THE ABSENCE OF REDEMPTIVE MANAGERIAL BEHAVIORS IN SERVANT LEADERSHIP THEORY

Joseph J. Bucci, DBA, Assistant Professor & ChairBusiness, Leadership and Management Department; College of Arts and SciencesRegent Universityjbucci@regent.edu

Abstract

Research on redemptive managerial behaviors built a theoretical framework on scriptures commonly referenced in servant leadership theory by faith-based authors. In a study of 37 servant leadership theories, research found that in none of these approaches, did there appear to be any mention of, or relationship to, any aspect of ransoming, restoration, or redemption as referenced in two key scripture verses on which 9 of 15 scripturally-based servant leader models are built. A future paper would go into much more depth on the subject. Contained herein are a number of tables which were referenced in the subsequent research.

Introduction

Matthew 20:28 “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and

to give his life as a ransom for many” (NLT).

Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to

give his life as a ransom for many” (NLT).

Huizing (2011) cites Beeley and Britton (2009) describing the surge of interest in

leadership theory as a recognition of the absence of real leadership in both the church and

in society (Beeley and Britton, 2009). In recent history faith-based authors, following

under the authority of Jesus Christ as the spiritual head of the Church, and by extension

the academic institutions representing His philosophy (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 5:23),

have strongly identified with the leadership style of their Teacher and Lord (John 13:13

NLT). This has meant for many codifying the leadership model of Jesus (Blanchard and

Hodges, 2003).

Some contemporary descriptions of the leadership style of Jesus have included the

following:

• Jesus the Selfless Leader (Kimball, 1977)

• Jesus, CEO (Jones, 1995)

• Jesus the Strategic Leader (Martin, 2000).

• Jesus: Shepherd Model of Leadership (Starling, 2009; Foster, 2010)

Some other faith-based authors have expressed that the leadership style of Jesus is more

akin to Spiritual Leadership (Sanders, 2007); or even Loving Leadership (Hettinga,

1996). Finally some researchers and authors have suggested that the purest form of

leadership demonstrated by Jesus was that of Servant Leadership (Blanchard and Hodges,

2003; Harris, 2010; Grahn, 2011, among many others).

Northouse (2013), writing in his sixth edition, notes that although the origins of servant

leadership theory are found in the writings of Greenleaf (1970), there were some three

decades following Greenleaf’s original writings in which servant leadership existed as

loosely defined characteristics. Greenleaf’s concepts have more recently been embraced

and amplified both by academic authors and trade publications; as well as faith-based

authors who perceived a strong connection between servant leadership practices and the

life of Jesus Christ (Russell, 2003; Blanchard and Hodges, 2003).

The scripture verses referenced in this paper’s introduction are foundational in many of

the more contemporary examinations of servant leadership by faith-based authors

(Wilkes, 1998; Blanchard, Hybels, and Hodges, 1999; Akuchi, 1993; Krejcir, 2005;

Leyhee, 2013; Maxwell, 2007; Russell, 2003; Purdy, 1989 Taylor, 2004). The above

verses also provided a framework for leadership research conducted by this author, in

seeking to identify where this practice of redemption leading to restoration might exist in

the management literature. In this regard, the author noted that the writings of both faith-

based and non-faith based authors have challenged the contemporary manager to consider

the value proposition of pursuing redemptive leadership interventions based on the

mission of Christ Himself (Grahn, 2011); or by another the fulfillment of the mission of

Isaiah’s suffering servant (Russell, 2003). Both streams of research seek to inspire

management action based on the pronounced mission of Christ, as captured in the

aforementioned verses: “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve

others and to give his life as a ransom for many” (repeated as Matthew 20:28 and Mark

10:45). It seems that the core of what these verses portray to many faith-based leadership

authors is that to be like Christ, a manager is to act selflessly but also to act redemptively.

So the author pursued a review of servant leadership research theories in order to identify

which theories contained either or both of these specific verses as a part of their

foundation, in pursuit of operationalizing prior research on redemptive managerial

behaviors (Bucci, 2011; Bucci, 2013). The purpose of the review was to find

commonalities with data from related leadership theory, in order to determine whether

the managerial behaviors identified in the original research study by this author were

unique unto themselves, or whether these behaviors could be established characteristics

or traits found in a broader historic leadership theory. In order to move from a

theoretically-based inquiry to a more empirical study, further research needed to be

conducted seeking to operationalize the theoretical construct. The goal of

operationalizing is to specify the procedure to be able to accurately measure the abstract

theory (Leggett, 2011). Therefore a consideration was made that, drawing its purpose

from the same set of scripture verses, perhaps the author’s “new” research would not be

new or unique at all, but perhaps be a subset of existing research on Servant Leadership.

After an initial review of 20 Servant Leadership theories and their associated dimensions

(Rohm, 2013), it appeared that one of the following three approaches had been taken with

regards to the use of these specific verses as foundational in Servant Leadership theory:

either the Servant Leadership theory had no connection at all to the specific scripture

verse; or the Servant Leadership theory cited only the first part of the verse or related

verses only; or the theory stated as a part of its theoretical foundation the entire verse(s).

Two studies were conducted: one reviewed 37 Servant Leadership models and 381

dimensions of Servant Leadership theory (See Appendix 2); while the second focused

exclusively on the 15 scripture-based Servant Leadership models containing 104 separate

dimensions or characteristics of Servant Leadership. The author followed a Qualitative

Comparative Analysis using truth tables (Ragin, 1987 and 1999). The results suggested

that in none of these approaches, in a review of the dimension of servant leadership from

two significant collections (Rohm, 2013; Peltz 2013), does there appear to be any

mention of, or relationship to, any aspect of ransoming, restoration, or redemption as

referenced in these two specific scripture verses: “For even the Son of Man came not to

be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many” (repeated as

Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45). In the case of the 15 scripture-based Servant

Leadership models containing 104 separate dimensions or characteristics of Servant

Leadership, only one dimension out of 104 studied closely matched a behavior identified

in the selective coding results from the research on redemptive managerial behaviors

(Bucci, 2011).

This paper was written to question the absence in scripturally-based Servant Leadership

theories of any dimensions related to any aspect of ransoming, restoration, or redemption

as referenced in these two specific scripture verses; and to give rationale for why this

omission should be studied further.

Support for Redemption as a Managerial Skill

Our knowledge of redemption is contextualized in the redemptive work of Christ on the

cross, and the expression of this transformed life seems more familiar to congregational

life in a church setting, or a personal interaction when seeking restoration among

individuals. In the Bible, redemption is considered from the perspective of the process

and how it transforms persons who allow the process to work in them (Elwell, 2001).

The call for transformation made by Jesus was conducted not only in religious settings

but more often in the marketplace, among tradespersons; and much of the New Testament

was written by marketplace leaders like Dr. Luke, tax official Matthew, tentmaker Paul

and the owners of a fishing business (Peter, James and John). Finding its context in the

social, legal, and religious customs of the ancient world, the metaphor of redemption

includes the ideas of loosing from a bond, setting free from captivity or slavery, buying

back something lost or sold, exchanging something in one's possession for something

possessed by another, and ransoming (Elwell, 2001). It is a natural extension of this

practice that a valid and valuable effort be made by faith-based leaders both within and

outside of the church to follow the pattern of Jesus and invest in individuals with

weaknesses by seeking to restore them to useful service, both for the work of the

kingdom of God and for future success in life. This task admits that weaknesses are real,

and by acknowledging the need for assistance in overcoming weaknesses individuals will

receive the help and the training they need to again add value to the world around them,

and likewise continue the process themselves with other such individuals.

