionate about servant leadership and their

role within the company. The company provided complementary lunch after the

interviews. Observations of the atmosphere were inviting and friendly. Service was

great and so was the meal. The researcher witnessed a customer who was not happy

about service. The customer was discussing her issue with the server or host but after the

discussion, she hugged the server and said, “It’s okay. I just wanted you to know. I

know you will not let it happen again.” That was a most amazing interaction and it

seemed to exemplify servant leadership. Two additional visits completed the study with

two separate focus groups with partners. Partners seemed comfortable with one another

and excited about participating in the study.

Manager Responses versus Focus Group Responses

From the data analysis of the transcripts, there are a few distinct differences

specifically with the experience of servant leadership. For the managers, specifically

Manager 1, the experience defined his role as a leader. One hundred percent of the

comments reflected the impact of lateral relationships as an initial response but through

further elaboration, partners became aware of their role to attend to the needs of others,

thus, gaining the desire to serve. Managers perceived they were effective in building

relationships, although 54.5% (6/11) of the comments by the partners reflected the

behavior of the managers is not fully consistent with servant leadership. P4 stated,
 93

The big guy I don't really know. But I think he is very cool most of the time. He

steps out the idea of Servant Leadership and I think it's great. But I think he has a

very difficult time in following through with … [practicing] what you preach.

And I think sometimes as his employees we can all kind of say – ‘well, he's not

doing it, why do we have to do it?’ It's just kind of -- it's a bit frustrating

sometimes.

Although no direct questions were asked about management and the relationship

participants had with their direct manager, no comments were offered by participants.

Fifty-four percent (6/11) of the partners commented on the respect they have for the

owner of the company and his views but there were not any specific positive or negative

comments about any other management within the company. Participant seven

commented,

I just totally respect everything that he stands for and all the positive things that

matter to him. Like protecting the rivers and exposing kids that are not fortunate

enough to go cannoning and camping. He takes them out there to expose them to

things that are important to him; which is major so that it could matter to them so

they could care about protecting it one day. I just totally dig it; I think it's

awesome that somebody cares about those things. It's important to him and that

he takes time out of his life to do something about it. He's not trying to make a lot

of money so he can go live on a yacht and boss us around and then complains

when he comes into town. He's out there doing the deal. Life is not a spectator

sport. What's important to him; he is making it happen. So I like it.

 94

One similarity found with the responses to the following question: “What is the

one thing you might take away from your Servant Leadership experience?” Both

managers and 73% (8/11) participants alike commented how the experience changed

them personally, either through more awareness of self or of others. Another similarity is

both managers and one hundred of participants enjoyed coming to work, even amidst the

challenges. P4 stated, “They make it a fun place to work -- sometimes it's not always

fun, but for the most part it is always a joy to come in and work with the people that I

have been working with”.

A surprising finding was the awareness of the participants to their role in the

customer experience. Seventy-three percent (8/11) commented on their personal goal to

deliver exceptional service and that they are empowered to do so. P7 commented, “What

we do here teaches us; I mean it's about the customers' experience when they come here.”

P4 stated the following,

I think the restaurant, market, catering as whole has a great awareness for how our

customers are treated and if their treated bad it's top priority to anything else. We

have to make sure that we get that customer coming back because if we don't

that's business lost. And they'll go tell their friends, don't go there and that's not

good. We want to make a good impression on them and make sure that they do

come back and enjoy their experience. That’s why we have so many regular

customers.

P11 commented, “I mean I get a lot of to go customers. You're not interacting with them

very long but if you’re pleasant with them and … kind of try and bring the trueness of

trying that kindness out to them.” These comments reflected the ownership of the
 95

participants. Overall, the comparisons and summaries helped to develop the themes by

assessing the reoccurring comments and words.

Interview Summary Responses by Question

Questions one, two, three, four and eight answered RQ1: “How do employees of

a servant leader based company describe their experience?” from the manager

perspective. The responses provided insight to the meaning of servant leadership to the

managers of Celebration Restaurant and some challenges with its implementation. A

brief summary of the responses by question depicts the managers’ view of their

experience with servant leadership.

Question one asked “What is your experience with servant leadership? Have you

noticed a difference with servant leadership? If so, in what ways? Did you know about

servant leadership prior to working for this company?”

The question gained an understanding of the managers’ experience with servant

leadership within Celebration Restaurant both prior to its implementation and after its

implementation. Neither manager had industry experience with servant leadership prior

to working for Celebration Restaurant. M1 was introduced to servant leadership through

his brother and father who had implemented servant leadership into their organization

about forty years ago.

The major difference found by the managers with servant leadership was the

change to the culture as well as a personal impact. M1 stated, “The biggest difference for

me personally was rediscovering my passion… and of course, that made a big impact on

Celebration. I would say the biggest impact on Celebration is it just changed the whole

culture.” M2 commented, “It’s been eye opening. It’s really changed the way we view a
 96

lot. We’ve almost changed completely from the time we started to where we are now. It

is an awesome form of leadership and I enjoy it.”

Question two was “How does this experience differ from your experiences at

other companies?”

The question obtained a comparison of the management experience with

Celebration and servant leadership as opposed to other companies the managers may

have had prior experience. Neither manager had prior exposure working for other

companies as their primary career was with Celebration Restaurant and provided

responses based on information gained through association and interaction with other

companies – both servant leader led and non-servant leader companies as expressed by

M1’s comment. M2’s response was more personal to the servant leadership experience.

M1 stated,

I think it has a similar impact. I mean whatever industry it is, [Servant Leadership

is] about people. Whether it's, air-conditioning or plumbing or restaurant work, it's

about the people and Servant Leadership. It is about people, valuing them, and the

fundamentals of leadership. I think the impacts are very similar.

An important note is the managers participated with other servant leaders through

conferences and other servant leadership events. Catering events exposed M2 to other

companies.

Question three asked, “How do you apply servant leadership daily? Is this a

conscious application? What challenges, if any, do you find with applying servant

leadership?”
 97

The question aimed to understand if servant leadership is a construct that comes

naturally or if there were challenges that influenced the application of servant leadership

on a daily basis. The responses from the question provided insight into the challenges of

applying servant leadership on a daily basis, specifically in a restaurant. M1 commented

that stress influences his effectiveness of applying servant leadership, thus the application

becomes a conscious application. Servant leadership was a natural application for M2

based on his childhood experiences.

Question four asked, “What servant leader traits do you find most important for

leaders?”

The question was designed to probe the participants for the traits they valued with

servant leadership, specifically those they found most important. The responses offered

insight into how the managers viewed servant leadership and offered a baseline of

comparison to the partner responses on the traits these employees felt were most

important. The one similarity found in the responses of the two managers was the quality

of coaching, otherwise, the traits that each quoted differed. M1 stated the following,

Humility is number one by a margin, a factor of 10. Kindness. A desire to serve

others. Desire and willingness to serve others. Good listener. For me I think it's

really important to see yourself as part of the team not separate from the team.

M2 responded,

I think they need to be strong, be trusting, caring, and I go as far as to say loving

individuals. They need to be highly motivated. Need to … be a captain, you need

to step up and see … any problems that arise in here. What can I do to make that

change? What can we do? What can we get together and figure out to make this
 98

better? … I'm listing some important things to build relationships and to nurture

relationships.

Both managers tended to give responses based on personal importance as M2

established that building and maintaining relationships is important to him. M1’s

comments reflected what he has learned through his experience with servant leadership as

exemplified by the stories he provided.

Question eight, the final question, asked, “What is the one thing you would take

away from this servant leadership experience?”

The question sought to obtain a summary of the servant leader experience from

the managers. Responses from the question were more personal than the first question,

which asked about the servant leadership experience. M1 responded, “It will change

your life. It will change your relationship with your kids. It will change everything. It

absolutely will. Yeah, I just think the relationship that I had with my kids is totally

different… it changes everything.” For M2, his experience was the impact servant

leadership had others. M2 enjoyed seeing the change servant leadership created in

others. The responses to the question were the essence of the servant leadership

experience for the managers.

Overall, managers, in response to RQ1, described their experiences with servant

leadership as one of personal growth with some challenges to balance the servant and

leader roles. Specifically, managers stated servant leadership requires awareness and

commitment to application. Their experiences deepened through relationships built with

not only partners but also with other servant leaders. Through these interactions, the

managers believed servant leadership is applicable to any organization.

 99

RQ2 asked, “ How do participants describe the influence of servant leadership on

their engagement?” Questions five, six, and seven provided the most insight from the

manager point of view to the research question.

Question five was “In what ways does servant leadership increase your personal

commitment?”

The question sought to explore what motivates and drives the manager to perform

each day and what in particular about servant leadership increases their personal

commitment. The question also compared the responses from participants in the focus

groups to understand the difference or similarities with commitment and servant leader

influence. For M1, servant leadership defined his role and gave purpose in his role as a

manager. M1 provided an example based on a major contract that was at stake and how

he became a servant to his people. M1 commented,

So, for those 10 days I got here at 4:00 a.m.in the morning and worked with our

kitchen staff. I knew they worked hard. I cared about them. I thought about

them. But when I got back there and I worked every day with these folks from

4:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., I would try to say, “Let me buy you some breakfast. I'll

bring some breakfast.” They would say, “We don't have time sir.” It's like they

never stopped working. They never complained; they always had a smile on their

face. It just became very clear to me how much they were giving and that my job

was to try every day in some way to make their lives a little better; that was my

job. That made sense to me; that resonated with me. Making more money never

meant anything to me. I make a very comfortable living; I am very fortunate but

making a lot of money was not a motivating factor. So when I realized -- well,
 100

that's what this is all about: can we pay a little better, can we have a little bit better

benefits, and can we find better ways to show our appreciation for folks. That's

what this is all about; so it became very simple. My job is to work every day to

see what I can do to make their lives a little better. That totally changed the

landscape for me. I saw that and that is what I wanted to do.

For M2, servant leadership meant building relationships fostered by trust. M2 provided

an example of how these relationships kept partners with Celebration Restaurant during

difficult financial times. M2 stated,

During tough times and the experience of the last three years of the economy, the

engagement with my partners in catering, boy I think if we didn't have those

relationships and strengthen those relationships, we would have lost much of

them. Because some of them went from … 30, 35, [or] 40 hours a week down to

10 [to] 15. It was pretty slow. Now, we have holiday season and all, but during

the slower parts of the year,… some of them were working very little… Boy, it

was really challenging, but that would be -- I think my main thing would be

applying it to relationships.

The question sought the personal perspective of how servant leadership increased the

managers’ commitment level thus, providing two different impacts. Managers were also

asked how servant leadership increased the engagement level of ‘partners’ from the

manager’s perspective.

Question six asked, “In what ways does servant leadership increase the

engagement of your employees from your perspective?”

 101

The question aimed to obtain the manager perspective on the drivers of

engagement as well as their perspective on the impact of servant leadership on partners.

M1 commented on the creation of “Our Service”, which is a service leadership team from

the market, catering, front of the house, and the kitchen that address various issues that

affect the restaurant such as food cost or how to serve their customers. Through the

leadership team, managers engage partners in problem solving and planning, while

demonstrating the value of partner feedback and participation in decision-making. M1

also stated,

In Servant Leadership, you turn the pyramid upside down and if you want to

know what's going on, you go ask all the people doing all the work; they know

what's going on, and they tell you what's going on. Your emphasis is supporting

them; finding things you can do to support them better; and give them the tools

they need to do their job. It totally changes the make-up or the engagement of the

people because they understand their opinion is valued.

M1 felt his approach contributed to the longevity of the partners with Celebration

Restaurant through building trust and confidence in their talent and skills. M2

commented that his approach resulted in the partners taking more initiative and

responsibility. The last question explored the managers’ perspective of the challenges

with applying and implementing servant leadership.

Question seven asked, “Why do you think other companies don’t apply servant

leadership?”

The question sought to understand the perceived reasons why other companies

may not adopt servant leadership principles. The participants have contact with other
 102

organizations through their catering and market business as well as with customers who

frequent their restaurant. M1 gave a story based on his interaction with a manager from a

different restaurant when the two of them had a discussion on servant leadership. M1

stated the following:

I had a manager in Fort Worth that had been a Restaurant manager and he had

worked at one of those buffets -- in any case, he didn't like [Servant Leadership].

He didn't want to ask other people their opinions; he just wanted to tell them what

to do; that's what he was used to; it's faster. I mean, I think that a dictatorship in

China is more efficient in some ways because you don't have to listen to people.

People don't get to disagree; you just get to decide… So why don't [other

companies apply servant leadership]? I would say that it's a slower more difficult

process.

As a result of the conversation, M1 felt other companies do not implement or

apply servant leadership due to the time it takes to ask the opinions of others versus

telling them what to do.” M2 felt what he gathered through his interaction with other

companies in catering is that people are resistant to change. M2 commented that people

who may have found success with a particular leadership style might not feel the need to

change, or see the benefit of servant leadership.

Managers believe, in response to RQ2, that servant leadership has a positive

influence on employee engagement. By defining the role of the manager as one to

support and provide resources for partners to accomplish their job, the engagement of

managers increased. Through the process of involving partners in decision-making, the

engagement of partners also increased. The manager interviews preceded the focus
 103

groups, which provided a foundation of both successes and challenges of servant

leadership from the managers’ perspective.

Focus Group Responses

Slight adjustments were necessary with the focus group questions to focus on the

non-management staff, termed “partners.” The goal of these questions was to answer the

research questions, listed below, from the partners’ perspective.

RQ1: How do employees of a servant leader based company describe their

experience?

RQ2: How do participants describe the influence of servant leadership on their

engagement?

Through RQ1, observations of both verbal and non-verbal responses occurred to

describe their experience were important to the research as this reflected a level of

engagement or enthusiasm regarding the subject by the participants. Responses relative

to RQ1 were questions one, two, and six. The remaining questions, three, four, five and

seven aided in answering RQ2 as the research question focused specifically on the

commitment level of the participants. The richness of the stories the participants used to

express their experience helped to understand the engagement of each participant.

The responses obtained were both rich and transparent reflecting the both the

diverse and shared experiences of the partners. Participants did not always respond in the

order of their coding but the responses listed in Appendix J are sorted numerically

according to the code assigned to each participant. Only the responses relevant to the

questions are listed thus, a summary of responses by question are provided below.
 104

Responses that were not relevant to the question but held relevance to the study are

included in the final question of the focus group, which allowed for free comments.

Research question one asked how participants described their servant leadership

experience. The questions sought the lived experience from the participants, specifically

seeking to understand how they viewed servant leadership and the personal impact of

servant leadership. Questions one, two and six helped to answer the question from the

participants’ point of view.

Q1: “How do you describe your servant leader experience? What are some things

that come to mind when asked about servant leadership? What does servant leadership

mean to you?”

The question was foundational in understanding the view of servant leadership as

expressed by the partners. The question also helped to frame the remaining questions.

Responses from participants varied and expressed their impressions of servant leadership

and the effect of these experiences. P1 found servant leadership was a Biblical principle

that everyone should follow, not just managers or employees, but all people. Participants

2, 3, 4, and 7 believed the servant leadership experience gave them an opportunity to lead

by example. Participants 8, 9, and 10 believed the servant leaders experience reinforced

the “golden rule” of do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. P6 described

the servant leader experience as having managers work side by side with partners and

agreed with the “golden rule” example. The servant leader experience for Participant 11

was witnessing the owner in a servant role and understanding how the example of the

owner defined servant leadership and the “golden rule.” P11 stated,
 105

When I was sitting here… years ago filling out [an application] or waiting … to

get an interview…There was this guy kind of running back and forth and it was

between lunch and dinner… he had a bunch of busted up boxes out to the back or

something; little did I know that was the owner. So to speak to that point, the

servant leader being somebody who is willing to do the same things that he's

going to ask other people to do or willing to do those things first or show that they

will do those things first before necessarily requiring anybody else to do that. So

ironically, I recall that even today; that was him back there running around

hauling out trash. So yeah the servant leader leads by example, being willing to

serve. In the restaurant business, all we do is service. It is also that the leader is

going to serve or try to serve the people that work for them; be fair towards them;

thinking of their needs. Try to make the environment one that people can enjoy…

I think … this just … speaks to this idea that "golden rule" everybody knows it,

everybody would like to be treated like you would want to be treated; kind of like

what we said in the workplace; you're not always seeing that. Everybody knows

that rule, everybody been taught that. I think as humans it's just built into our

DNA it comes straight down from God, divinity or whatever. It's in there;

whether you can let that out and practice, it is another thing.

Participant 11 best sums up the comments of all the participants for the question.

Q2: “How does this experience differ from other companies that you have worked

for?”

All participants had some level of experience or point of reference outside of

Celebration Restaurant and were able to provide a comparison of Celebration to other

 106

organizations. Two partners had actually left Celebration at one time in their career and

then returned. The experience of these participants furthered the discussion and was a

valuable contribution to understanding the uniqueness of what the partners experienced at

Celebration in comparison to different restaurants. P3 commented,

Years [ago], I quit this job one day, and I went to the job that I was at before and I

noticed… a whole bunch of things that this restaurant really doesn't do. You're a

slave in the other restaurants. Really, you can't express yourself. You really can't

be you. Okay, this is what we're supposed to do. If you mess up, it's on you.

And then I came back -- I talked to the store manager; I mean the owner and he, I

told him what was going on -- the thing is I really want to come back; this place is

one of the best places to work at I think. You're not a slave here.

P6 stated, “I realized that if I'm going to work for someone it should be someone that I

actually respect and like his ideas so because you can work hard anywhere.” Participant

nine, who has nine years of service stated,

I've worked in some different work environments… You got the leader of your

group; then you got your managers; there just telling you what to do and you do

that because there are deadlines and things to do. But I mean I've worked in some

other restaurant industry stuff too and there was definitely a different management

owner kind of styles… not like this. There are some benefits to the Servant

Leadership because it seems like maybe it's a little bit better angle sometimes…

Yeah they'll get in there and help you but not everything works the Servant

Leader way either -- just some things are similar but the work has to get done.
 107

Participant five also provided a comment of how servant leadership at Celebration

differed from other restaurants he has worked. P5 stated the following,

I think this place besides the leadership of what we're talking -- whomever you

are you can be a step up. I've been working at other places where you never

grow. You stay always at the same place. But this place gives you a chance to

grow. You can work in the office. You can work in the catering. You can work

in the market. You can work in the restaurant. You can be a host… The good

part is you never feel afraid to get fired. If you mess up, if you make a mistake or

if you are always -- you always get the good work done. You know what don't

worry. You are still on so you never feel afraid to get fired for any mistake.

