Examining The Relationships Between Volunteerism, Helping Attitudes, and Servant Leadership

EXAM INING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETW EEN
VOLUNTEERISM , HELPING ATTITUDES, AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP
By
Carla E. Alsandor, B.F.A., M.B.A.
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty o f the Departm ent o f Leadership Studies
Our Lady o f the Lake University,
In Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements
For the Degree o f
Doctor o f Philosophy
in
Leadership Studies
Our Lady o f the Lake University

San Antonio, Texas
N ovem ber 18,2016
Jared A. M ontoya, Ph.D.

Comm ittee Chair
&W ^
Phyllis Duncan, Ph.D.
Com m ittee M ember
Barbara itn o jo sa^ h .D .

Conil mttcelCfember
ProQuest Number: 10405034
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.
Que
ProQuest
ProQuest 10405034
Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright Page
Dedication
To m y parents, Gene and Marva Alsandor
My fath er w as alw ays th e re to help me; no m a tter th e time, place, o r need.
He show ed me th a t helping o th ers is a virtue. 1 miss him very much. May he re st in
Gods eternal peace. My m o th er has sp en t h e r life serving th e needs of o th ers as a
reg istered nurse, active volunteer, and caregiver to family m em bers and beloved
pets. She exem plifies th e virtuous act of self-sacrifice for th e benefit of others. May
God bless her, always.
I am grateful to my p aren ts for instilling in me a deep faith and stro n g w ork
ethic, w hich have sustained me th ro u g h o u t my life and m ost recently in this Ph.D.
journey. I am equally grateful for th e ir love and support. The successful com pletion
of this d issertatio n cam e as a resu lt of prayer, humility, and discipline - 1 th an k them
for teaching me the value of all th re e and I dedicate this w ork to them .
Acknowledgements
Thanks and appreciation are extended to my parents, who were my First teachers,
and to the many others who helped prepare me to successfully complete the Ph.D. in
Leadership Studies. It has become evident to me that the preparation for this journey
began in my earliest days o f learning from Mom and Dad the importance o f discipline,
the value o f a strong work ethic, and the power o f prayer. 1 acknowledge their many
contributions to my success. I also acknowledge some o f the formal teachers who were
transformational leaders in each phase o f my education. In addition, Id like to
acknowledge the fellow students, family members, and friends who supported me and
cheered me on, along the way.
I acknowledge my first formal teacher, Sister Marie, O.P., who built upon the
foundation for learning that was laid by my parents. Two o f my high school teachers,
Mrs. Bernice Franklin and Mrs. Johnnie Faye (Jeff) Hattman were great supporters and
transformational teachers who saw potential in me; encouraged me to also recognize that
potential; and prompted me to set and pursue specific goals.
My most influential undergraduate professor was Dr. A1 Albarran, who nurtured
in me a determination to succeed, while I was a student at Sam Houston State University.
I would like to acknowledge the important role that he has played in my academic and
professional journeys and to credit him for instilling in me the confidence that I needed to
go out and get that first job.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Doug Fryett, who stands out as one o f my
most influential teachers. Under his tutelage in the MBA program at Centenary College
of Louisiana, I came to understand the importance o f having a strong mission and vision,
both organizationally and personally. His inspirational approaches to teaching and

V
genuine interest in my success have had a positive influence on me, including my
decision to pursue a terminal degree.
There are several faculty members at Our Lady o f the Lake University (OLLU) to
acknowledge. First, I would like to recognize and thank Dr. Mark T. Green for being
such an amazing and inspirational teacher. Having him as our professor during the first
few semesters is what kept me going in the early days o f the program! It is quite possible
that had it not been for his servant leadership in those challenging days, I would not have
completed this dissertation or earned my Ph.D. Thank you, also, to the professors who
taught the rest o f the courses, especially Dr. Ashley Fields who enthusiastically ushered
my cohort through six classes during our four years o f coursework. His great intellect and
teaching ability made going to class a pleasure.
Grateful recognition goes to my dissertation team, which included committee
members Dr. Phyllis Duncan and Dr. Barbara Hinojosa, for guiding and preparing me to
successfully defend my research. Special thanks is given to my committee chair, Dr.
Jared A. Montoya, for his kindness, knowledge, guidance, and tremendous help
throughout the entire process o f taking my research study from the conceptual stage into
the operational phase and ultimately to this resulting dissertation.
This work is the culmination o f a four year journey that included many
challenges, rewards, memorable experiences, and a great deal o f love and support. Id
like to acknowledge and thank my fellow students, the members o f OLLU Houston
Cohort Three, for being my travel companions and for teaching me so much along the
way. You are to be commended and recognized for helping me reach this goal. 1 am
particularly grateful for the members o f my study group, without whom this experience
would have been much less enjoyable and far more difficult. I have personally benefitted
from and learned a great deal about helping attitudes, the value o f volunteering ones
knowledge and expertise for the benefit o f others, and the art o f servant leadership from
each o f you.
1 also want to acknowledge the close group o f family and friends who believed in
me, supported me, and cheered me on through every step o f the process. Your love and
support sustained me during every class, every exam, every presentation, and every hour
spent reading, studying, researching, writing, and preparing to defend this dissertation.
Thank you, especially, to my David for being so patient and kind, for always providing
the space and time I needed to do my work, for helping me to have fun along the way,
and for making my life infinitely better.
My wish for each o f you is that you are richly blessed in this life and beyond.
The Lord bless you and keep you! The Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious
to you! The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace! (Number 6:24-26, The Saint
Joseph Edition o f the New American Bible).

v ii
Abstract
This study examined the relationships between volunteerism, helping attitudes,
and servant leadership (SL). A sample o f 458 working adults completed an electronic
survey that was hosted on Survey Monkey. Some respondents completed paper and
pencil surveys. The number o f fully completed surveys was 416. Participants were asked
to complete a five item general demographic survey to determine age, educational level,
gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity. Participants included 264 females and 152
males ranging from 21 to 86 years o f age. Leadership tenure ranged from less than one
year to 61 years. The preponderance o f race/ethnicity responses was white (261) and the
preponderance o f educational level responses was Masters degree (168). A seven-item
volunteerism survey included a series o f questions to determine the approximate number
o f hours spent volunteering in any given month during the past twelve. A total scale was
computed by summing the responses to arrive at a total number o f volunteer hours. The
Helping Attitude Survey, which is a 20-item instrument measured on a five point Likert
scale, assessed the respondents attitudes toward helping others. The scores ranged from
20-100 and they were summed. The Servant Leadership Survey, which is a 30-item
instrument, measured servant leadership. The instrument includes eight dimensions o f SL
measured on a six point Likert scale: accountability, authenticity, courage, empowerment,
forgiveness, humility, standing back, and stewardship. The instrument was modified to
accommodate self-ratings. Scores range from 1 to 6 and they were averaged.
The purpose o f the study, which included three research areas, was to conduct an
empirical investigation o f the relationships between volunteerism, helping attitudes, and
SL; to build upon the research on those constructs; and to bridge the gap in the existing
literature. Statistically significant links were found between volunteerism and SL as well
v iii
as helping attitudes and SL. These findings are consistent with the review o f existing
literature. Significant links were also found between helping attitudes and volunteerism.
No similar findings emerged during the review o f existing literature. The demographic
variables remained the same in all three areas. Research Area One (RA1) included eight
questions and eight null hypotheses. The independent variable o f interest was volunteer
hours and the dependent variable was SL. Research Area Two (RA2) also included eight
research questions and eight null hypotheses. The independent variable was helping
attitudes and the dependent variable was SL. In addition to volunteer hours and helping
attitudes being significant, findings also show age, gender, leadership tenure and
race/ethnicity to be significant predictors o f SL. Findings do not show education to be a
significant predictor. These findings are consistent with the review o f the literature. One
null hypothesis was rejected in RA1 and all null hypotheses were rejected in RA2.
Research Area Three (RA3) included one question and one null hypothesis. The
independent variable o f interest was helping attitudes and the dependent variable was
volunteer hours. In addition to helping attitudes being significant, findings show
leadership tenure to be a significant predictor o f volunteerism. This finding is consistent
with existing literature. The null hypothesis was rejected in RA3.
The researcher used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software
to analyze the data in this study. The research design included descriptive statistics using
histograms and bar charts; bivariate correlations using Pearson's r; inferential statistics
using multiple regression with R2, AR2, partial correlations, and Beta weights; /-test for
the dichotomous variable; and analysis o f variance (ANOVA) with the Scheffe Post hoc
analysis for the significant polychotomous variables. The significance level was set
at p < .05.
The results o f this study may be considered by students and professionals when
deciding whether or not to include volunteer service in their resumes or to count
volunteer service as part o f the overall leadership tenure included in their resumes; by
non-profit managers when recruiting volunteers for leadership and committee positions;
by human resource professionals interested in hiring candidates who might exhibit and
exercise servant leadership in their jobs; and by executive leaders interested in cultivating
servant leadership characteristics among their employees.

X
Table o f Contents
DEDICATION................................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................x
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................xiii
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................... 1
Statement o f Problem................................................................................................ 10
Purpose o f Study........................................................................................................11
Theoretical Foundations...........................................................................................11
Research Area One Questions..........................................................................14
Research Area Two Questions.........................................................................15
Research Area Three Question.........................................................................16
Conceptual Definitions............................................................................................ 16
Graphical M odel........................................................................................................18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................... 19
Volunteerism and A ge..............................................................................................19
Volunteerism and Education................................................................................... 22
Volunteerism and Gender........................................................................................24
Volunteerism and Race/Ethnicity.......................................................................... 26
Helping Attitudes and Servant Leadership........................................................... 26
Helping Attitudes and Volunteerism.....................................................................27
Servant Leadership and A ge................................................................................... 28

Servant Leadership and Education.........................................................................31
Servant Leadership and G ender..............................................................................31
Servant Leadership-Empathy and Gender...........................................................34
Servant Leadership and Leadership Tenure......................................................... 35
Servant Leadership and Race/Ethnicity................................................................ 36
Servant Leadership and Volunteerism.................................................................. 36
Summary o f Literature Review............................................................................. 38
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY................................................................................40
Sampling Plan.......................................................................................................... 40
Instruments............................................................................................................... 41
General Demographic Survey.........................................................................41
Volunteer Service Demographic Survey.......................................................42
Helping Attitude Scale..................................................................................... 43
Servant Leadership Survey..............................................................................43
Research Design...................................................................................................... 44
Null Hypotheses...................................................................................................... 45
Research Area One Ho...................................................................................... 45
Research Area Two Ho......................................................................................46
Research Area Three Ho.................................................................................. 47
Data Collection and Procedure..............................................................................47
Analytical Strategy..................................................................................................49
Ethical Considerations............................................................................................50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS................................................................................................. 51
Data Collection........................................................................................................ 51
Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................................52
Demographic Statistics......................................................................................54
Primary Independent Variables........................................................................ 60
Dependent Variables.......................................................................................... 64
Bivariate Correlations.............................................................................................. 73
Multiple Regressions................................................................................................76
Research Area One Multiple Regressions......................................................76
Research Area Two Multiple Regressions......................................................94
Research Area Three Multiple Regressions................................................. 120
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY.......................................................................................................123
Discussion and Findings........................................................................................ 123
Implications.............................................................................................................. 124
Limitations o f Findings.......................................................................................... 126
Recommendations for Further Research..............................................................127
Conclusion............................................................................................................... 128
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................130
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................137
Appendix A. Survey Instrument................................................................................. 137
Appendix B. Institutional Review Board Approval..................................................148
Appendix C. Servant Leadership Survey Rotated Component M atrix................. 149
Appendix D. SLS Factor Analysis - Total Variance Explain................................150
Appendix E. NIH Certificate o f Completion.............................................................151

List o f Tables
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Continuous Variables.............................................52
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Categorical Variables.............................................53
Table 3. Bivariate Correlations..................................................................................................75
Table 4. Model Summary for SL Empowerment-Revised................................................... 78
Table 5. Model Summary for SL Enabling and Envisioning............................................. 81
Table 6. Model Summary for SL Authenticity and Courage............................................. 85
Table 7. Model Summary for SL Humility-Revised..............................................................89
Table 8. Model Summary for Standing Back......................................................................... 92
Table 9. Model Summary for Accountability-Revised..........................................................95
Table 10. Model Summary for Empowerment-Revised.........................................................98
Table 11. Model Summary for Forgiveness...........................................................................102
Table 12. Model Summary for Enabling and Envisioning...................................................105
Table 13. Model Summary for Authenticity and Courage...................................................108
Table 14. Model Summary for Humility-Revised................................................................. 113
Table 15. Model Summary for Standing Back...................................................................... 117
Table 16. Model Summary for Number o f Volunteer Hours Performed........................... 121
x iv
List o f Figures
Figure 1. Distribution o f A ge...................................................................................................54
Figure 2. Distribution o f Highest Level o f Education.......................................................... 55
Figure 3. Distribution o f Gender............................................................................................. 56
Figure 4. Distribution o f Leadership Tenure..........................................................................57
Figure 5. Distribution o f Race/Ethnicity................................................................................ 58
Figure 6. Distribution o f Race/Ethnicity-Collapsed............................................................. 59
Figure 7. Distribution o f Volunteer Hours.............................................................................61
Figure 8. Distribution o f Volunteer Hours-Outliers Removed.............................................62
Figure 9. Distribution o f Scores for Helping Attitude Scale................................................. 63
Figure 10. Distribution o f Servant Leadership Scores for Accountability Revised.......... 66
Figure 11. Distribution o f Servant Leadership Scores for Authenticity and Courage....... 67
Figure 12. Distribution o f Servant Leadership Scores for Empowerment-Revised.......... 68
Figure 13. Distribution o f Servant Leadership Scores for Enabling and Envisioning......69
Figure 14. Distribution o f Servant Leadership Scores for Forgiveness............................... 70
Figure 15. Distribution o f Servant Leadership Scores for Humility-Revised.....................71
Figure 16. Distribution o f Servant Leadership Scores for Standing Back........................... 72
Figure 17. Scatterplot for Leadership Tenure and Empowerment-Revised........................79
Figure 18. Scatterplot for and Enabling and Envisioning......................................................82
Figure 19. Scatterplot for Volunteer Hours and Enabling and Envisioning........................83
Figure 20. Scatterplot for Age and Authenticity and Courage..............................................86
Figure 21. Mean Scores for Gender and Authenticity and Courage.....................................87
Figure 22. Mean Scores for Race/Ethnicity and Humility-Revised.....................................90
Figure 23. Scatterplot for Age and Standing Back..................................................................93

XV
Figure 24. Scatterplot for Helping Attitudes and Accountability-Revised..........................96
Figure 25. Scatterplot for Leadership Tenure and Empowerment-Revised........................99
Figure 26. Scatterplot for Helping Attitudes and Empowerment-Revised........................ 100
Figure 27. Scatterplot for Helping Attitudes and Forgiveness............................................ 103
Figure 28. Scatterplot for Leadership Tenure and Enabling and Envisioning...................106
Figure 29. Scatterplot for Age and Authenticity and Courage............................................ 109
Figure 30. Mean Differences in Gender for Authenticity and Courage.............................110
Figure 31. Scatterplot for Helping Attitudes and Authenticity and Courage....................I l l
Figure 32. Mean Differences in Race/Ethnicity for H um ility-Revised............................ 114
Figure 33. Scatterplot for Helping Attitudes and Humility-Revised.................................. 115
Figure 34. Scatterplot for Age and Standing Back................................................................ 118
Figure 35. Scatterplot for Helping Attitudes and Standing Back........................................119
Figure 36. Scatterplot for Leadership Tenure and Volunteer Hours.................................. 122
1
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction and Background
Servant leadership (SL) requires adopting a different mindset about what makes
an effective leader. It begs a new attitude about and approach to leadership than the more
widely studied and accepted styles such as transformational, transactional, and authentic
leadership. This is greatly due to the limited exposure that SL has gained as an
empirically supported theory. An effective leader is one who is able to see and express
the organizational vision and goals in ways that inspire followers to share that vision and
to perform beyond expectations to achieve their desired goals. Traditionally, this type of
leader does not see him/herself as being in a position of serving others but rather as being
in a position o f authority and power, bearing the responsibility o f leading followers and
deserving the privilege o f being served by others. His/her position o f authority can often
be what defines him/her as a person. The concept o f SL flips this paradigm by describing
leaders as servants first. Servant leaders believe that people can accomplish a great deal
when inspired by a greater life purpose. They act as selfless mentors and encourage
followers to serve others rather than engaging in self-serving behaviors. Servant leaders
also understand the value o f really listening and closely observing their followers as well
as actively soliciting their participation, ideas, and feedback. In business, this manner of
leading can result in happier, more productive followers and better bottom lines
(Economy, 2015).
The concept o f SL within business settings was bom out o f one mans
experiences as he worked his way up through the ranks in his career during the first half
o f the twentieth century. Robert K. Greenleaf, the contemporary father o f servant

