2005 dissertation-servant leadership theory-application of the construct of service in the context of kenyan leaders and managers

Servant Leadership Theory: Application of the Construct of Service in the

Context of Kenyan Leaders and Managers

Submitted to Regent University

School of Leadership Studies

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements

For the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership

Jeremiah Ntaloi Ole Koshal

April 2005

UMI Number: 3188226

31882262005

Copyright 2005 byKoshal, Jeremiah Ntaloi Ole

UMI MicroformCopyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

All rights reserved.

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

ii

iii

Abstract

By extending the research of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory, this

dissertation explores the acceptability and applicability of servant leadership

theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. The

study examines 25 leaders and managers from varied organizational settings.

From the analysis of the responses, it emerged that (a) role modeling, (b)

sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs of others (employees) and

developing them, (d) service as a primary function of leadership, (e) recognizing

and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with respect (humility), and (g)

involving others in decision making are prevalent themes reminiscent to

Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service. Thus, the construct

of service has acceptability and applicability among Kenyan leaders and

managers.

iv

Acknowledgements

To God, for sufficient grace throughout the process of this dissertation.

To all my 15 brothers and sisters, especially Joshua and Samuel, for their

immeasurable moral support and perpetual prayers. Though you were all tens of

thousands of miles away, I knew you were thinking and praying for me.

To my community of Naikarra, for making me feel loved. Your support

and good will is something that I will always remember and treasure.

To my best friend, Dr. Steven Kiruswa, for the good example you have set

in academia so that I could follow. You are part of the reason why I got into this

program. We have indeed wintered and summered together.

To my friends Rev. Dr. Jan and Dave McCray, Al and Gail Barrett, Michael

Alban, Barbara Rosato, and Charles and Lauren Havener, for their prayers and

financial contributions toward the data collection for this project. Many thanks to

you guys!

To my best couples, Amos and Emmy Miring’u, for opening up their home

for me while I was collecting data, and to Joseph and Edna Mpaa, for the

unlimited usage of their car during the process of data collection.

To Dr. John Mulford, for making it possible for me to get into this program

by way of scholarship. Also, thank you for the opportunity of working with you.

To Dr. Bruce Winston, my committee chair, for insisting on rigor and

academic fervor. I appreciate your patience, efficiency and promptness—what an

example of a servant leader you have been! God bless you, sir!

v

To Dr. Kathleen Patterson and Dr. Corne Bekker, for being so supportive

as committee members.

vi

Definition of Key Terms

Several terms are instrumental to this study and, therefore, they are worth

defining:

Leader. Any member who consistently acts on behalf of and for the benefit

of others (Noonan, 2003). Leaders are those who serve their followers and are

first experienced as servants (Bass, 2000; Greenleaf, 1977).

Leadership. Involves a process whereby one person exerts intentional

influence over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and

relationships in the organization (Rost, 1993; Yukl, 2002). It is one of the highest

forms of service, which is best exercised when it freely motivates others to a

decision that is really theirs, but which may never have been reached without the

leader’s influence (Murray, 1997).

Servant Leader. One who directs attention away from himself or herself to

focus on the followers (Weinstein, 1998; William, 1994). Servant leaders focus

more on the well being of their followers than that of the organization (Patterson,

2003). They listen to their followers, as well as support and redirect them to make

sure they have made a difference in their lives and that they have also impacted

the organization (Blanchard, 1997).

Servant Leadership. An understanding and practice of leadership that

places the good of those led over the self-interests of the leader (Laub, 1999).

Servant leadership inspires the leader to give up personal rights to find greatness

in service to others (Bass, 2000; Blanchard, 2000; Greenleaf, 1977; Meyer,

Brown, & Browne, 1998; Spears, 1995, 1996).

vii

Service. The act of benefiting others or rendering help to someone else

(Kanungo & Conger, 1993), meeting others’ needs (Cohen, 2003), a concern for

others over one’s self (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), a release of ego and

understanding that a true sense of self connects us with the rest of humanity

(Lopez, 1995). “Service is the reason for leadership” and it should not be seen

merely as a qualification for leadership but an end of leadership (Bradley, 1999,

p. 49).

Harambee. A Swahili (a language spoken in East and Central Africa) word

for “pulling together” (Chieni, 1997). Its alternative linguistic interpretation is

derivation from the twin words halahala and mbee, which signify “doing things

quickly and collectively with a forward connotation” (Yassin, 2004, para. 7).

Harambee embodies and reflects the strong ancient value of mutual assistance,

joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community self-reliance, which

became sort of a voluntary movement in post-independence and has continued

to play an absolutely cardinal role in local development initiatives in Kenya

(Bailey, 1993; Chieni; Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977; Shikuku, 2000; Wilson, 1992).

Chief. An individual in the traditional African set up that represented a king

and one who would never impose his decision on his council or people. The chief

did not rule, he served and led by consensus (Ayittey, 1992).

Ubuntu. A focus on the person not living for himself or herself but rather

living for others (Gakuru, 1998; Mamadou, 1991; Mazrui, 1986)

Individualism. A cognitive recognition of one’s existence, and as

Descartes declared, “I think—hence I am” (as cited in Ellsworth, 2002, p. 227).

viii

Individualism is the atomistic notion that a community is no more than the sum of

the individuals in it. An individualistic system is driven by competition and

materialism (Waddock, 2002).

Collectivism. Serves in many ways as a counterpoint to individualism, and

is characterized by an emphasis on community (i.e., people who live together

and share similar ideologies or backgrounds). Under collectivist systems, people

believe that the needs and interests of the community take precedence over

those of individuals (Fairholm, 1997; Waddock, 2002).

In-depth interviewing. A type of interview that researchers utilize to elicit

information in order to achieve a holistic understanding of the interviewee’s point

of view or situation. It involves asking informants open-ended questions, and

probing them wherever necessary to obtain deep, “rich” and salient data deemed

useful by the researcher (Mason, 2002).

ix

Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................iv Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................vi List of Tables ........................................................................................................xi Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Rationale of Study ....................................................................... 4 Research Question ........................................................................................... 5 Expected Findings ............................................................................................ 6 Research Postulate........................................................................................... 8 Method and Analysis......................................................................................... 8 Importance of the Study.................................................................................. 12 Limitations of the Study................................................................................... 14

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ............................................................... 16 Definition of Service ........................................................................................ 16 Servant Leadership Theory............................................................................. 20 Patterson’s (2003) Definition of Servant Leadership Theory........................... 26 Leadership and Service in the African Context ............................................... 32 The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee ............................................................ 36 Summary and Hypotheses.............................................................................. 42

Chapter Three: Method and Procedure .............................................................. 44 Description of Research Design...................................................................... 44 Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................... 47 Research Participants..................................................................................... 50 Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 52 Data Collection................................................................................................ 52 Standardized Open-ended Interview............................................................... 53 Interview Procedure ........................................................................................ 54 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 57 Summarizing Data .......................................................................................... 58 Coding Data .................................................................................................... 58 Interpreting Data ............................................................................................. 59 Limitations of the Study................................................................................... 60

x

Summary......................................................................................................... 61 Chapter Four: Findings....................................................................................... 63

Description of the Research Participants ........................................................ 63 Role Modeling ................................................................................................. 67 Sacrificing for Others ...................................................................................... 74 Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them ................. 81 Service as a Primary Function of Leadership.................................................. 90 Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ........................................................ 97 Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)................................................. 105 Involving Others (Employees) in Decision Making ........................................ 113 Chapter Summary......................................................................................... 121

Chapter Five: Discussion.................................................................................. 126 Leadership and Service in the African Context ............................................. 126 The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee .......................................................... 129 Commentary on the Findings ........................................................................ 131 Role Modeling ............................................................................................... 132 Sacrificing for Others .................................................................................... 133 Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them ............... 134 Service as a Primary Function of Leadership................................................ 135 Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ...................................................... 136 Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)................................................. 137 Involving Others in Decision Making ............................................................. 139 Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................... 140 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 141

References ....................................................................................................... 143 Appendix A ....................................................................................................... 154

xi

List of Tables

Table 1 Participants by Organizational Sectors .................................................. 64

Table 2 Participants by Gender .......................................................................... 65

Table 3 Demographic Profile of Participants....................................................... 66

Table 4 Participants’ Comments on Role Modeling ............................................ 68

Table 5 Participants’ Statements on Sacrificing for Others................................. 74

Table 6 Participants’ statements on meeting the needs of others and developing

them ............................................................................................................ 82

Table 7 Participants’ Comments on Service as a Primary Function of Leadership

.................................................................................................................... 91

Table 8 Participants’ Comments on Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ... 98

Table 9 Participants’ Statements and Comments on treating and showing

Respect for Others .................................................................................... 105

Table 10 Participants’ Comments and Statements on Involving Others in

Decision-making........................................................................................ 114

Table 11 Participants’ Responses and Frequency leading to the 7 Categories

(Overriding Themes) ................................................................................. 123

1

Chapter One: Introduction

Snyder, Dowd, and Houghton (1994) posited that writers who study

leadership advocate that one of the primary motivations of leadership should be

serving others. Service to others calls for leaders, who genuinely serve others’

needs (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Murray, 1997; Nair, 1994), meaning that a

strong relationship exists between service and leadership (“A draft,” 2000; Bass,

1995; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Bradley, 1999; Fuller, 2000; Murray; Nair; T’Shaka,

1990; Taninecz, 2002). Sarkus (1996) observed that much of the current

literature that supports serving and valuing people has been presaged by the

work of Robert K. Greenleaf. Servant leadership, which is a paradigm of

leadership based on the philosophy of Greenleaf (1977), calls for leaders to be of

service to others (e.g., employees, customers, and communities), to give more

than they take, and to serve others’ needs more than their own. Though

Greenleaf is the one most responsible for popularizing the theory of servant

leadership (Spears, 1996), the theory has been practiced for many years

throughout all cultures (Nyabadza, 2003).