The remaining comments centered on the difference of restaurants as compared to

companies. Participants six, eight, nine, 10, and 11 believed the faster pace of restaurants

increases stress levels, thus making servant leadership difficult, in some ways, to sustain

on a daily basis. Participant eight stated,

For me, I used to work in a business environment and moved here to the catering

environment. It seems like in the business environment … It was easier for

people to do it. I don't know why, but here I don’t know if it’s [that] people are

running constantly. There is always a crisis; you’re always putting out a fire.

Here in the restaurant world or the catering world, it seems to me that… a lot of

people preach [servant leadership] but to life and do it; seems a harder lesson to

learn. Maybe it is the pace. I don't know what it is, but there is definitely a

difference I think.
 108

The restaurant environment, as described by the participants, is less predictable

day to day, as customers change with different challenges daily, which may not always be

found in other companies. These nuisances may also contribute to effectiveness of the

servant leader environment.

Q 6: What is the one thing that you take away from your Servant Leadership

experience?

The question sought to understand the essence of the servant leader experience to

the participants. Responses obtained reflected how the foundation of servant leadership

undergirds the operations of the restaurant. Six participants have an expectation for their

leaders to lead and serve as taught through servant leadership. They expect their leaders

to set the example and in turn, the participants understand their personal responsibility to

be true to setting the example of servant leadership. P11 stated, “We’re all responsible to

the servant leaders… that responsibility or that commitment to playing that role of being

the servant leader; lies with each person; from the top guy going down.”

Comments from the participants also reflected their understanding of servant

leadership and its application to the overall goals for Celebration Restaurant. P 4 stated,

I think with Servant Leadership comes a huge personal commitment. You have to

make a personal commitment to yourself. I think it's just a better push in your

drive that you have every day to be better, work better… in order to do so you

have to make that personal commitment to yourself. If you don't it ain't going to

happen. You ain't going to go further; you are stuck. I will say this, the big guy

in charge, he… lays the ground work for Servant Leadership, but I think his sole

purpose for that is… to offer it all of us to follow it. I think he wants us as
 109

individuals to be better people. And I think that it kind of pushes us to work on

our own selves as well as Servant Leadership… but I think it's a great way to kind

of build that foundation on each of as individuals becoming better not just in

Servant Leadership.

Comments by five participants reflected the personal impact of servant leadership stating

servant leadership changed them. P2 commented,

This place… it's really like the Broadway Show Wicked, there is a number called

‘For Good’. This place has changed me for good. I know when I joined, I … had

made some really bad decisions with certain chemicals and this approach let me

work it all out and still be here. It’s taught me levels of responsibility that I never

had before or that I never realized I could live up to… It's all I guess the potential

in me that I didn't see and even more, the place refuses to let you give anything

than your best.

Research question one asked specifically how participants described their servant

leadership experience. From the three questions above (questions 1, 2, and 6),

participants described their experience as one of personal growth and one that they value.

The experience has made some want to become leaders and others understand the

importance of leading by example. In comparing their servant leadership experience to

other companies, 10/11 participants found the experience to be unique, specifically in a

restaurant, although the busyness can interfere with the day-to-day application of servant

leadership. Two participants, in particular, left Celebration Restaurant at one point in

their career only to return, as mentioned. These participants commented they did not feel

valued at the other restaurant and the cultures were so different from Celebration.
 110

Overall, participants did not see servant leadership as a new philosophy but something

that should have been learned as a child, specifically treating others, as you would want

to be treated.

Research question two sought to identify how servant leadership may influence

employee engagement, seeking specifically to identify the commitment level of the

participants and if servant leadership influenced the commitment. Questions 3, 4, and 5

helped to answer the question.

Q3: What servant leader qualities are more important to you?

The question drew on both the knowledge of the participants of servant leadership

as well as their preference of qualities they valued in a leader. Common with all

participants was the desire for leaders to lead by example and truly live out the

characteristics and qualities of servant leadership. Participants offered traits that were

both observed as well as desired in their leadership. Participant seven provided a good

response to exemplify a couple of these qualities by stating,

I would say compassion and leading by example. When you go to work for

somebody and they tell you this is what you're not allowed to do but then you

start your job and you see everybody smoking and they’re not supposed to do it. I

guess we're not supposed to do it, but we'll do it any way. All those little things

that maybe you aren't supposed to, do but the leaders are doing it so everybody

else does it too. And having that leadership; that Servant Leadership everybody is

aware of it here and we all have to be leaders and lead by example; it's not perfect,

but I think we do a pretty good job of that.

 111

The most common responses were leading by example, kindness, being open minded,

compassion, and the willingness and desire to lead. Table 2 below depicts the qualities

listed by the participants.

Table 2

Focus Group Responses on Servant Leader Qualities

Servant Leader Quality Count

Leading by example 4
Kindness 4
Open mindedness 3
Compassion 3
Willing to be a leader 3
Passion 2
Focus on Others 1
Patience 1
Sense of humor 1
Responsibility 1
Able to learn from mistakes 1
Understanding 1
Sensitivity 1
Intelligence 1

Q4: How does working in a servant leader environment motivate you? In regards

to your servant leadership experience, what has kept you with the same company for over

five years?

These questions were essential in understanding how the servant leadership

experience kept these employees with the same company for over five years. The last
 112

part of the question asked, “If you left the company say 5 years from now, what would be

the reasons?” Many joked when answering while thoughtfully considering their future.

Leaving the company was not an immediate consideration and with participants faced

with better opportunities in pursuit of their career in a different direction or depending on

the changes of life. Surprisingly, even those who expressed some doubt in the

transformations of their leaders, were still not quick to say they would leave in the

immediate near future, they still held a bond to their current job – mainly through the

people and customers. The people connection was one of the main reasons participants

credited for remaining with Celebration Restaurant. In addition to the people connection,

four participants also commented on the servant heart of the owner and alignment with

his values as a reason for staying and another two participants commented on their

personal growth since being with Celebration Restaurant, while four others remarked

about the flexibility that allows them to work and balance home life. The comments

below reflect how servant leadership motivated some of the participants.

P1 stated, “The people make it bearable and pleasurable at times even.”

P7 commented,

It’s playful and it's a happy place. I just totally respect everything that he [the

owner, M1] stands for and all the positive things that matter to him. Like

protecting the rivers and exposing kids that are not fortunate enough to go

canoeing and camping. He takes them out there to expose them to things that are

important to him; which is major so that it could matter to them so they could care

about protecting it one day. I just totally dig it; I think it's awesome that

somebody cares about those things. It's important to him and that he takes time
 113

out of his life to do something about it. He's not trying to make a lot of money so

he can go live on a yacht and boss us around and then complains when he comes

into town. He's out there doing the deal. Life is not a spectator sport. What's

important to him; he is making. I like it.

P9 responded,

They do generally want you to do a good job and so they kind of take a little

vested interest in you doing well for them. And the food is really good. I love the

food here; I'm not missing meals at all. I'm not really sure about how Servant

Leadership may necessarily has helped me make my job better, but it definitely

helps bring everybody kind of together toward a more common; better workplace

kind of. It does not necessarily always help me internally and externally with

what's going on. Sometimes you can help with at least they may not get things

done about things but at least we talk about some [and] so maybe nothing

happening so that does kind of help internally.

P11 commented,

I think that the things that are going on here attract all of these, what you're

hearing in terms of good quality of people and the way people are treated. I think

we even see it in our clientele. I mean, it's nice to come to work because you've

got nice people coming in. You've got great people to work with, you've got an

ownership group that is trying as best they can to be creative and do some

different things… I'm up front in terms of number of years I've been here. I

know that although I don't really consciously think that people are looking at me

or to for any of these things; I'm sure [they are]. I know that, I inalienably feel
 114

that okay; I need to be a good representative of what we're doing here and try to

encourage and keep people in good moods… We've had lots of really good

quality people come and go and the restaurant keeps going and we keep

prospering and that is true, but it is the fact that we're here; that is part of the

reason why people come back. And so I think that if we're applying those

principles and understanding them as being good principles; golden rule

principles; principles that we have within in us and within our hearts always.

Anyway, letting those out, letting them come to fruition here within the workplace

only makes it better to work here and a more prosperous place to work… We

have a chance to influence a lot of people every day at work on the phones, when

we're talking to them; whether in the catering or the market people come in a pick

stuff up, whether people are in the restaurant to celebrate a birthday, anniversaries

or a first date whatever… We come into contact with a lot of people so we have

many opportunities to influence and we may not ever see it and it may or may not

be in a big tip for something else but that human interaction. What we’ve got is

special; a pretty cool job because we get to interact with a lot of people. I think

that is what keeps a lot of us here. I keep saying I could have another job; I could

win the lottery, but I would still want to wait tables. Part of that is that I still want

to interact with people so this is our opportunity.

Q4a: If you left the company, five years from now, what would be the reasons?

Some of the reasons given were retirement, winning the lottery, opportunity to for

business ownership, better job with benefits within degreed field, or just life changes.
 115

Participant 11, who has the longest length of service amongst the participants

commented,

“I am adverse to change. And anybody around this table, especially the laughing

person knows how adverse I am to change. Your life dictates that sometimes that

things need to change. When I started working here, I didn't think I was going be

here more than a year. And every so often, I'm saying, well, I'm not going to be

doing this next year. Well, I'll see regular customers, ‘Well if you see me at this

time next year you know the plan, blah, blah’. So the question is obviously put

out there to say is Servant Leadership making a difference in you for coming or

going. Well for me there are other issues I guess, but that being the question, I

mean obviously, the good things about working here, really solidify my inability

to change… I mean it's easy so easy to come in here. I'll echo that; you get stuck;

it's a good ride; I mean on some levels but we'll just have to see. I've been

working on changing my life so I don't know.”

Q5: In what ways does Servant Leadership inspire you to do and accomplish more

in your role?

The question sought to understand the reasons for the commitment of the partners,

the role of servant leadership, and in what ways, if any, has servant leadership

contributed to personal engagement of the participants. Some of the responses included

personal growth, development of leadership qualities, personal commitment and self-

awareness, customer responses to the servant leader environment, and a responsibility to

lead by example. Participant two also added through his experience with servant

leadership, he has a better understanding of the characteristics of servant leaders and he

 116

holds an appreciation for the owner of Celebration based on the example he sets. In

general, participants felt servant leadership made them more aware of their own behavior

and responses towards others. Participant 11 described his inspiration as that of a role

model and being a “good representation of what we’re doing here.” Participant ten

stated,

I guess back on that kindness thing. Me and P8 and another chick … catering.

We deal with hundreds of customers a week; millions of dollars a year, and there

is just three of us. Our attitudes towards each other and customers [is important].

It's just like if one of us comes in in a bad mood, we can definitely spread it to the

other two or if we're in a good mood. It helps when you're nice to everybody

because we … deal with drivers and customers, the restaurant and we deal with a

lot of people during the day. You can spread kindness.

Research question two asked what influence servant leadership had on employee

engagement. Comments by the participants to the question reflected an understanding of

servant leadership principles of servant first and the importance of being responsible for

self. For most of the participants, their commitment level was attributed to servant

leadership, which most described as doing what is right. The experience of these

participants created loyal employees who enjoy the relationships built through their daily

interaction.

Themes

The findings from the data collection is segmented by interview responses and

then focus group responses to obtain a specific themes of the servant leader experience by

each group. The findings were combined to identify common themes consistent with the
 117

specific themes found. Five main themes found were (1) Servant Leader Experience, (2)

Why People Stay with Celebration Restaurant, (3) Servant Leader Traits, (4) Impact of

Servant Leadership, and (5) Application of Servant Leadership. Within Theme (1), the

Servant Leader Experience, categories included Personal Meaning and Manager

Meaning. Theme (3) Servant Leader Traits was grouped by Manager, Partners, and

Overall based on the codes and reoccurrence of similarities. Theme (4) Impact of

Servant Leadership had three categories Organizational Impact, Individual Impact, and

Manager Impact. These themes highlight the most comments on the subject or the

number of participants who made the same comment.

Theme One: Servant Leadership Experience

Understanding the individual, personal experience of servant leadership was the

main phenomenon, thus became one of the main themes. The shared experience of the

participants that also held personal meaning to each of them was the tight knit

relationships build amongst the participants. The overarching characteristic of the

servant leadership experience had three categories, personal meaning, manager meaning,

and meaning to the culture of Celebration Restaurant. Personal meaning encompassed

(1) personal growth, (2) relationships, and (3) leading by example. Participants used

various characteristics to describe their unique experiences with servant leadership.

These characteristics are the core themes of the servant leadership experience. The chart

below identifies the count of reoccurring words that lead to the theme.
 118

Table 3

Servant Leadership Experience Characteristics Count

Characteristics Count
Growth/ Learning 25
Family/Friends 16
Leading by Example 7

Participant two commented on the essence of servant leadership by stating,

I think a lot of people have an idea that being a servant is less than. Here we are

not less than. We are so much greater than the total of our sum. If it's being a

servant here - I live to serve! It's just my privilege to both work with my

companions and coworkers and to greet all the people that come through our front

door with a genuine sense of welcome and affection... just being a servant here is

an honor more than a job.

Relationships were the most common characteristic expressed as part of the

personal experience of servant leadership. Comments related to relationships reflected

trust among peers, improved communication, peer support, family atmosphere, and

concern for peers and others. P2 stated, “And as we progressed as a Servant Leader

organization, I think the communication between my coworkers has grown and solidified

to the point to where our inner company trust is incredibly strengthened.” The family

atmosphere was one of the most reoccurring comments used by both participants and

managers. M2 stated, “There are companies you don't feel the warmth and the family

atmosphere that you feel around here… I can see why people stay here. It's like a

family. It's really like a family.” P5 expressed,

 119

I mean this is not a perfect place, but I think the group -- the coworkers; they are

very good with everybody -- each other -- I think we support each other every

day. Every day is different. We work like this is our life. This is our second life.

When we are not at home, we [are] working. So, every day [our leaders0 give us

a chance to know each other…It's like a second family; yes.

Participant seven stated, “It's like my family. I love the people...” Three of the eleven

participants mentioned family members working for Celebration. The family concept

emerged as a relevant theme for all participants.

Servant leadership held a personal meaning to the participants in addition to the

relationships or that flowed from the relationships built, as exemplified above, which

reflected servant leader qualities of leading by example and personal growth. The

participants commonly expressed ‘leading by example’ as both a means of describing

servant leadership and as a personal meaning to them. The main relevance to the theme

is the example given of the owner serving. Participant nine shared,

You have somebody who is actually willing to get in there; [the owner] is the kind

of guy that will get in there and get his elbows dirty be there right along next to

you working and helping you make some soups or whatever. [I can say] ‘I need

some cobblers or ice cream at so and so tables’ [and] he'll just get right in there

and just do it.

Other terms used by the participants were consistency, authenticity, belief in what

is taught, and following the golden rule. Participant 1 stated, “"Be sure you practice what

you preach.” Similar comments were made by Participants 4 and 7. Participant eight

stated, “I would say to me…it's just living the "golden rule" do unto to others as you
 120

would want them to do unto you. I think… it's just a new phrase, a new catch phrase for

an old rule.” Participant nine agreed with the comment and stated,

I agree with that. I agree with exactly pretty much everything that was said.

Pretty much, it's just the same thing; treat everybody else the way you would want

to treat yourself and that's huge; that's what it is. It's also like what he was saying,

‘you have somebody who is actually willing to get in there.’ He is the kind of guy

that will get in there and get his elbows dirty be there right along next to you

working and helping you make some soups or whatever; I need some cobblers or

ice cream at so and so tables; he'll just get right in there and just do it.

Personal growth was another common sub-theme under personal meaning to the

participants. Comments made reflected, righting wrongs and learning from mistakes,

personal commitment to self, opportunities to lead, empowered to make decisions and

growth opportunities for all. Participant three stated, "I think I get better every day."

Participant two stated, "This place has changed me for good." Participant four shared,

I have grown a lot since I first started working here. I think it's my personal life

with my family, friends, and the people that I have worked with over the years. I

think they've encouraged me to stay in school and that are like my second family.

Participant two also stated,

[Celebration] has taught me levels of responsibility that I never had before or that

I never realized I could live up to. It's all the potential in me that I didn't see and

even more, this place refuses to let you give anything but your best…. We are all

groomed as strong individuals leading … we're all going to be strong enough to

 121

know what decisions should be made and we're given our lead and our heed to

take… to make the right decisions.

For managers, the servant leader experience helped to define their role as leaders,

emphasized the value of people, grew them personally, and taught the importance of

humility. Manager 1 stated,

I mean whatever industry it is, [Servant Leadership is] about people. Whether it's,

air-conditioning or plumbing or restaurant work, it's about the people and Servant

Leadership. It is about people, valuing them, and the fundamentals of leadership.

I think the impacts are very similar.

Manager one also provided a story to emphasize his experience with servant leadership.

M1 expressed,

I had a young lady that worked here -- her performance I loved -- still love

her -- she's just a great person. After she left here, she called me, and she said

‘Sir, I'm having problems with drugs, can I come and talk to you.” I said, “Of

course’. She said, ‘You can't tell my mother’. I know her Godmother very well

[too]. She said, ‘You have to promise you won't tell them’. I said, ‘I won't!’ So I

stayed in touch with her and the other day she called me. She said, ‘I'm doing

great! I've been clean for 10 months. I'm in school. I'm getting along with my

parents. I have a boyfriend.’ I said, ‘You staying clean?’ She said, ‘Absolutely!’

I don't know how much [this happens at other places] -- certainly that happens at

other places -- but I think that's the sort of thing you hear that I think happens

more in environments where people are very approachable.

 122

Comments under Theme One reflect the characteristics most discussed by the

participants which included personal growth and learning with the highest word count.

Comments regarding family and friends were also frequently used to describe the servant

leader experience of participants. Participants also noted leading by example as an

important characteristic of the servant leader experience. Theme One consisted of the

overall foundation of the study and heavily contributes to the remaining themes,

including Theme Two: Why people stay at Celebration Restaurant, which is highly

influenced by the servant leader experience.