2
leadership, began developing his ideas o f leaders being servants first in 1970 when he
wrote his seminal essay entitled, The Servant as Leader. It is, as he described, a work
based more from experience and searching than from scholarship (Greenleaf, 2003) and
yet, it is the basis from which scholars have derived their research, conceived constructs,
and developed methods o f measuring data on the subject. Greenleaf was a career
employee o f the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) from 1926 to
1964. Upon graduating from Carleton College in Minnesota, Greenleaf decided to begin
his post-college career in the worlds largest corporation. His decision was based on
advice given by his Sociology professor who said America was becoming a nation
dominated by large institutions that were not serving its citizens well and that some o f his
students ought to make careers inside big institutions and become forces for good from
within. Greenleaf held many positions during his time at AT&T beginning as ground
man digging post holes and carrying tools; and finishing his career as director o f
management research, which was an internal consulting group concerned with values,
attitudes, organization, and the growth o f people - especially executives. After retiring,
he founded the Center for Applied Ethics that was renamed the Robert K. Greenleaf
Center in 1985, and became an independent consultant for businesses, foundations,
church organizations, and universities. His ideas and writings on SL emerged after deep
involvement with colleges and universities in the 1960s and 1970s during a time he
described as a period o f campus turmoil. This was the beginning o f a more than twenty
year contribution to the study o f SL as a means o f addressing two concerns: first a
concern for the individual in a society with massive problems in terms o f systems,
ideologies, and movements; and second for the individual as a serving person and the
3
tendency to deny wholeness and creativity by failing to lead when there is an opportunity
to do so (Greenleaf, 1977). His series o f essays and books, all with the theme o f servant
as leader, were written with the objective o f stimulating thought and action for building a
better and more caring society (Greenleaf, 2003). Taking his Sociology professors
advice to heart, Greenleaf became interested in the concept o f leading others as a means
o f doing good from within organizations, for the betterment o f society as a whole.
According to Greenleaf (1977), servant leaders are those who put the needs,
aspirations, and interests o f others before their own and make a deliberate choice to serve
others. In fact, the servant leaders chief motive is to serve first, rather than to lead
(Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Greenleaf conceptualized the idea o f servant leadership after
reading Hermann Hesses story Journey to the East. In the story, the central character is a
servant named Leo who accompanies a band o f men on a mythical journey. His role is to
do their menial chores but is, in actuality, the one who keeps the group together and
sustains them with his spirit and song (Greenleaf, 1977). This becomes evident to the
men only after Leo disappears and the group falls into a state o f disarray, abandoning
their journey. The narrator o f the story who was one o f the joum eyers (and widely
thought to be the autobiographical depiction o f Hesse himself), upon later finding Leo
serving in the capacity o f a great leader, determined that Leo had always been a great and
noble leader because he was seen as, and thought o f himself as, a servant first. Greenleaf
came to the conclusion that the servant leader is one who is servant first. He believed that
at its core, SL is a long-term and transformational approach to life and work that can
create positive change throughout society (Greenleaf, 2003). In The Servant-Leader
Within he wrote:
4
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 peoples highest
priority needs are being served. The best test is: do those served grow as persons;
do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous,
more likely themselves to become servants? (pg. 16).
Greenleaf was not alone in his thinking about what makes for effective leadership. Long
time President and CEO o f the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership
(1990-2007), Larry C. Spears, who established the Spears Center for Servant-Leadership
in 2008, developed a set o f ten characteristics o f servant leaders that are carefully based
on G reenleaf s original writings. The characteristics are listening, empathy, healing,
awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the
growth o f people, and building community. Whereas not meant to be an exhaustive list,
in creating it, his intent was to illuminate the power and promise that G reenleaf s concept
offers to those who have a different mindset about leadership one that is open to the
challenge o f serving first (Greenleaf, 2003).
Servant leadership characteristics, such as these, need not pertain only to
organizational environments or cultures. The characteristics that were identified by
Spears, as well as those identified by other SL theorists, may be displayed and practiced
by individuals who make conscious choices to incorporate them into their leadership
styles in an effort to develop themselves into leaders who serve others first. The
fundamental nature o f SL is to serve, not to lead, and by doing so to lead others to all that
they are capable o f becoming (Vinod & Sudhakar, 2011). This paradoxical approach to
5
leadership need not be limited to a special environment or to a formally established
organizational culture. It can be an individual choice as well.
This is an alternative view o f leadership and one that Greenleaf presented as an
answer to a crisis in leadership. He stated that even though one does not wake up each
morning with the compulsion to reinvent the wheel, if one is servant, either leader or
follower, then one is always searching, listening, and expecting that a better wheel is in
the making (Greenleaf, 1977). Thus, Greenleaf dedicated the latter part o f his life to the
exploration and study o f SL as a means o f improving the state o f leadership in our world.
In the five decades since Greenleaf first presented his concept, SL has yet to
achieve widespread popularity as a leadership theory, much less reinvent the wheel o f
leadership, but it is gaining momentum. In his article about leadership in learning
organizations (2000), Bernard M. Bass states, the strength o f the servant leadership
movement and its many links to encouraging follower learning, growth, and autonomy,
suggests that the untested theory will play a role in the future leadership o f the learning
organization. SL has indeed played a role in the success o f a number o f high
performance companies, such as, Synovus Financial Corporation, Southwest Airlines,
and Starbucks Coffee.
The guiding principles o f Synovus, one o f the largest and strongest financial
services companies in the Southeast portion o f the United States, are to remain committed
to serving others; offering solutions; and building trusting relationships with team
members, customers, and shareholders. Synovus has maintained a tradition o f service
since its founding in 1888, following the principles o f what is now known as servant
leadership, long before Greenleaf nurtured the concept in the 1970s. Even though it
6
serves nearly 170 different communities, Synovus prides itself on still being the local
bank, because of their relationship-driven, community-banking model. In addition,
Synovus leadership team creates an environment where the employees can grow. They
believe that caring for their employees is how they ensure the employees care for the
customers (Synovus History, n.d., para. 1-4).
Southwest Airlines clearly defines itself as a SL company by including as one o f
its three core values having a servant heart, which includes treating others with respect,
following the Golden Rule, and putting others first. The other company values are having
a warrior spirit, which means to take initiative and to care about the customers; and
having a fun-luving attitude, which means not taking yourself too seriously, having
fun, and being proud to be there. Southwest Airlines believes that by respecting the
concerns and needs o f the customer, while still providing low-cost and low-fare travel,
each employee indeed possesses a servants heart and the customer gets more for their
money (Forbes, 2013). Southwest Airlines, with its well-known reputation as an
employee-centric company and distinguishing features such as exemplary customer
service and no baggage fees, has at its core a servant leadership philosophy.
Starbucks Coffee also defines itself as a SL company and defends its adherence to
higher prices in order to maintain the commitments it has made to its partners
(employees) (Vinod & Sudhakar, 2011). In April 2015, Starbucks announced it would
pay full tuition for four years o f college through Arizona State Universitys online degree
program for any benefits-eligible employees (those who work at least 20 hours per week),
with no requirement to stay with the company after graduation. Veterans receive the
added consideration o f having the free education offer extended to a spouse or child. In
7
addition, all benefits-eligible employees receive full, employer-paid benefit packages
tailored to fit the needs o f each individual. These Special Blend packages may include
bonuses; 401 (k) matches; discounted stock purchase options; adoption assistance; and
health coverage for the employee, spouse, and dependents, including domestic partners
(Working at Starbucks, n.d., para. 3-5). Howard Schultz, while in the position o f
chairman and chief global strategist at Starbucks, explained his perspective on SL when
he said:
We have to lead with our hearts. In business, as in life, we each should have an
internal compass that guides our decisions, an instinctive understanding o f what
matters most in this world. For me, its not profits, or sales, or number o f stores,
but the passion, commitment, and enthusiasm o f a dedicated group o f people.
(Vinod & Sudhakar, 2011, p. 463)
Greenleaf (2003) said that SL is an approach to life and work that can create positive
change throughout society. By focusing on and investing in its partners first, Starbucks
exemplifies a thriving corporate culture, grounded in servant leadership behavior, that is
positively impacting society.
Another way to bring about positive change is through volunteerism. Mark
Snyder and Allen M. Omoto (2009) define volunteerism as a form o f pro-social action
in which people actively and freely seek out opportunities to provide non-monetary
assistance to others in need (pg. 5). Volunteerism occurs in myriad ways throughout our
country and beyond. In 2015, 62.6 million people in America volunteered either through
or for an organization at least once within the year. This represents approximately 24.9
percent o f our countrys population. 27.2 percent o f employed persons volunteered and
8
the main organizations, meaning those for which volunteers worked the most hours
during the year, were most frequently religious (33.1 percent o f all volunteers), followed
by educational or youth service related (25.2 percent) and social or community service
organizations (14.6 percent). The main volunteer activities were collecting, preparing,
distributing, or serving food (11.3 percent); tutoring or teaching (9.2 percent), fundraising
(9.0 percent); and engaging in general labor (8.8 percent) (Bureau o f Labor Statistics,
2016). In these main ways of helping as with the many other volunteer options that exist
in America, nearly one-quarter o f our population spends time serving others, outside the
realm o f paying jobs. Based on the Independent Sectors estimate o f the average value o f
a volunteer hour, $184 billion worth o f service was performed in 2014 (Independent
Sector, 2015). In addition to formal volunteering for organizations, more than 138 million
Americans, a figure that represents 62.5 percent o f the population, also engaged in
informal means o f volunteering such as helping neighbors with tasks like watching each
others children, helping with shopping, or house sitting as well as providing general help
within their neighborhoods and communities (Volunteering in America, n.d., para. 2-3).
Volunteers are motivated by a desire to give o f themselves and to do some good. In
Volunteerism and the Generative Society, the authors say that every day, large numbers
o f individuals express concern for other people by engaging in the helping activities
known as volunteerism. These authors also point out that volunteers offer important
services to their communities, such as tutoring disadvantaged students, coaching young
athletes, providing religious instruction, serving as companions to the elderly, assisting
with health care, providing peer counseling to the distressed, and helping in rescue and
relief efforts in response to emergencies and disasters (Snyder and Clary, 2004).
9
Corporations facilitate the providing o f such services to society by sanctioning
time and resources for employees to volunteer within their communities, with mutual
benefit. The 2013 Deloitte Volunteer IMPACT Survey, which was commissioned to
explore the value that HR Executives place on skills-based volunteer work for their
employees and how it influences hiring decisions, states that activities by organizations
that are characterized as doing good have gained greater recognition over the years as
also being good for business. Therefore, volunteerism is encouraged at many
organizations through corporate citizenship programs (Executive Summary: Deloitte,
2013). Furthermore, according to Deloitte, 91% o f Fortune 500 HR managers said that
volunteering knowledge and expertise to a nonprofit can be an effective way to cultivate
critical business and leadership skills, such as project management, communication,
goal setting and evaluation. These soft skills can make significant differences in
cultivating leadership and preparing for future success (Haberman, 2012).
Volunteerism has also been shown to have positive effects on individual well
being. For example, voluntary association membership contributes to decreased
psychological distress and buffers the negative consequences o f stressors (Rietschlin
1998); it increases life satisfaction and decreases depression (Van Willigen 1998); and it
is associated with better physical health and lowers mortality as much as 30 years (Moen,
Dempster-McClain, and Williams 1989, 1992; see also Young and Glasgow 1998;
House, Landis, and Umberson 1988) (Thoits and Hewitt, 2001).
Irrespective o f the professional and personal benefits to be gained, the value that a
volunteer places on helping others is an individual decision bom out o f beliefs and
feelings that are influenced and developed over time. Wuthnow (1995) stated that a
10
caring ethic is first fostered in the family and later channeled into volunteerism by
secondary institutions such as schools, churches, and voluntary organizations (Janoski,
Musick, & Wilson, 1998). In his book an Introduction to Social Psychology, William
McDougall (2008) addressed the human parental instinct, which he described as an
impulse to cherish and protect, as being the source o f generosity, gratitude, love, pity,
true benevolence and altruistic conduct o f every kind. O nes helping attitudes may be
influenced by learned values, parental instincts, empathetic feelings, an innate generosity
o f spirit, or some combination thereof. They may also be a result o f ones egoistic or
altruistic tendencies. Advocates o f universal egoism claim that all we do is for the
ultimate goal o f self-benefit. Advocates o f altruism believe that, whereas much o f the
motivation for helping is egoistic, some people under certain circumstances are capable
o f being motivated by an ultimate goal o f benefiting someone else (Batson & Shaw,
1991). Whatever the motivations, ones attitudes and beliefs about helping others can
be observed through helping behaviors, which are the active responses to those attitudes
and beliefs.
Statement o f Problem
The lack o f empirical data prompted this study, which explored the relationship
between volunteerism, helping attitudes, and servant leadership. Much research has
focused on volunteerism and past studies have been conducted on the practice o f servant
leadership; however, the extent to which volunteerism might influence servant leadership
has not been widely investigated. Likewise, whereas research exists on attitudes toward
helping others, the extents to which helping attitudes might influence servant leadership
or volunteerism have not been widely investigated.

11
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose o f this study was to conduct an empirical investigation o f the
relationships between volunteerism and servant leadership; to build upon previous
research that has investigated volunteerism and servant leadership; and to bridge the gap
in the literature on those subjects. The study was further meant to conduct an empirical
investigation about links between helping attitudes and servant leadership and helping
attitudes and volunteerism; and to build upon previously conducted research that has
investigated both constructs.
Theoretical Foundations
The concept o f SL is gaining traction as it becomes more empirically studied. In
the years since Greenleaf first coined the phrase servant leadership other researchers
have contributed to the development and measurement o f SL models (Green, 2013,
p. 347); however, there are road blocks to its progress. It is not yet considered a fully
developed leadership theory and there is no widely accepted model being adopted by
academics or business leaders. According to theorists Dirk van Dierendonck and Inge
Nuijten, more and better insights grounded in empirically based findings are essential in
order to alert organizations to the necessity o f being open to the needs and wishes of
employees, acknowledging their worth and achievements, but also o f being stewards and
making people feel responsible for their work (van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2010).
Although several variations o f SL exist, each with its own set o f characteristics
and rating instrument, only four have any proven validity. The Servant Leadership
Questionnaire, introduced by Barbuto and Wheeler in 2006, measures five aspects o f
SL altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and

12
organizational stewardship. The Servant Leadership Scale, created in 2008 by Liden,
Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson, measures seven dimensions o f SL emotional healing,
creating value for the community, conceptual skills, empowering, helping subordinates
grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, and behaving ethically. The Servant Leader
Behavior Scale was developed by Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora in 2008 and measures
six dimensions o f SL voluntary subordination, authentic self, covenantal relationship,
responsible morality, transcendental spirituality, and transforming influence. In 2011,
van Dierendonck and Nuijten designed the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS), which
measures eight dimensions o f SL accountability, authenticity, courage, empowerment,
forgiveness, humility, standing back, and stewardship (Green, 2013, pp. 362-369).
The theoretical model o f servant leadership in this study was based on G reenleaf s
original vision and work. He put much thought into determining what constitutes a
servant leader; however, he did not rely on empirical investigation in which SL could be
quantified. Therefore, for this research, the concept o f SL was defined and measured by
the SLS, which provides mean scores for the eight distinct dimensions o f SL listed above.
The SLS is the first instrument to include the essential elements o f G reenleaf s SL theory,
such as empathy, empowerment, and stewardship, and measures the servant aspect as
well as the leader aspect. In addition, the SLS introduces accountability, courage, and
forgiveness as essential elements o f SL (van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011).
For the purposes o f this study, helping attitudes was measured and defined by the
Helping Attitude Scale that provides a summed score o f the scaled responses.
Volunteerism, also known as volunteer hours, is defined as giving o f ones time, talent,
and energy to fulfill a need or assist a cause without receiving any monetary benefit.
13
Volunteerism may be o f a formal nature with specific expectations, guidelines, and/or
schedules that are predetermined and agreed upon by both the recipient organization and
the volunteer. Volunteerism may also be o f an informal nature with no set routine or
requirements as simple as running errands or doing small chores for a neighbor in need
o f some help. Volunteers provide service to organizations as well as individuals and can
give as few or as many hours o f service as mutually agreed upon. In other words, giving
even one hour o f time in service to others qualifies as volunteerism. Volunteer profiles
can be quite diverse. There are committed volunteers who serve in the same capacity time
and time again. Conversely, there are volunteers who perform ad hoc duties, as needed.
There are expert volunteers and novice volunteers, volunteers who provide physical
assistance, volunteers who serve on boards and committees, and volunteers who are
political and social activists. Volunteerism was measured with a survey instrument
developed by the researcher.
The independent, control variables being measured are age, educational level,
gender, leadership tenure, race/ethnicity, volunteerism, and helping attitudes. The number
o f volunteer hours performed is the primary independent variable in Research Area One.
The dependent variable is servant leadership. The variable o f helping attitudes is the
primary independent variable in Research Area Two. The dependent variable is, once
again, servant leadership. The variable o f helping attitudes is also the primary
independent variable in Research Area Three and, in this case, the dependent variable is
volunteer hours.
Research Area One Questions
Is there a relationship between number o f volunteer hours performed and ratings
o f servant leadership (accountability) when controlling for, age, educational level,
gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity?
o f servant leadership (authenticity) when controlling for, age, educational level,
o f servant leadership (courage) when controlling for, age, educational level,
o f servant leadership (empowerment) when controlling for, age, educational level,
o f servant leadership (forgiveness) when controlling for, age, educational level,
o f servant leadership (humility) when controlling for, age, educational level,
o f servant leadership (standing back) when controlling for, age, educational level,

15
8. Is there a relationship between number o f volunteer hours performed and ratings
o f servant leadership (stewardship) when controlling for, age, educational level,
Research Area Two Questions
1. Is there a relationship between attitudes toward helping others and ratings of
servant leadership (accountability) when controlling for, age, educational level,
servant leadership (authenticity) when controlling for, age, educational level,
servant leadership (courage) when controlling for, age, educational level, gender,
leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity?
servant leadership (empowerment) when controlling for, age, educational level,
servant leadership (forgiveness) when controlling for, age, educational level,
6. Is there a relationship between attitudes toward helping others and ratings o f
servant leadership (humility) when controlling for, age, educational level, gender,

16
servant leadership (standing back) when controlling for, age, educational level,
8. Is there a relationship between attitudes toward helping others and ratings o f
servant leadership (stewardship) when controlling for, age, educational level,
Research Area Three Question
1. Is there a relationship between attitudes toward helping others and number of
volunteer hours performed when controlling for age, educational level, gender,
Conceptual Definitions
Number o f volunteer hours is defined as the approximate number o f hours given in
voluntary service to others in any given month when considering the past twelve months.
Helping attitudes is defined as feelings, beliefs, and behaviors related to helping others.
Servant leadership is a leadership behavior that involves leaders addressing and serving
the needs o f their followers first, by way o f these eight characteristics:
1. Accountability - the act o f ensuring that people know what is expected o f them
and holding them accountable for their performance and outcomes
2. Authenticity - the act o f expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner
thoughts and feelings; being true to oneself both privately and publicly
3. Courage - the act o f taking risks and trying new approaches to old problems while
relying on values and convictions that govern one's actions

17
4. Empowerment - a motivational concept focused on enabling and encouraging
peoples development o f their self-confidence, their innovative skills, and their
personal power
5. Forgiveness - having empathy, being able to understand and experience the
feelings o f others, to be able to forgive offenses, arguments and mistakes, and to
not carry grudges forward into future interactions
6. Humility - the ability to have a clear understanding o f their strong and weak
points, to put their accomplishments and talents into proper perspective, to admit
their mistakes, and to seek contributions o f others to overcome their limitations
7. Standing back - the ability to give priority to the interests and actions o f others
first and to give them appropriate support and credit
8. Stewardship - a social responsibility focused on having a willingness to take
responsibility for the greater institution and to act as role models for others to act
in the common interest
Gender is a categorical choice between female and male. Age is defined as the number of
years at the respondents last birthday. Educational level is a categorical choice o f the
highest level o f education completed. Race/Ethnicity is based on the proposed 2020 U.S.
Census Bureaus question that includes seven exhaustive, categorical options (Krogstad
& Cohn, 2014). The variable o f years as a leader is defined as the approximate number
o f years in positions o f leadership when one or more individuals were led toward a
common goal.
18
Graphical Model
*Covariates in each research area (RA) include age, educational level, gender, leadership
tenure, and race/ethnicity
19
CHAPTER TWO
Review o f the Literature
The researcher conducted an extensive review o f existing literature related to the
independent and dependent variables that are included in this study. This chapter provides
a summary o f that literature; beginning with articles that found significant relationships
and/or differences related to volunteerism and the control variables o f age, educational
level, gender and race/ethnicity. The next section includes summaries o f existing literature
with significant results showing positive relationships between helping attitudes and
servant leadership as well as helping attitudes and volunteerism. The final section includes
summaries o f articles that revealed significant relationships and/or differences for servant
leadership and the control variables o f age, educational level, gender, leadership tenure,
and race/ethnicity.
Volunteerism and Age
Studies Indicating Positive Relationships
Prouteau and W olff (2008) analyzed data pertaining to the living conditions of
French households from a cross sectional data set from France entitled Vie associative,
which was gathered by the 1NSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies)
in October 2002. The questionnaire included a list o f questions having to do with reasons
for volunteering. O f the 3,663 respondents, 1390 reported doing volunteer work. Age was
positively correlated with volunteering (r = .032, p < .01).
Matsuba, Hart, and Atkins (2007) conducted a survey o f 4,242 sampling units
obtained from the M idiife in the t/nited States (MIDUS) survey data from 1995.
Participants were English-speaking, American adults between the ages o f 25 and 74

20
living in the 48 contiguous states in households with telephones. O f these participants,
1,454 reported doing some volunteer work in the past month. Along with a variety of
other measures used to capture data on variables such as personality type, civic
obligation, and helping identity, commitment to volunteering was measured by asking,
how many hours per month do you spend doing formal volunteer work o f any o f the
following types? The four types included health-care oriented, school or other
youth-related, political organizations or causes, and any other organization, cause or
charity. Age was positively correlated with volunteering (r = .051,/? < .05).
Warburton and Stirling (2007) analyzed data from the General Social Survey
2000 Confidentialised Unit Record Files from the Australian Bureau o f Statistics. The
sample included 4,792 respondents who were more than 54 years old. Study results
showed that volunteers were more likely to be younger x2(2, n = 4792) = 72.0, p < .001.
Peterson (2004) administered a mail survey that was pre-tested in two MBA
classes with a total o f 76 students, most o f whom were graduate students with previous
and/or current experience working full-time in a professional position. Based on the pre
test, a few changes were made to wording and clarity o f the questions. The survey sample
consisted o f 337 alumni o f a large mid-western state university whose names were
randomly selected from a computerized list. The list included those alumni who earned
degrees from the College o f Business Administration between 1981 and 1997 and were
presently residing in the U.S. A positive correlation (r = .33, p < .01) was found
between age and volunteerism. This correlation indicated that volunteerism generally
increases with age.