In the workplace, studies suggest that as many as 75% of employees have engaged in

some form of theft, fraud, embezzlement, vandalism, sabotage, and unexcused

absenteeism or otherwise harmed their employer (Harper, 1990; Hayes 2008). Since the

earliest days of management practice in organizations, managers have traditionally

experimented with a variety of forms of employee discipline in dealing with aberrant

terminal workplace behavior, to correct behavior and to redeem the investment made in

this employee. Conventional approaches for handling terminal employee behavior

recommend that managers talk to their subordinates about the problem behavior first

(Yukl, 2002). If this approach is not initially effective, the manager generally follows

three recommended paths: pursue progressive discipline with the employee up to and

including termination should the behavior not be redirected; reassign the employee; or

dismiss the employee outright if they are an “at-will” employee (Termination Procedures,

2005).

In the past, redemption in the form of employee reinstatement after termination was a

rare occurrence (Darnay, Magee, and Hillstrom, 2007). Whether due to negative cultural

mores or prohibitive employment policies, the practice of employee reinstatement was

discouraged, and terminated employees would therefore seek to find success in another

position at another firm (Darnay, Magee, and Hillstrom, 2007). But this practice of

separation from one job and then seeking employment elsewhere is changing, as

employers are not as free to dismiss workers at-will, while employees attempt to maintain

employment and seek due process in terminations (Hill, 1997). Activity to seek

reinstatement has become much more common (Darnay, Magee, and Hillstrom, 2007).

In recent history, more employees have confronted involuntary termination for cause and

sought reinstatement. In a unionized environment this appeal for reinstatement might

occur through an arbitrated reinstatement after a grievance application, or a mediated

settlement as an alternative to litigation or arbitration (Darnay, Magee, and Hillstrom,

2007). In research cited in Labig, Helburn and Rodgers (1985), "the most frequent single

reason given by arbitrators for reinstating discharged employees was that in view of the

grievant's generally satisfactory record and the likelihood that he had 'learned his lesson,'

he was deserving of a second chance” (Stone, 1969). Outside of the unionized

environment, employees have begun to pursue reinstatement through wrongful discharge

suits and other common law remedies in the courts (Mandelbaum, 1993). A legal appeal

for reinstatement may occur as a perceived remedy for unjust dismissal (Taras and

Williams, 2000). There are also other types of reinstatements which occur as a voluntary

agreement between employer and employee. These reinstatements may occur as a result

of an employee successfully completing some treatment program requirement, such as an

Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Reinstatement may also be recommended after

the employee agrees to submit to a Last Chance Agreement, which suspends the typical

discipline or grievance process and stipulates that any additional terminal behavior on the

part of the reinstated employee will result in another immediate termination (Bamberger

and Donahue, 1999).

As much as reinstatement may be a rare occurrence as noted, even with the rise of more

compelling efforts by employees to retain their positions in dire economic conditions,

managers and organizations must also realize that all people are fallible, not perfect, and

need training and nurturing to be successful. There is a significant disconnect in thinking

that hiring involves drawing from a normal distribution curve (Blanchard, Zigarmi and

Zigarmi, 1985). Recruiting, training and retaining “winners” are all three demonstrated

to be critical competencies necessary in organizations, but are rarely a significant focus

(Sullivan, 2002). This is not simply a function of the Human Resources department.

Ultimately, managers must live with their own efforts at developing and retaining a

competent workforce (Yukl, 2002); and due to a “litigation explosion” may in fact deal

with arbitrations cases and employee reinstatement through one of the various means

identified (Walker and Hamilton, 2011).

Review of the Previous Research on Reinstatement and Restoration

Research on successful reinstatement of terminated employees had previously identified a

series of variables as predictive of the future success of reinstated employees. Yet in

reviewing some eighteen studies on the topic these variables did not consistently predict

under what circumstances a reinstated employee would find success upon reinstatement.

According to Bamberger and Donahue (1999), the findings of studies examining the

impact of discharge on employees' post-reinstatement behavior are often inconsistent and

conclusions are often hard to draw due to sampling and study design problems (Newhams

& McDermott, 1971; also Beyer & Trice, 1984; as cited by Bamberger & Donahue,

1999). Only four studies out of the eighteen examined were able to identify a small

number of employees who actually performed better after termination and reinstatement

(Jones, 1961; Newhams and McDermott, 1971; Gold, Dennis, and Graham, 1978). The

main focus in the case of all these studies was the effectiveness of reinstatement based on

terminated employee characteristics.

It appeared that prior to the author’s initial study no research had been conducted

assessing the impact of the manager’s leadership behaviors on post-reinstatement

employees. According to Banks and Stevens (1997), the manager’s role is perceived to

be one with a "sacred responsibility" towards their employee, to competently manage and

train their people for success (Banks & Stevens, 1997). It is the manager’s role and

greatest challenge to achieve optimum performance from all his/her people, and

challenging their employees towards a higher level of performance is a critical part of a

manager’s job (Furnham, 2002). To address the gap in the literature, the author

conducted research to identify observable management behaviors present in the

successful reinstatement of employees previously discharged for cause (Bucci, 2011).

The goal of this research project was to identify those redemptive managerial behaviors

which were most often observed in incidents of successful reinstatement and improved

performance by employees previously discharged for cause.

Twelve managers from ten different organizations were interviewed. The organizations

ranged in size from twenty employees to some two hundred thousand employees,

although the work groups from which the particular employee cases were drawn averaged

in size at about 40 employees. There were twenty-one employee reinstatement cases

reviewed in interviews with the twelve managers. Of the twenty-one cases, thirteen cases

met the minimum stated criteria for inclusion in the study, which included the following:

the case documented the circumstances where an employee had been disciplined, and

then terminated for cause. Then after a period of time, the company agreed to take back

the terminated employee and give them a “second chance” to perform to the required

standard. Once the employee was reinstated, in order for the case to be considered, the

reinstated employee needed to remain with the firm for a minimum of six months or

longer and exhibit the same or an improved level of performance, as observed by the

manager.

Of the thirteen employees successfully reinstated, six of the employees returned to the

organization and, according to the manager, exhibited the same performance they had

prior to their termination. For seven of the employees who were successfully reinstated,

after they returned to the organization they exhibited improved or much improved

performance, as observed by the manager. The research criteria did not require a specific

measure of improvement but only a report by the manager as to whether the employee

exhibited the same or improved performance. Some measures of the success of the

reinstatement were defined as employees who returned and remained with the firm for a

period of at least six months and demonstrated the same or an improved level of

performance, as observed by the manager, such as higher work attendance rate, reduced

or non-repeating absenteeism, lower turnover rates, and positive productivity.