Two key notions underlie the various definitions of servant leadership:

First, servant leadership emphasizes service (Blanchard, 2000; Farling, Stone, &

Winston, 1999; Greenleaf; Lee & Zemko, 1993; Lubin, 2001; Melrose, 1995;

Russel & Stone, 2002; Sarkus; Spears, 1995, 1996, 1998; Spears & Lawrence,

2002; Tatum, 1995; Wis, 2002), and second, servant leadership is other-centered

rather than leader or self-centered (Covey, 2002; Fairholm, 1997; Greenleaf;

Joseph, 1997; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Laub, 1999; Melrose; Pollard, 1997;

2

Spears & Lawrence; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003). Similarly, according to

Saunders (1993), servant leadership means supporting others in their growth and

development. Blanchard (1997) and Yukl (2002) posited that servant leaders

listen to their people, praise them, support them, and learn about their needs. In

other words, they are constantly trying to find out what their needs are in order to

be successful. Some of these characteristics, including service, appear in the list

of characteristics that are central to the development of servant leaders (Spears,

1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). Thus, the emergence of servant leadership is likely to

meet the deep desire in our society for a world where people truly care for one

another, where workers and customers are treated fairly, and where the leaders

can be trusted to serve the needs of their followers rather than their own (Spears,

1998).

To help create a platform for more specific research on servant

leadership, Patterson (2003) developed a working theory of servant leadership

comprising the constructs of agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust,

empowerment, and service. The idea of service is at the core of servant

leadership theory and it occurs as the leader serves others, mainly his or her

followers (Arjoon, 2000). Though servant leadership crosses all boundaries and

is being applied by myriad organizations (Spears, 1996), the theory is mainly

concentrated in North American organizations (Autry, 2001; Branch, 1999;

Douglas, 2003; Galvin, 2001; Levering & Moskowitz, 2000, 2001; McLaughlin,

2001; Pollard, 1997; Rubin, Powers, Tulacz, Winston, & Krizan, 2002; Spears,

1996; Spears & Lawrence, 2002; Taninecz, 2002), where it has provided a

3

means for companies to value their people in order to be successful (Fletcher,

1999; Lowe, 1998). Thus, Patterson’s servant leadership theory and the

construct of service may be contextually constrained. In other words, the theory,

and more specifically the construct of service, needs research in various contexts

in order to see if it applies in varied cultural and organizational settings like

Kenya.

A study by Nelson (2003), which explored Patterson’s (2003) servant

leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism, empowerment, humility, love,

service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in South Africa, found that

Patterson’s servant leadership theory has acceptability and applicability among

black leaders in South African organizations even though there were some

contextual concerns. Capitalizing on the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the

person not living for himself or herself, but rather living for others (“An afro-

centric,” 2001; Dia, 1994; Mamadou, 1991; Mazrui, 1986; Mbiti, 1969; Mibigi &

Maree, 1995; Wright, 1984), Nelson found service to be the primary function of

leadership among black leaders in South Africa. Service was not based on the

leaders’ own interests, but rather on the interests and welfare of their employees.

The study, however, is limited in the sense that it can only be generalized to

black leaders in South African organizations. Thus, there is need to undertake a

similar study in the Kenyan context.

The fact that ubuntu and other concepts and philosophies that relate to

serving others (e.g., “I am because we are: and since we are, therefore I am”)

(Mbiti, 1969, p.10) are widely shared across Africa, would mean that servant

4

leadership, and the construct of service might be positively received by the

Kenyan leaders and managers. The traditional African leadership set-up has

been more intent on reaching consensus (Ayittey, 1992; Mamadou; Mersha,

2000) and has always placed the community’s interest ahead of its own. Even

the African communities themselves believed that the welfare of an individual

means the welfare of the entire community (Bell, 2002; Gakuru, 1998; Mamadou;

Waiguchu, Tiagha, & Mwaura, 1999; Wright). Furthermore, the Kenyan

philosophy of harambee, which was adopted by Jomo Kenyatta who was the

founding president (Chieni, 1997; Versely, 1997), is based on African traditions of

community cooperation and mutual aid (Hill, 1991; Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977;

Ngau, 1987). It embodies and reflects a strong ancient value of mutual

assistance and community reliance (Bailey, 1993; Chieni; Ngau; Shikuku, 2000;

Yassin, 2004). The harambee philosophy, which is usually used in the discussion

of economic and social developments (Chieni; Ngau), became a kind of voluntary

movement in post-independence (after 1963) and has continued to play an

absolutely cardinal role in local development initiatives or projects (Bailey, 1993;

Chieni; Hill; Ndegwa, 1996; Ngau; Wilson, 1992).

Purpose and Rationale of Study

The purpose of this study is to build on Patterson’s (2003) work on servant

leadership theory. By developing a working theory of servant leadership,

Patterson opened the door to empirical research on the theory. Further, as a

possibility for more research, Patterson indicated that the theory needs

contextual research–-that is looking to see if the theory applies in varied cultural

5

settings and, if so, how it looks in such settings. Nelson’s (2003) study, which

explored Patterson’s servant leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism,

empowerment, humility, love, service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in

South Africa, found that Patterson’s servant leadership theory has acceptability

and applicability among black leaders in South African organizations even though

there were some contextual concerns. Nelson’s study, however, can only be

generalized to black leaders in South African organizations. Thus, this study

specifically seeks to explore the acceptability and applicability of Patterson’s

servant leadership theory’s construct of service among Kenyan leaders and

managers of varied ethnic origins. The study also seeks to determine if the

construct of service can be applied in organizational settings throughout Kenya.

Research Question

This study stems from Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory, which

premises that the primary focus of servant leaders is serving their followers.

Servant leaders are more concerned with the followers’ welfare than the

organization. Autry (2001), a top-selling author and former CEO of Meredith

Corporation says in his book, The Servant Leader: How to Build a Creative

Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-line Performance, “service to

others” is the most efficient way to lead. In other words, servant leaders should

always seek to find if their colleagues have grown professionally during their

leadership tenure. Bradley (1999) stated, “Service is the reason for leadership”

(p. 49). Service is not seen merely as a qualification for leadership but as an end

of leadership. Therefore, this study seeks to do the following:

6

1. Determine if Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service

has validity and acceptability in Kenyan organizations.

2. Determine if, and to what degree, Kenyan leaders and managers of varied

organizational backgrounds (settings) apply Patterson’s servant

leadership theory’s construct of service with their followers.

Expected Findings

Many researchers have argued for the universality of servant leadership

theory. According to Spears (1996) and Tatum (1995), servant leadership

crosses all boundaries and is being applied by a wide variety of people working

for myriad organizations. Bradley (1999) pointed out that servant leadership

theory should find a “home” in numerous religions and philosophies. Similarly,

Nair (1994) noted that the importance of service to leadership has also been

acknowledged and practiced for many years. For instance, the ancient monarchs

acknowledged that they were in the service of their country and their people.

Today’s modern coronation ceremonies and inaugurations of heads of state

would always acknowledge their service to God, country, and the people.

According to Taninecz (2002), history’s greatest leaders (e.g., Jesus Christ,

Confucius, Gandhi, and Buddha) have been servant leaders. Similarly, in ancient

West Africa, the king was the servant and shepherd of the people (T’Shaka,

1990). Further, in South Africa each tribe had (as is still today) a traditional leader

who did not exercise as an autonomous individual but in collaboration with a

tribal council that represented the people. People saw him as a spiritual, cultural,

and judicial leader (“A draft,” 2000). Since the above statements about servant

7

leadership are presumed to be applicable to most cultural settings, it is expected

that the responses from the Kenyan leaders and managers on servant leadership

theory’s construct of service would reflect this assertion.

According to Rowe (2003), servant leadership is embedded in many

indigenous cultures. Moreover, anthropologists demonstrate that people who led

others in tribal situations very often were the servants of others. These cultures

were holistic, cooperative, and communal. Mamadou (1991) and Mersha (2000)

presented the African culture as being characteristically similar to this

description. For instance, though led by a chief, most decisions affecting the

African people were based on consensus more than litigation by the book.

Similarly, in the African traditional social-set up people regarded each other as

brothers and sisters. African communities strongly believed that the welfare of an

individual means the welfare of the whole community (Ayittey, 1992; Gakuru,

1998; Mbiti, 1969). Giving a specific example from Kenya, the philosophy of

harambee, meaning “let us all pull together” embodies ideas of mutual

assistance, joint effort, and community self-reliance (Bailey, 1993; Chieni, 1997;

Hill, 1991; Shikuku, 2000; Wilson, 1992). The efforts of the people, private sector,

and the government come together in a cooperative endeavor to speed up

development. Thus, it is expected that the Kenyan leaders and managers accept

and apply servant leadership theory’s construct of service.

Further, the results of the study undertaken by Nelson (2003), which

examined the validity and acceptability of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership

theory in the context of black leaders in South Africa, found the theory to be

8

applicable and acceptable though it has some contextual constrains. Capitalizing

on the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the person not living for himself or

herself but rather living for others (“An afro-centric,” 2001; Dia, 1994; Mamadou,

1991; Mazrui, 1986; Mbiti, 1969), Nelson found service to be the primary function

of leadership among black leaders in South Africa. Service was not based on the

leaders’ own interests but rather on the interests and welfare of their employees.