Theme Two: Why People Stay at Celebration

Begin Participants expressed several examples or characteristics to exemplify

why they have stayed with Celebration Restaurant for five plus years as well as what may

influence them to leave the company. Characteristics central to the theme are reflected in

the comments of the participants and reflect characteristics found in the transcripts that

were repeated a minimum of seven times. The main characteristics were value,

relationships, flexibility, and something that can only be summed up as “they want to be

here,” as stated by Participant seven. The table below identifies the reoccurring

characteristics.

Table 4

Reasons Why Participants Stay with Celebration

Characteristic Count
Want 30
Relationships 26
Value 7

Participants stated they feel valued. M2 stated,

 123

I think they feel like they are part of [the company]… We got a lot of long-term

employees. They're not just coming to work. I think that they feel like that they

are part of it… It's easy for me to speak to catering because that's all I work with

those guys mainly, but I see everybody else. When you're part of something…I

think they feel like they're part of a company that cares about them. And before

and after, if you could see what I've seen, I can see why people stay here. It's like

a family.

Participant 11 commented, “It's nice to come to work because you've got nice people

coming in; you've got great people to work with, you've got an ownership group that is

trying as best they can to be creative and do some different things.” Participant two

stated, “I miss not being here; seeing all the people that come through the door and all my

friends and coworkers.” Adding to the family atmosphere and friendly environment,

Participant nine commented, “If I go anywhere to eat, I come here to eat, because I know

everybody and it's fun and that determines where I spend my money; bottom line.”

Participants also commented on the flexibility of the organization as another

reason they stay with the company. Flexibility was explained by participants as manager

working with their schedules, which contributed to work-life balance. The flexibility

allowed participants to go to school, manage childcare, rides to work, and options for a

second job. Participant eight stated, “I would say the flexibility and the people.”

Participant nine commented,

I was going to say the exact same thing. The flexibility is very nice and there are

definitely good people that work here. It's a good core group of folks. Compared

to lots of other businesses in this realm you really do sit back and look at it you do
 124

have a lot of benefits compared to a lot of other places. You come and take care

of what you're supposed to do; you are very well taken care of. They do generally

want you to do a good job and so they kind of take a little vested interest in you

doing well for them.

Participant ten expressed,

It's a convenient place. People are always considerate; like a lot of us have kids.

The company is considerate of people with kids. I was able to carpool for like

three years so they think about what you need to do in your life. It’s not just your

job, which is very nice for a lot of us.

Two partners commented that they quit Celebration Restaurant only to return in less than

a year due to their experience with other companies and the experience they had with

Celebration. These participants wanted to work for Celebration based on their previous

experience of feeling valued. Participant three stated,

I had an experience earlier … I quit this job one day, and I went to [another] job

that I was at before and I noticed … a whole bunch of things that this restaurant

really doesn't do. You're a slave in the other restaurants. Really, you can't

express yourself. You really can't be you. Okay, this is what we're supposed to

do. If you mess up, it's on you. And then I came back -- I talked to the store

manager; I mean the owner and he , I told him what was going on -- the thing is I

really want to come back; this place is one of the best places to work at I think.

You're not a slave here. You really go on about your day.

Participant six stated,

 125

I quit for about a year and went and did other jobs. I realize that if I'm going to

work for someone it should be someone that I actually respect and I like [the

owner's] ideas because you can work hard anywhere.

Reasons given as to why participants may leave the organization were retirement,

job in field of a degree, or a job with better pay with more benefits. Peer relationships

contributed to the desire to stay with Celebration Restaurant. Participant commented on

the importance and strength of these relationships, while manager relationships, outside

of that with the owner, were not mentioned.

Theme Three: Servant Leader Traits

Begin Participants used a variety of words to describe the traits they felt were

most important to the character of a servant leader. Through analyzing the data outside

of Question 4: “What servant leader traits do you find most important for leaders?” Key

words that described servant leadership as mentioned by participants when answering

other questions were counted. According to Bernard and Ryan (2010), counting the

words in text that appear the most can offer valuable insight into the speaker. Words that

occurred in the data a minimum of seven times, including different parts of the same

word, such as caring, care, and cared. The words ‘learn, learning, or learned’ were

repeated 25 times combining the interviews and focus groups. ‘Willingness to serve’,

‘desire to serve’, or the word “serve or service’ as used in the context of serving others

appeared 21 times in the data as did ‘care, caring, and cared.’ The multiple uses of these

words suggest the importance of these traits to the participants.

 126

Table 5

Servant Leader Traits

Traits Count
Learn, Learning, Learned 25
Serve, Service 21
Caring / Care / Cared 21
Forgive or Ask for Forgiveness (Apologize or say sorry) 15
Responsible / Responsibility 12
Kindness 11
Compassion 10
Passion 9
Listening / Listener / Listen 9
Teach / Teacher / Teaches 8
Trust 7
Understanding 7

Theme Four: Impact of Servant Leadership

Through the interviews and focus groups, it became apparent that the

implementation of servant leadership had an impact not only to the individuals of the

organization but also the managers and the company as a whole. Servant leadership is

something that has changed the culture of Celebration Restaurant as reflected by the

comments of the participants. Through an analysis of the words used in the focus groups,

key words were found with similar meaning and were repeated a minimum of seven

times, thus becoming a theme. The biggest impact to the organization is the customer

experience, which the partners are fully engaged in through their experience with servant

leadership. Key words and their count are listed in the table below.
 127

Table 6

Impact of Servant Leadership Characteristic Count

Words Related to Impact to Individual or Organization Count
Empowered/ Decisions / Problems (solving) 15
Teaches / Encourage 12
Awareness 10
Impact 8
Change 8
Commitment 8

Participant 11 stated,

I think that the restaurant environment is a different thing, but I don't know

because, I find that in what we're supposed to be doing. I mean it's what we do;

we serve people. The demands are always on us to do things; I guess we signed

up for that. There are certain times that it's easier to do then not. But I think

we're just given so many opportunities in this arena to display patience and to be

kind to people and to set aside your own troubles of the day because you know

you need to do what you need to do out here… How we're feeling and acting this

is what keeps people, aside from the food and the good quality. I know we hear

this all time, is that people love the food but right there with that, we love coming

to see the people that work here. We all have regulars that come and see us. I

know that the catering people do and the people at the market; we know these

people; they know us; they come here because we're here.

Participant six commented,

I think the reason I've been around so long is it's just easy to come to work. It's

got good food and people… I think customers see that but [are] not sure what's

going on here to really figure out why people are happy to be here or work
 128

together; to stay together for so long. And they just quit questioning it; if they do

question it, you tell them about Servant Leadership or something, but they just

kind of pick up on it without really needing to be told about it; they see a

difference.

Participant seven expressed,

Customers are my friends. So you know we all have family problems, life

problems, we get moody whatever; life, we're dealing with it. So I have to leave

it outside the door when I come to work because nobody needs to be affected by

that stuff; it doesn't need to be my job doesn't need to be affected by it. So if I

come into work with a bad attitude, and I'm like, I don't really want to be here

today, then it leads everybody else to believe that they get don't they can I don't

want to be here today. What kind of place would it be if everybody came to work

and then all of a sudden well, nobody wants to be here. Well, who cares; you're

here. It gives me that awareness constantly to remember that other people see me;

how did they see me. I can't tell you how many times I go out to eat and it's

almost like I'm inconveniencing them -- the server. You ask for anything special

or special order your burger or whatever the case maybe. I mean attitude, the

hips, the smacking of the lips; just the blatant non-concern or even care that you're

even there. So they clearly do not have any awareness at that company about any

kind of Servant Leadership. The people on top of them are treated like crap and it

just rolls downhill. Right? So the whole thing all the way around is crappy. So it

happens I don't even shop in stores anymore. I shop online because people are

texting everywhere. They do not want to be bothered by you and you know it,
 129

and the way I feel about it is I work my [butt] off for my money, and I don't want

to feel like an inconvenience when I go somewhere to spend it. So what we do

here teaches us I mean it's about the customers' experience when they come here.

When my customers come here, I want to take them away from whatever is

kicking their [butt] out there because we get it handed to us all the time and you

never know when or who is getting it, but I want to take them away from that. I

want them to feel happy and free from whatever life is dishing at them at that

moment. Because you know, that's what I want. I want somebody to let me

escape that moment when I come in to spend twenty-five bucks on some food. I

don't want your problems. Okay you got problems. Don't come in to the table

with an attitude with me about your problems and be rude with me about your

problems because I don't know what's going on; right; needs to be left at the door.

So I don't think if I would have learned this stuff that I would of realized that; if I

wouldn't have been exposed to it then I wouldn't had that understanding about the

experience.

Manager two reflected how the impact of servant leadership motivates everyone to

contribute to the success of the organization. Manager two commented, “We got this

storage facility next door… We really put that thing together… We got it organized. …

[Now] you see people going over there just wanting to make something look good.”

Participant three stated, “So here at the restaurant, I do productive stuff. [Servant

Leadership] makes me do the right thing. I practice the right thing.” Participant four

commented, “I think with servant leadership comes a huge personal commitment. You
 130

have to make a personal commitment to yourself. I think it's just a better push in your

drive that you have every day to be better, work better.”

Manager one stated how servant leadership clarified his role. M1 stated, “I'm the

leader, part of the same team. I value what you do. I listen to you. If I screw up, I

apologize.” Participant 11 expressed,

I'm up front in terms of number of years I've been here. I know that although I

don't really consciously think that people are looking at me or to for any of these

things; I'm sure [they are]. I know that, I inalienably feel that okay; I need to be a

good representative of what we're doing here and try to encourage and keep

people in good moods. Part of that is just the further meat of the prosperity of the

business.

Another impact of servant leadership is the longevity of the employees at

Celebration Restaurant. The restaurant reports that sixty percent of its employees have

five years’ of service or more. Manager two commented,

I think -- and drawing on history from working here all these years, I was, not

only me, but a lot of us was that person that was coming to work because we

wanted to make a living. Now, we come to work because we're happy here.

Thank God we're making a living as well, but it's fun to come to work.

Implementing servant leadership has also created a culture where partners speak

up and share their concerns and are involved with both problem solving and decision-

making. Participant 11 stated,

[At other organizations], you can't talk to anybody above you. You can't bring

something to someone above you. Around here,…they want it, they encourage it.
 131

They set up meetings upon meetings. [Our management says], ‘We want to hear

what you have to say; what are we doing wrong?’

M1 commented on the face-to-face 360s that Celebration Restaurant conducts by stating,

What we're doing is getting really valuable feedback from different members of

the staff on how we're doing… If you want to know how you are doing as a

manager, go ask them [partners]. I can try to tell you. I can give you some

feedback on how you're doing as a manager from my perspective, but you need to

know what they thing too.

Theme Five: Application of Servant Leadership

The application of servant leadership arose as a theme through comments made

by all participants that reflected servant leadership as a learned behavior, although for M2

and two participants, the concept of servant leadership comes naturally due to their

upbringing. Participants described the experience of servant leadership as one of learning

and daily focus that incorporated natural emotions, changes to oneself, and the need to

self-assess. The theme surfaced through a thorough analysis of the words and

descriptions participants used to describe the challenges with servant leadership. Each

participant had at least one comment that related to how the emotions people encounter

daily make servant leadership a behavior that has to be learned through what Participant

seven called discipline. Some behaviors were said to come more naturally to some than

others but overall, people are human and the application of servant leadership takes

practice and awareness. Participant four stated, "Sometimes it doesn't always happen

because not everybody is on the same page or they're not necessarily setting a [good]

example; it's not at the forefront of their minds.” Participant 11 commented,

 132

There are some days when the leaders aren't being very good servant leaders, and

that is evident, but I think our awareness about it helps us to apply it... The

barometer of the strength of what's happening lies with the leaders and how much

of it they are really putting into play. So it's a big responsibility. If you're going

to commit to it, I guess you really got to say, 'Hey, this is what we are doing!'

Participant seven stated,

[Servant leadership] is a discipline. And discipline is something that every one of

us has to practice whatever it is that we're working on every single day. Whatever

out goals are, whatever is important to us, whatever we're passionate about takes

discipline to achieve things.

Manager two commented on how servant leadership requires self-inspection and

asking one’s self, “Am I being fair? Am I honest about the situation? Am I open to

explain to then what's going on?” Manager two also commented, “People have different

moods, attitudes and stuff.” Participant ten commented, “I got to be nice today because

you're dealing with new people all the time; it is hard sometimes but you just have to

think about it.”

Servant Leadership is also a choice. P4 commented,

I see it as just being an example for others and leading by example. Having a

personal commitment to yourself to do better and be willing to work all of the

time… There’s always going to be that main leader. You can always try and

follow their good example but you can also set your own [by] serving yourself,

serving others around you and serving the people that need to be served.

M2 expressed,
 133

[We] have off days sometimes, but still you have to be conscious this not about

me. This is about us… When our partners are not having a good day, we

encourage them. So, it’s like an everyday deal or when they’re having an

awesome day, we congratulate them or compliment them… People have different

moods, attitudes, and stuff… I kind of [ask] ‘Are you okay?’ I’m engaged and

see if there is something maybe I can do because sometimes someone needs

somebody to talk to. They need a release. They need [somebody] to just look

like they care… Servant leadership is really a vehicle for learning because the

best way to learn something is to teach it.

M1 stated,

Well, I think a lot of [servant leadership] is internalized, but I have to stop and

remind myself sometimes. There are challenges. Sometimes I have to be very

conscious about it, but most of the time it’s just part of the DNA. It’s just what’s

right. I definitely slip; I make mistakes. I don’t conduct myself like a Servant

Leader. There are certainly times that I have to really look at myself and really

think about [servant leadership] and find out how to improve.

Comments reflected above display a need for self-awareness of how behavior

affects others, if behavior reflects a true servant leader, and the need for humility to

apologize when behavior is not aligned to servant leadership. Some servant leader traits

are more natural for some than others and situations can affect how one responds.

Overall, the themes listed above indicate the significant findings based on the data

analysis, reoccurring descriptions, and word count.

 134

Data Triangulation

In the study, interviews and focus group responses were compared to internal

servant leadership surveys from 2011 and 2010 and direct and non-obtrusive

observations. The servant leadership survey, which is part of the company’s data,

includes questions on employee engagement and rates each leader and the organization as

a whole. In reviewing the survey conducted in Celebration early 2011, Catering rated

about average in comparison to the results. The employee engagement areas were

slightly above the group average. Engagement areas listed on the survey were

opportunities for professional and personal growth, communication, working

relationships, feelings of importance at work, commitment to organization, and pride of

working with Celebration Restaurant.

The organization has received continual high marks regarding the leaders’

practice of servant leadership. What was most interesting about the organizational results

was that on a rating scale of one to ten, with ten being the highest, the lowest score the

organization has received is a seven, with many areas rated eight and nine. The overall

average satisfaction of the organization rated an 8.42.

The senior leader of the organization was also ranked against the company

averages. The ratings of leaders of the organization consists of ethics, integrity,

commitment to growth of others, building communities, authenticity, and commitment

level to employees, effectiveness in communication, and overall stewardship of the

leadership. The overall rating for the senior leader is 9.18, above the company average.

Averages for the senior leader also show a steady increase over the last three years. The
 135

view of senior leader is one who cares about people, represents the company well, and is

a trusted, well-respected individual.

The next department comparable to Catering is Market, which is also a small

group outside of the main restaurant. The group rated the lowest in 66% (26/35) of the

total areas. Due to the small size of the group, the results may be skewed based on the

cumulative data, where one low score can lower the average. Overall, Team Leaders and

the Kitchen rated the highest in the overall satisfaction survey and the Market group rated

the lowest.

M1 rated higher than the site average on all but one question, “Displays a positive

and enthusiastic attitude,” which was rated 8.5 to the site average of 8.8. Overall rating

was 9.18 versus site average of 8.87. In comparing the averages for last three years, M1

is consistently higher than the site average in all but the same area listed above. In

comparison, overall averages improved over 2009 and declined in 2011. FOH tends to

score at the site average with the most participants scoring the survey.

In relation to the data collected, the survey results support the influence of servant

leadership on employee engagement. The Market is located outside of the main house

and thus, is often remote to the main activities in the restaurant, which may contribute to

comments the lower ratings. Catering is in-house for isolated periods of time with the

majority of their shift spent in the field-servicing customers. Researcher observations

reflect the stronger relationships tended to be amongst the FOH and Kitchen. Through

the themes found in the study, the data supports the survey results and researcher

observations.
 136

Chapter Summary

Chapter 4 reviewed the data collection process, demographics of the participants,

the data collection findings, and the modified van Kaam method for data analysis

(Moustakas, 1994). An independent scribe transcribed both the interviews and focus

groups. Data collected from the semi-structured interviews and focus group contained a

purposive sample of eleven participants, of which two were managers. The interviews

and focus groups explored the experience, attributes, and behaviors of the participants’

phenomenological essence of Servant Leadership. Data was analyzed by interview

groups and then by focus groups. Data analysis to form themes required assessing the

data as a whole for invariant constituents. Themes were derived through open coded and

a process of data reduction and elimination. Invariant constituents applied to themes

resulted in isolating five core themes from the data. Lived experiences of the participants

supported each theme and overall phenomenological essence.

Chapter 5 provides an assessment of emergent themes, assessing specifically the

themes in relation to the central phenomenon of the influence of servant leadership on

employee engagement. Chapter 5 also provides recommendations for future research and

the impact of the research on future leadership studies. Chapter 5 finishes with the

research conclusion.
 137

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Employees who have an emotional connection to their organization typically

possess high levels of engagement (Robison, 2009). Servant leaders connect to the

emotions of a person through the nature of serving. The research sought to explore the

experience of employees in Celebration Restaurant, a servant led organization. To fulfill

the purpose, a qualitative phenomenological study was conducted to examine the

influence of servant leadership on employee engagement as experienced by these

restaurant employees. The central phenomenon in the study was the experience of

employees within Celebration Restaurant. Servant leadership is defined as having “the

[skill] of influencing people to enthusiastically work toward goals identified as being for

the common good, with character that inspires confidence” (Hunter, 2004, p. 290).

The study participants had an understanding of servant leadership through a

minimum of five years of lived experiences with Celebration Restaurant. A qualitative

method was appropriate for the study as the method is dependent on introspective views

from employees who have experienced servant leadership (Creswell, 2005). Personal

perspectives gained through open-ended questions provided a broader insight to how

servant leadership contributed to the engagement level of employees. The insight also

aided in answering the research questions of the study that asked,

RQ1: How do employees of a servant leader based company describe their

experience?