This research on identifying redemptive managerial behaviors most often observed in the

successful reinstatement of employees previously terminated for cause demonstrated that

utilizing a redemptive approach in dealing with reinstated employee has the potential for

reduced costs in addressing turnover, hiring and potential litigation, as well as improved

organizational commitment (Bucci, 2011). Not only was a cost-benefit demonstrated in

this research; but also a strong alignment was demonstrated with Kingdom principles

such as the restoring an individual created in the image of God to a position of fulfilling

their calling, where the restored person could not only fully support their organization’s

mission, but they could also independently provide for their own and their family’s needs

apart from any external assistance (Plantinga, 2002).

The Case for Linking Redemption to Servant Leadership

There were a host of recommendations drawn from the major findings in the original

research on redemptive managerial behaviors (Bucci, 2011). One of the

recommendations for future research based on the finding in the study was to continue

conducting comparisons of the data results found in this study with historic leadership

theories to determine if there is evidence of a unique approach to leadership evident in

the data, or whether these results and subsequent leadership behaviors mirror any current

leadership theory, or whether the previous research would be validated as a subset of an

existing theory, and then in what ways does the data compares and contrasts to an

operationalized theory. Firestone (2010) cautions that the process of seeking to

generalize qualitative findings to settings other than those studied has come under

increasing criticism (Firestone, 2010). Generalizing from any data results can be

problematic; and this method it requires an adaptation which cannot always be fully

justified (Firestone, 2010). Firestone cautions that the effort to generalize allows readers

to assess this process with care. He also opines that qualitative researchers can conduct

this process and strengthen their results following certain guidelines (Firestone, 2010).

Seeking linkage to Servant Leadership theory seemed a natural focus as a follow up to

the author’s previous research for a number of reasons. First off, servant leadership

theories with a Biblical perspective often quote the same scripture as referenced above,

either Matthew 20:28 or Mark 10:45 (NLT): “For even the son of man came not to be

served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Please see Russell

(2003); Blanchard and Hodges (2002); and others. Secondly, according to Northouse,

servant leadership as a theoretical leadership theory considers leadership from the point

of view of the leader and his or her behaviors (Northouse, 2011). Since the previous

research has as its objective a focus on manager behaviors evidenced in the reinstatement

of employees terminated for cause, a review of these redemptive managerial behaviors

seem to be something which would align with Servant Leadership. Thirdly, in a

summary review, some of the identified characteristics of servant leadership bore some

resemblance to coded categories of discussion in the managerial interviews.

Northouse (2013) lists both the positive strengths and limitations of the servant leadership

research to date. For strengths, the stream of research includes a strong ethical dimension

to, and a concentrated focused on putting followers first. Northouse says it is the only

leadership approach that builds on the idea of caring for others (Northouse, 2013).

Northouse has also identified some limitations of this stream of research. The most

notable is the variety of hypotheses, including traits, and abilities, and behaviors

(Northouse, 2013). Yet Servant Leadership research has advanced to a level of

sophistication where scales have been developed to assess the various behaviors with an

ever improved level of validity (Dennis and Bocarnea, 2005; van Dierendonck and

Nuijten, 2011).

So the author’s original intent was seeking to move towards operationalizing the

construct from the original research on redemptive managerial behaviors.

Operationalization will allow for a clear path to quantifying the concept and allow other

researchers to follow the same methodology. So the object of this analysis is to go

beyond mere linkage with servant leadership due to its affiliation with similar scripture

verses. The goal is in fact to determine if the construct from the author’s original

research was merely a subset of theoretical research previously conducted, or if there

might be something unique and heretofore not identified in the research.

Conducting the Initial Analysis

Since the previous research has as its objective the identification of those redemptive

managerial behaviors which were most often observed in incidents of successful

reinstatement and improved performance by employees previously discharged for cause,

the servant leadership focus on manager behaviors seems to give the analysis a stronger

basis from which to conduct analytic generalization, as described by Firestone (2010).

So the intention of this current paper is to conduct some preliminary research as

described by Firestone (2010) and Ragin (1987 and 1999) comparing behaviors with

behaviors. The comparative analysis is basic, with each comparative cell representing

either a 1 or a 0 (Ragin, 1999). Therefore the focus of the comparative analysis would be

the entirety of servant leadership theory dimensions. What dimensions or variables exist

that describe or summarize servant leadership behaviors? Further research will then be

conducted on servant leadership models that specifically reflect in their foundation the

specific scripture verses identified.

To begin this analysis, two lists of servant leadership dimensions were reviewed. The

following lists are titles for dimensions or variables identified by authors for various

Servant Leadership theories. While the titles alone are not illustrative of their full

definitions, they are somewhat representative of the scope of the practices and behaviors

which define the theory:

Servant Leadership Variables Found in the Literature (Farling, Stone and Winston, 1999).

In this early research, the authors determined that the literature on servant leadership

identified the following consistent dimensions or variables in the servant leader-follower

transformational model:

1. Vision (Bennis, 1997; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Burns, 1978; Greenleaf, 1977, 1996; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Nanus, 1992; Snyder, Dowd & Houghton, 1994; Srivasta, 1983)

2. Influence (Bass, 1990; Festinger, 1954; Johnson & Eagly, 1989; Rokeach,1973)3. Credibility (Bass, 1990; Clampitt, 1991; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; McCroskey, 1966)4. Trust (Gaston, 1987; Greenleaf, 1977; Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Mayer, Davis &

Schoorman, 1995; Schein, 1992; Sitkin & Stickels, 1996; Snodgrass, 1993)5. Service (Akuchie, 1993; Gaston, 1987, Greenleaf, 1977; Snodgrass, 1993)

Fourteen years later in his dissertation research Rohm (2013) identified twenty different

Servant Leadership models and assembled a consolidated list of dimensions of Servant

Leadership. First, the list of the 20 models, follow by the consolidated list of dimensions

(Rohm, 2013):

Table A:List of Servant Leadership Models and Number of Dimensions (Rohm, 2013)

Servant Leadership Models by Author # of Dimensions Graham (1991) Spears (1995) Farling et al. (1999) Laub (1999) Russell & Stone (2002) Dennis & Winston (2003) Patterson (2003) Wong & Page (2003) Ehrhart (2004) Reinke (2004) Whittington et al. (2006) Dennis & Bocarnea (2005) Barbuto & Wheeler (2007) Liden, et al. (2008) Sendjaya et al. (2008) Fridell et al. (2009) van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) Fields & Winston (2011) Reed, Vidaver-Cohen, & Colwell (2011) Mittal & Dorfman (2012)

5 10 5 6 9 3 7 7 7 4 4 5 5 7 6 4 8 1 5 5

Table B:Consolidated List of Servant Leadership Dimensions from 20 Models (Rohm, 2013)

Accountability Empowerment Provides leadership Altruism Emulation of leader

Facilitative environment Putting subordinates first

Appreciation of others Follower affirmation Relationships Authenticity Foresight Responsible morality Autonomy Awareness

Forgiveness Self-sacrifice

Behaving ethically Healing Servant leadership Building community Honesty Service Commitment to growth Humility Shares leadership Conceptual skills Influence Stewardship Consensus building Inspiring leadership Standing Back Courage Integrity Transcendental

spirituality Covenantal relationship Love Transforming influence Creating value for others Listening Trust Credibility Modeling Values people Daily reflection Participatory leadership Vision Develops people Openness Voluntary subordination Drive sense of self worth Organizational

stewardship Vulnerability

Emotional healing Other-centered Wisdom Empathy Pioneering

In a visual inspection of the Consolidated List of the 20 Servant Leadership models above