Thus, though Nelson’s study is limited in the sense that it can only be

generalized to black leaders in South African organizations, the fact that ubuntu

and other concepts or philosophies relating to serving others are widely shared

across Africa would mean that this study might be positively received by the

Kenyan leaders and managers.

Research Postulate

The primary postulate in the study is that Patterson’s (2003) servant

leadership theory’s construct of service has acceptance and applicability among

Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational backgrounds.

Method and Analysis

This study seeks to examine Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership

theory’s construct of service (i.e., acceptance and applicability) in the context of

Kenyan leaders and managers. Since not much research has been done on

servant leadership, especially in cross-cultural settings, this study calls for a

qualitative investigation that will attempt to enhance existing literature through

revelation of details not captured in qualitative inquiry (Creswell, 1994; Merriam,

9

1998). The proposed research lends itself to qualitative inquiry because the

researcher seeks reality as seen by the participants in the study (Maxwell, 1996).

Miles and Huberman (1996) also associated qualitative studies with certain

strengths, which are pertinent to this study.

Qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on relatively small samples,

selected purposefully. The logic and power behind purposeful or theoretical

sampling lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in-depth (Bryman &

Burgess, 1999; Mason, 2002; Patton, 2002). Theoretical sampling provides just

enough data since the researcher will look for indicators of saturation (Morse &

Richards, 2002; Seidman, 1998; Yin, 1994). Using a theory-based sampling

strategy, which is one of the strategies for purposefully and theoretically selecting

information-rich cases, this study will select 25 leaders and managers (from the

executive and upper management) from Kenyan organizations, to examine using

the in-depth interviewing (standardized open-ended) technique (Huberman &

Miles, 2002; Mason; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The

sample population of leaders and managers is selected based on the theory-

driven criteria for being a servant leader. These leaders and managers, who

seem to espouse Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of

service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy, represent corporate

organizations, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), and institutions of higher learning (e.g., universities and colleges), all of

which are perceived to practice servant leadership as stipulated in their mission

or vision statements. To do justice to the research question, the researcher used

10

the following predetermined questions, along with probes (or follow-up) in order

to understand or verify the participants’ understanding of ethnocentristic or cross-

cultural reading of concepts like harambee.

1. Like the harambee philosophy, which is guided by the principle of

collective good rather than individual gain, consider service as putting

others’ welfare (e.g., employees, customers, and community) and interest

first. Service is caring for others enough to facilitate their growth,

development, and success without expecting any reward. In light of this

description, what is your own understanding of service? What do you see

as the role of service in your organization?

2. Leadership being the process whereby the leader (one who acts for the

benefit of others) exerts influence over others (e.g., employees) in the

organization, do you see service as the primary function of leadership?

Why? Why not?

3. Do leaders in this organization understand that serving others is most

important? For instance, do they reflect an overarching helping concern

for others (e.g., employees) without any regard for self-interest, even

when such concern involves considerable sacrifice or inconvenience (i.e.,

harming self-interest) on their part? Are they the type of leaders that would

rather give more than take (e.g., resources and time), and serve others’

needs rather than theirs? In other words, do they view employees as the

most important resource of the organization and as having an intrinsic

value that goes beyond their tangible contributions as workers?

11

4. Service occurs when we naturally and authentically claim and champion

someone else’s excellence, success, and fulfillment. In light of this, how

do leaders in this organization feel about serving or helping others (their

followers)? Do they have the spontaneity, the commitment, and the

appreciation for what it takes to perform beyond self-imposed limitations?

5. Service may be demonstrated in many different ways: by role modeling

(leading by example), through humility, showing respect for others

(acknowledging one’s self-worth), listening, praising, supporting, and

redirecting them when they deviate from goals. In light of this, how do

leaders in this organization demonstrate service to their followers?

6. Some organizations may observe service through collective-problem

solving based on consensus, seeking involvement in decision-making, and

creating a sense of community whereby people are bound by a fellowship

of endeavor (social interactions) rather than coercion, genuine concern

rather than instrumental manipulation, and commitment to mutual goals.

Can you comment on this?

7. An increasing number of organizations have adopted service as part of

their corporate philosophy. They recognize the importance of service to

others that is to be felt, understood, believed, and practiced. In light of this,

do you think that the construct of service is good? Why? Do you think that

your organization would adopt it?

There are three distinct components to the analysis of the data collected

during this study. The first component consists of the transcription of the data

12

(material) collected from the in-depth interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Walsh,

2003). The second component consists of coding the transcribed data and

material using NUD*IST, a computer program that provides for non-numerical

unstructured data indexing, categorizing, searching, and concept and theory

building. The third and final component involves the synthesis (interpretation) of

the results of the first and second components (Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin;

Walsh). Since the main goal of qualitative research is to demonstrate the

trustworthiness of the findings (Walsh), the researcher addressed the questions

of validity and reliability by making the data collection methods and analyses

detailed and explicit (Creswell, 1996; Huberman & Miles, 2002; Mason, 2002;

Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994).

Importance of the Study

The concept of servant leadership is not new. Though Greenleaf, who is

perceived as the father of servant leadership, was only able to coin the concept

in 1970 (Spears, 1996) in order to bring to the forefront the perspective that

leaders are those that are servants first; the theory has been around for many

years (Greenleaf, 1977; Nyabadza, 2003). Patterson (2003) developed a working

theory of servant leadership comprising of the constructs of agapao love,

humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service, which helps create a

platform for more specific research. One of Patterson’s main concerns was that

the theory needs researching contextually, to see if it applies in varied cultural

settings and if so, how the theory looks in various organizational settings. Thus,

through this study, servant leadership theory and the construct of service in

13

particular is likely to receive further contextual validation in varied cultural and

organizational settings.

According to Rubin et al. (2002) and Spears (1996), servant leadership

theory has already been used to transform modern corporations in North

America. Individuals within such corporations have adopted servant leadership

as a guiding philosophy. An increasing number of organizations have adopted

the theory as part of their corporate philosophy (e.g., as part of their mission

statement). Further, the theory has also influenced many of today’s noted writers

(e.g., Max DePree, Peter Senge, Peter Block, and James Autry), to mention but

a few. Lloyd (1996) observed that leadership theory that is based on the concept

of service is now the central paradigm in current leadership literature; however,

there are still major challenges to be made in this area. With more research of

this magnitude, servant leadership is likely to become even more influential and

impacting in the realm of leadership studies throughout the world. Thus, the

results of this study solidified the appropriateness of the theory’s construct of

service and also put it on the limelight to globalization and internationalization.

Further, the theory of servant leadership can be used as a template for

training and instilling the attitude of service in the Kenyan organizations, which

have been plagued by poor service emanating from leaders that focus on

themselves instead of focusing on their followers, customers, and the community

at large. Though the African philosophy (e.g., the Kenyan philosophy of

harambee) promotes a caring culture, where people are suppose to show

concern and care for one another, there is need to transform organizations

14

through servant leadership by igniting and invoking such cultural iconic

statements. There is a need for leaders who see themselves as servants in

Kenya today.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several important limitations that should be addressed.

Like many qualitative studies, which utilize a version of theoretical (or purposive)

sampling (Mason, 2002) this study limits generalization by focusing on only a few

leaders from the fields of business, government, non-governmental, and

educational institutions (universities) in Kenya. Thus, though the results will be

meaningful theoretically and empirically, they are not generalizable to a larger

universe (Yin, 1994).

Because the researcher is usually in the presence of the informants only

briefly, and must draw inference from what happened during that brief period to

the rest of the informants’ life, interviewing poses some special problems for

internal generalizability (Huberman & Miles, 2002).

In addition, the resources (e.g., time and money) available in this study

limited the researcher to a particular geographical region, Kenya, as well as to

just a handful of organizations. And, although the results are generalizable to

theoretical propositions (Yin, 1994), a more diverse sampling would evince

greater clarity. Further, the results found in this study may potentially be

somewhat idiosyncratic of the sample.

Finally, as with most qualitative methods of inquiry, the researcher is the

primary instrument for gathering and analyzing data. As a human instrument, the

15

researcher is limited by being human. In other words, mistakes are made,

opportunities are missed, and personal biases interfere (Merriam, 1998). The

researcher is not neutral, distant, or emotionally uninvolved (Rubin & Rubin,

1995). Therefore, complete objectivity is not feasible. The researcher may have

brought personal experience into the study, which may have transcended

interpretation and influenced data analysis.

16

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

In order to understand the construct of service in the context of Kenyan

leaders and managers, which was the fundamental objective of this study, the

following review of the literature mainly concentrates on:

1. The definition of the concept of service.

2. Servant leadership theory (Greenleaf, 1977).

3. Definition of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory.

4. Leadership and service in the African context.

5. The Kenyan philosophy of harambee.

Definition of Service

Writers, who study leadership, advocate that one of the primary

motivations of leadership should be serving others. In their book, Vision, Values

and Courage, Snyder et al. (1994) argued that a real customer focus requires

leadership with service to others—an interest in or an orientation to other people

that places importance on their well-being. Murray (1997), who is a consultant in

philanthropy, submitted that the servant leadership concept has maximum

opportunity to portray its value when practiced within the framework of

philanthropy. Philanthropy encourages the sharing of resources, talents, time,

and effort on the part of those who have to those who do not–-all of which are

part of service. Murray further observed that there are quotes after quotes, which

underscore service:

17

Albert Schweitz, a physician, whose love for others took him to Africa, said

as follows in a commencement speech: “I don’t know what your destiny

will be, but one thing I know: the only ones among you who will be truly

happy are those who have sought and found how to serve.” Marian Wright

Edelman, known for her concern for underprivileged children, said:

“Service is what life is all about; it never occurred to me not to be involved

in the community.” Charles F. Kettering, one of America’s great inventors

had this to say: “You have got to be a servant to somebody or something.”