21
Penner (2002) conducted an Internet survey that was completed by more than
1,100 people. The sample consisted o f USA Weekend Online readers who responded to
an invitation to complete a test that measured how prosocial they were. Approximately
76 percent o f them reported having done some volunteer work during the last year. Age
was positively correlated with three aspects o f volunteerism included in the study:
number o f organizations (r = .15,/? < .01), volunteer length o f service (r - .24, p < .01),
and amount o f time spent volunteering (r = .05, p < .01).
Thoits and Hewitt (2001) used a two-wave panel study based on a national sample
o f adults referred to as Americans Changing Lives. In 1986, 3,617 respondents were
interviewed in their homes by interviewers from the Survey Center at the University o f
Michigan. There was a 68% response rate in the first wave, the results o f which are
included here. The interviewees were asked a series o f questions pertaining to
volunteerism. Age was negatively correlated with volunteering (r = -.1 \ , p < .001).
Van Willigen (2000) conducted a study focused on the impact o f volunteering
on the well being o f elderly persons. The research used the first two waves o f data from
the Americans Changing Lives (ACL) surveys face-to-face interviews that were
conducted in the respondents homes in 1986 and 1989. The final sample included
2,867 respondents. The analysis showed that older adults were more likely to volunteer
in senior centers (p < .001) and in religions institutions (p < .001); whereas, younger
adults were more likely to volunteer for schools or other education-related organizations
(p c .0 0 1 ).
Wilson and Musick (1997) analyzed data taken from a panel survey titled
Americans Changing Lives, which utilized a multistage stratified area probability sample
22
o f people who were at least 25 years old and living in the contiguous United States. A
total o f 2,854 respondents were included in this study. The sample units were asked a
series o f questions including those pertaining to volunteer work, informal helping o f
family and friends, the number o f hours spent volunteering and/or helping, as well as
background variables to determine age, gender, education and race. Age was negatively
correlated with volunteering (r = -.09, p < .001).
Study Indicating No Relationship
Parboteeah, Cullen, and Lim (2004) conducted a cross-national test based on
individual-level data from the World Values Survey (WVS) (Inglehart et al., 1998;
World Values Study Group 2000) provided by the Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research. The WVS sampled the population o f adults from 53
countries representing almost 80 percent o f the worlds population. The individual-level
sample from these countries was 38,119. No relationship was found between age and
(formal) volunteering.
Volunteerism and Education
Studies Indicating M ixed Findings fo r Educational Differences
In the Prouteau and W olff (2008) study, volunteers with vocational training
certificates were positively correlated with volunteering (r = .166,/? < .05) and high
school graduates were positively correlated with volunteering (r = .235,/? < .05). No
relationship was found between any other educational levels and volunteering.
In the Matsuba, Hart, and Atkins (2007) study, 1,454 participants reported doing
some volunteer work in the past month. Education had a significant indirect effect on
volunteering (r = .034, p < .05).

23
Rotolo and Wilson (2007) analyzed data from the 2002 Current Population
Survey (CPS) and Volunteer Supplement, which is a nationally representative sample o f
individuals living in the United States. Surveys are administered monthly to
approximately 60,000 households. One representative from each household provides the
responses. The sample size for this study was 91,807 and the data used were collected in
September 2002. Respondents were asked a series o f questions pertaining to volunteer
activities, total hours spent volunteering, and how they became involved with volunteer
work. The research showed a positive association between education and volunteering.
Having a high school education was positively associated with three types o f
volunteerism - consulting/administrating (r = .29, p < .001), care giving/driving (r = .07,
p < .05), and serving on Boards/committees (r = .37, p < .001); whereas it was negatively
associated with maintenance (r = -.13,p < .01), and coaching/teaching (r = -,1 0 ,p <
.001). Having some college credits was positively associated with
consulting/administrating (r = .48,/? < .001), and serving on Boards/committees (r = .37,
p < .001); whereas having some college credits was negatively associated with
maintenance (r = -.14,p < .01), fundraising (r = -.08,p < .05), special events (r = -.07,p
< .05), and teaching/coaching (r = -A 6 ,p < .001). Having a college degree was positively
associated with consulting/ administering (r = .61, p < .001) and serving on Boards/
committees (r = .53, p < .001); whereas having a college degree was negatively
associated with maintenance (r = -.16, p < .01), fundraising (r = -.13,/? < .01), providing
food/goods (r = -,1 7 ,p < .001), special events (r = .15,/? < .001), and teaching/coaching
(r = -.26, p < .001). Postgraduate degrees were positively associated with
consulting/administrating (r = .80, p < .001), and serving on Boards/committees (r = .62,

24
p < .001); whereas they were negatively associated with maintenance (r = -3 2 , p < .001),
fundraising (r = - .\7 ,p < .001), providing food/goods (r = -.24,p < .001), special events
(r = -.23, p < .001), caregiving/driving (r - -.20, p < .001), and teaching/coaching (r = -
.36,/? < .001).
In the Warburton and Stirling (2007) study, results showed that volunteers were
more likely to have a degree rather than a trade qualification or no qualification at all
x2(2, n = 4792) = 118.5,/? < .001. In the Parboteeah, Cullen, and Lim (2004) study
education difference was significant for (formal) volunteering, with formal volunteering
being associated with higher education (r = .25,/? < .01).
In the Penner (2002) study education was significantly and positively associated
with three aspects o f volunteerism including number o f organizations (r = . 17, p < .01),
length o f volunteer service (r - .24,/? < .01), and amount o f time spent volunteering
(r = .10,/? < .01). In the Thoits and Hewitt (2001) study education was positively
correlated with volunteering (r = .19,/? < .001) and in the Wilson and Musick (1997)
study the number o f years o f schooling was positively correlated with volunteering
{r = .21, p < .001).
Volunteerism and Gender
Studies Indicating Gender Differences
In the Prouteau and W olff (2008) study, 1,390 reported doing volunteer work and
being female was positively correlated with volunteering (r = .204,/? < .01) and in the
Matsuba, Hart, and Atkins (2007) study, a positive correlation was found between gender
and volunteerism (r = .052,/? < .05). In the Rotolo and Wilson (2007) study females
rated higher than males for fundraising (r = .07,/? < .01), providing food/goods (r = .29,
25
p < .01), and special events (r = .05, p < .01) but lower for maintenance work (r = -.61,
p < .001), care-giving/driving (r = .05 ,p < .05), serving on Boards/committees (r = -.13,
p < .001), and teaching/ coaching (r = -.21, p < .001).
Mesch, Rooney, Steinberg, and Denton (2006) conducted multi-group surveys
using eight different survey instruments to compare and contrast respondents behaviors
related to giving and volunteering and to test the data for differences between race,
gender, and marital status on both behaviors. Gender differences mattered with single
females volunteering more than single males (p < .05).
In the Penner (2002) study gender differences mattered for number o f
organizations, with mean scores for males being higher than females (r = .02, p < .01);
and for time spent volunteering, with mean scores for females being higher than males
(r = -0.02, p < .01). There was no difference for volunteer length o f service.
Studies Indicating No Gender Differences
In the Warburton and Stirling (2007) study, results showed no significant gender
differences for volunteering. In the Parboteeah, Cullen, and Lim (2004) study, data from
the WVS that sampled the population o f adults from 53 countries representing almost 80
percent o f the worlds population was analyzed. No gender difference was found for
(formal) volunteering and in the Peterson (2004) study no gender difference was found
for volunteerism.
Metz and Youniss (2003) surveyed three cohorts o f 11th to 12th graders, from
graduating classes o f 2000, 2001 and 2002 to study the effects o f required service. The
sample consisted o f 486 students who participated in service projects such as tutoring,
26
teaching, coaching, working at local shelters or nursing homes, and organizing food or
clothing drives. No significant gender difference was found for volunteer service.
In the Wilson and Musick (1997) study, the sample units were asked a series o f
questions including those pertaining to volunteer work; informal helping o f family and
friends; the number o f hours spent volunteering and/or helping; as well as background
variables to determine age, gender, education, and race (p < .05). No gender difference
was found for formal volunteering.
Volunteerism and Race/Ethnicity
Studies Indicating Ethnicity Differences
In the Thoits and Hewitt (2001) study, interviewees were asked a series o f
questions pertaining to volunteerism. It was reported that whites volunteered more than
non-whites (r = .08,/? < .001).
Studies Indicating No Ethnicity Differences
In the Mesch, Rooney, Steinberg, and Denton (2006) study no difference was
found between race and volunteering. Likewise, in the Wilson and Musick (1997) study
no direct effect was found between ethnicity and volunteering.
Helping Attitudes and Servant Leadership
Study indicating a positive relationship
Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, and Roberts (2008) conducted a two-part
study to determine the mediating affect that regulatory focus has on the influence that
leadership has on employee behavior. In Phase I, the authors developed, tested, and
validated the Work Regulatory Focus (WRF) scale. In Phase II, the 18-item WRF and
other scales were administered to a sample o f 250 full time employees who were
27
physically located at their place o f employment and had direct and frequent contact with
their immediate bosses. The participants average age was 40.44 and the average tenure in
their current jobs was 6.7 years. Other scales used in the study include the 14-item Servant
Leadership Scale, the 10-item LBDQ XII, and the 7-item Helping Behavior Scale. All
used a five-point Likert scale. The results o f a Pearson correlation indicate that there is a
positive relationship between servant leadership and helping behaviors (r = .37, p < .00).
Helping Attitude and Volunteerism
Studies indicating positive relationships
Liden, Wayne, Liao, and Meuser (2014) administered a number o f scale surveys to
the managers and 20 hour+ per week employees o f 76 restaurants in six U.S. states. The
managers responded to an electronic survey that was distributed through email. The
employees were given paper and pencil surveys in the restaurants when they were on duty.
The 7-item short Servant Leadership Scale was used to measure managers servant
leadership and a revised version o f the same 7-item scale was used to measure employees
attitudes about their restaurants serving culture. Customer service orientation was
measured using the 4-item Customer Service Orientation Scale. A positive relationship
was found between servant leadership and serving culture (r = .69. p < .01).
In the Wilson and Musick (1997) study, the sample units were asked a series o f
questions including those pertaining to valuing helping, volunteer work, informal helping
o f family and friends, the number o f hours spent volunteering and/or helping, as well as
background variables to determine age, gender, education, and race. Valuing helping was
positively correlated with formal volunteering (r = .10,/? < .001) and with informal
volunteering (r - .06, p < .001).

28
Servant Leadership and Age
Studies Indicating Relationships with Age
Hu and Liden (2011) conducted a study o f employees with at least six months
tenure working in different functional teams such as accounting and trust in five banks in
China. A total of 71 teams with 304 employees and 60 upper level managers participated.
Males comprised the majority o f the respondents (59%). Team members rated goal
clarity, process clarity, and team potency; and used Liden, et. al.'s (2008) 28-item
Servant Leadership Scale to assess their leaders servant leadership behavior. Team
leaders rated team performance, team-level organizational citizenship behavior, and task
interdependence. Age was positively correlated with servant leadership (r = .27, p < .05).
Griihn, Rebucal, Lumley and Labouvie-Vief (2008) conducted a four-wave study
over a twelve-year period during which they administered a 38-item yes/no questionnaire
to assess empathy in each o f the four waves, using a modified version o f the empathy
subscale o f the California Personality Inventory (CPI; Gough & Bradley, 1996).
Participants were recruited from three suburban communities in a major Midwestern
metropolitan area, which represented low, medium, and high-income levels. The income
levels were based on the median housing value derived from 1990 census information. In
1992, there were 400 participants in Wave One, ranging from 10 to 87 years o f age. In
1994, Wave Two included 330 participants (aged 1 2 - 8 7 years o f age) from the original
longitudinal sample. In 1998, Wave Three included 260 participants (aged 1 6 - 9 2 years
o f age) from the original sample. In 2004, Wave Four included 171 participants (aged 18
- 93 years o f age) from the original sample. In each o f the four waves, age was
29
negatively correlated with empathy: 1992 (r = -.16,/? < .01), 1994 (r = - .\4 ,p < .05),
1998 (r = -10,/? < .05), and 2004 (r = -.15 ,p < .05).
Penner (2002) conducted an Internet survey that was completed by more than
1,100 people. The sample consisted o f USA Weekend Online readers who responded to
an invitation to complete a test that measured how Prosocial they were. Approximately
76 percent o f them reported having done some volunteer work during the last year. Age
was positively correlated with empathy (r = .10, p < .01).
Studies Indicating No Relationship with Age
Schaubroeck, Lam, and Peng (2011) conducted a study on leader behavior
influences on team performance among employees o f a multinational banks Hong Kong
and U.S. branches. A total o f 999 participants were surveyed and broken down into 89
teams from the Hong Kong branches and 102 teams from the U.S. branches. The teams
included bank tellers, relationship managers, financial product salespeople and loan
managers. There were more women (73% in the Hong Kong sample and 72% in the
U.S. sample) than men and the mean age and organizational tenure were 32.5 years and
5.3 years respectively. No relationship was found between age and SL behavior.
Ferguson, Carlson, Zivnuska, and Whitten (2010) conducted a survey o f full time
job incumbents and their partners. The sample was collected with the assistance o f an
online data collection service. The 270 participants consisted o f fulltime employees with
supervisors and a partner who would also complete the survey. All job incumbent
participants were male. No relationship was found between age and perceived empathy.
Hale and Fields (2007) conducted a survey o f working adults in two Christian
seminaries; one in Ghana and the other in the mid-Atlantic region o f the United States.
30
There were 60 respondents in Ghana and 97 respondents in the United States. The
majority was male (93% in Ghana and 55% in the U.S.) and the average age was
mid-to-late 30s (34.5 years in Ghana and 39 years in the U.S.). They were asked to rate
leadership effectiveness and servant leadership behaviors, the latter o f which were
measured by an 18-item scale adapted from Dennis (2004), using a seven point Likert
scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. No relationship was found
between age and servant leadership.
Washington, Sutton, and Field (2006) conducted a survey o f leaders and followers
in three organizations, which included a mid-sized community development agency, a
small municipal agency and a municipal government. The total o f 409 participants
included 126 supervisors and 283 employees. The majority was male (51%) and African
American (58%). The average age was 50. The study was conducted in two phases,
beginning with the employees completing a 32-item questionnaire measuring their
perceptions o f their supervisors values o f empathy, integrity, and competence. This was
followed by a second questionnaire approximately one month later, measuring the
employees perceptions o f their supervisors' servant leadership while the supervisors
completed a personality scale assessing their agreeableness. The servant leadership
instrument was Dennis and Winstons (2003) 23-item Servant Leadership Scale, which is
a revision o f Page and Wongs (2000) original servant leadership instrument. No
relationship was found between age and servant leadership.
Eid, Johnsen, Brun, Laberg, Nyhus, and Larrson (2004) administered a new self-
reporting instrument to measure the situational awareness o f a sample o f military officers.
The measure was derived from about 20 military skills and leadership behaviors
31
determined to be significant for decision-making; was validated against recent military
research; and was also pilot tested. No relationship was found between age and
situational awareness.
Servant Leadership and Education
Study Indicating a Positive Relationship
In the Penner (2002) study, approximately 76 percent o f USA Today Weekend
Online readers reported having done some volunteer work during the last year. Education
differences were significant for empathy, indicating that the better educated people
were more empathetic (p < .01).
Servant Leadership and Gender
Studies Indicating Gender Differences
Jenkins & Stewart (2010) administered a survey to 210 nurses working for a
large, multidivisional health care system. The sample represented 17 o f 33 departments
responsible for providing direct bedside patient care, such as medical, surgical, telemetry,
step-down, and intensive care. The questionnaire included questions regarding their
perceptions o f their immediate department head and information on demographic
characteristics. The independent variable, commitment to serve, was measured using
Barbuto and Wheelers (2006) 23-item survey using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. The sample o f nurses was primarily female (91%)
and White (76%). Gender differences were found to be significant regarding commitment
to serve (r = -.16, p < .01).
Fridell, Belcher, and Messner (2009) conducted a quantitative analysis o f email-
based surveys from 445 public school principals from a three state Midwest region,
32
including 265 men and 180 women. The 40-item Servant Leadership Styles inventory
was the instrument used to obtain their responses. The results showed that there was a
difference between males and females on servant leadership, with women categorized as
strong servant leaders and males as servant leaders, t(433) = 6.39, p < .001.
Cundiff (2008) administered the Scale o f Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE), which is
a 31-item instrument used to assess awareness and feelings about people from different
cultural backgrounds, to 317 students. The subjects were members o f various
undergraduate psychology classes who received course credit or extra credit for
participating in this study. O f this group o f participants, 42.3% were male and 57.7%
were female. The results o f an ANOVA showed that gender differences were significant
for empathetic awareness. Males (M = 4.41) scored lower than females (M = 4.93) using
an MANOVA procedure, Wilks Lambda = .77, F(5, 307) = 18.29,/? < .001).
In the Washington, Sutton, and Feild (2006) study, gender differences were found
for servant leadership, with females rating higher than males (r = .44, p < .01).
Groves (2005) administered an abbreviated version o f Riggios (1989) Social
Skills Inventory, a self-assessment instrument that measures an individuals repertoire o f
social and emotional interpersonal skills, to the followers o f 58 managers and 50 business
leaders. The leadership sample consisted o f managers at a health sciences university,
government agency, and a professional association o f medical colleges; as well as leaders
who had participated in a community-based leadership development program during the
last three years. Leader gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for female. The results o f the
Pearson correlation found leader gender differences to be significant regarding emotional