(Rohm, 2013), none of the models seems to support or mention the main theme of the

author’s prior research, which is redemption or restoration. There may be hints of it from

which we could draw inference to redemption, especially in light of brief definitions:

Empathy from Spears’ reflections on Greenleaf (1995); Responsible Morality from

Sendjaya, et.al, (2008); or Emotional Healing from Linden (2008). There are parallel

thoughts to the results of the author’s prior research, like Greenleaf’s (1970) “Healing” of

relationships. Sen Sendjaya and James Sarros (2002) discuss Servant Leadership and do

consider the impact of Biblical examples, including Jesus Christ, in discussing the

attributes of a servant leader model (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002). In a later article,

Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora (2008) state that many more recent research and

publications describing Servant Leadership are connected with Christian faith-based

authors (see Banks and Powell, 2000; Blackaby and Blackaby, 2001; Ford, 1991;

Sanders, 1994; Wright, 2000). However, the actual trait or behavior of restoring an

employee is not mentioned; and there were no dimensions or varibales linked to the

Selective Coding categories identified in the author’s original research (Bucci, 2011), as

compared to Rohm’s (2013) consolidated list above, using Ragin’s analytic approach

(Ragin, 1999). See Appendix 3, Tables C and D for data analysis source.

Conducting a More Precise Analysis

It was determined that a more deliberate analytical approach would be taken in order to

move beyond a visual inspection and document the findings using the scientific method.

So a null hypothesis was proposed based on the results of the initial visual inspection to

determine if a link to the common scriptural context existed (Matthew 20:28 and/or Mark

10:45)

Null Hypothesis:

The characteristics or dimensions of the servant leadership theory constructed on

the same identified core verses will not represent any traits related to redemption,

restoration or ransoming subordinates to second chance opportunities.

Alternative Hypothesis:

The characteristics or dimensions of the servant leadership theory constructed on

the same identified core verses will represent traits related to redemption,

restoration or ransoming subordinates to second chance opportunities.

In order to move beyond simple visual analysis, studies were conducted following a

Qualitative Comparative Analysis using truth tables (Ragin, 1987 and 1999). The

comparative analysis is basic, with each comparative cell representing either a 1 or a 0

(Ragin, 1999). Peltz (2013) in his dissertation work documented the existence of 32

servant leadership models with a total of 345 identifiable dimensions or factors (Peltz,

2013). A list of Peltz’s (2013) servant leadership models with additional research from

this author results in a list of 37 servant leadership models with 381 dimensions or factors

which are listed in Appendix 2 (Peltz and Bucci, 2014). An analytical search of these 37

models and 381 dimensions resulted in zero (0) occasions where one of the 381 isolated

Servant Leadership dimensioned matched any of the proxy terms associated with

redemptive managerial behaviors: “redemption,” “redeem,” “reinstate,” “restoration”

(see Appendix 3, Table D). Therefore the null hypothesis is true and we fail to reject

it.

Further Analysis of Servant Leadership Models with The Specific Scripture Verses

Identified

In Appendix 1, this author then analyzed the 15 scripture-based servant leadership

models containing 104 separate dimensions or variables of Servant Leadership, using the

previous language describing these aforementioned practices and behaviors which define

the theory (Farling, Stone and Winston, 1999; Rohm 2013). The analysis looked for

evidence of dimensions or variable matching matching the terms “redemption,”

“redeem,” “reinstate,” “restoration.” None of the 15 scripture-based servant leadership

models had any dimensions which specifically matched or contained the aforementioned

terms. So again the null hypothesis is true and we fail to reject it. The author then

specifically focused on those scripture-based servant leadership models which contained

the specific scriptural link – Matthew 20:28 and/or Mark 10:45 (9 of the 15 models

contained these verses).

As previously mentioned, in all of the research linking servant leadership theories to the

key verses (Matthew 20:28 and/or Mark 10:45) it appeared that one of the following three

approaches had been taken with regards to the use of these specific verses as foundational

in Servant Leadership theory: either the Servant Leadership theory had no connection at

all to the specific scripture verse; or the Servant Leadership theory cited only the first part

of the verse or related verses only; or the theory stated as a part of its theoretical

foundation the entire verse(s). Examples of these three approaches follows:

Specifically Christ-centric SL theories: (use full reference Matthew 20:28 and/or Mark

10:45)

• Akuchie (1993) – “Christ forcefully drives home the lesson, that the only way to be a leader is to become a servant and the route to greatness is through humiliation” (p. 45).

• Russell (2003) - “The person who aspires to genuine servant leadership seeks to follow the footsteps of Christ.” No specific model or dimensions were spelled out in this article.

• Sullivan (2004) – “Why pick Jesus as a model for leadership? Jesus was able to create an “organization” using a very unlikely group of followers that has endured for over two millennia and has continued to grow worldwide in spite of fierce opposition, persecution and even martyrdom for its members” (p. 16).

Used first half or part of the verse and omitted the ransom/redemption piece:• VanTassel (2006) – In discussing his research on the servant-leadership model at a

Franciscan-sponsored university, bifurcated the verse, saying, “Christ Himself came to serve rather than be served.” Used this reference twice, only citing first half of the verse.

• Blanchard and Hodges (2003) discuss the following: “And once a leader's vision is clear, once the final exam is set up, then a leader initiates day-to-day coaching. You prepare people to be able to pass the final exam, to live according to the vision. Jesus said, ‘The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve’ (Matthew 20:28). And what did He come to serve? He came to serve the vision that He had been given by His Father.” Again we have an example of the authors only citing first half of the verse.

• Ebener and O’Connell (2010): [Servant Leadership] has been prescribed by many as the way to “lead like Jesus” (Mark 10:43-44; Matthew 20:27).

• Miller (1995): “Jesus was a man whose servant leadership powerfully declared itself. As a servant, He had submitted His life to God. In a similar way, we set free the real power of God’s leadership in our lives by surrendering our weakness to His power” (Matthew 20:27).

Christ-referenced or Christ-influenced models (references to Jesus but no Matthew 20:28 or Mark 10:45)• Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora (2008): Under the dimension, Voluntary

Subordination, “This emphasis [for servant leaders] on ‘being’ is seen, for example, in Jesus when he described himself to his followers: ‘I am among you as one who serves’ (NIV Bible, Luke 22:27). Foster (1989) described Jesus’ actions as a form of voluntary subordination which is seen as a revolutionary act of will to voluntarily abandon oneself to others.”

The analysis then looked more deeply at the 15 scripture-based servant leadership models

containing 104 separate dimensions or variables of Servant Leadership for evidence of

dimensions or variable matching the Selective Coding categories identified in the

author’s original research (Bucci, 2011). Only one of the 104 dimensions listed in the 15

Scripture-based models matched specifically one of the Selective Coding categories

(0.96%). In only one model was one term found which closely matched one of the

Selective Coding categories: Sullivan’s Servant Leadership model (2004) exhibited on

dimension “showing compassion,” which was very similar to “expressed compassion” in

the Selective Coding results of the author’s original qualitative research (Bucci, 2011).