Sebastian Kresge, founder of what have become K-Mart and the well

known foundation carrying his name, urged: “Find out where you can

render a service, and then render it. The rest is up to the lord.” (p. 3)

According to Murray, these four personalities have made a difference in society

and they challenge everyone to carve out a niche in their home, neighborhood,

town, or suburb, or even at the national level to serve others. Living to serve

others brings the greatest joy that humans can experience.

According to Nair (1994), Mahatma Gandhi placed before us a higher

standard of leadership based on an enduring spirit of personal service. Gandhi,

who is acknowledged as a servant leader says: “We must place service at the

core” (as cited in Nair, p. 59). Gandhi further challenged leaders to treat others

as themselves, for the ideal service is selfless service: you see everybody as

yourself and expect no reward. According to Kanungo and Mendonca (1996),

there is an increasing realization today for business leaders to become more

responsible, not just to their stockholders but also to other stakeholders (e.g.,

18

consumers, employees, suppliers, the government, and the local communities).

Nair noted the existence of service in business between companies and their

customers, shareholders, management, and employees, a relationship that is

mainly sustained by altruistic behaviors, which reflect a helping concern for

others without any regard for self-interest, even when such concern involves

considerable personal sacrifice or inconvenience (i.e., harming self-interest)

(Kanungo & Mendonca).

Nair (1994) further observed a strong connection between service and

leadership. Service is an important component of leadership, which has been

acknowledged and practiced for many years. For instance, the ancient monarchs

acknowledged that they were in the service of their country and their people.

Today’s modern coronation ceremonies and inaugurations of heads of state also

acknowledge their service to God, country, and the people. Taninecz (2002)

observed that history’s greatest leaders (e.g., Jesus Christ, Confucius, Gandhi,

and Buddha) have been servant leaders. Such leaders treated and inspired their

followers by serving them. Thus, the success of future corporate leaders will not

be measured by the market share, profit, and increased shareholding alone, but

by their effectiveness as missionaries, stewards, and custodians of the human

spirit.

According to Fuller (2000), Confucius believed one who leads must be

able to discern the characteristics of the group (i.e., what it can or cannot do) and

also honor God, for such a tradition encourages self-discipline and self-

overcoming behavior, which are paramount requirements for a good leader.

19

While this is true of Confucius, Thomas Aquinas saw a Christian leader (like

Jesus) as a servant of the people in detachment from the trappings of worldly

success that go with ruling positions. We are also by nature members of

communities and thus responsible to and for each other. T’Shaka (1990) noted

that in ancient West Africa, the king was the servant and shepherd of the people.

In other words, his main and most important function was to serve the people.

This shows that African democracy was collective, communal, and rooted in the

will of the people contrary to the notion that indigenous African political tradition

was dictatorial (only a few despotic leaders existed). Prior to colonialism in South

Africa, a number of tribal regimes based on patriarchy and ascriptive norms

existed. Each tribe, as is still today, had a traditional leader, who did not exercise

as an autonomous individual but in collaboration with a tribal council that

represented the people. People saw him not only as a spiritual, cultural, and

judicial leader, but also as the custodian of the values of his community. His

leadership role was a bonding factor as he was responsible for the common good

(“A draft,” 2000).

Similarly, Murray (1997) posited that leadership is one of the highest

forms of service and it is best exercised when it freely motivates others to a

decision that is really theirs–-but which may never have been reached without

the leader’s beneficial influence. Likewise, Bradley (1999) stated, “Service is the

reason for leadership” (p. 49), it is not seen merely as a qualification for

leadership but an end of leadership. Though she acknowledged servant

leadership as having made its mark in the leadership literature, Bradley offered a

20

critique of the concept by looking at its origins, the Biblical interpretations to it,

and the benefit for leadership practice in educational organizations. Bradley

found the idea of serving others as a fine attitude for all humans to adopt, in

whatever role that they might be cast. Bass (1995) said that enlightened

leadership is service and not selfishness. The leader grows more and lasts

longer by placing the well being of others above one’s own. As per Bennis and

Nanus (1985), leaders must understand that one of their primary functions as

leaders is to serve the needs of their constituents. While talking about the new

leader, Bennis and Nanus observed the leadership of service as the pivotal force

behind successful organizations. If this is true, then this study will find that

Kenyan leaders and managers understand and apply the construct of service in

organizational settings throughout Kenya.

Servant Leadership Theory

Sarkus (1996) observed that much of the current literature that supports

serving and valuing people has been presaged by the work of Greenleaf (servant

leadership). The emphasis on servant leadership is to humbly serve without

expectation to be served by those who follow. The model establishes service as

the gift that attracts followers who in turn pass along this same gift. Though

Greenleaf (1977) is the one most responsible for popularizing the theory of

servant leadership for the last 30 years, the theory has been practiced for

centuries upon centuries throughout all cultures (Nyabadza, 2003). Greenleaf

popularized the concept of servant leadership through an essay titled The

Servant as Leader, and a later book incorporating that essay Servant

21

Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness.

Greenleaf credited Herman Hesse’s Journey to the East (1956) as the source of

his idea of the servant leader. Greenleaf coined the concept in 1970 (Spears,

1996) in order to bring to the forefront the perspective that leaders are those that

are servants first. He proposed, “The great leader is seen as servant first, and

that simple fact is the key to his greatness” (Greenleaf, p. 21). For Greenleaf,

servant leadership:

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

conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply

different from one who is leader first. The difference manifests itself in the

care taken by the servant—first to make sure that other people’s highest

priority needs are being served. (p. 27)

Greenleaf, argued that the best test of servant leadership is

Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become

healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to

become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in

society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived? (p. 27)

Two key notions underlie the various definitions servant leadership:

service and other-centered (Greenleaf, 1977). Farling et al. (1999) posited that

service is the core of servant leadership. In other words, servant leaders know

they are servants first. In their study, which presented a theoretical model of

servant leadership that assimilates the literature-based variables of vision,

credibility, trust, and service, Farling et al. argued that service is and should be a

22

primary function of leadership, and that it should not be based on one’s own

interests, but rather on the interests and welfare of others. Russell and Stone

(2002) concurred that service is the core of servant leadership and that this

service is a choice over self-interest. In their study, which presented values and

attributes (i.e., vision, honesty, integrity, truth, modeling, pioneering, appreciation

of others, empowerment, and service) as the starting point of a practical model of

servant leadership, Russell and Stone proffered that service and concern for the

welfare of others are central aspects of the model. To Wis (2002), the servant

leader is called to serve and he or she sees life in totality as a mission of service.

While reiterating Greenleaf’s philosophy, Lee and Zemko (1993) observed that

leaders exist only to serve their followers and they earn their followers’ trust only

by virtue of their selfless natures. Servant leadership emphasizes service to

others as a holistic approach to work, personal development, and shared

decision making. Such characteristics are in the mainstream of conventional talk

about empowerment, total quality, and participative management.

By looking at all of Greenleaf’s works, Spears (1995, 1998) discussed

servant leadership as a model that puts serving others–-including employees,

customers, and community–-as the number one priority. Servant leadership

emphasizes increased service to others, a holistic approach to work, the

promotion of a sense of community, and a deepening understanding of the spirit

in the workplace. Further, servant leaders are known to deeply commit

themselves to the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of those in their

sphere of influence (Spears, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). In other words, servant

23

leaders serve out of compassion and concern for people, and out of a desire to

promote and celebrate every individual within their circle of influence. And better

than other leadership models, servant leadership promotes opportunities for

corporate success because people work and live best in a community where they

genuinely serve each other’s needs (Melrose, 1995).

While talking about his new book, Leadership by the Book: Tools to

Transform your Workplace, Blanchard (2000) pointed us to two kinds of leaders:

those who are leaders first and those who are servants first. While those who are

leaders first tend to be controlling in terms of decision making and giving of

orders, those who are servants first only assume leadership if they see it as an

opportunity to serve. Instead of being driven, servant leaders are called to lead

because they naturally want to be helpful. Perhaps, the notion of a deep desire in

our society today for leaders, who humbly serve without expectation to be served

by those who follow (Sarkus, 1996) and who can be trusted to serve the needs of

the many rather than the few (Spears, 1998), makes great sense. Moreover,

leaders who become aware of servant leadership know they serve more than the

company, more than markets or products, and more than even vision or values.

Such leaders turn business around by putting emphasis on serving others (Lubin,

2001). Thus, Tatum (1995) is somewhat right in saying that servant leadership is

not the special domain of any one religious group or any one profit or nonprofit

group but rather the domain of those caught up in the spirit of service.

Servant leadership is other-centered. According to Greenleaf (1977),

servant leaders are concerned with the less privileged in society and strive to

24

help others grow as persons. They want to help those they serve become

“healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become

leaders” (Greenleaf, p. 27). Laub (1999) viewed servant leadership in the context

of promoting, valuing, and developing others, which calls for the building of

community and sharing of power and status for the common good of each

individual, the total organization, and those served by the organization. While

developing an instrument for assessing organizational leadership, Laub

advocated the use of workgroups or teams that are small enough to allow group

members to become a community, with strong collaborative relationships. This is

in line with servant leadership, which is inclusive rather than exclusive.