RQ2: How do participants describe the influence of servant leadership on their

engagement?
 138

A phenomenological design allowed the exploration of psychological concepts

such as shared experiences or feelings of confidence and inspiration as well as what

specific action encouraged these feelings (Ajjawi & Higgs, 2007). Through focus groups

and interviews, questions asked about the experience of servant leadership, in what ways

the experience differed by manager versus partner and possibly department while

providing additional insight to phenomenon as experienced in a restaurant environment.

Understanding these lived experiences was critical to employee engagement

strategies and the leadership philosophies adopted within organizations. The study can

contribute to the current and future studies on servant leadership and employee

engagement by obtaining the firsthand experience of employees in the restaurant

environment. The current research revealed a connection between productive and loyal

employees actively invested in the success of their organization (Esty & Gewirtz, 2008;

Hemsley, 2007; Lockwood, 2007). Triangulation of data was achieved through the

combination of interviews and focus groups, direct and non-obtrusive observations, and

through analysis of internal company documents to include surveys and training

documents. The results of the study were not limited to Celebration Restaurant but can

apply to organizations that practice servant leadership or organizations considering a

different leadership approach, specifically organizations with virtual teams, high attrition,

or disconnected relationships between leadership and employees. The findings also

provided insight to how servant leadership positively influenced employee engagement at

all levels.
 139

Chapter 5 contains an interpretation of the data results, inferences about the

important findings, leadership implications based on the analysis, recommendations for

Celebration Restaurant stakeholders, and recommendations for future research.

Findings

The data collection process focused on four sources: (1) semi-structured interview

data, (2) focus group data, (3) documented data (previous company survey results and

internal documentation, and (4) direct and non-obtrusive observations, which helped to

triangulate the research findings. A homogeneous sampling included participants with

the criterion of a minimum of five years’ service with Celebration Restaurant. Anyone

not meeting the determined criteria was excluded from participating in the interviews and

focus groups. The interview and focus group responses coupled with the research

questions aided in compiling the themes found through data analysis.

Manager Responses versus Participant Responses

Comments from managers revealed an understanding of the importance of leading

by serving. The experience of servant leadership was most profound for the managers

when they understood their role to support their partners and encourage growth. As

servant leaders, the manager role is to lead in a manner that encourages followers to want

to lead. Comments from the focus group participants reflected an appreciation of their

leaders supporting them through working side by side.

Five participants, in particular, mentioned how they have witnessed their leaders

doing jobs outside of the natural scope, such as waiting tables or emptying trash. These

acts exemplified the leaders as equals, not necessarily as one with a title, although the

participants respected the need for leadership. What was evident from the comments of
 140

the managers is that they determined that the focus was to serve their partners, while the

partners serve the customers. The focus defines each role, while cultivating a performing

culture.

Interview Responses

Research question one asked how participants described their experience.

Responses gained from the managers through the interviews revealed a deep passion for

servant leadership and the applicable traits. Managers found that through the application

of servant leadership, their roles are more defined to lead by serving. According to Keith

(2008b), “Servant leadership begins with self. It is not a program – it is a soulful journey.

And soulfulness always starts with self. Only then does one move out to influence the

sphere that one already occupies” (p. 126). The management with Celebration Restaurant

also found the servant leadership began with self. M1 described that Celebration

Restaurant began with only applying bits and pieces of servant leadership principles.

Once the organization moved beyond a “program” application, the full journey began.

The “soulful” journey is very personal to each manager. M1, in particular, was very

emotional when he described the overall impact of servant leadership that not only

changed his role as a manager but his role as a father. M1 commented on the personal

change based on his experience with servant leadership.

The servant leadership experience for managers also echoed Greenleaf’s (2008)

sentiments of “a true natural servant responds to any problem by listening first” (p. 18).

Manager one thought this was a learned trait, while Manager two thought it was a natural

one. Both managers provided examples where the trait proved beneficial in their

leadership and relationships with employees. What was most evident was both managers
 141

found value in building relationships with their employees as a critical aspect of servant

leadership.

Research question two asked how servant leadership influenced employee

engagement, as viewed from the managers’ perspectives. Celebration Restaurant was in

existence for twenty-five years prior to implementation of servant leadership and was

very successful. M1 stated that servant leadership was appealing through the success

witnessed due to his brother’s implementation of servant leadership decades earlier.

Servant leadership was implemented in Celebration Restaurant in an attempt to change

the culture and re-kindle the passion of the owner.

Markos and Sridevi (2010) stated employee engagement is built on job

satisfaction, employee commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Although

this may not have been the main goal for implementing servant leadership, the managers

commented on how servant leadership increased their personal commitment as well as

that of their employees through changing the culture of the organization. The culture of

the organization prior to servant leadership is described of one with the owner shouting

commands, as M1 described himself. While a level of employee commitment existed

prior to the implementation of servant leadership as exemplified by the number of

employees with more than six years of service, the commitment seemed to strengthen

after the implementation based on participants’ responses.

Manager one, in particular, learned the importance of the impact of personal

behavior on the organization when he found that the application of servant leadership

increased his personal job satisfaction. Manager two found the application of servant

leadership a way to be the person he is on and off the job who naturally cares for people.
 142

Knowing that each experience differs, the passion of the managers could be felt in their

responses. M1, in particular, was very emotional in his response regarding the final

question asked; reflecting his deep passion for servant leadership and the impact the

change has had on him. Overall, the responses from the managers in the interviews

revealed a true passion for servant leadership and a commitment to leading by serving

those who work for them. These managers discovered that the difference is a “Servant-

Leader helps others meet their highest priority development needs… self-interest is

deeply connected to the needs and interests of others.” (Sipe & Frick, 2009, p. 34).

Focus Group Responses

Two focus groups were conducted that included a total of 11 partners of

Celebration Restaurant. The first group had primarily participants with five to ten years’

of service, while the second focus group had a majority of participants with more than ten

years of experience. Both groups were a mixture in terms of department representation

and experience, which added to the richness of the data. In response to research question

one on how participants describe their servant leader experience, participants commented

on personal growth and improved peer relationships.

The first observation with both groups was the participants were closely knit,

especially the FOH (Front of House) participants. The group, in particular, had more

daily interaction and a stronger connection based on their day-to-day involvement. One

observation was the experience differed more by the department than the length of

employment. One employee with a little more than five years’ experience was just as

passionate one with over fifteen years’ of service. The experience of servant leadership

seemed to have a greater impact on the FOH and Kitchen participants based on their
 143

responses, which reflected a personal impact... Catering, a smaller department and whose

work is more remote and offsite, held differing views of the impacts of servant

leadership. Catering participants described their servant leadership experience with

caution, doubting the true change in their leaders as expressed by their often neutral,

vague, or even less than positive responses. For example, in response to the question of

“How do you describe your servant leader experience?” Participant one commented on

observed changes in the owner since the implementation of servant leadership.

Comments were also made regarding how many believed in the mission of the

owner to apply servant leadership, thus influencing the commitment level of the

participants. The most common theme was in regards to the relationships the partners

had with one another. Some had relatives also working with Celebration. These

relationships motivated the partners to come to work each day and ultimately perform

their best. All participants agreed that servant leadership was something to practice

consistently for the leadership to be effective. Research question two asked how servant

leadership influences employee engagement. From the responses of the participants,

servant leadership had a positive influence on employee engagement through increased

commitment to organizational goals, job satisfaction, and work relationships.

Themes

Through the data analysis, five themes surfaced (1) Servant Leadership

Experience, (2) Why People Stay with Celebration Restaurant, (3) Servant Leadership

Traits, (4) Impact of Servant Leadership, and (5) Application of Servant Leadership.

Using coding, reoccurring words and comments were analyzed for frequency and thus,

becoming themes.
 144

Theme One: Servant Leadership Experience

The individual experience of servant leadership held personal meaning for each

participant and was the central theme of the research. The experiences of these

participants fell into three categories (1) personal meaning, (2) manager meaning, and (3)

meaning to the culture. The personal meaning for each participant reflected three main

characteristics (1) leading by example, (2) personal growth, and (3) relationships.

For managers, leading by example meant being out there with their employees

working side by side. Focus group participants viewed leading by example as both a

standard and a sign of integrity. Ninety-one percent (10/11) of the focus group

participants cited leading by example as a primary expectation of their servant leader

experience, something that exemplified true servant leadership. These participants

expected managers to lead by example in their behaviors of how the managers treated

their employees and expected manage support through hands-on service.

Personal growth was expressed as a characteristic that developed from the servant

leadership experience where participants and managers were taught to look at self-first

for a reason for a problem. Greenleaf (2008) called personal growth a result of awareness

and perception. Seventy-three percent (8/11) of the focus group participants commented

how their servant leader experience resulted in some level of personal growth and

development, even more of self-awareness. Greenleaf (2008) stated, “When one is

aware, there is more than the usual alertness, more intense contact with the immediate

situation, and more is stored away in the unconscious computer to produce intuitive

insights in the future when needed” (p. 28). Participants also commented on how they
 145

were more in tune with their personal feelings and moods and how these emotions could

affect negatively or positively both peers and customers.

Both groups valued the importance of relationships and the relationships amongst

the participants in the focus groups were particularly stronger laterally than vertically.

One hundred percent of the participants commented on how the relationships held at

Celebration Restaurant are a major part of the servant leader experience. Three of the

eleven had family members employed at Celebration Restaurant, which reflects a both

employee engagement and servant leadership characteristics (Gallup 2008; Sipe & Frick,

2009). Participants also understood the value of building relationships with their

customers. Most studies regarding employee engagement marked the relationship

between the manager and employee as having a stronger influence on engagement versus

the employee-to-employee relationship alone (Gallup, 2008; Hemsley, 2007; Markos &

Sridevi, 2010; Tomlinson, 2010). The servant leadership experience overall for

participants meant creating a family atmosphere at work, which held the highest value to

the participants.

Servant leadership for managers aimed in defining their role and teaching

humility. For the managers, servant leadership truly emphasized the importance of the

leader as a servant who was there to support the efforts of employees versus using

authority to direct and dictate. Managers described their servant leadership experience as

a true eye opener to both the dedication and hard work of their employees and how, as

managers, they could better support and encourage these efforts.

The servant leadership experience also held a meaning to the culture of

Celebration Restaurant. Training meetings on servant leadership are regular to keep the
 146

philosophy in the minds of all employees. As Participant three stated, “We do things

differently at Celebration.” For the participants who experienced other companies,

servant leadership represented a higher standard of responsibility to themselves and their

customers.

Theme Two: Why People Stay with Celebration

The theme was most central to RQ2: “What influence does servant leadership

have on employee engagement” in describing why the restaurant has more than 60%

employees with more than five years of service. The Bureau of Labor Statistics cites

only 21% of employees had 2 or more years of service within the Leisure and Hospitality

sector, which includes restaurants (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). Celebration

Restaurant is significantly higher than the national average (Bureau of Labor Statistics,

2008). Participants commented that they wanted to be at Celebration Restaurant, even

when they were not at work. One hundred percent of the participant comments reflected

the relationships they have at work are one of the main connections that keep them with

Celebration Restaurant. The bond between the participants revealed a major connection

to Celebration Restaurant. Participants described Celebration Restaurant as a fun place,

one where they enjoy coming each day.

Fifty-five percent (6/11) commented on the respect they had for the owner of the

company and his vision of servant leadership. Ninety-one percent (10/11) commented on

how they knew the leadership supports servant leadership and wants employees to speak

up and share their ideas and concerns with them, although one participant felt this may

not be sincere and that she did not believe she would ever confide in her leaders. All
 147

participants agreed they enjoyed the working atmosphere of Celebration and no one was

actively pursuing another job.

Theme Three: Servant Leadership Traits

The traits most commented by the participants were learning (55%, 6/11), service

(55%, 6/11), asking for forgiveness (73%, 8/11), responsibility (55% 6/11), kindness or

caring, and compassion (73%, 8/11). Each of these traits were mentioned a minimum of

ten times throughout the combination of interviews and focus groups, which emphasized

the significance of the meaning of these traits to the participants collectively as well as

individually. Other characteristics mentioned were passion, listener, teacher, trust, and

understanding. Participants felt the environment of Celebration was one where

employees feel they can learn and serve and become leaders themselves, which is true to

the definition of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1998, 2002, 2008; Sipe & Frick, 2009;

Spears & Lawrence, 2002; Waterman, 2011). Participants of Celebration Restaurant

operate as leaders through their actions with one another and with customers.

Theme Four: Impact of Servant Leadership

The impact of servant leadership extended from partner level to the managers and

leaving an overall impact on the organizational culture as well. When speaking of the

experience of servant leadership and how the experience influences the commitment level

of each individual, 82% (9/11) of responses commented on levels of empowerment,

involvement in decisions, ability to solve problems, and encouragement to provide

feedback. The theme linked the experience of servant leadership to employee

engagement where employees are committed to an organization because their opinions

are welcomed and valued. Employees are encouraged to share their ideas and thoughts
 148

around central issues affecting the business; and through training, employees are

empowered to make decisions and learn from mistakes (Gallup, 2010; Harter & Schmidt,

2010; Kowske, Lundby, & Rasch, 2009).

In the theme 73% (8/11) of participants commented they were more focused on

delivering exceptional customer service. Their commitment to the company influences

how the participants interact with their customers. The impact of servant leadership on

Celebration Restaurant was a group of participants who work towards a common goal

through team effort. Managers are focused on ensuring partners have the tools to do their

job and partners are focused on ensuring customers are happy and have a good

experience each time. The benefits enhanced the company and reflected research on

employee engagement that highly engaged employees are loyal, committed employees

who invest their talents and skills into the organization in an effort to make the

organization successful (Federman, 2009; Gostick & Elton, 2007; Robison, 2010a). The

sentiments from all the participants reflected some level of engagement based on the

many definitions of engagement provided in research (Federman, 2009; Gallup, 2008;

Gostick & Elton, 2007; Kowske, Lundby, & Rasch, 2009; Robison, 2010a). The impact

of servant leadership upon Celebration Restaurant is summed up in the reoccurring

comments of change, commitment, awareness, teaches, encouragement, and personal

impact.

Theme Five: Application of Servant Leadership

The theme reflected the humanness of both participants and managers. Servant

leadership is not a born trait, although some principles of servant leadership may come

more naturally to some than others as reflected in the participants and managers’
 149

comments. Participants’ responses implied the effectiveness of servant leadership is

dependent on the consistency of leadership. Leaders must be able to self-assess, “right

wrongs”, and show true humility for these characteristics to be displayed in their

employees as well as set the standard for servant leadership (Frick & Hoxeng, 2009;

Greenleaf, 2008; Keith, 2008a). Both managers commented on the importance of self-

assessment and “righting wrongs,” as described by P3, through apologizing when

behavior is not servant leader like.

Interesting is the fact that Celebration instilled Servant Leadership into its culture

fully six years ago after a previous nine years of applying pieces of the philosophy, but

the application is still a daily process in many cases where all involved have to be aware

of self, first and foremost. Seventy-three percent (8/11) of the employees commented

how each may apologize to one another for having a bad attitude or to customers when a

mistake was made. The focus on one’s own behavior and how to adjust personal

attitudes is a key trait for servant leaders (Greenleaf, 2008).

Assumptions and Limitations

Chapter 1 included the assumptions and limitations, of the current study. The

result of the assumptions and limitations are listed below as well as the impact or

potential weakness to the study.

Servant Leadership Foundation and Leaders

Of the fifteen years Celebration has practiced servant leadership, full

implementation of the philosophy was six years ago. Prior to the six years, Celebration

would send leaders and partners to servant leader meetings at other organizations. Six

years ago, Celebration created personalized servant leadership material for training and
 150

was recognized with other Servant Leader organizations (McGee-Cooper et al., 2007).

The efforts and success of Celebration Restaurant was profiled and published with other

successful servant leader organizations (McGee-Cooper, et al., 2007). Celebration

Restaurant had a strong servant leadership foundation built on training, awareness, and

communication. Although servant leadership was a requirement, not all leaders readily

accept and apply the philosophy. At the time of the study, all leaders practiced servant

leadership but the practice required a conscious effort for some as expressed by M1 and

through comments from the focus group.

Honest Perceptions and True Experience

All participants were provided the confidentiality agreement and signed the

consent form. Participants voluntarily agreed to participate and were instructed on

procedures to withdraw from the study. No participant chose to withdraw from the study.

Participants’ comments were viewed open and honest through the active participation

where comments were both in agreement and disagreement with one another (Smithson,

2000). In addition, participants were very passionate in responses as reflected with

emotion in voice and choice of words used to describe live experiences. Participants

commented on training as well as weekly discussions on servant leadership. These last

two accounts supported the participants were honest and knowledgeable in their

discussion of personal servant leadership experience.

Limitations

Through interviews and focus groups, the researcher becomes the instrument,

which can lead to bias (Miyazaki & Taylor, 2008). The pilot study identified potential

bias in the interview and focus group questions and the questions reframed to eliminate
 151

the bias (Chenail, 2011). Researcher bias could have altered the results of the study or

stifled the participants’ involvement through limiting or leading their responses.

Researcher bias was limited through asking open-ended questions, which allowed

participants to provide responses freely and without the researcher guiding the responses.

The researcher did not add comments to influence participants and only asked for

clarification to expand on thoughts made. Further, the researcher was not an employee or

connected to the research organization, which could have hindered the open

communication of the participants (Smithson, 2000).

Another limitation was the research location for data collection. Although a

convenience for the participants, a breach of confidentiality through possible

identification of the participants in the workplace was a possible limitation (Shaha,

Wenzel, & Hill, 2011; Smithson, 2000). To mitigate the limitation, participants’

responses we not shared verbatim with the management or staff of Celebration, only the

comments contained in the study. The researcher also maintained the transcripts and

audio recording of the focus groups according to ethical practices. Focus groups were

conducted after lunch hours in a room and area of the restaurant cleared out, thus limiting

the possibility of someone over hearing the participant responses. Further, study results

were not discussed on-site or with anyone connected to the restaurant.

The consequences of the above limitations might be the forthrightness and

openness of the participants. The use of focus groups hold the risk of participants sharing

comments made within the group, thus revealing the identity of the participants

(Smithson, 2000). Thus, the data collected may not represent the complete true feelings

of participants who may have feared identification by peers within the focus group to
 152

their leaders. Future studies must take into consideration this weakness to the study and

make the necessary adjustments to both research location and participant solicitation.