In the analysis of the 15 Scripture-based Servant Leadership models, with 104 possible

Servant Leadership dimensions or characteristics, there were only 4 other potential links

(2.8%):

• Sims, 1997: Uses power to solve things necessary for others. Not specific but inherent in the actions of the managers who “worked with organization to arrange for conditional reinstatement.”

• Laub, 1999: Values people. Not specifically mentioned but similar to “belief in value of employee.”

• Rardin, 2001: Empathetic. Not specifically mentioned but similar to “expressed compassion.”

• Wong & Davey, 2007: Right character –courage to confront grim realities, engage in honest evaluation of your progress with others’ help. Not specific but similar to several actions taken by the managers who successfully reinstated terminal employees.

Hermeneutical Argument

Many of the Servant Leadership models utilizing the specific scripture verses references

linking the research used either the entire reference verse or used the first half or part of

the verse and omitted the ransom/redemption piece. A case for using the entire verse and

not truncating the message concerns the use of the Greek word “kai” translated “and” in

many versions (NIV, NLT, NASB among many others) in the two key verses under

consideration (Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45).

The Greek word kai (καì) has many meanings. The first and most common of these is

copulative or connective. For students of hermeneutics this means someone reading and

applying this verse cannot properly interpret the verse by eliminating what follows the

kai. Depending on the context, one can read kai as “and,” “both,” or “and so, namely,”

expressing what comes as a result of the first part of the “x kai x” formula (Bauer,

Gingrich, Arndt, and Danker, 1979). Particularly in terms of linking two infinitives –

which are very often used to express purpose – making the “to serve” and “to give his

life” as parallel purpose clauses, it is illegitimate to separate the two (Blass, Debrunner,

and Funk, 1961). They are either coordinated by a copulative (each one is just as

important), or progressive (the first is significant, and the second even more so). In view

of the purpose nature of infinitives, a hermeneutics scholar contacted for this paper would

opt for the copulative/co-ordinate nature of both purpose clauses (J. Henderson, personal

communication, April 2014). There is also a very strong case to be made that “to give his

life as a ransom” is the way in which the first purpose (to serve) is specifically carried

out, and so fulfills the first purpose of “to serve;” in other words, “to serve, specifically

by giving his life as a ransom” (J. Henderson, personal communication, April 2014).

This therefore seems to provide strong disagreement with the practice of using the first

part of the associated scripture verses (Matthew 20:28 and/or Mark 10:45) omitting the

ransom/redemption piece, if the verse is to be clearly defined.

Discussion

Russell writes that “The person who aspires to genuine servant leadership seeks to follow

the footsteps of Christ” (Russell, 2003). This would seem to indicate that distinctive

servant leadership traits and behaviors reflect directly the life of Jesus Christ, a

controversial figure in history. If the focus of the theory is in the development of

leadership practices based on Christ’s servant attitude alone, then there is much synergy

with non faith-based models of Servant Leadership. This fact is not necessarily

acknowledged by many faith-based authors who have developed independent theories on

servant leadership without mentioning Jesus Christ (including Patterson, 2003; Barbuto

and Wheeler 2006; van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011); although a careful review of the

source research for these articles and surveys seems to suggest some strong support by

faith-based researchers. The linkage to the redemption and ransom work of Christ

hearkens back to His mission, stated in the key reference verses (Matthew 20:28; Mark

10:45) as well as in Paul’s writing, where the Apostle writes that Jesus, “gave Himself for

us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own

possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:13, NASB). This focus returns Christians to

the core of their faith, the substitutionary atoning work of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:14-15;

1 John 2:2). This perhaps becomes more difficult for application in a general

management approach and might then put limitations on utilizing the servant leadership

theory based not only on the servant life of Christ, but also on His substitutionary atoning

work on behalf of those He lead. It is unknown as to whether policies or practices within

the organization limited the manager’s ability to pursue more redemptive approaches

such as the previously highlighted process of reinstatement.

This as an initial research effort and by no means conclusive. Further research would

require us to go into the definitions of each of the servant-leadership dimensions, and

compare their terms and definition of specific terms with specifics that were discovered

in the research done previously by this author. Further work comparing the coded

categories from the axial coding exercise of the managerial interviews in the author’s

primary research could lead to more connectivity of thought or purpose which heretofore

is lost in terminology. This perceived absence or omission may not be significant based

on servant leadership theories emanating from the disciples of Robert Greenleaf or others

who looked at servant-leadership as a general leadership theory. The omission is

somewhat unnerving from those authors who cite the aforementioned specific reference

verses (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45) and yet focus the discussion more on the traits

related to service and leadership as distinct from the second half of the verse. The

omission is alarming from those theorists, especially the faith-based ones, who truncate

the verse and discuss only the first part. This is not good Biblical hermeneutic research,

and may not be as solid a research approach as well.

Conclusion

Huizing stated that Christians cannot rely only on general leadership theory in discerning

leadership that is Christ-like (Huizing, 2011). He admonishes that this is the point of

integration, where faith expressed under the governance of God will impact one’s

leadership point of view (Blanchard and Hodges, 2003). This supports this author’s

premise that bifurcating scriptural text to highlight aspects of Jesus’s earthly ministry and

building leadership theory around these concepts is not good hermeneutic practice, and

may lead to claims that the leadership models we ascribe to Christ are not fully

representing His leadership point of view, or fully grasping His mission here on earth. It

is not this author’s intent to suggest that in an effort to link Christian theology to tracks of

leadership theory we have supported theoretical research which is not valid. The growth

and impact of servant leadership research has helped substantiate this theory and

continued work on scale development has validated this approach (Northouse, 2013).

The author seeks an answer to this simple question: Can servant leadership as a

foundational theory in Christian practice be associated with the life and work of Jesus if

the concept and activities of redemption and restoration are not somewhere integrated?

This seems to be a serious debate that faith-based universities would consider relevant.

Bibliography:Akuchi, N.B. (1993). The servants and the superstars: An examination of servant

leadership in light of Matthew 20:20–28. Christian Education Journal, 16 (1) (1993), pp. 39–47

Bamberger, P. A., & Donahue, L. H. (1999). Employee discharge and reinstatement: Moral hazards and the mixed consequences of last chance agreements. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 53, 3.

Banks, R. J., & Stevens, R. P. (1997). Firing. The complete book of everyday christianity: An a-to-z guide to following Christ in every aspect of life. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press.

Bauer, W., Gingrich, F.W., Arndt, W.F. (Ed.), and Danker, F.W. (Ed.). (1979). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 393.

Beeley, C. A., & Britton, J. H. (2009). Toward a theology of leadership. Anglican Theological Review, 91(1), 31-46.

Blanchard, K. H., & Hodges, P. (2003). The servant leader: transforming your heart, head, hands, & habits. Nashville, Tenn.: J. Countryman.

Blanchard, K. H., Hybels, B., & Hodges, P. (1999). Leadership by the book: Tools to transform your workplace. New York: William Morrow.

Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York: Morrow.

Blass, F., Debrunner, A., and Funk, R.W. (Trans.). (1961). A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 197.

Bonham, C. (2008). Serving: True champions know that success takes sacrifice. Ventura, CA.: Regal Books, a division of Gospel Light Publications.

Bucci, J. J. (2011). Evidence of redemptive manager behaviors in successfully reinstating terminated workers (Published doctoral dissertation – ProQuest http://gradworks.umi.com/34/76/3476151.html). Anderson University.