33
sensitivity (empathy), with women having higher mean scores than men (r = .30,
p < . 01).
Toussaint and Webb (2005) administered the 30-item Balanced Emotional
Empathy Scale (BEES; Mehrabian, 1996, 1997), a unidimensional measure o f affective
or emotional empathy, to 127 people recruited from public beaches and community parks
in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties in California. The results o f an
ANOVA showed that women (M = 62.55) scored higher on empathy than men
(M = 42.08) F (1, 125) = 21.36,/? < .001).
Wang, Davidson, Yakushko, Savoy, Tan, & Bleier (2003) administered a survey
to 340 undergraduate students enrolled in art, statistics, education, counseling, and
mathematic classes at two Midwestern universities. The questionnaire consisted o f a
demographic questionnaire, the 62-item Scale o f Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE), the
Balanced Inventory o f Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984, 1991), the Miville-
Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale (M-GUDS; Miville et al., 1999) and the Davis-
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (1RI; Davis, 1983). The sample included more whites
(79%) than non-whites (21%). Gender differences were found for empathy ratings o f the
SEE total. Men (M = 3.88, SD = .77) scored significantly lower than women (M = 4.33,
SD = .69), F( 1, 290) = 26.20, / < .01.
Penner and Finkelstein (1998) administered a mail survey to volunteers o f a large
organization that serves those infected and affected by HIV in the southeastern U.S.
146 active volunteers completed and returned the questionnaire. With regard to empathic
concern the Pro Social Personality Battery (PSB) (Penner et al., 1995) consisting o f 56
34
items was administered using a five-point Likert scale. Gender differences were found for
other-oriented empathy (r = .38,p < .05).
Servant Leadership-Empathy and Gender
Studies Indicating No Gender Differences
Berg, Majdan, Berg, Veloski and Hojat (2011) conducted a survey o f 248 third-
year medical students at Jefferson Medical College to determine if there is a relationship
between gender and empathy and ethnicity and empathy. There were 125 men and 123
women participants. No relationship was found between gender and empathy.
Hojat, Gonnella, Nasca, Mangione, Vergare and Magee (2002) conducted a survey
o f 704 physicians in the Jefferson Health System, which is affiliated with Thomas
Jefferson University Hospital and Jefferson Medical College in the greater Philadelphia
area. A revised version o f the Jefferson Scale o f Physician Empathy (6), with a 7-point
Likert scale, was used. No relationship was found between gender and empathy.
Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko, and Roberts (2009) conducted a survey o f 501
salespeople from a variety o f industries, including insurance, health care, manufacturing,
financial services, technology, consumer products, business services, and others. The
sample, which included 53.1 percent female and 46.9 percent male full time employees
with an average o f 10.3 years o f sales experience, was drawn with the help o f a market
research supplier company that specializes in online quantitative studies and focus
groups. Among other constructs such as customer orientation, customer-directed extra
role performance, and job stress, the survey measurements included 14 items from
Ehrhart (2004) that pertain to seven key characteristics o f servant leadership. These
characteristics are (1) forming relationships with subordinates, (2) empowering

35
subordinates, (3) helping subordinates grow and succeed, (4) behaving ethically,
(5) having conceptual skills, (6) putting subordinates first, and (7) creating value for
those outside the organization. No relationship was found between gender and SL.
Servant Leadership and Leadership Tenure
In the Hu and Liden (2011) study, team leaders rated team performance, team-
level organizational citizenship behavior, and task interdependence. Organizational
tenure was positively correlated with servant leadership (r = .25, p < .05). In the Groves
(2005) study, results o f the Pearson correlation found a positive correlation between
leader tenure and social sensitivity (r = .22, p < .05) and in the Penner and Finkelstein
(1998) study, length o f service was positively correlated with other-oriented empathy
{ r = . 2 \ , p < .05).
Studies Indicating No Relationships
In the Schaubroeck, Lam, and Peng (2011) study no relationship was found
between tenure and servant leadership behavior. In the Hale and Fields (2007) study no
relationship was found between work experience and servant leadership. In the
Washington, Sutton, and Feild (2006) study no relationship was found between company
tenure or job tenure and servant leadership.
Finkelstein, Penner, and Brannick (2005) administered the Volunteer Function
Inventory (VF1) developed by Clary et at. (1998) to 302 hospice volunteers in the
southeastern U.S. The volunteers identity remained anonymous. No relationship was
found between experience and empathy.

36
Servant Leadership and Race/Ethnicity
Studies Indicating Ethnicity Differences
In the Jenkins & Stewart (2010) study, the independent variable, commitment to
serve, was measured with Barbuto and W heelers (2006) 23-item survey. The sample o f
nurses was primarily female (91%) and White (76%). Ethnicity was negatively correlated
with commitment to serve (r = -. 13, p < .05).
In the Washington, Sutton, and Feild (2006) two phase study, ethnic differences
were found for servant leadership, with African Americans rating higher than Whites
(r = .36, p < .01).
In the Wang, Davidson, Yakushko, Savoy, Tan, & Bleier (2003) study, the results
of an ANOVA showed that ethnicity differences were significant for empathy ratings of
the Scale o f Ethnocultural Empathy total. White college students (M = 4.00, SD = .71)
scored lower than non-whites (M = 4.75, SD = .56), F (l, 290) = 62.54,/? < .01.
Studies Indicating No Ethnicity Differences
In the Berg, Majdan, Berg, Veloski, and Hojat (2011) study no ethnicity difference
was found for empathy.
Servant Leadership and Volunteerism
Schneider and George (2011) administered a four-part survey to the presidents
and members o f all eight o f the service clubs within the metropolitan area o f a southern
city. 110 surveys were completed. The MLQ short form was used to measure
transformational leadership and the items were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Servant
leadership was measured using Ehrhart's (2004) 14-item scale, which also uses a five-
37
point Likert scale. Correlation outcomes showed that amount o f hours volunteered every
two weeks has a positive relationship with the servant leadership dimension referred to as
empowerment (r = .30, p < .01).
Walumbwa, Hartnell and Oke (2010) conducted a study to determine to what
extent employee attitudes mediate the relationship between servant leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and to examine the possible moderating roles
o f procedural justice climate and servant climate on the relationship between employee
attitudes and citizenship behavior (aka volunteerism). Data were collected from seven
multinational companies operating in Kenya. Participants included 815 full-time
employees with an average age o f 34 and mean work experience o f five years. The
majority o f the participants were male (52%). The study was conducted in three parts.
Employees were asked to rate group leaders leadership behavior. Servant leadership was
measured using Ehrharts (2004) 14-item Servant Leadership Scale.
Approximately three weeks later, they were asked to complete a survey measuring
commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural justice climate, and service
climate. Finally, each supervisor provided organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
ratings for their respective direct reports. They completed Lee & Allens (2002) 16-item
OCB measure to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the statements about their
direct reports organizational citizenship behavior. All measures used 5-point Likert
scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Servant leadership was positively
correlated with OCB (r = .45, p < .01).
Carlo, Okun, Knight, and de Guzman (2005) administered the Value-Expressive
Scale from the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) to assess prosocial value motive (aka
38
empathy) o f 849 college students who were enrolled in sections o f Introduction to
Psychology at a large southwestern state university. A positive correlation was found
between volunteerism and empathy (r = .38, p < .001).
In the Penner (2002) study, USA Weekend Online readers were invited to
complete a test that measured how prosocial they were. Prosocial behavior (aka
empathy) was positively correlated with three volunteer factors included in the study:
number o f organizations where they volunteer (r = .24, p < .01), volunteer length o f
service (r = .16,/? < .01), and amount o f time spent volunteering (r = .1 0 ,p < .01).
Summary o f the Literature Review
The review o f the existing literature on volunteerism, with significant data related
to the independent variables in this study, revealed mixed findings. Eight studies show
positive relationships between volunteerism and age and one study showed no
relationship between the two. Eight studies showed education differences and one study
showed no education differences for volunteerism. Five studies showed gender
differences and five studies showed no gender differences for volunteerism. One study
showed race/ethnicity differences and two studies showed no race/ethnicity differences
for volunteerism. Three studies showed positive relationships between servant leadership
and volunteerism.
The review o f the existing literature on helping attitudes revealed positive
relationships with two o f the dependent variables included in this study. Two studies
revealed positive relationships between volunteerism and helping attitudes. One study
revealed positive relationships between servant leadership and helping attitudes.

39
The review o f the existing literature on servant leadership, with significant data
related to the independent variables in this study, revealed mixed findings. Three studies
showed positive relationships between servant leadership and age and five studies
showed no relationship between the two. One study showed a positive relationship
between servant leadership and education. Nine studies showed gender differences for
servant leadership and two studies showed no gender differences. Three studies showed
positive relationships between servant leadership and tenure and four studies showed no
relationship between the two. Finally, three studies showed that race/ethnicity differences
mattered, whereas one study showed no race/ethnicity difference for servant leadership.
40
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
This study investigated possible relationships between volunteerism and servant
leadership, helping attitudes and servant leadership, and helping attitudes and
volunteerism. The research methodology used in this study was designed to facilitate that
investigation. The purpose of this chapter is to describe that methodology.
The explanation o f the sampling plan provides details about how the study
participants were obtained. The three parts o f the survey tool are explained in the
instruments section to provide an overall understanding o f the data that were collected.
Additional details serve to explain the data collection and analysis process, and finally the
ethical considerations pertaining to the study are explained.
Sampling Plan
Participants were acquired through a sample o f convenience, utilizing the
snowball effect. The survey respondents were 458 adult members o f the researchers
personal and professional networks which consist o f family and friends; current and past
colleagues; fellow students; alumni from Sam Houston State University, Centenary
College o f Louisiana, and Our Lady o f the Lake University (OLLU); and members o f a
number o f online networking groups. The participants were recruited by personal contact,
through email, and via Linkedln. Some fellow students and members o f a monthly,
professional networking group were recruited in person. In addition, certain OLLU
professors forwarded the email message and survey link to their students. In addition to
being asked to complete the survey themselves, all o f those contacted electronically were
asked to forward the email message and survey link to working adults within their
41
personal and professional networks, thus creating a snowball effect. Survey Monkey
hosted the online survey. Paper surveys were provided to those individuals who were
recruited in person (Appendix A). Survey respondents were asked to read and agree with
an adult informed consent form. They were then asked to complete a demographic
survey, developed by the researcher, which included five general demographic questions
and a series o f seven volunteerism demographic questions. Next, the respondents were
asked to complete the 20-item Helping Attitude Scale (Nickell, 1998), and the 30-item
Servant Leadership Survey (Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011).
Instruments
General Demographic Survey
The general demographic survey measured five control variables including age,
educational level, gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity. Age was obtained by
asking an open-ended question to indicate the respondents age at last birthday, in whole
years. Educational level was obtained by asking respondents to select from a list of
exhaustive, categorical options that included high school or equivalent (e.g. GED), some
college, Bachelors degree, Masters degree, Doctorate degree, and other. Gender was
obtained with a two option categorical selection o f female or male. Leadership tenure was
determined by asking for an answer to an exhaustive, open-ended question regarding the
approximate number o f years and/or months o f experience in position(s) o f leading one
or more followers toward a common goal within one or a combination o f their
job/business, community/neighborhood, schools, churches, civic organizations, political
organizations, non-profit organizations, school/youth-related organizations, church/faith-
based organizations, civic organizations, political/activist groups, non-profit

42
organizations, Boards/councils, and other. Race/Ethnicity was determined by asking
respondents to make one selection from a list o f categorical options taken from the
U.S. Census Bureaus proposed 2020 census questionnaire. The options were Black,
White, Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and some other race or origin.
Volunteer Service Demographic Survey
After an extensive review o f the literature on volunteerism, no validated
instrument was found to measure the number o f hours that a person spent volunteering.
Conversely, a number o f studies were found that included lists o f questions, developed by
the researchers, which were used to measure the estimated number o f hours that their
survey respondents spent volunteering. A similar approach was used in this study.
In Penners study on dispositional and organizational influences on sustained
volunteerism, respondents were asked if they had volunteered in the last year and if so,
they were asked to answer a series o f additional questions to determine how much time
was spent volunteering for the organization or organizations for which they donated their
time (2002). Thoits and Hewitt collected data in their study about volunteerism and well
being by asking survey participants about volunteer work they may have done during the
last 12 months. Respondents were offered ordinal categories from which to choose,
including church, synagogue, or other religious organization; school or educational
organization; political group or labor union; senior citizens group or related hospitals; or
any other national or local organization (2001).
For this study, the researcher took a similar approach by developing a series o f
open-ended questions to assist the respondents in recalling approximately how many

43
hours were spent performing volunteer service during any given month in the past twelve
months. The questions included seven exhaustive categories, including volunteering in a
healthcare-related organization; a church or faith-based organization; a school,
educational program, or other youth-oriented organization; a civic or community service
organization; a fine arts organization such as live theater, museum, or gallery; a political
organization or other activist cause; and any other type o f organization, cause or program.
Each respondents overall volunteer service was calculated by adding together the hours
that were estimated in each category in order to determine an estimated amount o f total
hours spent volunteering during any given month in the past twelve months.
Helping Attitude Scale
The Helping Attitude Scale (HAS) was used to measure each respondents
attitudes toward helping others. It is a 20-item self-assessment instrument designed to
measure feelings, beliefs, and behaviors regarding ones interactions with others. It uses a
five-point Likert scale and the scores are summed. The author, Gary S. Nickell, PhD,
conducted four tests for reliability and produced a Cronbachs alpha score o f .86. The
HAS is positively associated with several other measures including the Self-Report
Altruism Scale, the Interpersonal Reactivity Measure, and the Social Responsibility Scale
(Nickell, 1998).
Servant Leadership Survey
In order to determine the servant leadership behavior o f each participant, the
Servant Leadership Survey (SLS), developed by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten in 2011,
was administered. This instrument measures eight dimensions o f SL using a 30-item
questionnaire. It is measured on a six-point Likert scale with responses ranging from one
44
to six; low to high. The scores for each o f the eight dimensions were averaged. The eight
dimensions include: accountability, authenticity, courage, empowerment, forgiveness,
humility, standing back, and stewardship. With the permission o f the author, the
instrument was modified to accommodate leaders self-assessment responses.
Van Dierendonck and Nuijten successfully tested the SLS for validity (2011).
The survey instrument can be found in their article and it is available to be used freely
for scientific purposes. The eight-factor structure was tested with the use o f confirmatory
factor analysis across different samples and was determined to be a valid and reliable
measure o f servant leadership behavior (van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011). The
strongest indicators o f SL seem to be empowerment, standing back, humility, and
stewardship with factor loadings o f .80 and higher; whereas forgiveness and
accountability deviate from the others. In the case o f forgiveness, presumably it deviates
because it only applies when something goes wrong. In the case o f accountability, it most
strongly exemplifies the leadership aspects o f SL (van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011).
Research Design
The goal o f this study was to explore three research areas. Research Area One
explored the relationship between volunteerism and servant leadership. Research Area
Two explored the relationship between helping attitudes and servant leadership. Research
Area Three further considered these constructs by exploring the relationship between
helping attitudes and volunteer hours. Whereas intuitively one would likely expect
positive associations between these variables, the study sought to prove empirical
relationships exist that complement and augment the existing literature.

45
Null Hypotheses
Research Area One
There were eight null hypotheses included in this research area:
1. There is no relationship between number o f volunteer hours performed and
ratings o f servant leadership (accountability) when controlling for age,
educational level, gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity.
ratings o f servant leadership (authenticity) when controlling for age, educational
level, gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity.
3. There is no relationship between number of volunteer hours performed and
ratings o f servant leadership (courage) when controlling for age, educational
ratings o f servant leadership (empowerment) when controlling for age,
ratings o f servant leadership (forgiveness) when controlling for age, educational
ratings o f servant leadership (humility) when controlling for age, educational
ratings o f servant leadership (standing back) when controlling for age, educational
46
ratings o f servant leadership (stewardship) when controlling for age, educational
Research Area Two
There were eight null hypotheses included in this research area:
1. There is no relationship between attitudes toward helping others and ratings of
servant leadership (accountability) when controlling for age, educational level,
gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity.
2. There is no relationship between attitudes toward helping others and ratings o f
servant leadership (authenticity) when controlling for age, educational level,
servant leadership (courage) when controlling for age, educational level, gender,
leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity.
servant leadership (empowerment) when controlling for age, educational level,
servant leadership (forgiveness) when controlling for age, educational level,
servant leadership (humility) when controlling forage, educational level, gender,

47
servant leadership (standing back) when controlling for age, educational level,
8. There is no relationship between attitudes toward helping others and ratings o f
servant leadership (stewardship) when controlling for age, educational level,
Research Area Three
There was one null hypothesis in this research area:
1. There is no relationship between attitudes toward helping others and number o f
volunteer hours performed when controlling for age, educational level, gender,
Data Collection and Procedure
The electronic version o f the survey was administered by including a link in an
email message that was sent out to personal and professional contacts. The link took them
directly to the survey in Survey Monkey. The paper and pencil version o f the survey was
distributed to OLLU students during class breaks and to members o f a professional
networking organization during a monthly meeting. In each instance, at the time the
respondent turned in his or her completed survey, the adult informed consent form and
the survey pages were immediately separated from each other and placed randomly into
two different files. By doing so, each respondents anonymity was maintained since there
was no way o f matching up the signed consent forms with the surveys.
48
The next step involved entering the hard copy data into a master Excel
spreadsheet, utilizing the same column headings provided by Survey Monkey when the
electronic data were downloaded into Excel. This provided a means o f consolidating all
o f the data into a common format, in preparation for data analysis in the SPSS software
program. Every electronic participant was automatically assigned a random, numeric
identifier that appeared in a column in the Excel spreadsheet. The pencil and paper data
were entered into the same spreadsheet and two new columns were added. One numbered
the participants from 1 to 458. Another labeled each participant as electronic or
paper. At that point, the electronic data were once again exported from Survey
Monkey; however, this time downloaded directly into SPSS. The paper responses were
then copied from the master Excel spreadsheet and pasted into SPSS. This process
accommodated two essential needs - (1) insuring that the organization and layout o f both
sources o f data were consistent and (2) eliminating the risk o f data corruption during the
process o f converting from Survey Monkey to Excel; the latter o f which had previously
presented problem for other researchers.
Once the data were compiled in SPSS, the researcher performed a series o f steps
to clean up the data that included eliminating 42 incomplete surveys; changing words and
letters such as zero, none, and o hours to 0 hours; and changing words to
indicate years such as fifty five into 55. Unnecessary words were eliminated, such as
o f age, when they were included with the respondents number o f years o f age at his or
her last birthday. In addition, in preparation for data analysis all missing data points were
coded as 999.
49
The volunteer service demographics required the running o f a box plot to
eliminate a number o f outliers. The final tallies for volunteer hours performed in any
given month during the course o f the past twelve resulted in several extreme cases. These
extremely high numbers o f volunteer hours may have been reported as a consequence o f
the instructions in the survey not being clear enough for everyone to understand. Total
volunteer hours reported as greater than 120 hours per month were dropped from the
analysis. This number was used as the cut o ff for two reasons, the first being the
distribution o f scores and the second was the questionable feasibility o f someone
volunteering more than 120 hours in any given month. The researcher ran a boxplot that
found and eliminated the scores beyond 120 hours per month. These scores were
removed from this and all subsequent analyses.
Descriptive statistics provided mean comparisons o f volunteerism demographic
data. Bar charts were created to illustrate these comparisons and to show the distribution
of the data. The distribution resulted in a floor effect, with more respondents reporting
that they volunteered zero hours during the last twelve months than any other number o f
hours reported by the other respondents. This type o f skewed data tends to lead to a
downward bias and underestimated correlations. It may also result in Type II Error,
which is the failure to reject a null hypothesis that is actually false.
Analytical Strategy
In order to test the null hypotheses in Research Area One, a regression analysis
was conducted to determine if a statistically significant relationship exists between
volunteerism and SL, as determined by the eight dimensions o f SL measured with the
SLS, when controlling for age, educational level, gender, leadership tenure, and
50
race/ethnicity. Model summary charts were created to report the inferential statistics.
Scatterplots and bar charts were created to illustrate relationships and mean differences.
In order to test the null hypotheses in Research Area Two, a regression analysis
helping attitudes and SL behavior, as determined by the eight dimensions o f SL measured
by the SLS, when controlling for age, educational level, gender, leadership tenure, and
race/ethnicity. Model summary charts were created to report the inferential statistics.
Scatterplots and bar charts were created to illustrate relationships and mean differences.
In order to test the null hypothesis in Research Area Three, a regression analysis
helping attitudes and volunteer hours. Model summary charts were created to report the
inferential statistics. Scatterplots and bar charts were created to illustrate relationships
and mean differences.
Ethical Considerations
An informed consent form was presented to each survey respondent prior to the
administering o f the survey. They were informed that their participation in the study was
voluntary and that they could choose to discontinue their participation at any time,
without penalty. There were no costs and no known risks associated with the study.
Participants remained anonymous because no names were collected during the survey
and the individual sources were in no way connected to the final survey results that were
collected. Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the OLLU Institutional
Review Board prior to any surveys being collected (Appendix B).