Summary of Findings

The study examined the servant leader experiences of managers and partners

within Celebration Restaurant. Servant leadership is said to contribute to healing,

commitment, and feelings of worth (Greenleaf, 1998; Spears & Lawrence, 2002). M1

gave an example of how his experience reflected the healing and self-worth for a former

employee of his who contacted him months later.

Both managers had examples of how they have seen a difference in the

commitment level of their employees since implementing servant leadership. The sense

of caring from managers in the organization help to fuel more dedicated, loyal, and

committed employees. The emotional attachment shared by partners with one other was

described as the impact and experience of servant leadership. Although servant

leadership can only account for the last fifteen years of the total forty years the restaurant

has existed, many partners credited the philosophy as a major change with the owner of

the company. The changing of the culture of the restaurant was also noted regarding the

philosophy, as commented by the partners who have been with Celebration for seven

years or more.

Engagement drivers reflected factors that contributed to the morale and

willingness to stay and contribute to the company’s success, which breeds an emotional

connection (Kowske et al., 2009; Lavigna, 2010). Based on the participants responses

analyzed in Theme five, the main drivers were relationships with peers, open

communication, flexibility, and overall an environment that has created general

 153

enthusiasm for the work conducted. Peer relationships held the most significant value for

the participants although these relationships were derived out of a culture in which the

participants hold a belief in and value the goals of the leaders of their organization.

Meetings held to discuss servant leadership and solicit feedback from participants on both

their leaders and on important functions or issues within the restaurant were one example

of open communication. The flexibility provided in scheduling offered a work/life

balance to participants in school or with children. These main drivers of employee

engagement contributed to the emotional connection the participants hold with the

company as well as their general enthusiasm for work.

Research from literature indicated key drivers of employee engagement were

factors that contributed to confidence in work roles, morale, and willingness to stay and

contributed to company’s success, as well as overall loyalty, which breeds an emotional

connection with employee to organization (Kowske et al., 2009; Lavigna, 2010). Key

engagement drivers often include open and honest communication, support to do one’s

job, recognition and appreciation for work contributions, opportunity for growth and

development, feeling valued, and knowing one’s contributions count (Harter & Schmit,

2010). Data analysis from Celebration Restaurant indicated some of these drivers existed

and contributed to the longevity of partners.

The findings from the data suggested servant leadership has a strong influence on

employee engagement, specifically with commitment, loyalty, ownership, and overall

partners who contribute to the success of the organization. One of the most surprising

findings was the strength of the relationships amongst peers that was greater than that of

employee to manager. Comments from partners reflected that these relationships kept
 154

them with Celebration Restaurant. These relationships positively influenced both the

commitment levels and loyalty to the organization. Most research contributed employee

loyalty to the manager relationships versus peer relationships (Gallup, 2008; Hemsley,

2007; Markos & Sridevi, 2010; Tomlinson, 2010), reflecting a gap in the study as

compared to literature on employee engagement.

The gaps found in regards to partner / manager relationships and an overall

understanding of key drivers for employee engagement are addressed with

recommendations for leadership. Understanding these gaps may be important to

organizations with multiple sites and virtual or remote teams as the data implies

employees aligned to the goals of the owner and committed to the organization was based

on peer relationships. The commitment was stronger with those who are in-house, thus

the challenge become in transferring the same commitment to those who are not within

regular contact with the owner.

Implications and Significance of the Findings

The purpose of the study was to understand the engagement of employees at a

Dallas restaurant through their experience of servant leadership. The findings reflected a

high level of engagement based on the experience of the participants as reflected in

loyalty to the organization. Researchers identified key drivers of employee engagement

to include loyalty, which breeds an emotional connection with the employee to the

organization and willingness to stay and contribute to the company’s success (Kowske et

al., 2009; Lavigna, 2010). Responses from participants reflected an emotional

attachment to Celebration Restaurant and a commitment to the organization’s success.

 155

Partners exhibited their commitment through examples demonstrating a focus on

customer satisfaction. Hwang & Zhao (2010) identified customer satisfaction is directly

linked to restaurant profits. Through partner focused on delivering excellent service, the

partners were contributing to the organizational success. The research findings reflected

servant leadership positively influenced participants to work collectively to achieve

organizational goals (Esty & Gewirtz, 2008; Hemsley, 2007; Lockwood, 2007).

Findings as applied to the significance of the study do not fully support the role of

leadership driving performance. Participants expressed a high level of respect for the

owner and the values he represents but the lack of comments on other leaders in the

organization did not support the same feeling for all leaders. Further, the study findings

may provide insight for other restaurants seeking to improve or increase employee

engagement.

Recommendations for Leadership

Large corporations, such as Southwest Airlines and TDIndustries, have practiced

servant leadership for more than twenty-five years with much success. Part of their

success with servant leadership can be contributed to investments made in leadership

development and auditing of their servant leadership approach for continual improvement

(McGee-Cooper et al, 2007). The current study was an exploration of employees within

a servant led organization to determine whether servant leadership influenced employee

engagement. Findings suggest servant leadership had a positive influence on employee

engagement. Studies indicated there is a strong relationship between employee

commitment and the leadership of an organization (Markos & Sridevi, 2010).

Organizations that experience high attrition may find reasons linked to leadership and
 156

employee commitment levels. The study highlighted only a few insights to why

employees in a servant leadership organization stay committed, productive, and actively

contribute to the success of the organization.

Celebration Restaurant has an opportunity to strengthen and enrich applications of

servant leadership, thus further improving employee engagement. Although a few

engagement drivers were identified in the study, such as employee relationships,

commitment, and effective communication, an assessment focused solely on employee

engagement may help to better isolate specific engagement drivers by department as well

as the weight of each driver, while further increasing awareness and understanding of

servant leadership.

Studies on employee engagement typically identified one of the main drivers for

highly engaged employees as the leader to employee relationship (Federman, 2009;

Gallup, 2008; Robison, 2010a). The finding was contrary to previous studies as

participants commented on how their relationships with one another connected them with

the company. Organizations with virtual teams or cultures that are not conducive to

building strong relationship laterally and vertically may also experience the challenge

internally. Although a few participants in the study expressed a respect for the owner’s

vision with servant leadership, the owner was the only manager referenced throughout

both focus groups, reflecting a weaker relationship between managers and partners.

Another recommendation is to address the gap in manager to partner

relationships. Managers may benefit from both emotional intelligence and human capital

training. Reid (2008) discussed themes that make for leadership success, two of which

the leaders of Celebration Restaurant possessed: “Articulating a vision and strongly lived
 157

values … [and] creating leaders who can make change happen” (p. 2). What seems to be

missing is “modeling resilient and emotionally intelligent leadership” (Reid, 2008, p. 3).

Reid (2008) stated, “Resilient leaders draw on the emotional intelligence competencies

… [that] involve self-awareness, managing oneself, awareness of others, and managing

relationships. They help to reduce behaviors that don’t work for us and maximize those

that do” (p. 3). Emotional intelligence competencies may help leaders bridge the gap

between partners as well as improve consistency in servant leadership traits and

behaviors. This may also help dispel the feelings of insincerity believed about managers’

servant leader behavior and reinforce the servant leader culture, particularly with the

catering department.

Suggestions for Further Research

Understanding the full impact of servant leadership to employee engagement

entails developing studies to create a process with measurements. A quantitative

correlational study comprised of a larger population to include various servant led

companies to measure employee engagement may provide data on common drivers and

isolate those specific to different industries. Results may identify similar servant

leadership characteristics that have a greater influence on employee engagement.

Through expanding the scope of the study, an understanding of any differences amongst

industries may arise and contribute to the knowledge of servant leadership.

An additional study may address a comparison of attrition prior to the

implementation of servant leadership and compare to current attrition levels. A

qualitative or a longitudinal case study that examines the before and after implementation

of servant leadership may capture a better historical view of the organization and the full
 158

impact of servant leadership. The information may be helpful to not only Celebration

Restaurant, but also to other organizations seeking to increase employee engagement

and/or measure the effectiveness of servant leadership.

A mixed study may help to delve deeper into the engagement drivers and servant

leadership experiences through one-on-one interviews with partners and a survey based

on previous findings with added engagement drivers. This may provide leaders with

insight into how to gain a stronger commitment from all partners within the organization.

Through triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data, researchers can “improve their

inquiries by collecting and converging (or integrating) different kinds of data bearing on

the same phenomenon” (Creswell, 2005, p. 511).

One additional recommendation is a quantitative correlational study that

compares several restaurants with different leadership philosophies to measure the

influence of those leadership philosophies on engagement, while comparing commitment

and loyalty of employees. This may provide understanding into the effectiveness of

servant leadership as measured against other leadership philosophies and engagement

levels. The study may also provide additional insight into as to why more organizations

do not adopt servant leadership. This type of study can compare leadership philosophies

to engagement and attrition levels within the identified organizations.

Summary and Conclusions

The qualitative, phenomenological study examined the servant leader experience

of eleven partners and two managers and the impact the experience had on the culture of

the restaurant and corresponding engagement levels of all who participated in the study.

Research suggested that organizational leaders are critical in establishing and creating
 159

ethical cultures that produce productive, loyal, and engaged employees (Darcy, 2010;

Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Trevino, 2010). Servant leaders connect to the emotions of a

person through the nature of serving the needs of others above that of the leader

(Greenleaf, 1998, 2002, 2008). The success of servant leaders develops through

committed employees who actively contribute to the success of the organization, thus

becoming leaders themselves. Within Celebration Restaurant, servant leadership was

implemented in part fifteen years ago and in full over the last six years. The influence of

servant leadership on employee engagement was explored for an in-depth perspective of

the lived experiences.

Findings revealed partners experience personal growth and developed strong

working relationships with their peers. Managers learned the importance of leading by

example and their role in leading through support of their partners versus controlling

every aspect of the business. The implementation of servant leadership has created a

culture of committed workers who strive to deliver a memorable customer experience.

Servant leadership, such as with Celebration Restaurant, is a learned trait where one has

to regularly assess self and motives, while making timely amends for actions or

behaviors, which go against servant leadership.

Participants characterized servant leaders as possessing and displaying kindness

and compassion, humility, the ability to right wrongs, a focus on serving others first,

trustworthy, responsible, and understanding. Participants attributed their length of

service to Celebration to the relationships built as well as the overall climate of the

organization where partners enjoy coming to work. Through data analysis, employee

engagement drivers were identified as peer relationships, open communication, and

 160

flexibility. One recommendation, based on the finding of strong peer relationships and

undefined manager to employee relationships, is for the organization to invest in

emotional intelligence training to strengthen the relationships between managers and

partners. Employee engagement is not only dependent on the lateral relationships

employees hold but also on the interaction, employees have with their managers. Servant

leadership was the change agent for leaders of Celebration Restaurant (McGee-Cooper,

Looper, & Trammell, 2007) and a concentrated focus on employee engagement may

increase the overall performance of the organization.

 161

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance Management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ajjawi, R., & Higgs, J. (2007, Dec). Using Hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate

how experienced practitioners learn to communicate to clinical reasoning.

Qualitative Report, 12(4), 612-638. Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-4/ajjawi.pdf

Alahmad, A. (2010, First Quarter). To be ethical or not to be: An international code of

ethics for leadership. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(1), 31-35. Retrieved

from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=54089962&site

=ehost-live

Alexander, J., Lindsay-Smith, S., & Joerin, C. (2009). On the quest for world-class

internal communication. Strategic Communication Management, 13(4), 32-35.

Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=1785569001&F

mt=7&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Amadeo, C. A. (2008). A correlational study of servant leadership and registered nurse

job satisfaction in acute health-care settings (Doctoral dissertation). Available

from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix. (1683456281)

Anderson, K. P. (2005). A correlational analysis of servant leadership and job

satisfaction in a religious educational organization (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix. (862930161)

 162

Andreoli, N. (2009, Mar). Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in

organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 309-332. doi: 10.1007/s10551-

008-9772-6

Antelo, A., Prilipko, E. V., & Sheridan-Pereira, M. (2010, Oct). Assessing effective

attributes of followers in a leadership process. Contemporary Issues in Education

Research, 3(10), 1-12. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=61252684&si

te=eds-live

Ardichvili, A. (2009, Apr). Characteristics of ethical business cultures. Journal of

Business Ethics, 85(4), 445-451. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9782-4

Arkin, A. (2009, May 7). Back-seat drivers. People Management, 15(10), 26-28.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=52894820&sit

e=eds-live

Attridge, M. (2009, Oct-Dec). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A

review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral

Health, 24(4), 383-398. doi: 10.1080/15555240903188398

Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop great

morale, and improve bottom-line performance. New York, NY: Three Rivers.

Avey, J., Palanski, M., & Walumbwa, F. (2011, Feb). When leadership goes unnoticed:

The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical

leadership and follower behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 573-582.

doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0610-2
 163

Avolio, B., & Yammarino, F. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership:

The road ahead. Amsterdam, NL: JAI, An imprint of Elsevier.

Ayers, K. E. (2008). Engagement is not enough: You need passionate employees to

achieve your dream. Charleston, SC: Elevate.

Babcock-Robertson, M., & Strickland, O. (2010, May-June). The relationship between

charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313-326. doi:

10.1080/00223981003648336

Bagnoli, A., & Clark, A. (2010, Feb). Focus groups with young people: a participatory

approach to research planning. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(1), 101-119. doi:

10.1080/13676260903173504

Balch, D., & Armstrong, R. (2010, Mar). Ethical Marginality: The Icarus syndrome and

banality of wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 291-303. doi:

10.1007/s10551-009-0155-4

Bannon, S., Ford, K., & Meltzer, L. (2010, Jul). How to instill a strong ethical culture.

CPA Journal, 80(7), 56-58. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=54056311&sit

e=eds-live

Bansal, P., Corley, K. (2012, June). Publishing in AMJ – part 7: What’s different about

qualitative research? Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 509-513.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=76445969&sit

e=eds-live
 164

Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004, Mar). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and

serve as servant leaders. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), 143-

151. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12439750&sit

e=eds-live

Barbuto, J. E. and Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification

of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–26.

Bauman, D. (2011, Jan). Evaluating ethical approaches to crisis leadership: Insights

from unintentional harm research. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(2), 281-295.

doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0549-3

Behar, H. (2007). It’s not about the coffee: Leadership principles from a life at

Starbucks (with Janet Goldstein, Ed.) (New York, NY ed.). New York, NY:

Portfolio.

Bell, M., & Habel, S. (2009, Fall). Coaching for a vision for leadership “Oh the places

we’ll go and the thinks we can think.” International Journal of Reality, 29(1), 18-

23. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=45120187&si

te=eds-live

Bendersky, C., & McGinn, K. (2010, May/Jun). Open to negotiation: Phenomenological

assumptions and knowledge dissemination. Organization Science, 21(3), 781-

797. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0487

Bernard, H.R., Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 165

Bezuijen, X. M., Van Dam, K., Van den Berg, P. T., & Thierry, H. (2010, Sept). How

leaders stimulate employee learning: A leader-member exchange approach.

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 673-693. doi:

10.1348/096317909X468099

Bhatnagar, J., & Biswas, S. (2010, Oct). Predictors & outcomes of employee

engagement: Implications for the resource-based view perspective. Indian

Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(2), 273-286. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=55424910&sit

e=eds-live

Black, G. L. (2008). A correlational analysis of servant leadership and school climate

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of

Phoenix. (1546798431).

Black, G. L. (2010, Jun). Correlational analysis of servant leadership and school

climate. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 13(4), 437-466.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ914879&si

te=eds-live

Blanchard, A., Wellbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009, Apr-Jun).

Followership styles and employee attachment to the organization. Psychologist-

Manager Journal, 12(2), 111-131. doi: 10.1080/10887150902888718

Blanchard, K. (2000, March). Leadership by the Book. Executive Excellence, 17(3), 4-

4. Retrieved from
 166

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=2978578&site

=eds-live

Blanchard, K. (2002). Forward: The heart of a servant. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence

(Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century (pp. ix-xi).

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating

high performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: BMC, Blanchard

Management Corporation.

Blanchard, K. H. (1985). SLII: A situational approach to managing people. Escondido,

CA: Blanchard Training and Development.

Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2003). The servant leader: Transforming your heart,

head, hands, & habits. Nashville, TN: Blanchard Family Partnership and Phil

Hodges.

Bolden, R. (2004). What is leadership? Leadership South West, research report.

Retrieved from http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/research/abstract.php?id=43

Bloom, D. (2009). The phenomenological method of Gestalt therapy: Revisiting Husserl

to discover the “essence” of Gestalt Theory. Gestalt Review, 13(3), 277-295.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-00737-

011&site=eds-live

Bradbury-Jones, C., Sambrook, S., & Irvine, F. (2009, Mar). The phenomenological

focus group: An oxymoron? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(3), 663-671. doi:

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x
 167

Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010, Oct). Ethical and unethical leadership:

Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4),

583-616. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=54519943&sit

e=eds-live

Bryce, V. (2009). Retention: Employee engagement RIO before RIOT. Thought

Leadership, Kenexa.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Employee tenure by industry, 2008. Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/sept/wk5/art03.htm

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008, Jul). Quitting before leaving: The

mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912-922. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912

CNN Money. (2011). 100 best companies to work for. Retrieved from

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2011/full_list/

Caldwell, C., Hayes, L., & Long, D. (2010, Nov). Leadership, trustworthiness, and

ethical stewardship. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 497-512. doi:

10.1007/s10551-010-0489-y

Caldwell, C., Truong, D. X., Linh, P. T., & Tuan, A. (2011, Jan). Strategic human

resource management as ethical stewardship. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1),

171-182. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0541-y

Carlos, M. P. & Filipe, C. (2011). From personal values to creativity: evidence from

frontline service employees. European Journal of Marketing, 45 (7/8), 1029–

1050. doi: 10.1108/03090561111137598

 168

Carlsen, B., & Glenton, C. (2011, Mar). What about N? A methodological study of

sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Medical Research

Methodology, 11, 26. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mnh&AN=21396104&s

ite=eds-live

Carroll, A. B. (2010, Oct). Reflections on the business ethics field and business ethics

quarterly. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 715-717. doi: 54520955

Cashman, K. (2008). Leadership from the inside out: Becoming a leader for life (2nd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Champy, J. (2009, Fall). Authentic leadership. Leader to Leader, 2009(54), 39-44. doi:

10.1002/ltl.363

Chan, K. W., Wan, E. W. (2012, Jan). How can stressed employees deliver better

customer service? The underlying self-regulation depletion mechanism. Journal

of Marketing, 76(1), 119-137. doi: 10.1509/jm.10.0202

Charman, A. (2011, Apr). The future of leadership - what will it take to succeed?