Darnay, A., Magee, M. D., & Hillstrom, K. (2007). Employee Reinstatement. In Encyclopedia of Small Business (Vol. 4). Retrieved July 09, 2010, from http://www.answers.com/topic/employee-reinstatement

Dennis, R.S., and Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600-615

Ebener, D.R., and O’Connell, D.J., (2010). How might servant leadership work? Nonprofit Management and Leadership 20(3), 315-335.

Elwell, W. A. (2001). Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Rev. ed.). Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K: Baker Academic.

Farling, M.L, Stone, A.G., Winston, B.E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 6(1/2).

Firestone, W.A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied it to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.

Foster, P. (2010, September). Shepherd Leadership Model: Exploring the leadership of Old Testament figures and Jesus through the metaphor of shepherding. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from Maximum Change, Inc. http://maximumchange.wordpress.com/2010/09/

Furnham, A. (2002). Managers as Change Agents. Journal of Change Management, 3, 21.

Grahn, T. (2011). Jesus: The role model for Christian leadership. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from http://christian-leadership.org/jesus-the-role-model-for-christian-leaders/.

Hak, A. & Dul, J., (2009). Pattern matching. Research Paper ERS-2009-034-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.

Harper, D. (1990). Spotlight abuse-save profits. Industrial Distribution, 79, 47- 51.Harris, F.E. (2010). The Biblical Foundations of Leadership. Nashville, TN. Vanderbilt

University Divinity School. Retrieved from http://www.divinity.vanderbilt.edu/programs/kmsi/kmsi_seminar_resources.php.

Hayes, R. (2008). Strategies to detect and prevent workplace dishonesty. Alexandria, VA: ASIS Foundation.

Hettinga, J.D. (1996). Follow me: Experience the loving leadership of Jesus. Colorado Springs, CO.: NavPress.

Huizing, R. L. (2011). Bringing Christ to the table of leadership: Moving towards a theology of leadership. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 5(2), 58-75.

Jones, D. (1961). Arbitration and Industrial Discipline (Publication). Ann Arbor, MI: Bureau of Industrial Relations, University of Michigan.

Jones, L.B. (1996). Jesus, CEO: Using ancient wisdom for visionary leadership. New York: Hyperion.

Kimball, S.W. (1979). Jesus: The perfect leader. Address delivered to Young Presidents Organization, January 15, 1977. Retrieved May 26, 2014 from https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/08/jesus-the-perfect-leader?lang=eng.

Krejcir, R.J. (2005). Discipleship Tools. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from http://www.discipleshiptools.org/.

Labig, Jr., C. E., Helburn, I. B., & Rodgers, R. C. (1985). Discipline History, Seniority, and Reason for Discharge as Predictors of Post-Reinstatement Job Performance. Arbitration Journal, 40, 44-52.

Leggett, A.N. (2011, July 5). Constructs, variables, and operationalization. Presentation retrieved Jan 30, 2014 from http://anleggett.weebly.com/uploads/3/4/5/7/3457507/7_5_constructs_variables_and_operationalization.pdf.

Leyhee, P. (2013). God’s career guide: Practical insights for the workplace Christian. Sugarland TX.: Gane Publishing.

Macarthur, J. F. (2005). Redemption through His blood. On The Believer's Life in Christ [Cassette]. Panorama City, CA: Grace to You Ministries.

Mandelbaum, L. (1993). Employment at will: Is the model termination act the answer?. Labor Law Journal, 44(5), 275-285. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

Martin, G.F. (2000). Jesus the strategic leader. Unclassified strategy research project, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA.

Marciariello, J. (2003). Lessons in leadership and management from Nehemiah. Theology Today, 60, 397-407.

Maxwell, J. (2007). The Maxwell Leadership Bible. Nashville, TN.: Thomas Nelson.Miller, C. (1995). The empowered leader: Ten keys to servant leadership. Nashville, TN.:

Broadman and Holman.Miller, V.A.; Reynolds, W.W.; Ittenbach, R.F.; Luce, M.F.; Beauchamp, T.L.; and

Nelson, R.M. (2009, September). Challenges in Measuring a New Construct: Perception of Voluntariness for Research and Treatment Decision Making. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics:JERHRE, 4(3): 21–31.

Newhams, T. H., & McDermott, T. J. (1971). Discharge-reinstatement: What happens thereafter. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 24, 532-533. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from business source premier database.

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6 ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Palma, A. (1993). Redemption (Part I). Advance Magazine, May 1993, pp. 12-13 . Reprinted and available through the Enrichment Journal. Springfield, MO.: Gospel Pub House.http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/Tools_of_the_Trade/article_display.cfm?targetBay=d8fa2daa-0f05-4f8b-b3e8-f65bba19df5b&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, ATT 3082719).

Peltz, D.P. (2013). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Establishing a robust qualitative process for the identification of contemporary servant leaders. Dissertation used with permission. Ann Arbor, MI.: ProQuest LLC. UMI Number: 3576853

Plantinga, C. (2002). Engaging God's world a Christian vision of faith, learning, and living. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans.

Purdy, J.C. (1989). Returning God's call: The challenge of Christian living. Lousiville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press.

Ragin, C.C. (1999). Using qualitative comparative analysis to study causal complexity. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt2), 1225-1239.

Ragin, C.C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rodgers, R.C., Helburn, I. B., & Hunter, J.E. (1986). The relationship of seniority to job performance following reinstatement. Academy of Management 29(1), 101-114.

Rohm Jr., F.W. (2013). Servant Leader Development at Southeastern University (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University).

Rohm, Jr.,.F.W. (2010). 3M under James McNerney: A case study in servant leadership. In Christian Business Faculty Association Annual Conference. Lakeland, FL: Southeastern University.

Russell, R. (2003). A practical theology of servant leadership. In Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.

Sanders, J. O. (2007). Spiritual leadership: A commitment to excellence for every believer. Chicago, IL.: Moody Publishers.

Sendjaya, S. & Sarros, J.C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies (Baker College), 9(2), 57-64.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., and Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring Servant Leadership behaviour [sic] in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424. Also found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x/

Shaw, P. W. (2006). Vulnerable authority: A theological approach to leadership and teamwork. Christian Education Journal, 3(1), 119-133.

Spears, L.C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Starling, J. (2009, October 7). LEADERSHIP (6) The Shepherd Model. Committed To Truth. Retrieved April 5, 2014, from https://committedtotruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/leadership-6-the-shepherd-model/comment-page-1/

Sullivan, J. J. (2004). Servant first! : Leadership for the new millennium. [n.p.]: Xulon Press.

Taylor, J. (2004). Servant Leadership. Encounter: Journal for Pentecostal Ministry, 1(2). Retrieved march 24, 2014 from http://www.agts.edu/encounter/articles/2004_fall/taylor_jay.pdf.

Termination Procedures: Ethical Considerations. (2005). Fair Employment Practices Guidelines.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267.

Van Tassell, M. (2006) Called to serve: Servant-leadership perceptions at a Franciscan-sponsored university correlated with job satisfaction. Ann Arbor, MI.: UMI - Dissertations Publishing 2006.

Walker, B., and Hamilton, R.T. (2011). Employee-Employer Grievances: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 40-58.