51
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
The purpose o f this study was to investigate possible relationships between
volunteerism, helping attitudes, and servant leadership when controlling for age,
educational level, gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity. The purpose o f Research
Area One was to determine if there is a significant relationship between the number of
volunteer hours performed and ratings o f servant leadership, as measured by the SLS.
The purpose o f Research Area Two was to determine if there is a significant relationship
between attitudes toward helping others and ratings o f servant leadership, as measured by
the SLS. The purpose o f Research Area Three was to determine if there is a significant
relationship between attitudes toward helping others and the number o f volunteer hours
performed. The same demographic, control variables were used in all three research
areas. This chapter includes a description o f the data collection phase; an overview o f the
descriptive statistics, including the demographic, independent, and dependent variables;
an explanation o f the bivariate correlations; and an explanation o f each hypothesis and its
corresponding findings. Multiple regression summary tables, the scatterplots, and bar
graphs show the results o f the inferential statistical analyses.
Data Collection
Data were collected by way o f a sample o f convenience. Members o f the
researchers personal and professional networks were asked to complete the survey either
electronically or by filling in a hard copy with a pen or pencil. Those who completed the
survey electronically were asked to forward the Survey Monkey link to members o f their
52
personal and professional networks as well, thus creating a snowball effect. A total o f 458
surveys were returned, 416 o f which were complete and therefore usable.
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics were computed for all o f the variables. The following were
computed for the continuous variables: mean, median, mode, and standard deviation.
Table 1 shows the values for the continuous variables.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics fo r the Continuous Variables
Standard
Variable N Mean Median Mode
Deviation
Age 416 51.95 51.95 60.00 12.70
Leadership tenure 415 21.95 20.00 25.00 13.29
Volunteer hrs.-recoded 373 28.47 21.00 0.00 25.79
Helping Attitudes 373 87.79 88.00 91.00 7.32
SL Empowerment-R 372 5.34 5.25 5.00 .63
SL Humility-R 373 5.05 5.00 5.00 .58
SL Standing back 373 4.81 4.67 4.67 .72
SL Enable & Envision. 373 5.05 5.00 5.00 .66
SL Auth. & Courage 373 4.31 4.25 4.25 .77
SL Forgiveness 373 4.11 4.00 5.00 .92
SL Accountability-R 373 5.01 5.00 5.00 .65

53
Descriptive statistics were computed for the three categorical variables. Table 2
shows the frequency and proportions for the categorical variables.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics fo r the Categorical Variables
Variable Frequency Percent
Educational level
High school 12 2.9
Some college 52 12.5
College degree 147 35.3
Masters degree 168 40.4
Doctorate degree 37 8.9
Gender
Female 264 63.5
Male 152 36.5
Race/Ethnicity
Black 71 17.1
White 261 62.7
Hispanic/Latino 64 15.5
Am. Indian/Alaska Native 0 0
Asian 6 1.4
Hawaiian Island/Pacific Islander 1 .2
Other 13 3.1
54
Demographic Statistics
The demographic data include the independent, control variables o f age,
educational level, gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity. The corresponding
descriptive statistics follow.
Figure 1 illustrates the distribution o f age (n = 416). The distribution is
approaching normality with a mean age o f 51.95, a median age o f 51.95, and a mode of
60 (SD = 12.7).
fc.
UL
40 60
Age
Figure 1. Bar graph depicting the distribution o f respondent ages.

55
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution o f highest level o f education acquired. O f the
respondents (n = 416), there were 12 with a high school degree or equivalent, 52 with
some college, 147 with a college degree, 168 with a M asters degree, and 37 with a
Doctorate degree.
200-
High School Some College College Degree Masters Degree Doctorate Degree
Highest Level of Education
Figure 2. Bar graph depicting highest level o f education com pleted by the respondents.
56
Figure 3 illustrates the gender breakdown for the 416 survey respondents. More
females than males participated in the study with counts o f 264 and 152 respectively.
C ount
Female Male
G ender
Figure 3. Bar graph depicting the distribution o f the gender o f respondents.

57
Figure 4 illustrates the leadership tenure distribution for 415 respondents. There
was a missing data point for one respondent. Responses ranged from zero years to 61
years o f tenure (M = 21.95. SD = 13.288).
50 -
0 20 40 60
Leadership Tenure
Figure 4. Bar graph depicting the distribution of leadership tenure.

58
Figure 5 illustrates the distribution o f race/ethnicity for the 416 respondents.
Seventy one self-identified as Black, 261 as White, 64 as Hispanic/Latino, six as Asian,
one as Hawaiian Native/Other Pacific Islander, and 13 as Other. No participants self
identified as American Indian/Alaska Native. The number o f categories for race/ethnicity
was reduced from the original seven to four by collapsing the last four categories into one
category known as Other, in order to reduce the degrees o f freedom and gain more
statistical power.
t
3
O
o
HnpanicA-atno I Asian I Other

Write Am hdan/AK Native HNattveJPacMand
Race/Ethnicity
Figure 5. Bar graph depicting the race/ethnicity distribution.
59
Figure 6 illustrates Race/Ethnicity after collapsing the four categories with the
smallest number o f self-reported responses into the Other category. Those categories
were American Indian/Alaska Native (0), Asian (6), Hawaii Native/Other Pacific Islander
(1), and Other (13). The categories are now Black, White, Hispanic/Latino, and Other.
300-
I T I I
Black White Hispanic/Latino Other
Race/Ethnicity Collapsed
Figure 6. Bar graph depicting the collapsed race/ethnicity distribution.

60
Primary Independent Variables
Number o f Volunteer Hours Performed
To measure the approximate number o f volunteer hours performed within any
given month during the past twelve, a series o f seven questions was asked that included
these exhaustive categories represented the types o f organizations where respondents may
have volunteered: health care, religious, education/youth-related, community service, fine
arts, political/activist causes, and other. A total scale was computed by summing the
responses to the seven questions to arrive at a total number o f volunteer hours performed.
Attitudes Toward Helping Others
To measure attitudes toward helping others, the Helping Attitude Scale (HAS)
developed by Gary S. Nickell (1998) was administered. The HAS is a 20-item
questionnaire that measures attitudes toward helping others on a 5-point Likert scale that
includes 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Undecided), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly
Agree). Corresponding scores ranged from 20-100 with a neutral score o f 60. The
resulting scores were subsequently summed. The author conducted four studies for
internal consistency reliability. These studies included 409 participants and resulted in a
Cronbachs alpha (a) score o f .86, which exceeds the desired .50 threshold. The
Cronbachs a score for this sample was .82, which demonstrates favorable reliability o f
the instrument within this study.

61
Figure 7 shows an illustration o f the distribution o f volunteer hours performed.
The data were skewed due to a number o f outliers with unusually large approximations of
the number o f hours spent volunteering during any given month in the past twelve. It is
likely that the extreme outliers resulted from a misinterpretation o f the instructions for
this survey question. Some respondents may have understood that they were to
approximate their monthly volunteer hours and multiply that number by 12 to report an
approximate number o f volunteer hours performed during an entire year. The skewed
distribution has a mean o f 53, a median o f 25 and a standard deviation o f 98.65. Upon
considering the distribution, the maximum number o f volunteer hours during any given
month was set at 120 and a box plot analysis performed. Forty-three outliers were
identified and removed.
300-
200 -
277
u.
100-
.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00
Volunteer Hours
Figure 7, Bar graph depicting the distribution o f volunteer hours performed.

62
Figure 8 illustrates volunteer hours with the 43 outliers removed. The remaining
number o f respondents totaled 373. The mean is 28.47, the median is 21, and the mode is
zero. This mode indicates that more respondents reported performing no volunteer hours
than any other reported number o f volunteer hours performed. Because zero volunteer
hours was at the lowest possible point on the scale, this distribution is subjected to a floor
effect, which tends to lead to downward bias and underestimated correlations.
Furthermore, as a result o f removing the 43 outliers at this point in the study, all
subsequent analyses were based on 373 respondents, instead o f 416 respondents.
5* 30-
er
s
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Volunteer Hours - Outliers Removed
Figure 8. Bar graph depicting the distribution o f volunteer hours with outliers removed.
63
Figure 9 illustrates the distribution o f score totals for the Helping Attitude Scale.
The mean was 87.79, the median was 88, and the mode was 91.
25-
Frequency
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Helping Attitudes
Figure 9. Bar chart depicting distribution o f scores for the Helping Attitude Scale.
64
Dependent Variables
Servant Leadership Behavior
To measure servant leadership behavior, the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS),
developed by van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) was administered. The SLS is a
30-item questionnaire that measures eight dimensions o f servant leadership. The
dimensions, or subscales, are accountability, authenticity, courage, empowerment,
forgiveness, humility, standing back, and stewardship. The instrument was designed for
followers to rate leaders and is measured on a 6-point Likert scale that includes 1
(Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Slightly Disagree), 4 (Slightly Agree), 5 (Agee),
and 6 (Strongly Agree). The authors conducted four Cronbachs alpha studies to measure
the internal consistency reliability o f the instrument. The studies included a total o f 1,551
participants and resulted in favorable reliability with all subscale scores exceeding the
minimum .50 threshold. The Cronbachs alpha for accountability (3 items) is .93,
authenticity (4 items) is .76, courage (2 items) is .91, empowerment (7 items) is .94,
forgiveness (3 items) is .90, humility (5 items) is .95, standing back (3 items) is .92, and
stewardship (3 items) is .87.
Revisions were made to the SLS to accommodate leaders rating themselves and
subsequently new internal consistency reliability scores were computed for this sample.
The Cronbachs a for accountability (3 items) is .70, authenticity (4 items) is .48, courage
(2 items) is .70, empowerment (7 items) is .87, forgiveness (3 items) is .60, humility
(5 items) is .80, standing back (3 items) is .63, and stewardship (3 items) is .55. One of
these subscales did not reach the required .50 minimum score. Because o f this and the
fact that the SLS was adapted for self-ratings, a factor analysis was performed to assess
65
the number o f subscales. Seven factors loaded with Eigenvalues > 1.00. Two factors
remained the same. They are forgiveness and standing back. Three factors did not load as
originally intended; therefore, they were eliminated. They are authenticity, courage, and
stewardship. Three factors were slightly revised. They are accountability-r,
empowerment-r, and humility-r. Two new factors emerged. These were assigned names
and conceptual definitions by the researcher. The first new factor, enabling and
envisioning, includes two items from the original empowerment subscale and one item
from the original stewardship subscale. It refers to offering opportunities for others to
learn new skills and solve problems; and to having a long-term vision. The second new
factor, authenticity and courage, includes two items from the original authenticity
subscale and both items from the original courage subscale. It refers to expressing ones
true feelings and taking risks to accomplish goals, based on ones own convictions. The
resulting Cronbachs alpha for accountability-r (2 items) is .73, authenticity and courage
(4 items) is .64, empowerment-r (4 items) is .88, enabling and envisioning (3 items) is
.71, forgiveness (3 items) is .60, humility-r (4 items) is .78, and standing back (3 items) is
.63. All o f the scores demonstrate favorable reliability. As a result, the null hypotheses
were modified to reflect these seven, new dependent variables.

66
Figure 10 illustrates scores for accountability revised for (n - 373) participants

(A /= 5.0\, SD = .65).
200
150
Frequency
100
Accountability Revised
Figure 10. Distribution o f servant leadership scores for accountability revised.

67
Figure 11 illustrates scores for authenticity and courage for (n = 373) participants
(A /= 4.31, SD = .771).
Frequency
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Authenticity and Courage
Figure 11. Distribution o f servant leadership scores for authenticity and courage.
68
Figure 12 illustrates scores for em pow erm ent revised for (n = 372) participants
(M= 5,34, SD = .627).
100-
80 -
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Empowerment Revised
Figure 12. Distribution o f servant leadership scores for em pow erm ent-revised.
69
Figure 13 illustrates scores for enabling and envisioning for (n = 373) participants
( M ~ 5.05, SD = .659).
0-* I T L H IH -F T II U ............ "f... 1

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Enabling and Envisioning
Figure 13. Distribution o f servant leadership scores for enabling and envisioning.
70
Figure 14 illustrates scores for forgiveness for (n = 373) participants ( M - 4.11,
SD - .921).
60-
50-
40-
F rtqutncy
30-
E E
20 -
10-
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Forgiveness
Figure 14. Distribution o f servant leadership scores for forgiveness.

71
Figure 15 illustrates scores for hum ility-revised for (n = 373) participants
(M = 5.05, SD = .579).
120
100-
80
>
u
C

3
O
k. 11 6
u.
40-
20-
1.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Humility-Revised
Figure 15. Distribution o f servant leadership scores for hum ility-revised.

72
Figure 16 illustrates scores for standing back for (n = 373) participants (M = 4.1,
SD = .723).
*
o
c

a
CT
3.00 4.00 6.00

Standing Back
Figure 16. Distribution o f servant leadership scores for standing back.

73
Bivariate Correlations
A Pearson product-moment correlation was used to examine the relationships
between the continuous demographic variables, the primary independent variables, and
the dependent variables (see Table 3). Included in the bivariate correlation were age,
leadership tenure, volunteer hours, helping attitudes, and servant leadership as measured
by the Servant Leadership Survey-Revised. The findings revealed a significant, positive,
and moderate relationship between age and leadership tenure {r = .661,/? < .01). Age was
significantly, positively, and weakly related to volunteer hours (r = .104,/? < .05), SL
standing back (r = . 134, p < .01), and SL authenticity and courage (r = . 141, p < -01).
No statistically significant relationships were found between age and helping attitudes,
SL empowerment-r, SL humility-r, SL enabling and envisioning, SL forgiveness, or
SL accountability-r.
Leadership tenure was significantly, positively, and weakly correlated with
volunteer hours (r = . 150, p < .01), SL empowerment-r (r = . 131 .05), SL standing
back (r = A 2 9 , p < .05), SL enabling and envisioning (r = .187,/? < .01), and SL
authenticity and courage (r = .152,/? < .01). No statistically significant relationships were
found between leadership tenure and helping attitudes, SL humility-r, SL forgiveness, or
SL accountability-r.
A significant, positive, and weak relationship was found between volunteer hours
and helping attitudes (r - . 118, p < .05), SL empowerment-revised (r = . 121, p < .05), and
SL enabling and envisioning (r = .143,/? < .01). No statistically significant relationships
were found between volunteer hours and humility-r, standing back, authenticity and
courage, forgiveness, or accountability-r.

74
There were significant, positive and weak relationships between helping attitudes
and all seven dimensions o f servant leadership, including empowerment-r (r = .328,
p < .01), humility-r (r - .340, p < .01), standing back {r = .295, p < .01), enabling and
envisioning (r = .212, p < .01), authenticity and courage (r = .173,/? < .01), forgiveness
(r = .234, p < .01), and accountability-r (r= .229, p < .01).
Significant, positive, and weak to moderate relationships were found between all
of the servant leadership dimensions as well. Empowerment-r and humility-r (r = .391,
p < .01), standing back (r = .387, p < .01), enabling and envisioning (r = .557, p < .01),
authenticity and courage (r = .239, p < .01), forgiveness (r = .118,/? < .05) and
accountability-r (r = .512,/? < .01).
Likewise, humility-r and standing back (r = .384, p < .01), enabling and
envisioning (r - A M , p < .01), authenticity and courage (r = .260, p < .01), forgiveness
(r = .118,p < .05) and accountability-r (r = .397, p < .01) as well as standing back and
enabling and envisioning (r = .440,/? < .01), authenticity and courage (r = .293,/? < .01),
forgiveness (r = .167,/? < .01) and accountability (r - .365, p < .01) show significant
relationships. Similar correlations were found between enabling and envisioning and
authenticity and courage (r = .379, p < .01), forgiveness (r = .168,/? < .01) and
accountability-r (r = .522, p < .01) as well as authenticity and courage and accountability-
r (r = .304,/? < .01).

75
Table 3
Bivariate Correlations between the continuous variables (n = 416)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1- A g e -
2. Lead, tenure .6 6 1 " -
3. V ol. hours ,1 0 4 + .1 5 0 " -
4. H elp in g .022 .094 . 1 18+ -

attitudes
5. SL Em p.-R -.0 0 9 , \ 3 \* . \ 2 \* .3 2 8 " -
6. SL H um -R -.0 9 8 -.051 .001 .3 4 0 " 391" -
7. SL Standing . 13 4 + . 129^ .027 .295 .3 8 7 " .3 8 4 " -

back
8. SL Enabling .047 . 18 7 # .1 4 3 " .2 7 2 ** .5 5 7 " .4 8 4 " .4 4 0 " -

& E nvision .
9. SL A uthen. . 141 .1 5 2 " .058 . 173 ** .2 3 9 " .2 6 0 " .2 9 3 " .3 7 9 " -

& C ourage
10. SL F orgive .039 .021 -.0 3 7 .2 3 4 ** .118^ . 1 18+ .1 6 7 " 168" -.0 7 4 -
11. SL A cct-R .018 .084 .035 .2 2 9 ** .5 1 2 " .3 9 7 " .3 6 5 " .5 2 2 " .3 0 4 " .072 -
C orrelation is sign ifican t at the 0.01 lev el (2 -tailed ).
Correlation is sign ifican t at the 0 .05 lev el (2-tailed ).

