LDRS 591 Activity 7.2

LDRS 591 Activity 7.2

Unit 7 Learning Activities

Review article: Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C., & Santora, J.C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.

Purpose of the study: to develop and validate a multidimensional measure of servant leadership behavior.

Rationale. The authors studied previously available measures for servant leadership, and concluded that two important dimensions were missing from these pre-existing measures : spirituality and morality ethics. They developed the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale (SLBS) which incorporated these dimensions along with voluntary subordination, authentic self, covenantal relationship and transforming influence. They then tested it using mixed methods. Score 3.

Choice of mixed methods appropriate? The researchers subjected the above scale, SLBS, to mixed methods using 2 studies. In study 1 they interviewed 15 senior level executives in for-profit and non-profit to get their insight into servant leadership. A pool of 101 servant leadership items was created. This was then subjected to analysis by 15 experts in the field of servant leadership research. Through Content Validity Ratio the number of items was reduced to a more reasonable 73 items. This 73 item SLBS was then used to survey 277 graduate students (study 2), who were also employed as managers or professionals. After applying confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, more items were deleted and a final SLBS version with 35 items emerged. The authors justified their choice of mixed methods approach in the discussion. Score 3.

Are quantitative methods good quality? Study 2 surveyed 277 graduate level students. The authors did not elaborate on what methods were used to survey and what questionnaires were used, or what was the rationale behind the use of these survey methods. They did seem to have applied statistical analyses to their results. Score 2.

Are qualitative methods of good quality? The authors conducted interviews, used transcriptions and field notes, created themes. Score 3.

Quantitative and qualitative components meaningfully mixed? This study is an example of sequential exploratory mixed methods design, as per Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015, p. 398, figure 12.6). They applied qualitative methods to develop a new measure for servant leadership, and then used quantitative measures to test it and modify it. Score 3.

Mixed methods application was rigorous. The mixed methods design seems to be a good fit, and flows logically for the purpose of this study. Score 3.

Mixed methods produced a good understanding of the research purpose. The findings of the mixed study went beyond the explanation of either qualitative or quantitative study. Score 3.