International Schools of Journal, 30(2), 39-48. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60256444&si

te=eds-live

Chenail, R. J. (2011, Jan). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing

instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative

Report, 16(1), 255-262. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ914046
 169

Chu, H. (2008). Employee perception of servant leadership and job satisfaction in a

call center: A correlational study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix. (1637577491)

Colan, L. J. (2009). Engaging the hearts and minds of all your employees: How to

ignite passionate performance for better business results (ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw Hill.

Corona, M. A. (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence and

transformational leadership. A Hispanics American examination. Business

Journal of Hispanics Research, 4(1), 22-34. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=50375696&sit

e=eds-live

Correia de Sousa, M., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2010). Knowledge workers, servant

leadership and the search for meaning in knowledge-driven organizations. On the

Horizon, 18(3), 230-239. doi: 10.1108/10748121011072681

Creswell, J. (2005). Education research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). [eBook Collection]. doi: 1000-

0001-2D36-00017C66

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crippen, C. (2010). Serve, teach, and lead: It’s all about relationships. InSight: A

Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 5, 27-36. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ902861&si

te=eds-live
 170

Criswell, C., & Campbell, D. (2008, May/Jun). Image counts: Building an authentic

leadership presence. Leadership in Action, 28(2), 13-17. doi: 32750365

Crush, P. (2008, October). Views on Engagement. Human Resources, 33-34.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34866305&sit

e=eds-live

Dadhich, A., & Bhal, K. T. (2008, Oct-Dec). Ethical leader behavior and leader-

member exchange as predictors of subordinate behaviors. Vikalpa: The Journal

for Decision Makers, 33(4), 15-25. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=37603710&sit

e=eds-live

Darcy, K. T. (2010, Aug). Ethical leadership: The past, present and future.

International Journal of Disclosure & Governance, 7(3), 198-212. doi:

10.1057/jdg.2010.12

Davies, I. A., & Crane, A. (2010, Apr). Corporate social responsibility in small-and

medium-size enterprises; investigating employee engagement in fair trade

companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(2), 126-139. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01586.x

Dixon, A. (2009, July). Rules of engagement. Black Enterprise, 39(12), 62-64, 66.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=42739466&sit

e=eds-live
 171

Dresler-Hawke, E., Vaccarino, R. (2010). The ethics of focus groups in correctional

settings. International Journal of Learning, 16(12), 171-183. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=48810280&sit

e=ehost-live

Dunne, S., & Spoelstra, S. (2010, Spr). The gift of leadership. Philosophy Today, 54(1),

66-77. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/205391895?accou

ntid=35812

D’Aurizio, P. (2008, Nov-Dec). Southwest airlines: Lessons in loyalty. Nursing

Economics, 26(6), 389-392. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgi-

bin/refsvc?jid=374&accno=2010146005

Ebener, D. R. (2011, Feb). Servant leadership and a culture of stewardship. Priest,

67(2), 17-21. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=58617995&si

te=eds-live

Ebener, D. R., & O’Connell, D. J. (2010, Spr). How might servant leadership work?

Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(3), 315-335. doi: 10.1002/nml.256

Eliyana, A. (2010, June). Impacts of transactional and transformational leaderships

upon organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of US-China Public

Administration, 7(6), 24-30. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=55070548&si

te=eds-live
 172

Ermongkonchai, P. (2010, Aug). Managerial perceptions on employee misconduct and

ethics management strategies in Thai organizations. International Journal of

Business & Management, 5(8), 124-137. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=52739845&sit

e=eds-live

Esty, K., & Gewirtz, M. (2008). Creating a culture of employee engagement. Retrieved

from http://www.boston.com/jobs/nehra/062308.shtml

Federman, B. (2009). Employee engagement: A roadmap for creating profits,

optimizing performance, and increasing loyalty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

A Wiley Imprint.

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. . In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 150-188).

New York, NY: Academic Press.

Finlay, L. (2009, Sept). Exploring lived experience principles and practice of

phenomenological research. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation,

16(9), 474-481. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgi-

bin/refsvc?jid=2445&accno=2010414173

Fisher, J. (2004, May). Servant leadership. Executive Excellence, 21(5), 15-16.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=13099905&sit

e=eds-live
 173

Freeman, T. (2006, Dec). ’Best practice’ in focus group research: making sense of

different views. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(5), 491-497. doi:

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04043.x

Frick, D. M., Hoxeng, D., Panther, J. (2008). The business case for servant leadership:

Lessons in success from organizations and leaders (2nd edition). Phoenix, AZ:

Ken Blanchard Executive MBA Program.

Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. (2010, Jun). Pursuit of whose happiness?

Executive leaders’ transformational behaviors and personal values.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 222-254. doi:

10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.222

Furness, V. (2008, April). Engagement defined. Employee Benefits, 56-57. Retrieved

from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=32034540&sit

e=eds-live

Gable, S. A., Seung, Y. C., Marker, A., & Winiecki, D. (2010, Apr). How should

organizational leaders use employee engagement survey data. Performance

Improvement, 49(4), 17-25. doi: 10.1002/pfi.20140

Gallup Consulting. (2008). Employee engagement: What is your engagement ratio?

Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/consulting/121535/Employee-

Engagement-Overview-Brochure.aspx

Gallup. (2010). Employee engagement: A leading indicator of financial performance.

Retrieved 05/14/2010, from http://www.gallup.com/consulting/52/Employee-

Engagement.aspx
 174

Gambetti, R. C., Graffigna, G. (2010, Nov. 1). The concept of engagement: A

systematic analysis of the ongoing marketing debate. International Journal of

Market Research, 52(6). P. 801-826. doi:10.2501/S147078531020166

Garza, G. (2007). Varieties of phenomenological research at the University of Dallas:

An emerging typology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4(4), 313-342. doi:

10.1080/14780880701551170

Gentry, W. A., & Leslie, J. B. (2007, Spr.). Competencies for leadership development:

What’s hot and what’s not: When assessing leadership-implications for

organizational development. Organizational Development Journal, 25(1), 37-46.

doi: 2007-03009-003

Ghormley, J. C. (2009). A correlational analysis: Servant leadership and participation

by volunteer leaders of credit unions (Doctoral dissertation).Available from

Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix. (1886764381)

Glavas, A., & Piderit, S. K. (2009, Winter). How does doing good matter? Effects on

corporate citizenship on employee. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 51-70.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=48722169&sit

e=eds-live

Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). New

York, NY: Pearson.

Gostick, A., & Elton, C. (2007).The carrot principle: How the best managers use

recognition to engage their people, retain talent, and accelerate performance.

New York, NY: Free Press: A division of Simon & Schuster.

 175

Grahek, M. S., Thompson, A. D., & Toliver, A. (2010, Dec). The character to lead: A

closer look at character in leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice

and Research, 62(4), 270-290. doi: 10.1037/a0022385

Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-

Koehler.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist

Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2008). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Robert Greenleaf

Center.

Grønkjær, M., Curtis, T., de Crespigny, C. & Delmar, C. (2011). Analysing group

interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the

moderator. Qualitative Studies, 2(1):16-30. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67090609&site

=ehost-live

Groppel, J., & Loehr, J. (2004, February). Full engagement. Chief Learning Officer,

3(2), 13-13. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12243007&sit

e=eds-live

Halbesleban, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008, Jul-Sep). The relative roles of engagement

and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work &

Stress, 22(3), 242-256. doi:10.1080/02678370802383962

 176

Halbesleban, J. R., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009, November). Too, engaged? A

conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and

work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1452-1465.

doi: 10.1037/a0017595

Halcomb, E., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J., Davidson, P. M., (2007,

June). Literature review: considerations in undertaking focus group research with

culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(6),

1000-1011. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01760.x

Hall, T. (Ed.). (2007). Becoming authentic: The search for wholeness and calling as a

servant leader. South Bend, IN: Cloverdale Books.

Hamill, C., & Sinclair, H. (2010). Bracketing --- practical considerations in Husserlian

phenomenological research. School of Nursing and Midwifery, 17(2), 16-24.

Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=807&accno=2010557780

Hamilton, F. (2005, October). Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust,

bravery, and forgiveness. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 857-877. doi:

10.5465/AMR.2005.18378886

Hannay, M. (2009, February). The cross-cultural leader: The application of servant

leadership theory in the International context. Journal of International Business

& Cultural Studies, 1, 1-12. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=47114733&sit

e=eds-live

Haq, I. U., Ali, A., Azeem, M. U., Hijazi, S. T., Qurashi, T. M., & Quyyum, A. (2010,

Oct). Mediation role of employee engagement in creative work process on the

 177

relationship of transformational leadership and employee creativity. European

Journal of Economics, Finance & Administrative Sciences, 25, 94-101. Retrieved

from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=56553966&sit

e=eds-live

Harned, P. J. (2010, Jan). Encourage ethical behavior as economy recovers. HR

Specialist, 5(1), 5-5. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=47478113&sit

e=eds-live

Harshman, C., & Harshman, E. (2008, Mar). The Gordian knot of ethics: Understanding

leadership effectiveness and ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,

78(1/2), 175-192. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9318-8

Harter, J., & Schmidt, F. L. (2010). What really drives financial success? Two

researches tackle this chicken-or-egg question: Do engaged employees drive an

organization’s performance, or does success inspire engagement? Retrieved

from http://gmh.galup.com/content.142733/Really-Drives-Financial-Success.aspx

Hawkins, C. (2009, Fall). Leadership theories -- managing practices, challenges,

suggestions. Community College Enterprise, 15(2), 39-62. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=47141363&si

te=eds-live

Hemsley, S. (2007, June). What is employee engagement? Employee Benefits, 5-6.

Retrieved from
 178

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=26402953&sit

e=eds-live

Hesselbein, F., & Goldsmith, M. (Eds.). (2006). The leader of the future 2: Visions,

strategies, and practices for the new era. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hopen, D. (2010, Apr). The changing role and practices of successful leaders. The

Journal of Quality and Participation, 33(1), 4-9. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=51197863&sit

e=eds-live

Hopkins, P. E. (2007, Dec). Thinking critically and creatively about focus groups.

Area, 39(4), 528-535. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00766.x

Houghton, C. E., Casey, D., Shaw, D., Murphy, K. (2010). Ethical challenges in

qualitative research: examples from practice. Nurse Researcher, 18(1), p 15-25.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=55720353&si

te=eds-live

Hunter, J. C. (2004). The world’s most powerful leadership principle: How to become a

servant -leader. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Hwang, J., Zhao, J. (2010). Factors influencing customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction

in the restaurant business using answertree methodology. Journal of Quality

Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 11(2), 93-110. doi:

10.1080/15280081003800355
 179

Inbarasu, J. (2008). Influence of servant leadership practice on job satisfaction: A

correlational study in a Lutheran organization (Doctoral dissertation). Available

from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix. (1679883511)

Indartono, S., Hawjeng, C., & Chen, C. V. (2010, Dec). The joint moderating impact of

personal job fit and servant leadership on the relationship between the task

characteristics of design and performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Contemporary, 2(8), 42-61. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=58737361&sit

e=eds-live

Jaeger, J. (2010, Feb). Good news: Employee ethics improving. Compliance Week,

7(73), 50-51. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=58737361&sit

e=eds-live

Jain, A. K., Giga, S. I., & Cooper, C. L. (2011, May). Social power as a means of

increasing personal and organizational effectiveness. The mediating role of

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management and Organization,

17(3), 412-432. doi: 10.5172/jmo.2011.17.3.412

James, J., & Kowske, B. (2009). Engaging and retaining high performers in an

economic downturn. Retrieved from

http://www.kenexa.com/getattachment/be0a4909-8116-48cd-a15f-

2cccf46e2737/Engaging-and-Retaining-High-Performers-in-an-Econo.aspx
 180

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009, Summer).

Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal

of Personal Selling & Sales, 29(3), 257-275. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134290304

Johnson, C. E. (2009). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or

shadows (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Johnson, L. R. (2008). An exploratory study of servant leadership, emotional

intelligence, and job satisfaction among high-tech employees (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix.

(1868389731)

Jones-Bradbury, C., Sambrook, S., & Irvine, F. (2009, Mar). The phenomenological

focus group: An oxymoron? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(3), 663-671. doi:

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x

Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust,

and organizational trust. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal,

26(1/2), 6-22. doi: 10.1108/01437730510575552

Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2008, Fall). National business ethics survey. Public Integrity, 10(4),

389-392. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34487037&si

te=eds-live

Kanungo, R. (2001, December). Ethical values of transactional and transformational

leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257-265. doi:

10.1111/j.1936-4490.2001.tb00261.x
 181

Kaupins, G. E. (2009, November). Intrinsic motivation at work: what really drives

employee engagement. Choice, 47(3), 552-552. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/225695214?accou

ntid=35812

Kavanagh, S. (2010, Aug). Strong ethical culture drives down employee misconduct.

Federal Ethics Report, 17(8), 8-9. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=53549353&si

te=eds-live

Kavanagh, S. (2010, Oct). Experts discuss culture and ethics. Federal Ethics Report,

17(10), 1-6. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=55099321&si

te=eds-live

Keith, K. M. (2008a). Do it anyway: Finding personal meaning and deep happiness by

living the paradoxical commandments. Novato, CA: New World Library.

Keith, K. M. (2008b). The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center

for Servant Leadership.

Kent, T., Crotts, J., & Azziz, A. (2001). Four factors of transformational leadership

behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(5/6), 221-230.

doi: 10.1108/01437730110396366

Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2010, Spr). Breaking the barriers of essentialism in leadership

research: Positionality as a promising approach. Feminist Formations, 22(1),

163-185. Retrieved from

 182

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/613405735?accou

ntid=35812

Khan, S. N. (2010, Dec). Impact of authentic leaders on organizational performance.

International Journal of Business Management, 5(12), 167-172. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/821639626?accou

ntid=35812

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2010, Jan). Bad apples, bad

cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical

decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31. doi:

10.1037/a0020073

Kong, Y. (2009). A study on the job engagement of company employees. International

Journal of Psychological Studies, 1(2), 65-68. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=49572501&si

te=eds-live

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Korac-Kakabadse, A., & Kouzmin, A. (2001, June). Leadership

renewal: Towards the philosophy of wisdom. International Review of

Administrative Sciences, 67(2), 207-227. doi: 10.1177/0020852301672002

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). The five practices of exemplary leadership. In Jossey-

Bass (Ed.), Business Leadership: A Jossey-Bass Reader (pp. 72-85).doi: 1000-

0001-2D1B-00017C4E
 183

Kowske, B., Lundby, K., & Rasch, R. (2009). Turing ’survive’ into ’thrive’: Managing

survivor engagement in a downsized organization. People & Strategy, 32(4), 48-

56. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=47934585&sit

e=eds-live

Kuhn, K. (2000). Problems and benefits of gathering with focus groups: A case study.

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3/4), 309-325.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4792880&site

=ehost-live

Kumuyi, W. F. (2007, Dec). The functions of a servant leader. New African, 30-31.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=28132559&sit

e=eds-live

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative

research interviewing. 2nd ed. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.

Lasserre, C. (2010, Nov/Dec). Fostering a culture of service excellence. The Journal of

Medical Practice Management: MPM, 26(3), 166-169. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/821455840?accou

ntid=35812

Laub, J. (1998). Organizational leadership assessment. Retrieved from

http://www.olagroup.com/documents/instrument.pdf
 184

Laub, J. (2011). The OLA group. Retrieved from

http://www.olagroup.com/Display.asp?Page=olagroup

Lavelle, J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., &

Vinekar, V. (2009, Apr). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational

citizenship behavior: A multifocal analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

30(3), 337-357. doi: 10.1002/job.518

Lavigna, B. (2010, February). Driving performance by building employee satisfaction

and engagement. Government Finance Review, 26(1), 51-53. doi: 48568075

Lawson, H. (2008, September 8). Increasing employee engagement in a challenging

economy. Vision Monday, 22(10), 66-66.Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34374465&sit

e=eds-live

Leban, B., & Stone, R. (2008). Managing organizational change (2nd ed.). Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D., & Hong, Y. (2009, Mar). Do they see eye to eye?

Management and employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and

influence processes on service quality. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2),

371-391. doi: 10.1037/a0013504

Liberman, V. (2010, Winter). Workers behaving badly. Conference Board Review,

7(1), 12-19. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=48077135&sit

e=eds-live
 185

Lichtenwalner, B. (2011). Fortune’s best companies to work for with servant

leadership. Retrieved from http://modernservantleader.com/servant

leadership/fortunes-best-companies-to-work-for-with-servant leadership/

Lichtenwalner, B. (2011). Servant Leader companies list. Retrieved from

http://modernservantleader.com/featured/servant leadership-companies-list/

Lin, C. (2010, July). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work

engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517-

531. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6

Lin, C., Lyau, N., Tsai, Y., Chen, W., & Chiu, C. (2010, Sept). Modeling corporate

citizenship and its relationship with Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 357-372. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0364-x

Lindseth, A., & Norberg, A. (2004, Jun). A phenomenological hermeneutical method

for researching lived experience. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences,

18(2), 145-153. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00258.x

Livingston, D., & Lusin, J. (2009). A perspective hybrid model of leadership:

complexity leadership theory and authentic leadership theory. Proceedings of the

European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance, 102-109.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=48918402&sit

e=eds-live

Lockwood, M. A. (2008). The relationship of self-efficacy, perceptions of supervisor

leadership styles and blue-collar employee engagement (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix. (1537007301)

 186

Lockwood, N. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage:

HR’s strategic role. HR Magazine, 52(3), 1-11. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=24277398&sit

e=eds-live

Loehr, J., & Groppel, J. (2004, August).Emotional Engagement. Chief Learning Officer,

3(8), 16-16. doi: 14054215

Loftus, R., Dobb, C., & Lawson, L. (2011, Mar). Employee engagement. MLO:

Medical Laboratory Observer, 43(3), 34. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mnh&AN=21446581&s

ite=eds-live

Looman, M. (2003).Reflective leadership strategic planning from the heart and soul.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 55(4), 215-221.doi:

10.1037/1061-4087.55.4.215

Lundin, S. C., & Lancaster, L. C. (1990, May/June). Beyond leadership... the importance

of followership. Futurist, 24(3), 18-22. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=9006111012&

site=eds-live

Lytle, T. (2009, Nov). A crisis doesn’t always bring out the best. U.S. News & World

Report, 146(10), 26-26. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44745805

&site=eds-live
 187

MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2010, Nov). Leadership and employee engagement: passing

fad or a new way of doing business. International Journal of Leadership in

Public Services, 6(4), 26-30. doi:10.5042/ijlps.2010.0634

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008, Mar). Engaged in engagement: We are delighted

we did it. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 76-83. doi:

10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00016.x

Maciariello, J. A. (2006). Peter F. Drucker on executive leadership and effectiveness. In

F. Hesselbein & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), The leader of the future 2: Visions,

strategies, and practices for the new era (pp. 3-27). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Maitland, I. (2010, Oct). A theory of the ethical business cycle. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 20(4), 749-750. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=54523380

&site=eds-live

Mannelly, P. K. (2009). Managing highly engaged or actively disengaged employees: A

phenomenological study of first-level supervisors (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix.