76
Multiple Regressions
The following information includes the statistical outcomes o f the three research
areas, as a result o f multiple regression analyses used to test each null hypothesis. These
tests determined whether or not any statistically significant relationships exist between
the independent and dependent variables. Scatter plots were produced to illustrate the
significant relationships. In addition, when significance existed, /-tests were used to
examine differences in the dichotomous variable o f gender and Analysis o f Variance
(ANOVA), with the corresponding Scheffe post hoc analyses, were used to test
differences in the polychotomous variables o f education and race/ethnicity.
Research Area One - Null Hypothesis One
There is no relationship between number of volunteer hours performed and
ratings o f servant leadership (accountability-r) when controlling for age, educational
SPSS software was used to test this null hypothesis. First, multiple regression
blocks were designed to determine the order in which the independent variables would go
into the regression to see if any predictable relationships exist between them and the
dependent variable SL accountability-r. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained
the continuous variable age and the dichotomous categorical variable gender. Block Two,
using the enter method, contained the dummy coded categorical variable o f
race/ethnicity. Block Three, using the enter method, contained the dummy coded
categorical variable o f education. Block Four, using the stepwise method, contained the
continuous variable o f leadership tenure. Block Five, using the stepwise method,
contained the continuous, variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours performed. No

77
significant predictors emerged in this model; therefore, the decision was made to fail to
reject the null hypothesis.
Research Area One - Null Hypothesis Two
There is no relationship between number o f volunteer hours performed and
ratings o f servant leadership (empowerment-r) when controlling for age, educational
dependent variable SL empowerment-r. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained
using the enter method, contained the dummy coded categorical variable of
contained the continuous, variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours. One control
variable, leadership tenure, emerged as a significant predictor o f SL empowerment-r
ip < .05) but the variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours did not show significance;
therefore, the decision was made to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
The results showed that leadership tenure accounted for 1.7% o f the variance in
empowerment-r (/?2 .017, p = .131,/?< .05). This is a weak, positive correlation that
indicates the more years o f leadership tenure, the higher the ratings for empowerment-r.
78
Table 4
Model Summary fo r SL Empowerment-R
Model R R2 AR2 Beta rp dfl df2 Sig
i J3? M l JT\ i 369 m2
Note, (a) Leadership Tenure.

79
Figure 17 illustrates the relationship between leadership tenure and empowerment
revised. The more years o f leadership tenure, the higher the ratings for empowerment-r.
6 .00- q OCOOOO 000 QQffP O O OQOO 00 00000 O oo

00 000 O O CO 000 OO O O CO o
O O 00000 00 CO O O O 00
o O 00 O OO o
5 00- 000 00 O 00 0000 o ooooco
o o OO O 00 O OO 00 0 0 0
jm o o o o 00 o

00 o oo
a
400- 00 00 o
o
o
I
a
E 3.00
ui
2 . 00
i.oo- I I
20 40
Leadership Tenure
Figure 17. Scatterplot for leadership tenure and em pow erm ent-revised.
80
Research Area One - Null Hypothesis Three
ratings o f servant leadership (forgiveness) when controlling for age, educational level,
dependent variable SL forgiveness. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained the
continuous variable age and the dichotomous categorical variable gender. Block Two,
contained the continuous, variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours. There were no
significant predictors in this model; therefore, the decision was made to fail to reject the
null hypothesis.
Research Area One - Null Hypothesis Four
ratings o f servant leadership (enabling and envisioning) when controlling for age,
81
dependent variable SL enabling and envisioning. Block One, using the stepwise method,
contained the continuous variable age and the dichotomous categorical variable gender.
Block Two, using the enter method, contained the dummy coded categorical variable of
contained the continuous, variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours. The control
variable leadership tenure and the variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours emerged
as significant predictors o f SL enabling and envisioning (p < .05). Consequently, the
decision was made to reject the null hypothesis.
enabling and envisioning (R = .035, p = . 169, p < .05). This is a weak, positive
correlation. Volunteer hours accounted for an additional 6.5% o f the variance in enabling
and envisioning (AR2- .065, p = .256, r p= .259, p < .05). This is also a weak, positive
correlation indicating that the more years o f leadership tenure, the higher the ratings for
enabling and envisioning.
Table 5
Model Summary fo r SL Enabling and Envisioning
j T ir ^035 187 i 370 .000

2 .316b .100 .065 .256 .259 2 369 .000
Note, (a) Leadership Tenure, (b) Volunteer Hours.

82
Figure 18 illustrates leadership tenure and enabling and envisioning. The more years o f
leadership tenure, the higher the ratings for enabling and envisioning.
6 . 00' 00000 00 OO O 000 000 000000 O OO o oo

00 00 0 00 O 00 O O O 000 O 0000
O 000 0000 O 000 00000 O O O 0000 00 o
5.00' 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CO
O 000 O 00 OO O O 0000
00 O O OOO 00 OO O O 00
4.00' 0000 00 0000 000 00
3.00'
2 .00-
1.00'
0 20 40 60
Leadership Tenure
Figure 18. Scatterplot for leadership tenure and enabling and envisioning.
83
Figure 19 illustrates volunteer hours and enabling and envisioning. The higher the
number o f volunteers hours, the higher the ratings for enabling and envisioning.
6 .00- OdDODOOO CD OMDOOD OdD oooo O 00
OODOOODOODO <*< *> O O O O OO
ODODOODCHDODOBOD O M D O O O D O QD O OOO O O
5 .00- OCDO OOOCD O OO OO

oo 0 0 OO
4.00' O O O OOP QDQD O
o o
3 .00'
2 .00-
1. 00'
.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Volunt*r Hours
Figure 19. Scatterplot for volunteer hours and enabling and envisioning.
84
Research Area One - Null Hypothesis Five
ratings o f servant leadership (authenticity and courage) when controlling for age,
dependent variable SL authenticity and courage. Block One, using the stepwise method,
Block Two, using the enter method, contained the dummy coded categorical variable o f
contained the continuous, variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours. Two control
variables, age and gender, emerged as significant predictors o f SL authenticity and
courage (p < .05) but the variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours did not; therefore,
the decision was made to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
The results showed that age accounted for 2% o f the variance in authenticity and
y
courage (R = .020, p = .141 ,p < .05). This is a weak, positive correlation indicating that
the older the leader, the higher the ratings for authenticity and courage. Gender accounted
for an additional 1.1% o f the variance in authenticity and courage (A/?2 = .011, p < .05).
Since the dichotomous categorical variable gender emerged as a significant predictor, a t-
test was performed to determine the difference among female and male survey
85
respondents. The results showed that males had a higher mean score (M = 4.44,
SD = .67816) than females (M = 4.23, SD = .81033) for authenticity and courage
t(323) = -2.74,/? < .05.
Table 6
Model Summary fo r SL Authenticity and Courage
1 A4 C !o2o TTi i 37] !oo6

2 .175b .031 .011 1 370 .043
Note, (a) Age, (b) Gender.

86
Figure 20 illustrates age and authenticity and courage. The older the leader, the higher the
ratings for authenticity and courage.
6 .00- O OO 00
O O O 00 O 00
0 O 00 O 00 O 00
OO O O O OO O 0000 O O 0000000 o
5.oo- O 00 OO 00 O O 000 OO 0 0 0 O OO
O 00 0000 0 0 OO O 000 0000 O 0000
O OO OOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
o o m rrn m n t n n i l l h m n n m rri >

4.00' 0 00 000000000 00 o 000 00 00
00 O O OO O O OOOOO OOO O OO
O OOO 0000 OOO O O 00 o
O OO O OOO OO 0 0 O O O
3.00- O O O OO O O o
O O O OO O
OO o o o o
o o
2 .00-
1 .00- r~ ~r - 7- T -
20 40 60 80
Afl*
Figure 20. Scatterplot for age and authenticity and courage.

87
Figure 21 illustrates the distribution o f mean scores for gender and authenticity and
courage. Males had significantly higher mean scores than females.
6.00r
5 00-
Female Male
Gender
Figure 21. Bar graph depicting the distribution o f mean scores for gender and
authenticity and courage.

88
Research Area One - Null Hypothesis Six
ratings o f servant leadership (humility-r) when controlling for age, educational level,
dependent variable SL humility-r. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained the
contained the continuous, variable o f interest number of volunteer hours. One control
variable, race/ethnicity, emerged as a significant predictor o f SL humility-r {p < .05) but
the variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours did not; therefore, the decision was
made to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
The results showed that race/ethnicity accounted for 2.9% o f the variance in
humility-r (R2= .029, p < .05). Since this polychotomous categorical variable emerged as
a significant predictor, an analysis o f variance (ANOVA) test and corresponding Scheffe
post hoc analysis were performed to determine the difference among the categories o f
race/ethnicity. The results showed that Hispanic/Latinos had higher mean scores
89
(M = 5.24, SD = .60497) than Whites (M = 4.98, SD = .57800) for humility-r (F(3, 369)
= 3.713,/? < .05).
Table 7
Model Summary fo r SL Humility-R
i 1W m9 A4\ 3 369 .012
Note, (a) Race/Ethnicity.

90
Figure 22 illustrates the distribution o f mean scores for race/ethnicity and
humility-revised.
6 .00-
Moan of Humility Rovisod
Black W hite Hispanic/Latino Other
Raco/Ethnicity
Figure 22. Bar graph depicting the distribution o f mean scores for race/ethnicity and
humility-revised.
91
Research Area One - Null Hypothesis Seven
ratings o f servant leadership (standing back) when controlling for age, educational level,
dependent variable SL standing back. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained
contained the continuous, variable o f interest number of volunteer hours. One control
variable, age, emerged as a significant predictor o f SL standing back (p < .05) but the
variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours did not; therefore, the decision was made
to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
The results showed that age accounted for 1.8% o f the variance in standing back.
This is a weak, positive correlation that indicates the older the leader the higher the
ratings for standing back (R2= .018, P = .134 ,p < .05).

92
Table 8
Model Summary fo r Standing Back
i A34* xjl8 T34 i 371 .009
Note, (a) Age.

93
Figure 23 illustrates age and standing back. The older the leader the higher the ratings for
standing back.
6 . 00 OO O OOO
00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOO OO o oooo
00 O O 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00
5.00-
OOO O 0 0 OOOOO 0 0 0 0 0 O 000
M
o 000 000 00 000 O OOOOO OOO 00 OOO OO
400- OOOO 00 00 00 O OO 000 000000 o

c O 00 00
p 00
OO
3.00- OO
2 .00-
1. 00 -
20 40 60 80
Figure 23. Scatterplot for age and standing back.

94
Research Area Two - Null Hypothesis One
There is no relationship between attitudes toward helping others and ratings o f
servant leadership (accountability-r) when controlling for age, educational level, gender,
dependent variable SL accountability-r. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained
contained the continuous, variable o f interest attitudes toward helping others.
The variable o f interest attitudes toward helping others emerged as a significant
predictor o f SL accountability-r (p < .05); therefore, the decision was made to reject
the null hypothesis. The results showed that helping attitudes accounted for 5.2% of
the variance in accountability-r. This is a weak, positive correlation and indicates that
the higher the ratings for helping attitudes the higher the ratings for accountability-r
(R2 - .052, p = .229, p < .05).

95
Table 9
Model Summary fo r Accountability-Revised
i 229* j052 229 i 370 XXX)
Note, (a) Helping Attitudes.

96
Figure 24 illustrates helping attitudes and accountability-revised. The higher the ratings
for helping attitudes the higher the ratings for accountability-r.
OOO
OO QOO
5.00- OOO
v
M GOOD
>
&
CD CDCOOOO OOOOO
4.00-
O O OO
e
a
| 3.00-
2 .00 -
1 .00'
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Helping Attitudes Scale
Figure 24. Scatterplot for helping attitudes and accountability-revised.

97
Research Area Two - Null Hypothesis Two
There is no relationship between attitudes toward helping others and ratings of
servant leadership (empowerment-r) when controlling for age, educational level, gender,
dependent variable SL empowerment-r. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained
contained the continuous, variable o f interest attitudes toward helping others. One control
variable leadership tenure and the variable o f interest helping attitudes emerged as
significant predictors o f SL empowerment-r {p < .05); therefore, the decision was made
to reject the null hypothesis.
empowerment-r. It was a weak, positive correlation, indicating that the more years as a
leader, the higher the ratings o f empowerment-r (R2 = .017, P = . 131, p < .05). Helping
attitudes accounted for an additional 10.1 % o f the variance in empowerment-r. It was a
weak, positive correlation, indicating the higher the ratings for helping attitudes, the
higher the ratings o f empowerment-r (A/?2 = . 101, P = .319, r p = .321, p < .05).
98
Table 10
Model Summary fo r Empowerment-Revised
Model R R2 AR2 Beta rp dfl d2 Sig
j T Jp Jyj JT\ i 369 H I
2 .344b .118 .101 .319 .321 1 368 .000
Note, (a) Leadership Tenure, (b) Helping Attitudes.

99
Figure 25 illustrates leadership tenure and em pow erm ent-revised. The m ore years as a
leader, the higher the ratings o f em pow erm ent-r.
6 .00- OOOOOOCIOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOo O OOOO00 OOOOO 0 OO

00 000 O O 00 OCO 0 0 o oooo
O O OOOOO00 00 O O O 00
o O 00 O00 o
5.00- OOOOO o 00 oooo
OO O OO O 00 00
00 o
>
a.
4.00- 00 00
ia 3.00-
E
iu
2 . 00-
i.oo- I f -r-
20 40 60
Ltadtrship Ttnur#
Figure 25. Scatterplot for leadership tenure and em pow erm ent-revised.
100
Figure 26 illustrates helping attitudes and em pow erm ent-revised. The higher the ratings
for helping attitudes, the higher the ratings o f em pow erm ent-r.
6 . 00- oo oooocggcocoanoonanacp
o oooo o o a n x a x m x
oo aooooam&QDo "oo
0 0 04
ooo
"O OCD43DQQO OOOO OO O
000 O
CD OO OO
E 3.00-
2 .00
1.00- T T T
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Helping Attitudes Seal*
Figure 26. Scatterplot for helping attitudes and em pow erm ent-revised.
101
Research Area Two - Null Hypothesis Three
servant leadership (forgiveness) when controlling for age, educational level, gender,
dependent variable SL forgiveness. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained the
contained the continuous, variable o f interest attitudes toward helping others. This
independent variable emerged as a significant predictor o f SL forgiveness {p < .05);
therefore, the decision was made to reject the null hypothesis.
The results showed that helping attitudes accounted for 5.5% o f the variance in
forgiveness scores. It was a weak, positive correlation, which indicates the higher the
ratings for helping attitudes, the higher the ratings o f forgiveness (R2 = .055, p = .234,
P < 0 5 ).
102
Table 11
Model Summary fo r Forgiveness
. J lT ^55 234 i 37l X>00
Note, (a) Helping Attitudes.

103
Figure 27 illustrates helping attitudes and forgiveness. The higher the ratings for helping
attitudes, the higher the ratings o f forgiveness.
6 . 00 00 ooo
O 000OOOOO o
o o ooo
500' O O OOOOQDOOQD OOOOOOOOO
O 0030O000 0000000 ooo
oo ooo
c 4.00- oooo
o o oooo oooonooo oooo
00 O OOOOO
3.00- oo o ononoonooonoooooo co o
CD O OGO OOOO
2 . 00' OOOO OOO
1. 00 '
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Helping Attitudes Seale
Figure 27. Scatterplot for helping attitudes and forgiveness.

104
Research Area Two - Null Hypothesis Four
servant leadership (enabling and envisioning) when controlling for age, educational level,
dependent variable SL enabling and envisioning. Block One, using the stepwise method,
contained the continuous, variable o f interest attitudes toward helping others. The control
variable leadership tenure emerged as a significant predictor o f SL enabling and
envisioning (p < .05) as did the variable o f interest attitudes toward helping others;
enabling and envisioning. This was a weak, positive correlation, which indicates the more
years o f leadership tenure, the higher the ratings for enabling and envisioning (R 2 = .035,
P = .187,/? < .05). Helping attitudes accounted for an additional 6.5% o f the variance in
enabling and envisioning scores. This was a weak, positive correlation, indicating that the
105
higher the ratings for helping attitudes, the higher the ratings for enabling and envisioning
(R2 = . 100, AR2- .065, p = .256, r p - .259, p < .05).
Table 12
Model Summary fo r Enabling and Envisioning
M odel R R2 AR2 Beta rp dfl df2 Sig
1 J 8T X)35 187 i 370 .000

2 .316b .100 .065 .256 .259 1 369 .000
106
Figure 28 illustrates leadership tenure and enabling and envisioning. The more years of
leadership tenure, the higher the ratings for enabling and envisioning.
6 .00- OO OOO 00 OOOOQOOOO 000000 o o o o oo

00 OOO 00 o o o o oo ooo o oooo
O 000 OOOOO 000 OOOOO o OOOOQOOOO
5.00- 00 O OOOOO000 O 00
oooo ooo o o o o oooo
01
e oooo o o o 00 oooo 00
5
jc 4.00- oooo CO oooo OOO 00
2 3.00-
2 00-
100 -
0 20 40 60
Leadership Tenure
Figure 28. Scatterplot for leadership tenure and enabling and envisioning.
107
Research Area Two - Null Hypothesis Five
servant leadership (authenticity and courage) when controlling for age, educational level,
dependent variable SL authenticity and courage. Block One, using the stepwise method,
Block Two, using the enter method, contained the dummy coded categorical variable of
contained the continuous, variable o f interest attitudes toward helping others. The two
control variables o f age and gender as well as the variable o f interest attitudes toward
helping others emerged as significant predictors o f SL authenticity and courage (p < .05);
The results showed that age accounted for 2% o f the variance in authenticity and
courage. This is a weak, positive correlation, which indicates the older the leader, the
higher the ratings for authenticity and courage (R2 = .020, p = . 141, p < .05). Gender
accounted for an additional 1.1 % o f the variance in authenticity and courage (AR2 = . 011 ,
P = .107, r p = ,105,/j < .05). Since the dichotomous categorical variable gender emerged
as a significant predictor, a Mest was performed to determine the difference among

108
female and male survey respondents. The results showed that males had a higher mean
score (M = 4.44, SD = .67816) than females (M = 4.23, SD = .81033) for authenticity and
courage t(322.862) = -2.74, p < .05. Helping attitudes accounted for an additional 3.6%
o f the variance in authenticity and courage scores. This is a weak, positive correlation
that indicates the higher the ratings for helping attitudes, the higher the scores for
authenticity and courage (AR2 - .036, p = .194, rp = .194,/? < .05).
Table 13
Model Summary fo r Authenticity and Courage
j ^020 Til i 371 .006

2 .175b .031 .011 .107 .105 1 370 .043
3 .259 .067 .036 .194 .194 1 369 .000
Note, (a) Age, (b) Gender, (c) Helping Attitudes.

109
Figure 29 illustrates age and authenticity and courage. The older the leader, the higher the
ratings for authenticity and courage.
6.00- o oooo
O O O 00 O 00
O 00 o oo o
oo
oo o oooo o oooo o o o oo oooo o
500- 0 oo O O OOOO 000 00 ooo o o o
OOOO OOOOO OOO oooo o oooo
000 000CO OQOQQP pOOOOQ

00 o oooooo 0 0
00 O 000 OO 00
00 O O OOOOO 000 O 00
ooo oooo ooo o oooo
00 00
2 .00 -
1JO0- ~T~ r~ -T - T -
20 40 60 80
As*
Figure 29. Scatterplot for age and authenticity and courage.

110
Figure 30 illustrates gender and authenticity and courage. Males had significantly higher
mean scores than females.
6 .00-
Female Male
Gndr
Figure 30. Bar graph illustrating mean differences in gender for authenticity and courage.
Ill
Figure 31 illustrates helping attitudes and authenticity and courage. The higher the ratings
for helping attitudes, the higher the scores for authenticity and courage.
6 00- O CCD
OO OCO O
O COO OCO c o o
0 0 000X 00003 0000
5.00- COO O CTXXIO OOCX?O
OOI
v OOOOCDOOOC
M
2 CO
9 O CO OQCOOD 00
O
u O OOOCOOODOaOOO o o o
a
cra 000 0000 OOO 00
o o c o oo o a a a o o o
CO CD CD
c 00 00
0) o o o oo
5
s o o o
<
2 . 00-
1. 00- (--------------------- ,---------------- I----

20.00 40 00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Figure 31. Scatterplot for helping attitudes and authenticity and courage.
112
Research Area Two - Null Hypothesis Six
servant leadership (humility-r) when controlling for age, educational level, gender,
dependent variable SL humility-r. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained the
variable, race/ethnicity, emerged as a significant predictor o f SL humility-r (p < .05) as
did the variable o f interest attitudes toward helping others; therefore, the decision was
made to reject the null hypothesis.
The results showed that race/ethnicity accounted for 2.9% o f the variance in
humility-r. Since this polychotomous, categorical variable emerged as a significant
predictor; an ANOVA and corresponding Scheffe post hoc analysis were performed to
investigate the differences in race/ethnicity for humility-r. The results showed that
Hispanic/Latinos had higher mean scores (A/= 5.24, SD = .60497) than Whites
(M = 4.98, SD = .57800) for humility-r (F(3, 369) = 3.713,/> < .05).