According to Joseph (1997), servant leadership is about “careacting”–-that

is devoting serious attention to doing things in the service of others. Joseph

further observed that at the core of servant leadership are collectivist

assumptions: one must submit one’s individualistic will to the collective good in

order to be a servant leader. Pollard (1997) saw the need for love and care for

the led if a sense of community is to be built. Servant leadership promotes a

more open and cooperative working environment (Melrose, 1995), where the

task is to serve the team needs as well as organizational needs. When talking

about the basis of servant leadership, Fairholm (1997) saw our task as to serve

self, the team needs, and our fellow workers with all our heart and our mind and

to do so unreservedly. Serving the team and organizational needs calls for

leaders who recognize the importance of the metaphor of community. Fortune

500 executive, Jim Autry (1991), observed that the workplace is becoming

25

today’s neighborhood or community. Leaders who recognize the importance of

the metaphor of community energize people to take actions that support higher

organizational purposes rather than self-interests. Such leaders also emphasize

consensus in decision making (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Stone et al. (2003)

show in their study that servant leadership differs from transformational

leadership (perhaps the most popular concept in the leadership field today)

primarily because of a leader focus on others. The servant leader’s focus is on

the followers, and achievement of organizational objectives is a subordinate

outcome. Thus, the focus on others is the distinguishing feature of servant

leadership.

According to Saunders (1993), servant leadership is also about supporting

others in their growth and development. A supporting system for others demands

that we have the courage to brush our egos aside in order to care enough about

them so as to facilitate their success. As part of supporting others, Blanchard

(1997) posited that servant leaders listen to their people, praise them, and

redirect them when they deviate from goals. In other words, servant leaders are

constantly trying to find out what their followers’ needs are in order to help them

succeed. This is due to the fact that they have genuine interests in making a

difference in their lives. Similarly, in echoing the work of Greenleaf, Yukl (2002)

said servant leaders must attend to the needs of their followers and help them

become healthier, wiser, and more willing to accept their responsibilities. It is only

by understanding followers that the servant leader can determine best how to

serve their needs. Thus, listening to followers, learning about their needs and

26

aspirations, and being willing to share in their plan and frustration is mandatory

for servant leaders.

According to Covey (2002), service is the reason why servant leaders

naturally seek to listen and understand others. The characteristics (including

service) that both Blanchard (1997) and Yukl (2002) highlighted fall in the list of

the characteristics that appear to be central to the development of servant

leaders: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,

foresight, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears,

1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). All these have been drawn from Greenleaf’s writing.

Thus, the emergence of service and servant leadership is likely to meet the deep

desire in our society for a world where people are believed to have an intrinsic

value beyond their tangible contributions as workers (Spears & Lawrence, 2002).

Also, where people truly care for one another, where workers and customers are

treated fairly, and where leaders can be trusted to serve the needs of their

followers rather than their own (Spears, 1998). If this is true, then this study will

find that Kenyan leaders and managers care and serve the needs of their

followers rather than their own needs.

Patterson’s (2003) Definition of Servant Leadership Theory

To help create a platform for more specific research on servant

leadership, Patterson (2003) developed a working theory of servant leadership.

According to Patterson:

Servant leaders signify those who lead an organization by focusing on

their followers, such that the followers are the primary concern and the

27

organizational concerns are peripheral. Servant leaders lead and serve

with (a) altruism, (b) empower followers, (c) act with humility, (d) exhibit

love, (e) lead with service, (f) are trusting, and (g) are visionary to their

followers. (p. 5)

According to Patterson (2003), servant leadership theory provides a

marked contrast with that of transformational leadership theory. While

transformational leaders strive to align their personal interests (i.e.,

organizational interests and the interests of the followers) with the interests of the

group, organization, or society, the primary focus of the leaders in servant

leadership theory is on serving their followers individually. Once again, this very

idea of service is at the heart of servant leadership theory and it occurs as the

leader serves others, mainly his or her followers (Arjoon, 2000).

Based on a paper presented at Indiana State University on servant

leadership, Spears (1996) argued that servant leadership crosses all boundaries

and is being applied by a wide variety of people working for a myriad of

organizations (i.e., both non-profit and for-profit). Individuals within such

organizations have adopted servant leadership as a guiding corporate philosophy

and as a foundation for their mission. While this assertion is true, the theory is

mainly concentrated in North American organizations.

For instance, TDI Industries, a Dallas-based mechanical contractor, has

one of the industry’s most intensive leadership programs. While searching for the

traits that make a good manager-leader, Rubin et al. (2002) pointed to servant

leadership. For over 30 years, TD Industries has advocated and executed the

28

“servant as leader” philosophy developed by management consultant, Robert

Greenleaf. Galvin’s (2001) list of the top 50 training corporations has TD

Industries among others. In conducting the research and interviews that went into

their 2001 top 50 training organizations, TD Industries came across individuals

and companies (e.g., SAS Institute and Synovus Financial) that piqued their

interest though admittedly happy in their current jobs. According to McLaughlin

(2001), servant leadership is practiced at TD Industries through the cultivation of

employees by serving the employees and meeting their needs. To keep servant

leadership central to TD Industries’ corporate culture, new employees go through

servant leadership training. And though many companies profess, “people are

our most important asset” TD Industries (ranked number 27) backs up the

statement with an employee retention track record that would make any company

envious. No wonder Ben Houston, TD Industries managing director, said, “To be

a leader, you need to be a servant leader and get business results” and that “part

of being a servant leader is getting people to improve” (as cited in Rubin et al., p.

3). Houston further stated that the mission is so serious at TD Industries that “if

you just get business results without the servant relationship, you cannot stay

here” (Rubin et al., p. 4). Perhaps that is the reason behind TD Industries being

consistently rated among the best companies to work for in America by Fortune

Magazine (Spears, 1996).

Along with TD Industries, Synovus Financial, SAS Institute, and

Southwest Airlines are also included in the list of the top 100 organizations to

29

work for in America. For instance, Galvin (2001) observed Genie Mize, director of

the Center for People Development (CPD) at Synovus Financial, saying that:

Regardless of the program, the concept of servant leadership–-or leading

by serving the needs of others–-lies at the heart of each initiative. We

make sure we look at the whole person and in doing so we truly believe

that they are going to be producing at a level that benefits not only

themselves, but also the business. We say it, we write it, and we really

practice it. (p. 81)

While commending on the list of the best 100 companies to work for in

America, Bradley (1999) said that though swimming pools and surging pay may

give employees a lift, continual training and humane treatment is really what gets

the best ones to stick around. On the basis of the Fortune survey, Levering and

Moskowitz (2000) contended that servant leadership has been practiced and

advocated in some best companies to work for in America, namely Southwest

Airlines (#2 in 2000, #4 in 1999, and #1 in 1998), TD Industries (#4 in 2000, #2 in

1999, and #5 in 1998), and Synovus Financial (#5 in 2000 and #1 in 1999).

Fortune 2001 annual survey of top employees ranked Southwest Airlines, TD

Industries, and Synovus Financial number four, six, and eight respectively

(Levering & Moskowitz, 2001). All these organizations are servant-led and they

espouse that servant leadership contributes to their success.

As per Jack Lowe (1998), CEO and chairman of TD Industries, servant

leadership provides a means for companies to value their people and be

successful. Lowe further asserted that when people become grounded in servant

30

leadership, trust grows and the foundation for organizational excellence is

established. Similarly, in a study, which attempted to determine whether or not

service quality programs are implemented successfully in South African market,

Fletcher (1999) observed effective internal communication, leadership, and

employee issues as of cardinal importance to any organization.

A number of other organizations, not necessarily in the list of top 100

organizations to work for, also practice servant leadership. William Pollard

(1997), former CEO of ServiceMaster had this to say in his keynote address at

the Strategic Leadership Forum’s International Conference, “Regardless of the

situation, the real leader is not the person with the most distinguishable title, the

highest pay, or the longest tenure–-but rather the real leader is the servant, who

promotes others as opposed to promoting himself” (p. 2). Pollard further

observed that:

The measure of his success as a leader at ServiceMaster is not only in the

value of shares or the profit they produce, but more importantly, it relates

to the people with whom he works with. His job at ServiceMaster is to train

and motivate people to serve so they will do more effective job, be more

productive in their work, and become better people. (p. 3)

Servant leaders, according to Pollard (1997), believe in the people they

lead, make themselves available, have the commitment, and love and care for

the people they lead. Similarly, James Autry (2001), former CEO of Meredith

Corporation, said in his recent book, The Servant Leader: How to Build a

Creative Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-line Performance,

31

that “service to others” is the most efficient and effective way to lead. His focal

point of success is on developing an engaging community of followers, who

periodically assume leadership roles by serving others. Douglas (2003) saw this

as a deviation from the teaching philosophy of traditional leadership, which

emphasizes individualism and unilateral decision making. While arguing for the

characteristics of a good leader-manager, Rubin et al. (2002) observed Ralph

Peterson, CEO of CH2M Hills Cos., saying that: “I have found that real

leadership is about others and not about the individual” (p. 5). “The bottom line is

that every person in the industry has tremendous potential just waiting to be

developed” (p. 5).