Wilkes, C. G. (1998). Jesus on leadership. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers. Williams, K. & Taras, D. G. (2000). Reinstatement in arbitration: The grievors'

perspective. Relations Industrielles, 55(2), 227-249. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 56322030).

Winston, B. E., (2002). Be a Leader for God’s Sake. Virginia Beach, VA.: Regent University GLE.

Wolters, A. M. (2005). Creation regained biblical basics for a reformational worldview. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Appendix 1: Scripture-based Servant Leadership Models – by Publication Date

Miller, C. (1995). The empowered leader: 10 Keys to servant leadership. Nashville,TN: B & H Publishing Group.

Scripture References: Matt 20:27, 11:29, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Psalms. The book uses many scriptures however its main threaded theme is 2 Samuel. The word “restoration” used for the in Key 10 for the Restoration of Praise.

Model: 10 Keys to Servant LeadershipKey 1: Fostering an Honest Servant ImageKey 2: Seeing Yourself as a Leader: Learning the Art of Self-PerceptionKey 3: Networking and the Special Friends of a LeaderKey 4: Vision: Gathering It Up and Giving It OutKey 5: Decision: The Key to LeadershipKey 6: Defining, Structuring, and MotivatingKey 7: The Politics of Grace and the Abuse of PowerKey 8: Leadership: Coping with Difficult PeopleKey 9: Leadership: The Art of Delegation and Team SpiritKey 10: Surviving a Visible Mistake (seeking forgiveness for one’s own mistakes)

Pollard, C. W. (1996). The leader who serves. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds), The leader of the future: New visions, strategies, and practices for the next era (pp. 241-248). New York, NY: Drucker Foundation.

Scripture References: EcclesiastesModel: 7 Roles of Servant Leadership

1. Committed2. Listen and learn3. Givers not takers4. Want to serve5. Promote diversity6. Provide a learning/growing environment7. Value-driven and performance-oriented

Sims, B.J. (1997). Servanthood: Leadership for the third millennium. Cowley Publications. Republished (2005) Wipf and Stock

Scripture References: Psalms, Matthew 5-7, Mark 10:35-45, 2 Corinthians 5, othersModel: Principles of Servant Leadership –

1. A learner who promotes sharing of vision2. A person who uses power to solve the thing that is necessary for others3. A person who promotes cooperation with the community4. A person who accepts other's opinions5. A person who communicates with others honestly6. A person who encourages others.

Wilkes, C. G. (1998). Jesus on leadership. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.Scripture References: Mt.20:28, Mark 10:42-45 and others.Model: Summary of Principles – Wilkes distills Jesus' approach to leadership into seven

principles (25-27):1. Humble your heart: Servant leaders humble themselves and wait for God to exalt

them.2. First be a follower: Servant leaders follow Jesus rather than seek a position. 3. Find greatness in service: Servant leaders give up personal rights to find greatness

in service to others. Scripture reference for the comparison: Mark 10: 42-45 (cross-listed with Matthew 20: 28) page 25 and page 87.

4. Take risks: Servant leaders can risk serving others because they trust that God is in control of their lives.

5. Take up the towel: Servant leaders take up the towel of servanthood in order to meet the needs of others.

6. Share responsibility and authority: Servant leaders share their responsibility and authority with others to meet the needs of the flock.

7. Build a team: Servant leaders multiply the impact of their leadership by empowering others to lead.

Rinehart, S.T. (1998). Upside down: The paradox of servant leadership. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Scripture References: Gospel of John, Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:43-44, Colossians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Peter, 1 Timothy, others

Model: The 4 Values of Servant Leadership1. Diversity of the body: freedom to vary methods, styles, forms, and visions, 2. Equip and develop people, 3. Directs people to the scriptures4. Authenticity.

Rinehart also distinguishes between “power leaders” and “servant leaders.” Power Leaders Servant LeadersFeed on the spotlight; Share the spotlight. Have a high turnover; Nurture loyal colleagues. Keep the focus on themselves and their agenda; Affirm kingdom agendas. Refer to their title frequently; Use their title rarely. Use images, offices, and perks to reveal their status Abhor power images

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9921922)

Scripture References: I Kings 12:4, 12:7, 12:10-11; Luke 22:25-27; Matthew 20:28; Mark 9:35

Model: 6 Discrete Elements of Servant Leadership – 1. Values people2. Develops people3. Builds community4. Displays authenticity5. Provides leadership6. Shares leadership

Moon, S. M. (1999). A study of servant leadership in Korea (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.1393928)

Scripture References: Mark 9:35; Psalm 24:1, Acts 26:16, Acts 13, Ephesians 6:5-7, Luke 1:2, John 13:15-17; 18:36, Mark 10:44-45, Philippians 2:7-8 and many others.

Model: 9 Critical Factors of Servant Leadership – 1. God’s calling2. Relationship3. Obedience4. Prayer5. Humility6. Accountability7. Vision,8. Mentoring9. Love

Blanchard, K. H., Hybels, B., & Hodges, P. (1999). Leadership by the book: Tools to transform your workplace. New York: William Morrow.

Scripture References: Mt.20:28, Mark 10:42-45 and others.Model: Summary of Principles –

1. Effective leadership starts on the inside.2. Real change in behavior requires a real change of the heart.3. True leadership starts on the inside with a servant heart, then moves outward to

serve others.4. I take on the challenge of leadership when I see it as a way in which I can serve

others.5. My main interest is the development and care for those I lead.6. I want to be held accountable for my leadership performance.

7. I am willing to listen; and, in actuality, I enjoy receiving feedback to help me improve my leadership.

8. Leaders are not meant to be served, but to serve others. 9. I praise the progress of my people; I look to catch them doing something right.10. Servant Leadership is not about pleasing everyone, but pleasing God first,

developing people second, attaining the Company’s mission, and finally finding satisfaction in achieving all three.

11. Effective leaders have a support/accountability group to keep them on track.12. Leaders regularly make an inventory of their actions, motives and thoughts, to be

sure that they are consistent with the Servant Leadership model.

Rardin, R. (2001). The servant’s guide to leadership: Beyond first principles. Pittsburgh, PA: Selah.

Scripture References: Matthew (?), Mark (?), and others.Model: The 10 Facets of Servant Leadership

1. Focuses on the individual2. Empathic3. Caring4. Self-sacrificing5. Nurturing6. Stoops7. Submits to gifts of others8. Saves9. Full of grace10. Humbly serves the purpose of God in the lives of others.

Marciariello, J. (2003). Lessons in leadership and management from Nehemiah. Theology Today, 60, 397-407.

Scripture references: Nehemiah; Mark 10:42-45Model: Servant Leadership Traits Christ-Exalting Leaders sincerity genuinely sensitive and enthusiastic tenacity steadfast, strongly enduring commitment mood dedicated to service regardless of personal condition scope service valued in itself; scope of impact secondary to faithful

service realm basic willingness to serve anyone as requirements dictate; rank

unimportant in determining who one seeks to serve rewards the cause gives service inherent value: "The reward of service

is more service"4; motivation and continued commitment independent of external rewards and recognition

Also mentioned: Humanity and Humility.

Sullivan, J. J. (2004). Servant first! : Leadership for the new millennium. [n.p.]: Xulon Press.