113
Helping attitudes accounted for an additional 13% o f the variance in humility-r. There
was a weak, positive correlation indicating the higher the ratings o f attitudes about
helping, the higher the ratings for humility-r (AR = .130, p = .364, rp = 366, p < .05).
Table 14
Model Summary fo r humility-r
j J 7P ^29 T4l 3 369 .012
2 .400b .160 .130 .364 .366 1 368 .000
Note, (a) Race/Ethnicity, (b) Helping Attitudes.

114
Figure 32 illustrates race/ethnicity and humility-r. Hispanic/Latinos scored higher on
humility-r than Whites.
6 .00-
M*an of Humility Ravisad
T
B lack W hite H ispanic/L atino O th e r
Race/Ethnicity
Figure 32. Bar graph depicting mean differences in race/ethnicity for humility-revised.
115
Figure 33 illustrates helping attitudes and humility-r. The higher the ratings o f attitudes
about helping others, the higher the ratings for humility-revised.
o o oo o crrrraooooo
oooaxxcooooooo
000 OOOQQQDOOHPff
O CDixsxxxxxxxxxxxxro
CD
CD QJttBBCDO rfft't q
oo oo ao coooo o
Humility Revised
O O OOOOOD00CD OOO
o ao o o ao ao
oo
3.00-
2.00-
1.00-
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Helping Attitudes Seale
Figure 33. Scatterplot for helping attitudes and hum ility-revised.

116
Research Area Two - Null Hypothesis Seven
servant leadership (standing back) when controlling for age, educational level, gender,
dependent variable SL standing back. Block One, using the stepwise method, contained
the continuous variable age and the dichotomous, categorical variable gender. Block
Two, using the enter method, contained the dummy coded categorical variable o f
variable, age, emerged as a significant predictor o f SL standing back (p < .05) as did the
variable o f interest number o f volunteer hours; therefore, the decision was made to reject
the null hypothesis.
The results showed that age accounted for 1.8% o f the variance in the scores for
standing back. This was a weak, positive correlation, indicating the older the leader the
higher the ratings for standing back (R2 = .018, p = . 134, p < .05). Helping attitudes
accounted for an additional 8.6% o f the variance in standing back. This was a weak,
positive correlation, which indicates that the higher the ratings for helping attitudes, the
higher the ratings for standing back (AR2- .086, P = .293, rp = .295, p < .05).
117
Table 15
Model Summary fo r standing back
1 1W J l8 T 34 i 3?1 !009
2 ,322b .104 .086 .293 .295 1 370 .000
Note, (a) Age, (b) Helping Attitudes.

118
Figure 34 illustrates age and standing back. The older the leader the higher the ratings for
standing back.
6 .00- OO O O 00 000 000 O 000 00 00

00 O 00 00 00 00 OOO00 o 0000
COO O O 00 000000 O 00 00 O 00
5.00'
pop o o o ffy o p 00000 O 000
JC OOO 000 00 OOOO 00000 000 00 o o o
0 00
IV
m 4.00- OOOO 0 0 OO OO O OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
01
c O 00 00
oo
3.00- oo
2.00-
1. 00-
20 40 60 80
Ao*
Figure 34. Scatterplot for age and standing back.

119
Figure 35 illustrates helping attitudes and standing back. The higher the ratings for
helping attitudes, the higher the ratings for standing back.
6 . 00- aooaooooooooeaao
03 o gd o cooocoooo
00 O 0 000
5.00- ooaooo
o ooo
on rrrrra rrrrrrrrrrrrrt
u
n
ID
Ci 4.00-
c mn QO00 QTrry> o
xt
c
OOO oo
3.00- oo
2 .00-
1. 00 '
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Figure 35. Scatterplot for helping attitudes and standing back.

120
Research Area Three - Null Hypothesis
There is no relationship between attitudes toward helping others and number o f
volunteer hours performed when controlling for age, educational level, gender, leadership
tenure, and race/ethnicity.
dependent variable number o f volunteer hours. Block One, using the stepwise method,
variable, leadership tenure, emerged as a significant predictor o f volunteer hours (p < .05)
as did the variable o f interest helping attitudes; therefore, the decision was made to reject
the null hypothesis.
number o f volunteer hours. This is a weak, positive correlation, which tells us that the
more years o f leadership tenure, the more volunteer hours performed. Helping attitudes
accounted for an additional 1.1% o f the variance in volunteer hours. This is also a weak,
positive correlation, which tells us that the higher the ratings for helping attitudes, the
larger the number o f volunteer hours performed.

121
Table 16
Model Summary fo r number o f volunteer hours performed
1 J503 m 2 T50 i 370 .004

2 .184b .034 .011 .106 .107 1 369 .002

122
Figure 36 illustrates leadership tenure and volunteer hours. The more years o f leadership
tenure, the more volunteer hours performed.
120.00 -
100.00-
80.00- oo
o
z
W
oo
| 60.00- o
'5
> oo
oo
40.00-
o o' 00
00
oo
20.00-
O 0
.00-
0 20 40 60
Ladrship Ttnur#
Figure 36. Scatterplot for leadership tenure and volunteer hours.

123
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary
The purpose o f this study was to explore the possible links between volunteerism,
helping attitudes, and servant leadership when controlling for age, educational level,
gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity. The study was also meant to build upon the
research in the existing literature indicating that there are positive relationships between
volunteerism and SL, positive relationships between helping attitudes and SL, positive
relationships between leadership tenure and volunteerism, significant race/ethnicity
differences for SL, no relationship between education and SL, and positive relationships
between helping attitudes and volunteerism. This chapter includes an overview o f the
main take-aways regarding the findings that were covered in Chapter 4, implications that
can be drawn from the study, limitations o f the study, recommendations for future
research, and concluding thoughts.
Discussion o f Findings
The three research areas were distinguished by primary independent variables,
several independent, control variables, and the dependent variables included in each
research question. In Research Area One, the independent variable of interest was
number o f volunteer hours and the dependent variable was servant leadership, as
measured by the Servant Leadership Survey-Revised. The results o f this study show that
the number o f volunteer hours performed, also referred to as volunteerism, serves as a
significant predictor o f SL. This is consistent with the review o f the literature in Chapter
Two. The control variables of age, gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity are also
significant predictors o f SL. These results are consistent with findings in the literature
124
review. The review o f the literature revealed mixed findings for volunteerism and
education and no relationship for SL and education; therefore, the findings in Research
Area One are consistent with the review o f the literature.
In Research Area Two, the Helping Attitude Scale measured the independent
variable o f interest, helping attitudes. The control variables and the dependent variable,
servant leadership, remained the same as in Research Area One. Findings show that
helping attitudes significantly predict SL. This finding is consistent with the review o f the
literature. In addition, age, gender, leadership tenure, and race/ethnicity serve as
significant predictors o f SL. Once again, this is consistent with the review o f the literature
in Chapter Two.
In Research Area Three, the independent variable o f interest, helping attitudes,
and the control variables remained the same. The dependent variable was changed to
volunteer hours. This area o f analysis was included to utilize the data in exploring
whether or not helping attitudes serve as a predictor o f volunteerism. Findings here do
show a significant relationship between the two, which is consistent with existing
literature. In addition, leadership tenure serves as a significant predictor o f volunteerism.
This finding is also consistent with the existing literature. In this research area, as in
Research Areas One and Two, education did not serve as a significant predictor.
Implications
Several significant predictors emerged from this empirical investigation of the
relationships between volunteerism, helping attitudes, and servant leadership that may be
o f interest to organizational leaders as well as to other employees, job candidates, and
students. Human Resource professionals interested in hiring people who might exhibit
125
and exercise servant leadership behavior in their work, may choose to consider the results
o f this study when reviewing resumes and interviewing job candidates for specific
positions within their organizations. For instance, they may pay specific attention to
volunteer experience that applicants list in their resumes and they may ask questions
during job interviews related to helping attitudes. Human Resource professionals may
also choose to assess helping attitudes when evaluating candidates for positions.
Non-profit managers may consider the helping attitudes results o f this study when
recruiting volunteers for leadership and committee positions within their organizations.
There are inherent similarities between volunteering and attitudes about helping others.
Snyder and Clary stated that large numbers o f individuals express concern for other
people on a daily basis by engaging in the helping activities known as volunteerism
(2004). Leaders o f volunteer-based organizations must rely on volunteers that possess
this characteristic to fulfill their missions and to meet their goals. Empirical evidence that
helping attitudes predict volunteerism could benefit non-profit managers as they assess
candidates for volunteer roles, where commitment to the work and ownership o f the
responsibilities are considered critical elements for achieving organizational goals.
Volunteerism provides individuals with the opportunity to gain new
understandings and experience as well as the chance to exercise knowledge, skills, and
abilities. Additionally, volunteers can gain valuable career-related experience and prepare
themselves for new careers (Van Vianen, Nijstad, & Voskuijl, 2008). To this end,
students and professionals may consider the results o f this study when deciding whether
or not to include volunteer service in their resumes. Students and professionals may also
consider these results when deciding whether or not to count volunteer service as part of
126
the overall leadership tenure included in their resumes. According to the National
Director o f Community Engagement for Deloitte Services LP Evan Hochberg, Its clear
that the skills and experience gained through volunteering are respected and that they
provide an edge for job candidates during the hiring process (Executive Summary:
Deloitte, 2013). Furthermore, activities characterized as doing good have gained
recognition as also being good for business (Executive Summary: Deloitte, 2013).
Executive leaders who believe that cultivating servant leadership characteristics among
employees is good for their businesses may consider the results o f this study when
determining if and how to allocate community service resources, such as providing paid
time off for employees to perform volunteer work within their communities.
In his writings, Greenleaf posited that leadership is mainly the result o f personal
characteristics rather than specific leadership techniques (Smith, Montagno, &
Kuzmenko, 2004). Executive leaders interested in developing servant leadership
characteristics amongst their employees may also consider this study's results when
considering who among them might best serve as leadership mentors and/or trainers to
others within the organization.
Limitations o f Findings
Whereas the results o f this study show significant relationships between
volunteerism, helping attitudes, and servant leadership, the data were obtained using a
sample o f convenience. This limitation restricts the ability to generalize the results back
to the entire population. Another limitation o f the study is that the researcher collected
self-ratings only, with leaders rating themselves rather than followers rating their leaders.
Self-ratings tend to lead to higher scores on surveys. Furthermore, the Servant Leadership
127
Survey was amended from its original version to accommodate those self-ratings.
Additionally, it appeared as if not all participants understood the instructions for
estimating the number o f volunteer hours; therefore, a further limitation o f the study is
that there were some unrealistic responses for the estimated number o f volunteer hours
performed during any given month during the last year. This variation in responses
created outliers in the data. Finally, there were some skewed distributions in the data set.
Recommendations for Further Research
Researchers should continue investigating the possible relationships between
volunteerism and servant leadership. Regarding volunteerism, researchers could look into
different ways o f collecting volunteer hours and consider measuring related aspects o f
volunteerism, such as organizational citizenship behavior. Using other ways to measure
volunteer hours might provide new perspectives about volunteer behaviors. Measuring
organizational citizenship behavior could provide some insight into possible relationships
between employee behavior related to helping attitudes and SL.
Regarding servant leadership, researchers might consider using other instruments,
such as the Servant Leadership Questionnaire, developed by Barbuto and Wheeler in
2006, that measures five dimensions o f SL; the Servant Leadership Scale, developed by
Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Henderson in 2008, that measures seven dimensions o f SL; or
the Servant Leader Behavior Scale, developed by Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora in 2008,
that measures six dimensions o f SL. These validated instruments could provide other
perspectives on the subject since they measure a variety o f servant leadership
characteristics. This could result in new findings related to possible relationships between
volunteer behavior o f individuals and servant leadership behavior within organizations.

128
Conclusion
The three constructs explored in this study; volunteerism, attitudes about helping
others, and servant leadership, include the unifying element o f choice. One chooses to
volunteer for the benefit o f others (Snyder & Omoto, 2009), helping attitudes predict how
a person chooses to behave (McLeod, 2014), and a servant leader makes the choice to
serve others first (Greenleaf, 2003). Leader-follower relationships are present throughout
society and in all organizations and circumstances, whether formal or informal. Likewise,
varied attitudes, feelings, and beliefs related to helping others exist for everyone. The
same applies to the number o f volunteer hours people perform. Effective leadership is
key to successfully implementing organizational objectives and meeting strategic goals.
The personal choices that leaders make are related to those outcomes; choices such as
helping others and the amount o f time they spend volunteering for the sake o f others.
The theory that a leader who chooses to serve others first can transform society is
the basis for G reenleaf s teachings on the topic (Greenleaf, 2003) and supports the idea
that an effective, transformative leader is one who acts for the good o f the whole rather
than for self-aggrandizement. The primary motivation of the servant leader is a deep
desire to help others (Greenleaf, 2003).
This research study provides empirical evidence o f positive relationships between
volunteerism, helping attitudes, and servant leadership. If the general belief is that these
constructs are positive in nature, then one might consider this study useful in providing
positive insights into the relationships between them, as determined through the analysis
of the data collected herein. Robert K. Greenleaf, the father o f modem servant leadership,
believed that leaders evolve, rather than becoming leaders as a result o f training
129
(Greenleaf, 2003). This researcher posits that the evolution o f a servant leader may come
as a result o f his/her attitudes toward helping others as well as the experiences and
insights gained through his/her self-sacrificing acts o f volunteerism.

130
References
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future o f leadership in learning organizations. Journal o f
leadership & organizational studies, 7(3), 18-40.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism o f
prosocial motives. Psychological inquiry, 2(2), 107-122.
Berg, K., Majdan, J. F., Berg, D., Veloski, J & Hojat, M. (2011). Medical students' self-
reported empathy and simulated patients' assessments o f student empathy: an
analysis by gender and ethnicity. Academic Medicine, 56(8), 984-988.
Bureau o f Labor Statistics. (2016). Volunteering in the United States-2015 [Press
release]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nrO.htm
Carlo, G., Okun, M. A., Knight, G. P., & de Guzman, M. R. T. (2005). The interplay of
traits and motives on volunteering: agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial
value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1293-1305.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.012
Cundiff, N. L., & Komarraju, M. (2008). Gender differences in ethnocultural empathy
and attitudes toward men and women in authority. Journal o f Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 15( 1), 5-15.
Eid, J., Johnsen, B., Brun, W., Laberg, J., Nyhus, J., & Larsson, G. (2004). Situation
awareness and transformational leadership in senior military leaders: An
exploratory study. Military Psychology, 16(3), 203-209.
Deloitte Development. (2015). Executive summary: 2013 Deloitte volunteer impact
survey. New York, N.Y: Author. Retrieved from

131
http://www.pointsoflight.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/us_volunteerimpact
surveyexecutivesummary_2013.pdf
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Zivnuska, S., & Whitten, D. (2010). Is it better to receive than
to give? Empathy in the conflict-distress relationship. Journal o f Occupational
Health Psychology, 15(3), 304. doi: 10.1037/a0019620
Finkelstein, M. A., Penner, L. A., & Brannick, M. T. (2005). Motive, role identity, and
prosocial personality as predictors o f volunteer activity. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, ii( 4 ) , 403-418.
Fridell, M., Belcher, R., & Messner, P. (2009). Discriminate analysis gender public
school principal servant leadership differences. Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, 30(8), 722-736. doi: 10.1108/01437730911003894
Green, M. (2013). Graduate leadership, North Charleston, SC: Create Space.
Greenleaf, R. K., Beazley, H., & Beggs, J. (2003). The servant-leader within: A
transformative path. Paulist press.
Groves, K.. S. (2005). Gender differences in social and emotional skills and charismatic
leadership. Journal o f Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 30-46.
Griihn, D., Rebucal, K., Diehl, M., Lumley, M., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2008). Empathy
across the adult lifespan: Longitudinal and experience-sampling findings.
Emotion, 5(6), 753. doi: 10.1037/a0014123
Haberman, M. (2012, September 5). Why volunteering is good for your business [Web
log post]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/Michael-
H aberm an/corporate-volunteeringbl 856314.html

132
Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A
study o f followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417.
doi: 10.1177/1742715007082964
Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., Nasca, T. J., Mangione, S., Vergare, M & Magee, M. (2002).
Physician empathy: Definition, components, measurement, and relationship to
gender and specialty. American Journal o f Psychiatry, 159(9), 1563-1569.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents o f team potency and team effectiveness: an
examination o f goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851. doi: 10.1037/a0022465
Janoski, T., Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (1998). Being volunteered? The impact
o f social participation and pro-social attitudes on volunteering. Sociological
Forum, 13(3), 495-519. Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the
impact o f servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal o f Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 29(3), 257-276. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-
3134290304
Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2010). The importance o f a servant leader
orientation. Healthcare management review, 35(1), 46-54.
Krogstad, J. & Cohn, D. (2014). U.S. Census looking at big changes in how it asks about
race and ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2014/03/14/u-s-census-looking-at-big-changes-in-how-it-asks-about-race-
and-ethnicity/
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and
serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy o f
Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-1452.
Makovsky, K. (2013, November). Behind the Southwest Airlines culture. Forbes.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.eom/sites/kenmakovsky/2013/l 1/21 /behind-
the-southwest-airl ines-cu Iture
Matsuba, M. K., Hart, D., & Atkins, R. (2007). Psychological and social-structural
influences on commitment to volunteering. Journal o f Research in Personality,
41(4), 889-907. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.001
McDougall, W. (2015). An introduction to social psychology. Boston: Psychology Press.
Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects o f race,
gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 55(4), 565-587.
Metz, E., & Youniss, J. (2003). A demonstration that school-based required service does
not deter but heightens volunteerism. Political Science and Politics, 36(02),
281-286.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008).
Regulatory focus as a mediator o f the influence of initiating structure and servant
leadership on employee behavior. Journal o f applied psychology, 93(6), 1220.
Nickell, G. S. (1998). The helping attitude scale. American Psychological Association,
San Francisco.
Parboteeah, K. P., Cullen, J. B., & Lim, L. (2004). Formal volunteering: A cross-national
test. Journal o f World Business, 39(4), 431 -4 4 1.