Likewise, Lance Secretan, CEO and founder of the Secretan Center, a

worldwide consulting organization in Ontario (Canada), said that servant leaders

must treat followers as customers and inspire them. Secretan, who encouraged

anyone and everyone to believe in a world in which love can conquer all, was

honored in 1999 with the International Care Award from the Caring Institute,

joining the company of Jane Goodall and Mother Teresa as recipients (Taninecz,

2002). Perhaps Spears and Lawrence (2002) are somewhat right in their

insistence that servant leadership is one model that can turn traditional notions of

leadership and organizational structure upside-down. Business leaders who

become aware of the servant leadership model know that they serve more than

the company, more than markets or products, and more than even vision and

values. They turn business around by putting emphasis on serving others. If this

32

is true, then this proposed study would find that Kenyan leaders and managers

value and serve their followers more than their organizations.

Leadership and Service in the African Context

A study by Nelson (2003), which explored Patterson’s (2003) servant

leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism, empowerment, humility, love,

service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in South African organizations

found service to be the primary function of leadership. Service was not based on

the leaders’ own interests but rather on the interests and welfare of their

employees. In other words, participants expressed a desire to put others first—

that is a willingness to look after others’ welfare. Their perception of service was

expressed as “serving and supporting the people who serve the customers”

(Nelson, p. 72). This is not a strange outcome, given that Nelson capitalized on

the prevalent African values like the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the

person not living for himself or herself, but rather living for others. Ubuntu serves

as metaphor embodying group solidarity in many traditional African societies

(Mibigi & Maree, 1995). In other words, it focuses on the person and stresses

communal support, group significance, and cooperation. It acts like a public

philosophy that ties people together as a strong, united community (“An affro-

centric,” 2001).

While discussing development and cultural values in sub-saharan Africa,

Mamadou (1991) observed that the main concern for every leader or grouping

was to maintain social balance and equity within the groups, rather than

individual economic achievements. In such a case, the interest of the local

33

communities takes precedence over whatever the government, organizations, or

leaders may declare as national interests. While Mazrui (1986), for instance,

goes ahead to mention other African concepts in his book, The Africans: A Triple

Heritage, that are similar to ubuntu (e.g., muntu, ungamtu, mgamtu, and abantu),

all meaning “You do not live for yourself, you live for others” (p. 295), Mbiti’s

(1969) often quoted line—“I am because we are: and since we are, therefore I

am” (p.10)—from his widely read book, African Religions and Philosophy, comes

into mind. It is perhaps worth quoting the fuller text of Mbiti’s remark:

The individual owes his existence to other people. He is simply part of the

whole. Whatever happens to the individual happens to the whole group

and whatever happens to the whole group happens to the individual. The

individual can only say: “I am, because we are; and since we are therefore

I am.” (p. 10)

This is the cardinal point in the understanding of the African view of man.

Most of the values and philosophies propagated by Mazrui (1986) and

Mbiti (1969) are widely shared across African communities. According to Wright

(1984), the African view of man denies that persons can be defined by focusing

on the physical or psychological characteristics of the lone individual. Rather,

man is defined by the preference to the envisioning community. Mazrui talked of

muntu, which is an indigenous word meaning person. The word is at times

applied in the generic sense of humankind. It is the theme of humanism in

Africa’s philosophical and political experience, involving a major transition in

perception across the centuries. Thus, the notion by Mbiti that, “I am because we

34

are, and since we are, therefore I am” (p. 10) stands strongly emulated

throughout most African societies.

Tradition places social achievement above personal achievement in most

African communities. Common phrases usually exist that signal social

disapproval of the individual who places himself or herself above fellow human

being (“An affro-centric,” 2001). Dia (1994) said that individual achievements are

much less valued than are interpersonal relations. In agreement is Mamadou

(1991), who said that a higher value is placed on interpersonal relations and the

timely execution of certain social and religious activities than on individual

achievements. The value of economic acts, for instance, is measured in terms of

their capacity to reinforce the bonds of the group. Thus, efficient indigenous

management practices, where shareholding is democratized and cultural values

and traditions serve as a means of stimulating productivity, can be used in

today’s organizations.

According to Ayittey (1992), the traditional African leadership from time

immemorial has always placed the community’s interest (service) ahead of its

own. For instance, the chief did not rule, but rather served and only led by

consensus. In situations where the council (governing body) failed to reach a

consensus, the chief would call a village assembly (representatives) to put the

issues before the people for debate. This signifies the importance of service to

the people. Similarly, Mamadou (1991) observed that the traditional judge in

black Africa is more intent on reaching a consensus than litigating by the book. In

legal as well as in political matters, African leaders tend to seek unanimity and

35

are generally prepared to engage in seemingly interminable discussions.

Perhaps this explains why self-reliance and self-interest tend to take a back seat

to group or community loyalty. According to Mersha (2000), studies based on

African organizations indicate that decisions based on a consensus still have

greater acceptability in African societies. Specifically, a study based on Kenyan

industries showed that both workers and managers preferred a modern

democratic style of leadership to build consensus and trust.

According to Gakuru (1998), service has come to be identified with the

African concept of interdependence, which was most famously articulated by

Nigerian novelist, Chinua Achebe, who wrote: “Whereas an animal scratches

itself against a tree, a human being has a kinsman to scratch it for him” (Gakuru,

para. 11). There is a very strong belief in the African communities that the

welfare of an individual means the welfare of the entire community. Many local

dialects have a word for the concept of mutual responsibility and joint effort.

According to Bell (2002), Africans do not think of themselves as “discrete

individuals” but rather understand themselves as part of a “community”

(sometimes referred to as “African communalism”—or “communitarianism”).

Whereas life’s means are relatively minimal and natural resources are scarce,

the individual person must depend on his or her community. One obvious

conclusion to be drawn from this dictum is that, as far as Africans are concern,

people regard each other as brothers and sisters, and the interest of the local

communities takes precedence over those in government, organizations or

leadership in general (Wright, 1984).

36

The strong and ancient value of mutual assistance has always been

brought to life in African societies through network and associations. The

voluntary spirit in Africa predates modern governments and western influence.

Before the advent of colonialism, African people had structures that catered to

the needy among them (Gakuru, 1998). The idea and practice of giving a hand to

others, whether one acts individually or through organization, is as old as Africa.

Voluntary individual and communal activities retain deep roots among Africans.

One helps and works with neighbors and fellow villagers as the need arises and

dictates (Waiguchu et al., 1999). The main concern for every leader or grouping

was to maintain social balance and equity within the groups, rather than

individual economic achievements. In other words, the interest of the local and

ethnic communities takes precedence over whatever the leadership or

government may declare as national interests (Mamadou, 1991). If this is true,

then the proposed study will find that Kenyan leaders and managers practice

decisions based on consensus, and with a sense of community and collective

good in mind.

The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee

According to Chieni (1997), harambee, which is a Bantu (a major grouping

in Africa) word, has its origins in the word halambee, which literary means, “let us

all pull together” (para. 3). While tracing the origins of harambee, Yassin (2004)

noted the alternative linguistic interpretation of harambee is derived from the twin

words halahala and mbee. While halahala is a Swahili word for doing things

quickly and collectively, mbee is Swahili for forward. Halahala/mbee would thus

37

signify “doing things quickly and collectively with a forward connotation” (Yassin,

para. 7). However, the phrase has since been simplified, given official

recognition, and coined as harambee. Mbithi and Rasmusson (1977) perceived

harambee as the collective and cooperative participation of a community in an

attempt to fill perceived needs through utilization of its own resources. The notion

of self-help that the term harambee seems to refer to is solidly grounded in the

indigenous cultures of most Kenyan communities, where different names for joint

efforts (e.g., clearing the bushes and building structures) can be found. Every

tribe in Kenya has a name for it. For instance, the Luo call it konyir kende, the

Luhya call it obwasio, the Kikuyu call it ngwatio, and the Maasai call it

ematonyok. Perhaps that is the reason why Chieni says harambee is variously

described as a way of life in Kenya and a traditional custom of Kenyans. Each

tribe had self-help or cooperative work groups by which groups of women on the

one hand and men on the other organized common work parties (to cultivate or

build houses for each other, clear bushes, or do harvesting). The security and

prosperity of the group was dependent upon the persons being mindful of each

other’s welfare.

According to Hill (1991), the harambee philosophy is based on African

traditions of community cooperation and mutual aid. This may refer to the

institutions of work parties, which embrace a variety of forms of cooperative labor

assistance. It is often the major institutional form through which heavy and

onerous tasks or a series of such tasks are regularly carried out–-including work

at certain stages of the agricultural cycle, and building and construction tasks.

38

While commending on the glamour for banning of harambee because of political

abuses, Kenya’s vice-president was recently quoted saying that the harambee

spirit is deeply entrenched in the Kenyan culture. In other words, it is the

backbone of most development efforts and thus, may not be simply brushed

aside (Yassin, 2004). Harambee encourages Kenyans along with their leaders to

give in order to complete any task at hand for community development and

advancement. Thus, for the most part, the term embodies mutual assistance,

joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community self-reliance (Chieni,

1997).

Though harambee was adopted as a political slogan (after independence)

to symbolize the unity of man to help achieve a worthy end (Chieni, 1997), it is a

traditional principle that has always existed in every society in Kenya. Harambee

has been a marked feature of both rural and national society. Its equivalent in

other Kenyan languages is the term for “community cooperation,” meaning,

“helping each other.” To some people, harambee may appropriately be called a

movement since it developed rapidly throughout Kenya after independence

(1963) in response to people’s actions and inspirations rather than simply as a

creation of the government (Hill, 1991). Chieni consented to the fact that the

harambee philosophy gained prominence at independence when the founding

president, Jomo Kenyatta, placed the destiny of Kenyans in the hands of other

Kenyans, especially their leaders. To achieve this noble task, Kenyatta rallied

black, white, and brown Kenyans (both people and their leaders) to launch the

country into the 20th century by adopting the philosophy of harambee. In the next

39

decade, Kenyans of all races got a fair share of the economic pie even though a

contained corruption still existed (Versely, 1997). Thus, Kenyatta popularized the

harambee philosophy as a unity call that brings people together for communal

services (Shikuku, 2000).