(1683462431)

Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010, Dec). Employee engagement: The key to improving

performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-

96. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=57936039

&site=eds-live
 188

Marques, J. F. (2010). Awakened leaders: born or made? Leadership & Organizational

Development Journal, 31(4), 307-323. doi: 10.1108/01437731011043339

Marques, J., Biberman, J., & Dhiman, S. (2010, Summer). Asking the inner-consultant:

The power of communicating, listening, trusting, and collaborating. Journal

of Global Business Issues, 4(2), 21-28. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/813334534?ac

countid=35812

Marturano, A., & Gosling, J. (Eds.) (Ed.). (2008). Leadership: The key concepts. New

York, NY: Rutledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Maslach, C. (2008, May). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498-512. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498

Maslow, A. H. (1954, March). The Instinctoid Nature of Basic Needs. Journal of

Personality, 22(3), 326-348. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.ep8930323

Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T. G., & Fine, S. (2008, Mar). Leveraging

employee engagement: The practical implications. Industrial &

Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 56-59. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-

9434.2007.00009.x

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008, Jun). Do servant leaders help satisfy

follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of

Work & Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 180-197. doi:

10.1080/13594320701743558
 189

McGee-Cooper, A., Looper, G., & Trammell, D. (2007). Being the change: Profiles from

our servant leadership learning community. Dallas, TX: Ann McGee-Cooper

& Associates.

Meixner, C. (2010, Winter). Reconciling self, servant leadership, and learning. The

journey to the east as a locus for reflection and transformation. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 3(4), 81-85. doi: 10.1002/jls.20142

Mero-Jaffe, I. (2011). “Is that what I said?’ Interview transcript approval by participants:

An aspect of ethics in qualitative research. International Journal of

Qualitative Methods. 10(3), 231-247. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=70139574

&site=eds-live

Mihelic, K. K., Lipicnik, B., & Tekavcic, M. (2011, fourth quarter). Ethical leadership.

International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 14(5), 31-41.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/819649567?ac

countid=35812

Mitra, A. M., Hsieh, Y., & Buswick, T. (2010). Learning how to look: Developing

leadership through intentional observation. Journal of Business Strategy,

31(4), 77-84. doi: 10.1108/02756661011055212

Miyazaki, A. D., Taylor, K. A. (2008). Researcher interaction biases and business ethics

research: Respondent reactions to researcher characteristics. Journal of

Business Ethics, 81(4), 779-795. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9547-5

 190

Moore, C. (2008, June). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption.

Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 129-139. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8

Mortari, L. (2008, Mar). The ethic of delicacy in phenomenological research.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-Being, 3(1), 3-

17. doi: 10.1080/17482620701747392

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

Murray, M., & Evers, F. T. (2011, Spr). Reweaving the fabric: leadership and spirituality

in the 21st century. Interbeing, (1), 5-15. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=62246493

&site=eds-live

Mushonga, S. M., & Torrance, C. G. (2008). Assessing the relationship between

followership and the big five factor model of personality. Review of Business

Research, 8(6), 185-193. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36047636

&site=eds-live

Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Person Prentice Hall.

National Restaurant Association (2012). Facts at a glance. Retrieved from

http://www.restaurant.org/research/facts/

Nekoranec, W. (2009, Spring). Ethical leadership and OD practice. OD Practitioner,

41(2), 2-7. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=37299279&sit

e=eds-live
 191

Neubert, M., Carlson, D., Kacmar, K., Roberts, J., & Chonko, L. (2009, Dec). The

virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field.

Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 157-170. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0037-9

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Nicholls, D. (2009, Dec). Qualitative research: Part three -- Methods. International

Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation, 16(12), 638-647. Retrieved from

www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=2445&accno=2010504435

Nielsen, R. (2010, March). Leadership, engagement and productivity. Employee Benefit

Advisor, 8(3), 56-59. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/215436063?ac

countid=35812

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:

Sage.

OLA Group. (2011). Servant leadership: Defining servant leadership and the Healthy

Organization. Retrieved from

http://www.olagroup.org/Display.asp?Page=servant_leadership

Ogbeide, G. A. (2008, Summer). A case study of restaurant training motivations and

outcomes. Anatolia, 19(1), 172-177. doi: 10.1080/13032917.2008.9687063

Onwuegbuzie, A., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative

framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-21. Retrieved from

 192

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=51827937

&site=eds-live

Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2009). Leaders’ characteristics and behaviors and employees’

resistance to organizational change. Academy of Management Proceedings,

1-6. doi: 44259813O’Neil, L. G. (2010, May). Economic recovery and

employee re-engagement. HRMagazine, 55(5), 8-8.doi: 50502655

O’Toole, J., & Bennis, W. (2009, Jun). What’s needed next: A culture of candor.

Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 54-61. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=40210987

&site=eds-live

Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2010, Sep/Oct). Transformational leadership and public

service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance.

Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710-718. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-

6210.2010.02199.x

Palmer, D. E. (2009, Sept). Business leadership: Three levels of ethical analysis.

Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 525-536. doi: 10.2307.40295016

Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple

perspectives approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Panayiotis, S., Pepper, A. & Phillips, M. J. (2011) Transformational change in a time of

crisis. Strategic HR Review, 10(5), 28–34. doi: 10.1108/14754391111154878

Paradise, A. (2008, January). Influences engagement. T & D, 62(1), 54-59. Retrieved

from
 193

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/227035390?ac

countid=35812

Pati, S. P., & Kumar, P. (2010, Jul). Employee engagement: Role of self-efficacy,

organizational support & supervisor support. Indian Journal of Industrial

relations, 46(1), 126-137. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=52979773

&site=eds-live

Payne, A., Holt, S., & Frow, P. (2000). Integrating employee, customer and shareholder

value through an enterprise performance model: An opportunity for financial

services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(6), 258-273. doi:

10.1108/02652320010358689

Pelletier, K., & Bligh, M. (2008, Jul). The aftermath of organizational corruption:

Employee attributions and emotional reactions. Journal of Business Ethics,

80(4), 823-844. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9471-8

Peng, J., & Chiu, S. (2010, Nov/Dec). An integrative model linking feedback

environment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Social

Psychology, 150(6), 582-607. doi: 10.1080/00224540903365455

Peus, C., Kerschreiter, R., Frey, D., & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2010). What is the value?

Economic effects of ethically-oriented leadership. Journal of Psychology,

218(4), 198-212. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409/a000030

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D., & Folger, R. (2010, Feb). The relationship

between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31(2/3), 259-278. doi: 10.1002/job.627

 194

Pienaar, J. (2010). What lies beneath ineffectiveness? A theoretical overview.

Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership, &

Governance, 280-286. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=59389360

&site=eds-live

Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Matz-Costa, C. (2008, May). The multi-generational workforce:

Workplace flexibility and engagement. Community, Work & Family, 11(2),

215-229. doi: 10.1080/13668800802021906

Plinio, A. J., Young, J. M., & Lavery, L. M. (2010, Aug). The state of ethics in our

society: A clear call for action. International Journal of Disclosure &

Governance, 7(3), 172-197. doi: 10.1057/jdg.2010.11

Popper, M. (2011, Mar). Toward a theory of followership. Review of General

Psychology, 15(1), 29-36. doi: 10.1037/a0021989

Pringle, J., Drummond, J., McLafferty, E., & Hendry, C. (2011). Interpretative

phenomenological analysis: a discussion and critique. Nurse Researcher,

18(3), 20-24. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/862553293?ac

countid=35812

Pringle, J., Hendry, C., & McLafferty, E. (2011). Phenomenological approaches:

Challenges and choices. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 7-18. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/851577978?ac

countid=35812

Prosser, S. (2007). To be a servant leader. New York: NY: Paulist .

 195

Quaquebeke, N., & Eckloff, T. (2010, Feb). Defining respectful leadership: What it is,

how it can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal

of Business Ethics, 91(3), 343-358. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0087-z

Raines, M. S. (2011, Apr). Engaging employees. Professional Safety, 56(4), 36-43.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=60166988

&site=eds-live

Raub, S., Liao, H. (2012, May). Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of

initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer

service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 651-667. doi:

10.1031/a0026736

Ravichandran, S., Gilmore, S. A., & Strohbehn, C. (2007). Organizational citizenship

behavior research in hospitality: Current status and future research directions.

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 6(2), 59-78. doi:

10.1300/J171v06n02_04

Redmond, R., & Curtis, E. (2009). Focus groups: principles and process. Nurse

Researcher, 16(3), 57-69. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=20102717

79&site=eds-live

Reiter-Palmon, R. (2008, Sept). Responding destructively in leadership situations: The

role of personal values and problem construction. Journal of Business Ethics,

82(1), 251-272. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9574-2

 196

Ricketts, K. G. (2009). Leadership vs. management. Retrieved from

http://www2.ca.uky.edu/

Robison, J. (2009). Building engagement in this economic crisis: How managers can

maintain morale and profitability in their increasingly anxious workgroups.

Retrieved from http://gmj.gallup.com/content.115213/Building-Engagement-

Economic-Crisis.aspx

Robison, J. (2010a). Despite the downturn, employees remain engaged but there are

important signals managers shouldn’t miss. Here are some suggestions to

help managers keep employees energized amid ongoing uncertainty.

Retrieved from http://gmj.gallup.com/content/125036/Despite-Downturn-

Employees-Remain-Engaged.aspx

Robison, J. (2010b). Engagement, wellbeing, and the downturn: Persistent economic

problems have hurt American workers, but not fatally. Retrieved from

http://gmj.gallup.com/content/141722/Engagement-Wellbeing-

Downturn.aspx?

Rodrigues, V. S., Piecyk, M., Potter, A., McKinnon, A., Naim, M., & Edwards, J. (2010,

Feb). Assessing the application of focus groups as a method for collecting

data in logistics. International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications,

13(1), 75-94. doi: 10.1080/13675560903224970

Rofcanin, Y., & Mehtap, O. (2010). Implications of Leader-Member Exchange

Relationship (LMX) theory and transformational leadership dimensions on

subordinate citizenship behavior: An empirical paper from Turkey with

service industry focus. International Journal of Global Business, 3(1), 83-

 197

101. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=60870812

&site=eds-live

Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010, Apr). Do ethical leaders get

ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 20(2), 215-236. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=49005000

&site=eds-live

Ruiz, P., Martinez, R., & Rodrigo, J. (2010). Intra-organizational social capital in

business organizations: A theoretical model with a focus on servant leadership

as antecedent. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 43-59. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=59415016

&site=eds-live

Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Ruiz, R. (2011, Apr). Improving the ‘leader-follower’ relationship:

Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle-down effect on

follower job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 587-608. doi:

10.1007/s10551-010-0670-

Sabatier, M. (2010, May). Bring back the authentic leaders. Training Journal, 30-32.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/202954872?ac

countid=35812

Salanova, M., Castellon, S., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005, Nov). Linking organizational

resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer

 198

loyalty. The mediation of service climate.. Journal of Applied Psychology,

90(6), 1217-1227. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, England:

Sage.

Salkind, N. J. (2003). Exploring Research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Sama, L., & Shoaf, V. (2008, Mar). Ethical leadership for the professions: Fostering a

moral community. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1/2), 39-46. doi:

10.1007/s10551-006-9309-9

Sanchez, P., & McCauley, D. (2006, Nov/Dec). Measuring and managing engagement in

a cross-cultural workforce: New insights for global companies. Global

Business & Organizational Excellence, 26(1), 41-50. doi: 10.1002/joe.20120

Sandelowski, M. (2010, Feb). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited.

Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77-84. doi: 10.1002/nur.20362

Sauser, W. (2009, Jan). Sustaining employee owned companies: Seven

recommendations. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 151-164. doi:

10.1007/s10551-008-9679-2

Savage-Austin, A. R., & Honeycutt, A. (2011, Jan). Servant leadership: A

phenomenological study of practices, experiences, organizational effectiveness,

and barriers. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(1), 49-54. Retrieved

from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=57760063&sit

e=eds-live
 199

Schein, E. H. (2006). Leadership competencies: A provocative new look. In F.

Hesselbein & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), The leader of the future 2: Visions,

strategies, and practices for the new era (pp. 255-264). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., & Martin, N. (2009). Driving customer

satisfaction and financial success through employee engagement. People &

Strategy, 32(2), 22-27. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=43594877

&site=eds-live

Schneider, S. K., & George, W. M. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational

leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 32(1), 60-77. doi: 10.1108/01437731111099283

Schwepker, C. H. (2010, Fall). The transformational leadership and its impact on sales

force moral judgment. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,

30(4), 299-318. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134300401

Sealy, I., Wehrmeyer, W., France, C., & Leach, M. (2010). Sustainable development

management systems in global business organizations. Management

Research Review, 33(11), 1083-1096. doi: 10.1108/01409171011085912

Sendjaya, S., Cooper, B. (2011, Jun). Servant leadership behaviour scale: A hierarchical

model and test of construct validity. European Journal of Work &

Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 416-436. doi:

10.1080/13594321003590549
 200

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., Santora, J. (2008, Mar). Defining and measuring servant

leadership behaviors in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2),

402-424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2008, March). Defining and measuring servant

leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2),

402-424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x

Shah, J. I. (2009, Jul-Sep). Spiritual aspects of leadership development: Moral approach

towards understanding leadership phenomenon. Dialogue, 4(3), 387-408.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=53995321

&site=eds-live

Shaha, M., Wenzel, J., & Hill, E. E. (2011). Planning and conducting focus group

research with nurses. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 77-87. Retrieved from

www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=807&accno=2010938897

Sharma, B. R., & Anupama, R. (2010, Oct). Determinants of employee engagement in a

private sector organization: An exploratory study. Advances in Management,

3(10), 52-59. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=54862016

&site=eds-live

Showkeir, J., & Showkeir, M. (2008). Authentic conversations: Moving from

manipulation to truth and commitment. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Simon, D. H., Gomez, M., McLaughlin, E. W., & Wittink, D. R. (2009, Jan). Employee

attitudes, customer satisfaction, and sales performance: assessing the linkages

 201

in US grocery stores. Managerial & Decision Economics, 30(1), 27-41. doi:

10.1002/mde.1433

Sipe, J. W., & Frick, D. M. (2009).Seven pillars of servant leadership: Practicing the

wisdom of leading by serving. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Smethers, R., & Jenney, T. J. (2010). Leading with authenticity and spirituality. Culture

& Religion Review Journal, 2010(4), 122-129. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=58487806

&site=eds-live

Smith, B., Montagno, R., & Kuzmenko, T. (2004, Spring). Transformational and servant

leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91. doi:10.1177/107179190401000406

Smith, J., Bekker, H., & Cheater, F. (2011). Theoretical versus pragmatic design in

qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 39-51. Retrieved from

www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=807&accno=2010938894

Smithson, J. (2000, Apr-Jun). Using and analyzing focus groups: limitations and

possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2),

103-119. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3860072&

site=ehost-live

Sosik, J. J., Malvern, P., & Cameron, J. (2010, Dec). Character and authentic

transformational leadership behavior. Expanding the ascetic self toward

others. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 251-

269. doi: 10.1037/a0022104

 202

Soyars, M., & Brusino, J. (2009, March). Essentials of engagement. T & D, 63(3), 62-

65. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=36902992

&site=eds-live

Spears, L. C. (2002). Tracing the past, present, and future of servant leadership. In L. C.

Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for

the twenty-first century (pp. 1-16). New York: NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership

for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Spoelstra, S. (2009). Transformational leadership: scientific concept or management

concept. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2009, 1-6.

doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2009.44265525

Stahl, J. L. (2008). A phenomenological study of servant leadership attributes in

knowledge-based organizations in western Pennsylvania (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of

Phoenix. (1625773841)

Stahl-Wert, J., & Jennings, K. (2007). Ten thousand horses: How leaders harness raw

potential for extraordinary results (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-

Koehler.

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant

leadership: a difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 25(3/4), 349-361. doi: 10.1108/01437730410538671

 203

Stouten, J., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2011). “Leading with integrity: Current

perspectives on the psychology of ethical leadership”: A special issue of the

Journal of Personal Psychology. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(1), 48.

doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000033

Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., & Welpe, I. (2010). Do business ethics payoff? The

influence of ethical leadership on organizational attractiveness. Journal of

Psychology, 218(4), 213-224. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409/a000031

Sugheir, J., Coco, M., & Kaupins, G. (2011, Winter). Perceptions of organizational

surveys within employee engagement efforts. International Journal of

Business & Public Administration, 8(1), 48-61. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=60073577

&site=eds-live

Swaminathan, J., & Rajasekaran, D. (2010, Dec). Essential components of employee

engagement- A study with reference to TNSTC Kumnakonam. Advances in

Management, 3(12), 55-59. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=57194800&sit

e=eds-live

Swindall, C. (2007). Engaged leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Sytsma, S. (2010, Fourth quarter). Building stronger communities. Social Alternatives,

29(4), 77. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/855004409?ac

countid=35812
 204

Tamm, K., Eamets, R., & Motsmees, P. (2010). Relationship between corporate social

responsibility and job satisfaction: The case of Baltic countries. University of

Tartu- Faculty of Economics & Business Administration Working Paper

Series, 2010(76), 3-56. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=55605615

&site=eds-live

Tanner, C., Brugger, A., Van Schie, S., & Lebherz, C. (2010). Actions speak louder than

words: The benefits of ethical behaviors of leaders. Journal of Psychology,

218(), 225-233. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409/a000032

Taylor, S. N. (2010, Winter). Redefining leader self-awareness by integrating the second

component of self-awareness. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(4), 57-68.

doi: 10.1002/jls.20139

Taylor, T., Martin, B., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007, Oct-Dec). Examination of

leadership practices of principals identified as servant leader. International

Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 401-419. doi:

10.1080/13603120701408262

Terje, S. (2010). Do employees’ feelings really matter in service-quality management?