Scripture References: Mt.20:28, Mark 10:42-45 and others.Model: Summary of Principles – A servant leader does these things…

1. Showing compassion (representing patience and focus on the individual)2. Demonstrating humility 3. Remaining impartial 4. Living a life of integrity 5. Building trust by being trustworthy 6. Applying knowledge and experience while developing wisdom

DelHousaya, D., & Brewer, B. (2004). Servant leadership: The seven distinctive characteristics of a servant leader. Scottsdale, AZ: SBC Press.

Scripture References: Matthew (?), Gospel of John and others.Model: 7 Distinctives of Servant Leadership:

1. A servant leader knows their person [power].2. A servant leader knows their position [authority].3. A servant leader knows their purpose [rule].4. A servant leader knows their provision [headship].5. A servant leader knows their perception [example].6. A servant leader knows their profession [servant].7. A servant leader knows their preference [humility].

Pham, H. (2005). The most important qualities of servant leadership. Mustang, OK: Tate.Scripture References: Proverbs, Acts, Matthew (?), Samuel, Gospel of Luke, Mark (?),

Gospel of John, Numbers, Job and others. Model: 5 Important Qualities of Servant Leadership

1. Honesty and trust2. Communication3. Integrity4. Faith5. Prayer

Prosser, S. (2007). To be a servant-leader. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.Scripture References: Matthew (?), Numbers, Acts and others.Model: 5 Nature and Qualities of Servant Leadership

1. Attitudes2. Vision3. Respect4. Change and counsel

5. Reward.

Wong, P. T. P., & Davey, D. (2007, July). Best practices in servant leadership. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

Scripture References: Mark 10:42-45, Philippians 2:6-8 (Mentions that Jesus took on the nature of a servant to redeem us and minister to us. Does not include redemption or restoration in any of the best practices, although close themes)

Model: 5 Best Practices of Servant Leadership1. Right identity – Seeing oneself as a servant: cultivating humility, selflessness,

stewardship, sense of calling2. Right motivation – Serving God by serving others: helping hand, sacrifice one’s

self interest, bring our best in others, empowering others3. Right method – Relating to others in a positive manner: listening with empathy,

involve others in decision-making, engage others in team building, affirming others

4. Right impact – Inspiring others to serve a higher purpose: modeling core values, demonstrating love, challenging others to live for higher purpose, challenging others to strive for excellence

5. Right character – Maintaining integrity and authenticity: walking the talk, standing up for what you believe in, courage to confront grim realities, engage in honest evaluation of your progress with others’ help

Appendix 2: An Analysis of 37 Servant Leadership Models (Peltz & Bucci, 2014). Code: Yellow indicates secular works. Blue indicates works with scriptural references (15). 9 of the 15 scripture-based works contain Matthew 20:28 or Mark 10:45 or both.

Year Who Model1977 Greenleaf 13 Key Attributes of Servant Leadership

1991 Graham 2 Mechanisms of Servant Leadership

1992 Kiechel and Rosenthal 5 Aspects of Servant Leadership

1995 Millard 7 Traits and 7 Inner Qualities of Servant Leadership

1995 Miller (Mt. 20:27) 10 Keys to Servant Leadership

1995 Spears 10 Characteristics of Servant Leadership

1996 Pollard 7 Roles of Servant Leadership

1996 Sarkus 6 Fundamental Precepts of Servant Leadership

1997 Sims (Mk. 10:45) 6 Principles of Servant Leadership

1998 Wilkes (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45) 7 Principles of Servant Leadership

1998 Buchen 4 Characteristics of Servant Leadership

1998 Rinehart (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:43-44) 4 Values of Servant Leadership

1999 Blanchard, et.al. (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45) 12 Principles of Servant Leadership

1999 Daft 4 Basic Precepts of Servant Leadership

1999 Farling, Stone, and Winston 4 Cornerstones of Servant Leadership

1999 Laub (Mt. 20:28) 6 Discrete Elements of Servant Leadership

1999 Moon (Mark 10:44-45) 9 Critical Factors of Servant Leadership

2000 Page and Wong 12 Attributes and 4 Orientations of Servant Leadership

2001 Rardin 10 Facets of Servant Leadership

2002 McGee-Cooper and Trammell 13 Qualities of Servant Leadership

2002 Russell and Stone 9 Functional Attributes and 11 Accompanying Attributes of Servant Leadership

2003 Marciariello (Mk. 10:45) 5 Servant Leadership Traits

2003 Patterson 7 Virtues of Servant Leadership

2003 Winston 13 Extended Variables of Servant Leadership

2004 Autry 5 Ways of Being of Servant Leaders

2004 DelHousaya and Brewer 7 Distinctives of Servant Leaders

2004 Frick 10 Skills and Capacities of Servant Leadership

2004 Sullivan (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45) 6 Principles of Servant Leadership

2004 Wheatly 7 Keys to Servant Leadership

2005 Pham 5 Important Qualities of Servant Leadership

2006 van Dierendonck and Heeren 15 Motivations and Behaviors of Servant Leadership

2007 Prosser 5 Nature and Qualities of Servant Leadership

2007 Wong and Davey (Mk. 10:45) 5 Best Practices of Servant Leadership

2008 Keith 7 Key Practices of Servant Leadership

2008 Sendjaya, Sarros, Santora 6 Dimensions of Servant Leadership

2009 Sipe and Frick 7 Pillars of Servant Leadership

2011 McGee-Cooper and Trammell 10 Defining Qualities of Servant Leadership

Appendix 3: Comparative Data Tables to Conduct Truth Table Analysis (Ragin, 1999)

Table C: Selective Coding- Using Open and Axial Coding Categories:Redemptive Managerial Behaviors Identified by Frequency (Bucci, 2011)

Selective Coding Categories : Data from Successful Reinstatement of Previously Terminated Workers

Frequency of Manager Mentioning

Acted with Fairness / Justice 5 Managers mentionedSelf-reflective or introspective planning for reinstatement

4 Managers mentioned

Willing to invest in terminated employee because s/he was a good worker

11 Managers mentioned

Good performance prior to termination 9 Managers mentionedWorked with organization to arrange for conditional reinstatement

7 Managers mentioned

A faith background or association 8 Managers mentionedGreater attention paid to quality of reinstated employee work

9 Managers mentioned

More frequent work/performance follow-up 9 Managers mentionedDifficulties in finding good workers 5 Managers mentionedBelief in the value of the employee 4 Managers mentionedBelief in helping people 9 Managers mentionedExpressed compassion for terminated employee 7 Managers mentionedActively involved manager; more hands-on 7 Managers mentionedKnew the worker personally; familiar with work 8 Managers mentionedStrong warnings about opportunity for change 6 Managers mentioned

Table D: Additional Words Associated with Redemption for Data Comparison

Additional Words Associated with Redemption and their SourceRansom (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45)Redemption (Matthew 20:28, Douay-Rheims Bible, 1582)Reinstatement (Darnay, Magee, and Hillstrom, 2007)Restoration (Plantinga, 2002)Redemption defined: Release / Releasing from Enslavement (Palma, 1993)Redemption defined: Buy / Purchase / Acquire (MacArthur, 2005)Redemption defined: Pay Price to Free from Bondage (MacArthur, 2005)