To Kenyatta, it was only out of everybody’s efforts and toil that a new and

better Kenya could be built. He stressed a continued close collaboration between

the people throughout their self-help efforts, the government and the leaders

when he said: “But you must know that Kenyatta alone cannot give you

everything. All things we must do together to develop our country, to get

education for our children, to have doctors, to build roads, to improve or provide

all day-to-day essentials” (Chieni, 1997, para. 5). Hill (1991) said that it is

important to note that the harambee philosophy developed rapidly throughout

Kenya in response to people’s actions and aspirations rather than simply as a

creation of the government and its leadership. Thus, the spirit of harambee (i.e.,

we must all pull together) symbolizes the Kenyan peoples’ attitude and effort in

working together to build and strengthen themselves and their nation as a whole

(Wilson, 1992).

According to Ngau (1987), harambee projects are broadly classified into

social development and economic development types. The former include

education, health, social welfare and recreation, and domestic projects, while the

letter includes water supply, transport and communication facilities, and

agricultural ventures. Chieni (1997) noted that when Kenyatta realized that social

development–-the process by which the standards and conditions of living of the

40

majority of the people in a community are improved–-cannot be accomplished

without a firm cultural foundation plus the involvement of the majority of the

people themselves. He stressed a continued close collaboration between the

people through their self-help efforts and the government through the provision of

necessary services. According to Wilson (1992), the harambee philosophy has

come to mean the provision of goods–-usually social infrastructure through the

voluntary cooperation of members of the community, including their leaders. The

philosophy is utilized in community self-help programs to build roads, schools,

medical facilities, and daycares. The shift of harambee to social amenity

development emanates from the fact that the basic means of production (e.g.,

farming, industry, and mining) have come under private, family, and company or

organization ownership. To most people, collective effort is aimed at above all,

schools, health facilities, roads, and churches rather than development of farms

or business (Ngau). Through harambee, the efforts of the people, Non-

Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and the government have come together

in a cooperative endeavor to speed up development (Chieni). In his book, The

Two Faces of Civil Society: NGOs and Politics in Africa, Ndegwa (1996)

observed that besides relative political stability and a well developed

communication network, the harambee philosophy has contributed to the highest

number of both international and local NGOs in Kenya in the whole of sub-

saharan Africa. In areas where the state has been unable to fully provide

adequate services such as healthcare, education, and agricultural and credit

41

extension, the NGOs have entered these fields and become indispensable

partners in service provision through the harambee philosophy.

According to Bailey (1993), harambee is not just a theoretical fancy

concept—it has achieved tangible results. Harambee has specifically brought

about near miracles in the entire nation of Kenya. Aided by the government and

its leaders, harambee self-help projects have been responsible for the building of

over 200 schools, 40 health centers, 60 dispensaries, 260 nursery centers, 42

bridges, and 500 kilometers of rural access roads throughout the country.

Leaders with the help of their communities usually spearhead projects of this

nature. Shikuku (2000) said that though harambee never had immediate

monetary implications, it has come to have a new meaning: fundraising. It is now

used everywhere to raise funds for churches, weddings, students’ fees, hospitals

bills, and generally in programs aimed at supporting the needy in society.

According to Ngau (1987), a typical harambee today consists of fundraising,

where the invited guests, government officers, and the general public make

contributions on a voluntary basis, ranging from cash and materials to pledges

for labor. The key participants are the local people, but government officials,

elected politicians, and church leaders also participate. Further, local and foreign

business firms, foreign agencies and governments, foundations, and non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) also get involved and make contributions to

harambee projects. According to Chieni (1997), the whole undertaking of

harambee is usually guided by certain fundamental principles: (a) active

participation of the people at every level of development, (b) participation guided

42

by the principles of collective good rather than individual gain (the end product

benefits the public as opposed to an individual), and (c) the choice of the project

is usually guided by the felt needs of the majority. The impact harambee has in

one way or another improved the quality of life for different people and

communities in Kenya. If this is true, then this proposed study will find Kenyan

leaders and managers being guided by the principles of service to others and

collective good rather than individual or organizational gains.

Summary and Hypotheses

One of the primary motivations of leadership should be serving others.

Much of the current literature that supports serving and valuing of people has

been presaged by Greenleaf (1977), where emphasis is placed on leaders being

servant leaders who humbly serve their followers without expectation to be

served by them. According to Patterson (2003), servant leaders signify those

who lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers

are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. Thus,

the primary focus of the leaders in servant leadership theory is on serving their

followers individually.

The African traditional leadership appears to focus on service as

espoused in Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory. African tradition

places the community’s interest ahead of that of the leader, where social

achievement is placed above personal achievement, and where leaders

generally did not rule but rather serve and lead by consensus. Most of these

values and traditions are widely shared across the African communities.

43

Similarly, the Kenyan harambee philosophy, which is based on African traditions

of community cooperation, joint effort, community reliance, and mutual aid,

appears to focus on service as well. The late president, Kenyatta, capitalized on

harambee as a unity call to bring people together along with their leaders for

communal services. The philosophy has continued to stress close collaboration

between the people, the government, and the leaders in working together to

strengthen each other and the country as a whole in terms of development

initiatives. If the African traditions and the Kenyan harambee philosophy promote

and embed service, then this proposed study should find that the Kenyan leaders

and managers accept and apply the construct of service in their cultural

organizational settings. The null hypothesis states that Kenyan leaders and

managers will neither accept nor apply the construct of service in Patterson’s

servant leadership theory. If this is true, then this proposed study should find that

the construct of service has a cultural constraint.

44

Chapter Three: Method and Procedure

The fundamental objective of this study was to examine Patterson’s

(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan

leaders and managers. According to Patterson, servant leaders signify those who

lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers are

the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. In other

words, the primary focus of the leaders in servant leadership theory is on serving

their followers individually. The African traditional leadership as well as the

Kenyan harambee philosophy appears to focus on service as espoused in

Patterson’s servant leadership theory. The hypothesis for this study states that

Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational settings will accept and

apply Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service. The null

hypothesis states that Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational

settings will neither accept nor apply Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s

construct of service.

The following sections of the chapter provide a description of research

design, reliability and validity, research participants, instrumentation, data

collection, discussion regarding data analysis and interpretation, data limitation,

and summary.

Description of Research Design

This research is a qualitative study. Because qualitative research is

concerned with process rather than outcomes and is more descriptive in nature

45

than other approaches (Creswell, 1994), the paradigm best fits the research

problem as this study attempts to enhance existing literature on servant

leadership through revelation of details not captured in quantitative inquiry.

Further, although the theory of servant leadership and the construct of service is

perceived to have been in existence for many years (Greenleaf, 1977; Nyabadza,

2003), not much research has been done, especially in varied cultural settings

(Patterson, 2003). According to Creswell, nascent phenomena of this type may

be appropriately addressed through qualitative methods. This is in line with

Merriam’s (1998) assertion that “the interest in a qualitative study is in process

rather than outcome” (p. 20). This, however, does not mean that qualitative

research is unconcerned with outcomes, but rather it does emphasize that

qualitative research is concerned in getting the processes that led to these

outcomes–-processes that experimental and survey research are often poor at

identifying. Qualitative studies are usually associated with certain strengths as

observed by Miles and Huberman (1996):

1. They focus on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings,

so that there is a strong handle on what “real life” is like.

2. Another feature of qualitative studies is their richness and holism, with

strong potential for revealing complexity. Such data provide “thick

descriptions” that are vivid, nested in a real context, and have a ring of

truth that has strong impact on the reader.

3. Qualitative studies have often been advocated as the best strategy for

discovery, exploring a new area, and developing hypotheses.

46

4. Qualitative studies are useful when one needs to supplement, validate,

explain, illuminate, or reinterpret quantitative data gathered from the

same setting. (p. 10)

From an ontological perspective, this research lends itself to qualitative

inquiry because the researcher seeks reality (through interviews) as seen by the

participants in the study. In others words, this research seeks to understand the

meaning of events, situations, and actions for the participants in the study (i.e.,

getting the participants’ perspective on the construct of service), plus their

particular context within which they act and the influence that this context has on

their actions (Maxwell, 1996). This is essential as questions involved relate to

self-perceptions that can only be evinced through the voices of the participants.

Merriam (1998) posited that qualitative inquiry assumes that the people

individually interpret the world around them. That is to say that the world is a

function of personal perception–-“a highly subjective phenomenon in need of

interpreting rather than measuring” (p. 17). From this perspective, the method

selected provides for the collection of descriptive narratives that carry details that

might otherwise be winnowed away in quantitative research. Such pearls of

wisdom tell a story richer than mere statistical analysis allows. This is particularly

meaningful in the context of this study as qualitative exposition can complement

the existing research around servant leadership theory and the construct of

service. Together they can provide insight that contemporary findings have not

reported.