134
Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained
volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal o f Social Issues, 55(3),
447-467.
Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants o f
volunteerism. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 525.
Peterson, D. K. (2004). Recruitment strategies for encouraging participation in corporate
volunteer programs. Journal o f Business Ethics, 49(4), 371-386.
Prouteau, L., & Wolff, F. C. (2008). On the relational motive for volunteer work. Journal
o f Economic Psychology, 29(3), 314-335. doi: 10.1016/j .joep.2007.08.001
Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2007). Sex segregation in volunteer work. The Sociological
Quarterly, 48(3), 559-585.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based
trust as mediators o f leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863. doi: 10.1037/a0022625
Schneider, S. & George, W. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational
leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership and Organizational
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant
leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal o f Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.
Snyder, M. & Clary, E. G. (2004). Volunteerism and the generative society. In E. De St.
Aubin, D. P. McAdams, & T. Kim (Ed.), The generative society (p. 221).
Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2009). Who gets involved and why? The psychology o f
volunteerism. Youth empowerment and volunteerism: Principles, policies and
practices, 3-26.
Synovus History, (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.synovus.com/7idH268
Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal o f Health
and Social Behavior, 115-131.
Toussaint, L. R. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and
forgiveness. Journal o f Social Psychology, 145(6), 673-685.
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development
and validation o f a multidimensional measure. Journal o f business and
psychology, 26(3), 249-267.
Van Vianen, A. E., Nijstad, B. A., & Voskuijl, O. F. (2008). A person-environment fit
approach to volunteerism: Volunteer personality fit and culture fit as predictors o f
affective outcomes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 153-166.
Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits o f volunteering across the life course. The
Journals o f Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences, 55(5), S308-S318.
Value o f Volunteer Time, (n.d.) Retrieved from
https://www.independentsector.org/volunteer_time
Vinod, S. and Sudhakar, B. (2011). Servant leadership: A unique art o f leadership!
Interdisciplinary Journal o f Contemporary Research in Business, 2( 11), 456-467.
Volunteering in America, (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nationalservice.gov/impact-
our-nation/research-and-reports/volunteering-in-america
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural
justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship
behavior: a cross-level investigation. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517.
doi: 10.103 7/a0018867
Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J.
K. (2003). The scale o f ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and
reliability. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 221.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.221
Warburton, J., & Stirling, C. (2007). Factors affecting volunteering among older rural and
city dwelling adults in Australia. Educational Gerontology, 35(1), 23-43.
Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual differences in servant
leadership: The roles o f values and personality. Leadership & Organization
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory o f volunteer
work. American Sociological Review, 694-713.
Working at Starbucks, (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-
at-starbucks
137
Appendix A
ALSANDOR DISSERTATION SURVEY
The survey will take about 15 minutes o f your time to complete. Your participation is
greatly appreciated.
OUR LADY OF THE LAKE UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD ADULT INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Title o f Research Study

Examining the Relationship Between Volunteerism and Servant Leadership
Invitation
You are invited to take part in this research study. The information included in this form
is meant to help you decide whether or not to participate. If you have any questions,
please ask.
What is the reason for doing this research study?

This study focuses on possible relationships between the amount o f time spent
volunteering and servant leadership. The potential contribution o f this study is the insight
that hiring managers, benefits managers, and other leaders could gain about the influence
that volunteerism has in creating or enhancing a servant leadership culture within their
organizations. This could be important in making hiring decisions when reviewing
resumes o f candidates with and without volunteer activities. This could also be important
in determining the value o f allocating resources to corporate community service
programs that give employees time off to volunteer within their communities.
What will be done during this research study?

After agreeing to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a list o f five
demographic questions about age, educational level, gender, leadership tenure, and
race/ethnicity. You will then be asked a series o f seven volunteerism-related questions.
These will be followed by the Helping Attitude Scale, a twenty-item questionnaire that
measures attitudes, beliefs, and feelings related to helping others and the Servant
Leadership Survey, a thirty-item questionnaire that measures eight dimensions o f servant
leadership, which is a style o f organizational leadership. The entire process should take
fifteen to twenty minutes to complete.
What are the possible risks o f being in this research study?

There are no known risks to you for participating in this study.
What are the possible benefits to you?

You are not expected to gain any benefit from participating in this study.
138
What are the possible benefits to other people?

This study could advance the body o f knowledge within the areas o f volunteerism and
servant leadership by contributing to the empirical research that has investigated both
volunteerism and servant leadership.
What will participation in this research cost you?

There are no costs to you for participating in this study.
How will information about you be protected?

AH electronic data collected in this study is anonymous. This means that no names or
identifying information will be recorded during the study. There is no way to connect
your identity with any o f your responses. Hard copy surveys will not include any names
or identifying information and your answers will be converted to electronic data, which
will all be securely stored on the researcher's password protected computer drive. Hard
copy surveys will be stored at an Our Lady o f the Lake University facility for three years,
after which they will be destroyed.
What will happen if you decide not to be in this study or if you decide to stop?
Participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may choose to discontinue
your participation at any time without penalty.
What should you do if you have any questions or concerns about this research study?
If you have any questions during or after this study, you may contact the principal
researcher, Carla E. Alsandor, at cealsandor@ollusa.edu. You may also contact her
faculty advisor, Dr. Jared Montoya, atjamontoya@ lake.ollusa.edu.
Who can you contact if you have questions about your rights as a participant?
You can speak to the researcher or you can contact the Our Lady o f the Lake Institutional
Review Board at 210.434.6711, ext. 2402, or by email at ccarmichael@oIlusa.edu.
139
DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT

Your signature on this form indicates that you understand the information provided to
you about participation in this research study and that you freely agree to participate. You
will be given a signed copy o f this consent form to keep, and the researcher will also keep
a signed copy.
Participant's Printed Name
Participants Signature Date
Researchers Printed Name
Researchers Signature Date
IRB Approval Notice

This research study has been reviewed and approved by the OLLU Institutional Review
Board. For questions about participant's rights during or after the study, contact the IRB
at 210-434-6711, ext. 2402, or ccarmichael@olIusa.edu.
140
I. Demographic Survey Questions

What is your age in years?
(please enter only one number with no decimals, fractions, or words)
What is the highest level o f education you have completed?

o High school or equivalent (e.g. GED)
o Some college
o College Degree
o Masters Degree
o Doctorate Degree
o Other (please specify)
Please indicate your gender:

o Male
o Female
Please approximate the total number o f years o f experience that you have had leading
others in any position(s) within one or more of:
o Job/business
o Community/neighborhood
o School/youth organizations
o Church/faith-based organizations
o Civic organizations
o Political organizations
o Non-profit organizations
o Boards/councils
o Other
(Please round to the nearest full number o f years and do not use any words
Based on the proposed 2020 U.S. Census Bureau's question that combines race and
ethnicity; please select your race/ethnicity from these options:
o Black
o White
o Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin
o American Indian/Alaska Native
o Asian
o Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
o Some other race or origin
II. Volunteerism Questions

Please answer the following questions by giving some thought to the amount o f time you
spend volunteering during any given month. For the purposes o f this study, volunteer
141
service is defined as giving o f ones time, talent, and energy to fulfill a need or assist a
cause without receiving any monetary benefit.
When considering the volunteer service that you have performed during the past twelve
months, approximately how many hours were spent volunteering in any given month for
a healthcare related organization?
a church or faith-based organization?
a school, educational program, or other youth-related organization?
a civic or community service organization?
a fine arts organization such as live theater, museum, or gallery?
a political organization or other activist cause?
any other types o f organizations, causes, or programs?
III. Helping Attitude Scale

Validated 1998 by Gary S. Nickell, Ph.D., Minnesota State University Moorhead
The next twenty items are designed to measure your feelings, beliefs, and behaviors
concerning your interactions with others. There are no right or wrong answers, so please
respond as candidly as possible.
142
H elping others is usually a waste o f time.
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
When given the opportunity, I enjoy aiding others who are in need.

Disagree Agree
If possible, I would return lost money to the rightful owner.

Disagree Agree
Helping friends and family is one o f the great joys in life.

Disagree Agree
I would avoid aiding someone in a medical emergency if I could.

Disagree Agree
It feels wonderful to assist others in need.

Disagree Agree
Volunteering to help someone is very rewarding.

Disagree Agree
1 dislike giving directions to strangers who are lost.

Disagree Agree
Doing volunteer work makes me feel happy.

Disagree Agree
143
I donate time or money to charities every month.

Disagree Agree
Unless they are part o f my family, helping the elderly isn't my responsibility.

Disagree Agree
Children should be taught about the importance o f helping others.

Disagree Agree
I plan to donate my organs when I die with the hope that they will help someone else live.

Disagree Agree
I try to offer my help with activities my community or school groups are

carrying out.

Disagree Agree
I feel at peace with myself when I have helped others.

Disagree Agree
If the person in front o f me in the checkout line at a store were a few cents short, I

Disagree Agree
I feel proud when I know that my generosity has benefited a needy person.

Disagree Agree
Helping people does more harm than good because they come to rely on others and not
themselves.

Disagree Agree
144
I rarely contribute money to a worthy cause.

Disagree Agree
Giving aid to the poor is the right thing to do.

Disagree Agree
IV. Servant Leadership Survey

Copyright 2010 by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten. The Servant Leadership Survey may
freely be used fo r scientific purposes.
Please complete the following 30 items by selecting the option that best describes you,
when considering positions o f leadership that you now have or have had in the past.
There are many occasions and opportunities to lead others; therefore, your leadership
positions need not be limited only to those that come with a professional title or pay.
encourage my staff to come up with new ideas.
Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
encourage my followers to use their talents.

give my followers the information they need to do their work well.

help my followers to further develop themselves.

keep myself in the background and give credit to others.

145
I hold my followers responsible for the work they carry out.

I criticize people for the mistakes they have made in their work.

I take risks even when I am not certain o f the support from my own manager.

1 am open about my limitations and weaknesses.

1 learn from criticism.

1 emphasize the importance o f focusing on the good o f the whole.

1 give my followers the authority to make decisions that make work easier for them.

1 don't chase recognition or rewards for the things I do for others.

1 hold myself accountable for my performance.

1 maintain a hard attitude towards people who have offended me at work.

I take risks and do what needs to be done in my view.

1 am often touched by the things I see happening around me.

I try to learn from the criticism I get from my superior.

I have a long-term vision.

I enable my followers to solve problems instead o f just telling them what to do.

I enjoy my colleagues success more than my own.

I hold my subordinates responsible for the way they handle their jobs.

I find it difficult to forget things that wentwrong in the past.

147
I express my feelings even if this might have undesirable consequences.

I admit my mistakes to my superior.

1 emphasize the societal responsibility o f my followers' work.

I offer my followers abundant opportunities to learn new skills.

1 show my true feelings to my staff.

If people express criticism, I try to learn from it.

learn from the different views and opinions o f others.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
Your input is very valuable to the outcome o f my study.

148
Appendix B
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
LAKE UNIVERSITY
NOTICE OF APPROVAL TO BEGIN RESEARCH
EXEMPT STATUS
Approval Date: 2 /2 2 /1 6
pi Nam a: Carla E. Alsandor
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Ja re d M ontoya
Title of Study: Examining the Relationship Between Volunteerism and Servant Leadership
The application you subm itted for IRB review has b e e n review ed an d determ in ed to b e Exempt from furth er
review. Your study qualifies for exem ption based on federal guidelines and no follow up w ith th e IRB is required.
You m ay begin d a ta collection.
CHANGES - The PI m ust receive approval from th e IRB before initiating any changes, including th o se required by
th e sponsor, w hich would affect hum an subjects. Such changes include changes in m eth o d s or procedures,
n um bers or kinds of hum an subjects, or revisions to th e inform ed co n sen t docu m en t or process. In addition, co
investigators m ust also receive approval from th e IRB.
UNANTICIPATED RISK OR HARM- The PI will im m ediately inform th e IRB of any unanticipated problem s involving
risks to subjects o r others, of any serious harm to subjects.
Note: Your IRB training certificate n ee d s to be ren ew ed for a n o th e r th re e years.
IRB Chair
149
Appendix C
SLS ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX
C om ponent
1 . 1 e n c o u ra g e my followers to u se their talents. .848
2 . 1 e n c o u ra g e my staff to c o m e up with new Ideas. .831
3 . 1give followers th e information they n e e d to do their work well. .777
4 . 1 help my followers to further d evelop th em selves. .745
5. If people e x p re ss criticism, I try to learn from it. .766

6 . 1 try to learn from th e criticism I g e t from my superior. .761
7 . 1 learn from criticism. .731
8 . 1 learn from th e different view s an d opinions of o thers. .537
9 . 1 e m p h a siz e th e so cietal responsibility of my followers' work.
1 0 . 1 d on't c h a s e recognition o r rew ards for th e things I do for others. .751
11.1 k eep m yself in th e b ackground an d give credit to others. .606

1 2 . 1 enjoy my co lle ag u e s' s u c c e s s m ore th an my own, .588
1 3 . 1 am op en a b o u t my limitations and w e a k n e s se s.
1 4 . 1 adm it my m istak es to my superior.
1 5 . 1 hold m yself a cc o u n ta b le for my perform ance.
1 6 . 1 e m p h a siz e th e im portance of focusing on th e good of the whole.
1 7 . 1 h av e a long-term vision. .700
1 8 . 1 e n a b le followers to solve problem s in stead of ju st telling them w hat to do. .574
1 9 . 1 offer my followers a b u n d a n t opportunities to learn new skills. .565

2 0 . 1 give followers authority to m ake d ecisio ns th a t m ake work e a s ie r for them .
21.1 ta k e risks e v en w hen I am not certain of the su pport from my ow n m anager. .686
2 2 . 1 ta k e risks an d do w hat n e e d s to b e d o n e in my view. .672
2 3 . 1 e x p re ss my feelings e v en if this might h av e und esirab le c o n se q u e n c e s, .655

2 4 . 1 show my tru e feelings to my staff. .570
2 5 . 1find it difficult to forget things th a t w en t w rong in the past. .820
2 6 . 1 m aintain a h ard attitude tow ards p eo p le w ho h a v e offended m e a t work. .788
2 7 . 1 criticize p e o p le for th e m istak es they h a v e m a d e in their work. .512
2 8 . 1 hold su b o rd in a te s resp o n sib le for th e w ay they h andle their jobs. .673
2 9 . 1 hold my followers re sp o n sib le for the work they carry out. .526
3 0 . 1 am often to u ch ed by th e things I s e e happening around me.
E xtraction M ethod: P rincipal C o m p o n en t A nalysis.
R otation M ethod: V arim ax w ith K aiser N orm alization,
a. R otation co n v erg ed in 10 ite ratio n s.
150
Appendix D
SLS FACTOR ANALYSIS - TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED
CffTKirr' lr& fc a n tf j* m id sr Wn SftiMci U a e^ t Gem* S ir* tf S ourtc imam

Teas NotVnrva* ro 1 1 8 ^ 1 ?oa % t*v*wat
1 6441 26136 26A36 8441 26138 26136 3-/46 12466 u rn
2 2036 6/6? 34.6% 2036 6 ?6? 34 8% 3.8*6 10566 233/1
3 \m 62% 41.?6 1661 6i?3 41.196 2.W 92/6 32362
4 1313 30(3 <6240 1513 6045 46240 2.636 *456 40J8?
5 V310 4.366 30606 1313 4368 56608 2126 ?066 4/682
6 1166 3666 34 W i 1 168 34*5 64 503 1.695 5661 53543
r 1.071 3m 360/3 i a?i 35/0 mn 1368 4530 566*3
6 m 3142 61213
6 m 2666 64163
w m am 66967
11 m 261/ 66664
12 7*9 2496 >2060
13 W 2360 *4.470
14 70& 2361 >6831
13 m 2236 %.Q66
# 620 2066 6V136
V 576 162? 63.063
13 33/ 1761 6463*
19 .502 1672 96.326
20 48< 1W 6 6 /?4
21 4/3 1662 86 736
22 444 14#> 91236
23 427 1423 82636
* 406 1*63 94 012
23 3/3 1246 86261
26 331 1101 96363
2? 323 10?? 9?442
26 301 1003 96446
29 26< 9*7 96 3
30 #2 60? oocoo
Extraction M ethod: Principal C om p o n en t Analysis.

151
Appendix E
NIH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
PretKtoit Hunan Sabjm Rm m c * P stib p m
Certificate of Completion
The National Institutes of Health (N IH ) Office of Extram ural Research
certifies that C arla A lsan d o r successfully completed th e N IH W eb-based
training course Protecting Human Research Participants.
D ate of completion: 01/11/2016
Certification Number: 1942446

Examining The Relationships Between Volunteerism, Helping Attitudes, and Servant Leadership

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Examining The Relationships Between Volunteerism, Helping Attitudes, and Servant Leadership

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EXAM INING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETW EEN

VOLUNTEERISM , HELPING ATTITUDES, AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP

Carla E. Alsandor, B.F.A., M.B.A.

Our Lady o f the Lake University

Jared A. M ontoya, Ph.D.

Barbara itn o jo sa^ h .D .

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

To m y parents, Gene and Marva Alsandor

My fath er w as alw ays th e re to help me; no m a tter th e time, place, o r need.

He show ed me th a t helping o th ers is a virtue. 1 miss him very much. May he re st in

Gods eternal peace. My m o th er has sp en t h e r life serving th e needs of o th ers as a

God bless her, always.

I am grateful to my p aren ts for instilling in me a deep faith and stro n g w ork

of this d issertatio n cam e as a resu lt of prayer, humility, and discipline - 1 th an k them

transformational leaders in each phase o f my education. In addition, Id like to

cheered me on, along the way.

potential; and prompted me to set and pursue specific goals.

My most influential undergraduate professor was Dr. A1 Albarran, who nurtured

in me a determination to succeed, while I was a student at Sam Houston State University.

go out and get that first job.

both organizationally and personally. His inspirational approaches to teaching and

genuine interest in my success have had a positive influence on me, including my

decision to pursue a terminal degree.

teaching ability made going to class a pleasure.

Grateful recognition goes to my dissertation team, which included committee

successfully defend my research. Special thanks is given to my committee chair, Dr.

the operational phase and ultimately to this resulting dissertation.

and for making my life infinitely better.

Joseph Edition o f the New American Bible).

This study examined the relationships between volunteerism, helping attitudes,

preponderance o f educational level responses was Masters degree (168). A seven-item

volunteerism survey included a series o f questions to determine the approximate number

instrument, measured servant leadership. The instrument includes eight dimensions o f SL

measured on a six point Likert scale: accountability, authenticity, courage, empowerment,

accommodate self-ratings. Scores range from 1 to 6 and they were averaged.

empirical investigation o f the relationships between volunteerism, helping attitudes, and

race/ethnicity to be significant predictors o f SL. Findings do not show education to be a

volunteer hours. In addition to helping attitudes being significant, findings show

leadership tenure to be a significant predictor o f volunteerism. This finding is consistent

with existing literature. The null hypothesis was rejected in RA3.

deciding whether or not to include volunteer service in their resumes or to count

servant leadership characteristics among their employees.

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................... 1

Research Area One Questions..........................................................................14

Research Area Two Questions.........................................................................15

Research Area Three Question.........................................................................16

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................... 19

Volunteerism and A ge..............................................................................................19

Volunteerism and Education................................................................................... 22

Volunteerism and Gender........................................................................................24

Volunteerism and Race/Ethnicity.......................................................................... 26

Helping Attitudes and Servant Leadership........................................................... 26

Helping Attitudes and Volunteerism.....................................................................27

Servant Leadership and A ge................................................................................... 28

Servant Leadership and G ender..............................................................................31

Servant Leadership-Empathy and Gender...........................................................34

Servant Leadership and Leadership Tenure......................................................... 35

Servant Leadership and Race/Ethnicity................................................................ 36

Servant Leadership and Volunteerism.................................................................. 36