European Business Review, 22(3), 318-338. doi:

10.1108/09555341011041001

The E11 index: Addressing the key drivers of employee retention and engagement.

(2008, April 3). PR Newswire. doi: 1456302721

The Kenexa Research Institute Reveals Exactly How Engaged employees are -- and what

exactly ’employee engagement’ means; four critical drivers of employee

 205

engagement identified. (2008, September 11). Internet Wire. doi:

A184750182

Thomas, K. W. (2009). Intrinsic motivation at work: What really drives employee

engagement? San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Thompson, A. D., & Riggio, R. E. (2010, Dec). Introduction to special issue on defining

and measuring character in leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 62(4), 211-215. doi: 10.1037/a0022285

Thompson, K. J., Thach, E. C., & Morelli, M. (2010, Dec). Implementing ethical

leadership: Current challenges and solutions. Insights to a Changing World

Journal, (4), 107-130. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=58079756

&site=eds-live

Thornton, L. F. (2009, Sept). Leadership ethics training: why is it so hard to get it right?

T & D, 63(9), 58-61. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=44054555

&site=eds-live

Thoroughgood, C., Hunter, S., & Sawyer, K. (2011, Jun). Bad apples, bad barrels, and

broken followers? An empirical examination of contextual influences on

follower perceptions and reactions to aversive leadership. Journal of Business

Ethics, 100(4), 647-672. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0702-z

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986, 1990). The transformational leader: The key to

global competitiveness. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

 206

Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009, Dec). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with

full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture.

Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533-547. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0059-3

Tremblay, M. C., Hevner, A. R., & Berndt, D. J. (2009). Focus groups for artifact

refinement and evaluations in design research. Communications of AIS,

2009(26), 599-618. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=52686571

&site=eds-live

Trompenaars, F., & Voerman, E. (2009, April 11). Power to the people [personnel

management]. Engineering & Technology, 4(6), 80-81. doi:

10.1049/et.2009.0618

Tuggle, F. D. (2010, Spr). Building and maintaining soul-full organizations. Interbeing,

4(1), 1-9. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=44054555

&site=eds-live

Tumasjan, A., Strobel, M., & Welpe, I. (2011, Apr). Ethical leadership evaluations after

moral transgressions: Social distance makes the difference. Journal of

Business Ethics, 99(4), 609-622. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0671-2

Vadera, A. K., Aguilera, R. V., & Caza, B. B. (2009, Oct). Making sense of whistle-

blowing’s antecedents: Learning from research on identity and ethics

program. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 553-586. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=55399891

&site=eds-live
 207

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G. M., & Kidwell, R. (2011, Feb). Corporate

ethical values, group creativity, job satisfaction and turnover intention: The

impact of work context on work response. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3),

353-372. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0554-6

Van Aswegen, A. S., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2009, Nov). The relationship between

transformational leadership, integrity and ethical climate in organizations.

South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 221-229. doi:

10.4102/sajhrm.v7i1.175

Van Eeden, R., & Cilliers, F. (2009, Fall). Social defense structures in organizations:

How a lack of authorization keeps managers from moving to a

transformational leadership. International Journal of Organizational Theory

& Behavior, 12(3), 475-501. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=46812820

&site=eds-live

Van Vugt, M., & Ahuja, A. (2011). Naturally selected: The evolutionary science of

leadership: Why some people lead, why others follow and why it matters.

New York. NY: HarperCollins.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Hogan, R. B. (2008, Apr). Leadership, followership, and

evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-

196. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008, Jul-Sep).

Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and

 208

engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work &

Stress, 22(3), 277-294. doi: 10.1080/02678370802393672

Verschoor, C. C. (2010, Jan). Are we experiencing an ethics bubble? Strategic Finance,

91(7), 10-13. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=47266074

&site=eds-live

Verschoor, C. C. (2010, Sept). Top-management example and peer pressures bring

benefits. Strategic Finance, 92(3), 15-63. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=53319263

&site=eds-live

Vinarski-Peretz, H., & Carmeli, A. (2011, Feb). Linking care felt to engagement in

innovative behaviors in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological

conditions. Psychology of Aesthetics, 5(1), 43-53. doi: 10.1037/a0018241

Vinod, S., & Sudhakar, B. (2011, Mar). Servant leadership: A unique art of leadership!

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(11), 456-

467. doi: Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=61067905

&site=eds-live

Visit Dallas. (2011). Dallas today: About the city today. Retrieved from

http://www.visitdallas.com/visitors/about_dallas/dallas_today/

Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding Paradigms, Cases,

Methods, and Methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting

Research, 10(1), 69-80.

 209

Wallace, L., & Trinka, J. (2009, June). Leadership and employee engagement. Public

Management (00333611), 91(5), 10-13. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=40396056

&site=eds-live

Walumbwa, F. O., Peterson, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Hartnell, C. A. (2010, Winter). An

investigation of the relationships among leader and follower psychological

capital, service climate, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 63(4),

937-963. doi: 808578322

Wang, M. (2009, Dec). Does organizational support promote citizenship in service

settings? The moderating role of service climate. Journal of Social

Psychology, 149(6), 648-676. doi: 10.1080/02642060802298368

Washington, R. R. (2007). Empirical relationships between theories of servant,

transformational, and transactional leadership. Academy of Management

Proceedings, 1-6. Retrieved from 10.5465/AMBPP.2007.26509311

Waterman, H. (2011, Feb). Principles of ‘servant leadership’ and how they can enhance

practice. Nursing Management, 17(9), 24-26. Retrieved from

w.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=450&accno=2010938719

Wefald, A., & Downey, R. G. (2009, January). Construct dimensionality of engagement

and its relation with satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 91-112.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35682045

&site=eds-live
 210

Weiand, P., Birchfield, J., & Johnson III, M. C. (2008, Jul/Aug). The new leadership

challenge: Removing the emotional barriers to sustainable performance in a

flat world. Ivey Business Journal, 72(4), 1-8. doi: 34038850

Wester, K. L. (2011, Summer). Publishing ethical research: A step-by-step overview.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(3), p 301-307. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=62807988

&site=eds-live

Westover, J. H. (2010). Managing organizational change: Change agent strategies and

techniques to successfully managing the dynamics of stability and change in

organizations. International Journal of Management & Innovation, 2(1), 45-

50. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=52046614

&site=eds-live

Weyant, L. E. (2008). The role of workplace learning within the full-service restaurant

industry. Proceedings of the Business, Society & Government Consortium of

the Midwest Business Administration Association, 7-26. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34856723

&site=eds-live

Whetstone, J. (2002, October). Personalism and moral leadership: The servant leader

with a transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385-

392. doi: 7434530

 211

Whittington, J. L., & Galpin, T. J. (2010). The engagement factor: Building a high-

commitment organization in a low commitment world. Journal of Business

Strategy, 31(5), 14-24. doi: 10.1108/02756661011076282

Wickman, L. E. (2009). Healing recessionary disengagement. Retrieved from

http://www.clomedia.com/executive-briefings/2009/April/2611/index.php

Wickson, P. (2010, Winter). Leadership column. Leadership - What is all the talk about?

Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy, 46(4), 48-49. Retrieved from

www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=1486&accno=2010896489

Wildermuth, C., & Wildermuth, M. (2008, January). 10Ms of employee engagement. T

& D, 62(1), 50-53. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=28095164

&site=eds-live

Wiley, J. W. (2010, Summer). The impact of effective leadership on employee

engagement. Employee Relations Today, 37(2), 47-52. doi:

10.1002/ert.20297

Williams, J. H. (2008, Dec). Employee engagement. Professional Safety, 53(12), 40-45.

Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=35650206

&site=eds-live

Wueste, D. E. (2009, Fall). Ethics and leadership: How long have they been together?

They’re such a lovely couple, but can it last? Teaching Ethics, 10(1), 1-9.

Retrieved from
 212

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=54425822

&site=eds-live

Yaghoubi, E., Mashinchi, S. A., & Hadi, A. (2011, Apr). An analysis of correlation

between Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Emotional

Intelligence (EI). Modern Applied Science, 5(2), 119-123. doi:

10.5539/mas.v5n2p119

Yaniv, E., Lavi, O. S., & Siti, G. (2010/2011, Winter). Person-Organization fit and its

impact on organizational citizenship behavior as related to social performance.

Journal of General Management, 36(2), 81-89. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=59540730

&site=eds-live

Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2008, Oct). If employees “go the extra mile,” do customers

reciprocate with similar behavior? Psychology & Marketing, 25(10), 961-986.

doi: 10.1002/mar.20248

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Zandy, A. (2007, July/August). If you want to lead... Learn to serve. Debt Cubed,

22(4), 24-25. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/214635492?ac

countid=35812

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010, Feb). Linking empowering leadership and employee

creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation,

 213

and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1),

107-128. doi: 10.5465/AMJ-2010.48037118

Ziebarth, S. (2008, March-April). Approaches to creative tension between existing

management Aguinis, H. Performance Management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

 214

APPENDIX A: LEADERSHIP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

 215

1. What is your experience of servant leadership?

a. Have you noticed a difference with servant leadership? If so, in what way?

b. Did you know about servant leadership prior to working for the company?

2. How does the experience differ from your experiences at other companies?

a. Were you aware of the leadership philosophy of your previous organization?

What made you aware?

3. How do you apply servant leadership daily?

a. Is this a conscious application?

b. What challenges, if any, do you find with applying servant leadership?

4. What servant leader traits do you find most important for leaders?

5. In what ways does servant leadership increase your engagement of you?

a. What differences have you noticed from previous organizations in which you

worked?

6. In what ways does servant leadership increase the engagement of your employees

from your perspective?

a. What differences have you noticed from previous organizations in which you

worked?

7. Do you find servant leadership is beneficial to your company? Why or why not? If

so, why do you think more companies don’t apply servant leadership?

8. What influence does servant leadership have on your level of commitment to your

organization?

9. What is the one thing you would take away from this servant leadership experience?
 216

10. What did you or do you find most difficult about servant leadership in the restaurant

industry? What do you find about servant leadership that makes it easy or beneficial

to the restaurant industry?

 217

APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

 218

1. How do you describe your servant leader experience?

a. Were you aware of servant leadership prior to your employment at this

company?

b. What are some things that come to mind when asked about servant

leadership?

c. What does servant leadership mean to you?

2. How does this experience differ from your experiences at other companies?

a. Were you aware of the leadership philosophies in previous organizations”

What made you aware?

3. What servant leader qualities are most important to you?

a. What do you find most compelling about servant leadership?

b. Do you find servant leadership to be a true trait among your leaders?

4. How does working in a servant leader environment motivate you?

a. What keeps you coming to work and has kept you with this company for five

years or more?

b. Do you find that the application of servant leadership has influenced your

reasons for staying with the same company? In what ways?

5. What about your experience with servant leadership has kept you with the same

employer for at least five years?

a. Are you more committed due to servant leadership or what do you contribute

to your level of commitment?

b. Do you see yourself with this company for another five years? Why or why

not?
 219

6. In what ways does servant leadership inspire you to do and accomplish more in your

role?

a. What have you found is different in your effort level since working for a

servant leader organization?

7. What is the one thing you would take away from this servant leadership experience?
 220

APPENDIX C: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO STUDY

 221

Dear Participant:

My name is Danon Carter and I am a student at the University of Phoenix

completing my Doctoral degree in Management with an emphasis on Leadership. Your
Company’s President, Mr. Ed Lowe, has agreed to allow me to conduct my research at
Celebration Restaurant. I am conducting an in-depth research study entitled, “The
Influence of Servant Leadership on Employee Engagement: A Qualitative
Phenomenological Study on Restaurant Employees”. The study will center on the
following research questions: How do employees of a servant leader based company
describe his or her experience? What impact does servant leadership have on employee
engagement?

For this research, participants must be current employees of Celebration

Restaurant with a minimum of five years of continuous service and be 18 years or older.

Participation in the study is voluntary and involves a 60 to 90 minutes focus group

or personal interview in which qualified participants share experience of working in a
servant leader organization. The benefit to the participants is in gaining a better
understanding of engagement drivers and the influence of servant leadership to these
drivers. In addition, participants are able to contribute to future research on servant
leadership and employee engagement through sharing his or her personal experiences.

If you are interested in participating and you meet the above qualifications of a
minimum of five years of continued service and are willing to share your experience of
servant leadership. You may render your interest to Mr. Ed Lowe and he will provide the
dates and times of the scheduled sessions.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Danon Carter
XXX-XXX-XXXX
 222

APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER - INTERVIEW

 223

Dear ____________________

My name is Danon Carter and I am a student at the University of Phoenix

working on a Doctoral degree. I am conducting a research study entitled The Influence
of Servant Leadership on Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study
on Restaurant Employees. The purpose of the research study is to specifically explore
the experiences of employees in a servant leadership organization in an effort to gain
insight to the characteristics of servant leadership that best drive the engagement of
employees within Celebration Restaurant, a servant led organization.

To participate, you must have a minimum of five years of continual service with
Celebration Restaurant. Your participation will involve as personal interview for you to
share your experience related to servant leadership and employee engagement. The focus
group sessions are digitally recorded and may be up to 90 minutes in length. Your
participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw
from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself by
contacting the Researcher, Danon Carter at XXX-XXX-XXXX. The results of the
research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your
name will not be disclosed to any outside party.

Your participation in this research does not have any foreseeable risks to you
beyond what you might experience during a one-on-one interview answering questions.

Although direct benefits from your participation may not exist, the results of the
study aim to benefit organizations seeking to improve employee engagement and
implementation of servant leadership. The results of the study may also provide insight
to the characteristics that are most critical to increasing employee engagement in servant-
led organizations.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at XXX-
XXX-XXXX or email me at carter.danon@yahoo.com.
As a participant in this study, you should understand the following:

1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time

without consequences.
2. Your identity will be kept confidential.
3. Danon Carter, the researcher, has thoroughly explained the parameters of the
research study and all of your questions and concerns have been addressed.
4. If the interviews are recorded, you must grant permission for the researcher,
Danon Carter, to digitally record the interview. You understand that the
information from the recorded interviews may be transcribed. The researcher
will structure a coding process to assure that anonymity of your name is
protected.
5. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a period
of three years, and then destroyed.
6. The research results will be used for publication.
 224

“By signing this form you acknowledge that you understand the nature of the
study, the potential risks to you as a participant, the means by which your identity will be
kept confidential, and that the session will be audiotaped. Your signature on this form
also indicates that you are 18 years old or older and that you give your permission to
voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.”

Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________

Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________
 225

APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER – FOCUS GROUPS

 226

Dear ______________________

My name is Danon Carter and I am a student at the University of Phoenix

working on a Doctoral degree. I am conducting a research study entitled The Influence
of Servant Leadership on Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study
on Restaurant Employees. The purpose of the research study is to specifically explore
the experiences of employees in a servant leadership organization in an effort to gain
insight to the characteristics of servant leadership that best drive the engagement of
employees within Celebration Restaurant, a servant led organization.

To participate, you must have a minimum of five years of continual service with
Celebration Restaurant. Your participation will involve focus group participation for you
to share your experience related to servant leadership and employee engagement. The
focus group sessions are digitally recorded and may be up to 90 minutes in length. Your
participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw
from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself by
contacting the Researcher, Danon Carter at XXXX@yahoo.com or XXX-XXX-XXXX.
The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain
confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party.

Your participation in this research does not have any foreseeable risks to you
beyond what you might experience during an open forum answering questions.

Although direct benefits from your participation may not exist, the results of the
study aim to benefit organizations seeking to improve employee engagement and
implementation of servant leadership. The results of the study may also provide insight
to the characteristics that are most critical to increasing employee engagement in servant-
led organizations.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at XXX-
XXX-XXXX or email me at XXXXXXXX.
As a participant in this study, you should understand the following:

1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time

without consequences.
2. Your identity will be kept confidential.
3. Danon Carter, the researcher, has thoroughly explained the parameters of the
research study and all of your questions and concerns have been addressed.
4. If the interviews are recorded, you must grant permission for the researcher,
Danon Carter, to digitally record the interview. You understand that the
information from the recorded interviews may be transcribed. The researcher
will structure a coding process to assure that anonymity of your name is
protected.
5. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a
period of three years, and then destroyed.
6. The research results will be used for publication.
 227

“By signing this form you acknowledge that you understand the nature of the
study, the potential risks to you as a participant, the means by which your identity will be
kept confidential, and that the session will be audiotaped. Your signature on this form
also indicates that you are 18 years old or older and that you give your permission to
voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.”

Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________

Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________
 228

APPENDIX F: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

 229

Years of Service:

1. Department

2. Prior experience with servant leadership?

 230

APPENDIX G: PERMISSION FORM

231
 232

APPENDIX H: NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

233
234
 235

APPENDIX I: REVISED LEADERSHIP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

 236

1. What is your experience with servant leadership? Have you noticed a difference

with servant leadership? If so, in what ways? Did you know about servant

leadership prior to working for this company?

2. How does this experience differ from your experiences at other companies?

3. How do you apply servant leadership daily? Is this a conscious application?

What challenges, if any, do you find with applying servant leadership?

4. What servant leader traits do you find most important for leaders?

5. In what ways does servant leadership increase your personal commitment?

6. In what ways does servant leadership increase the engagement of your

employees from your perspective?

7. Why do you think other companies don’t apply servant leadership?

8. What is the one thing you would take away from this servant leadership

experience?
 237

APPENDIX J: REVISED FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

 238

1. How do you describe your servant leader experience? What are some things that

come to mind when asked about servant leadership? What does servant

leadership mean to you?

2. How does this experience differ from other companies that you have worked for?

3. What servant leader qualities are more important to you?

4. How does working in a servant leader environment motivate you? In regards to

your servant leadership experience, what has kept you with the same company for

over five years? If you left, the company five years from now, what would be the

reasons?

5. In what ways does Servant Leadership inspire you to do and accomplish more in

your role?

6. What is the one thing that you take away from your Servant Leadership

experience?

7. Is there anything else you would like to share about your personal experience with

Servant Leadership?