47

Specifically, this research study employed a qualitative in-depth

interviewing technique. An in-depth interviewing method (also called qualitative

interviewing) is a type of interview which researchers use to elicit information in

order to achieve a holistic understanding of the participant’s point of view. It

involves asking participants standardized open-ended questions and probing

wherever necessary to obtain data deemed useful by the researcher (Huberman

& Miles, 2002). According to Mason (2002), in-depth interviewing operates from

the perspective that knowledge is situated and contextual, and the job of the

interviewer is to ensure that the relevant contexts are brought into focus so that

situated knowledge can be produced. This suggests that knowledge is

constructed rather than straightforwardly excavated. Thus, in-depth interviewing

provides depth, complexity, and roundedness in the data. According to Rubin

and Rubin (1995), in-depth interviewing is both an academic and a practical tool

that allows us to share the world of others in order to find out what is going on

(e.g., why people do what they do and how they understand their worlds).

Researchers using in-depth interviewing are able to put together the information

to form explanations and theories that are grounded in details, evidence, and

examples of the interviews. Thus, the results from in-depth interviewing are deep,

detailed, vivid, and nuanced.

Reliability and Validity

According to Mason (2002), reliability involves the accuracy of research

methods and techniques—in other words, how reliably and accurately they

produce data. Yin (1994) posited that the goal of reliability is to ensure that the

48

same study can be replicated and achieve the same results. Reliability in this

study is addressed through Merriam’s (1998) recommendation that all data be

documented and an audit trail maintained. That way, verification strategies can

be implemented. Thus, detailed records and organization remains a high priority.

According to Creswell (1996), validity refers to the correctness or

credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, or interpretation of account.

Creswell, as well as Huberman and Miles (2002), offered four types of validity

applicable to qualitative study (e.g., in-depth interviewing):

1. Theoretical validity. It has to do with not collecting or paying attention

to discrepant data, not considering alternative explanations, or

understandings of phenomenon being studied. By using probes and

follow-up questions, the researcher went beyond concrete description

and interpretation, and explicitly addressed the theoretical

constructions that may develop during the study.

2. Internal validity. Refers to generalizing within the community, group, or

institution studied to persons, events, and settings that were not

directly observed or interviewed. Generalization in qualitative research

usually takes place through the development of a theory that not only

makes sense of the particular persons or situations studied, but also

shows how the same process, in different situations, can lead to

different results. So that the findings may be generalized, the

researcher (through his expert judgment) attempted to establish the

typicality of the participants in the study.

49

3. Descriptive validity. Refers to the factual accuracy of the researcher’s

account. In other words, researchers are not making up or distorting

the things they saw and heard. The main threat to valid description, in

the sense of describing what was seen and heard, is the inaccuracy or

incompleteness of the data. The audio recording and verbatim

transcription of the interviews largely solved this problem.

4. Interpretive validity. Refers to what the objects, events, and behaviors

in the setting studied mean (i.e., to the participants). The main threat to

valid interpretation is imposing one’s own framework or meaning,

rather than understanding the perspective of the people studied and

the meanings they attach to their words and actions. To solve this

problem, the researcher seriously and systematically attempted to

learn how the participants in the study made sense of what was going

on (by being objective), rather than pigeonholing their words and

actions in his framework.

According to Walsh (2003), an important goal of qualitative research is to

demonstrate the trustworthiness of the findings. To build credibility for this study,

the researcher addressed the four types of validity (i.e., theoretical, internal,

descriptive, and interpretive) previously mentioned. In so doing, he made the

data collection methods and analyses detailed and explicit. Further, because

cross-participants analysis was used and because predetermined procedures for

interviewing and coding data were implemented, validity and reliability was

generally protected (Merriam, 1998).

50

Research Participants

Many qualitative researchers utilize theoretical or purposive sampling.

Theoretical sampling means selecting groups or categories to study on the basis

of their relevance to the research questions, theoretical position, and analytical

framework (Bryman & Burgess, 1999; Mason, 2002). Because qualitative inquiry

typically focuses in-depth on relatively small samples selected purposefully, the

logic lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in-depth (Patton, 2002).

The selection of interview participants was the result of theory-based

sampling, one of the strategies for purposefully (or theoretically) selecting

information-rich cases. Theory-based strategy allows the researcher to sample

people on the basis of their potential manifestation or representation of important

theoretical constructs (Patton, 2002). The sample population was selected based

on the theory-derived criteria for being a servant leader—in other words, leaders

and managers who seemed to espouse Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership

theory’s construct of service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy.

The individual leaders and managers (or participants) were drawn from

the executive and upper management units that are charged with instituting and

directing organizational vision/mission and policies. Such individual leaders and

managers represent corporate organizations, governmental organizations, non-

governmental organizations (NGOs), and institutions of higher learning (e.g.,

universities and colleges) all of which were perceived to practice servant

leadership as stipulated in their mission/vision statements. For instance, while

the institutions of higher learning strive to provide training opportunities for

51

exemplary leaders (who will be of service to their communities), corporate,

governmental and non-governmental organizations, on the other hand, strive for

excellence and good customer service. Such organizing principles and values

are analogous to those espoused in Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s

construct of service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy.

Determining the exact number of interview participants is a difficult issue

that qualitative researchers have to deal with. According to Seidman (1998),

saturation of information (i.e., verification or replication of data) plays a significant

determining factor in the exact number of organizational members interviewed.

Writers in the field of qualitative research discuss a point until they begin to hear

the same information repeated. In other words, they stop learning anything new.

To provide the breadth that Seidman discussed (i.e., saturation of information),

the researcher interviewed a total of 25 leaders and managers from Kenyan

organizations. This number was considered significant to identify themes and

patterns that are meaningful theoretically and empirically (Bryman & Burgess,

1999; Mason, 2002), even though they may not be generalizable to a larger

universe (Yin, 1994). With the figure of 25 leaders and managers from the

executive and upper management, the researcher looked for indicators of

saturation in order to stop interviewing (Morse & Richards, 2002). In other words,

the sample provided access to enough data and with the right focus for it to be

sufficient (Mason). Such sample illustrated differences and/or comparisons (as

per the research question) between the different backgrounds.

52

Instrumentation

In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument for

gathering and analyzing data. As such, the researcher in this study responded to

the situation by maximizing opportunities for collecting and producing meaningful

information. This method calls for the researcher to have enormous tolerance for

ambiguity, be highly sensitive to the information gathered, and practice good

communication skills in order to establish rapport with respondents (Merriam,

1998). As per Patton (2002), data was collected via face-to-face interview as this

method allows for direct focus on the subject of discussion. This calls for

standardized open-ended interview protocol, with the same questions being

asked to each participant in order to maximize response consistency and to

develop a holistic depiction of the participants’ responses. The researcher

included questions (probes) designed to elicit a variety of information covering

the totality of the phenomenon under investigation (i.e., the construct of service).

As per Rubin and Rubin (1995), the researcher needed to listen carefully and

intently to pick up on key words and ideas, and to hear the meanings,

interpretations, and understandings that give shape to the world of interviews.

Data Collection

Because the study encompasses in-depth interviewing, which involves

asking informants open-ended questions to begin with, and then probing them

further in order to obtain data deemed useful by the researcher, a standardized

open-ended interview protocol was followed (Huberman & Miles, 2002).

53

Standardized Open-ended Interview

The standardized open-ended interview involves preparing a set of open-

ended questions, which are carefully worded and arranged for the purpose of

minimizing variation in the questions posed to the informants. Though it may be

viewed as providing less flexibility for questions, truly open-ended questions do

not pre-determine the answers and allow room for the informants to respond in

their own terms. Probing is also still possible with this approach (Huberman &

Miles, 2002).

According to Patton (2002), the much smaller sample of open-ended

interviews adds depth, detail, and meaning at a very personal level of

experience. Open-ended responses enable the researcher to understand and

capture the informants’ points of view without predetermining those points of view

through prior selection of questionnaire category. Patton further offered four

major reasons for using standardized open-ended interviews:

1. The exact instrument used in the evaluation is available for inspection

by those using the findings of the study.

2. Variation among researchers can be minimized if a number of different

researchers must be used.

3. The interview is highly focused so that the informant time is efficiently

used.

4. Analysis is facilitated by making responses easy to find and compare.

54

Interview Procedure

As per Rubin and Rubin (1995), the researcher predetermined the (main)

questions, which are customized to what the researcher thinks the informant

might know about servant leadership theory’s construct of service. The questions

are open enough to encourage informants to express their own opinions and

experiences, but narrow enough to keep them from wandering too far off from the

subject at hand. The questions are as follows:

1. Like the harambee philosophy, which is guided by the principle of

collective good rather than individual gain, consider service as putting

others’ welfare (e.g., employees, customers, and community) and

interest first. Service is caring for others enough to facilitate their

growth, development, and success without expecting any reward. In

light of this description, what is your own understanding of service?

What do you see as the role of service in your organization?

2. Leadership being the process whereby the leader (one who acts for

the benefit of others) exerts influence over others (e.g., employees) in

the organization; do you see service as the primary function of

leadership? Why? Why not?

3. Do leaders in this organization understand that serving others is most

important? For instance, do they reflect an overarching helping

concern for others (e.g., employees) without any regard for self-

interest, even when such concern involves considerable sacrifice or

inconvenience (i.e., harming self-interest) on their part? Are they the

55

type of leaders that would rather give more than take (e.g., resources

and time), and serve others’ needs rather than their own? In other

words, do they view employees as the most important resource of the

organization and as having an intrinsic value that goes beyond their

tangible contributions as workers?

4. Service occurs when we naturally and authentically claim and

champion someone else’s excellence, success, and fulfillment. In light

of this, how do leaders in this organization feel about serving or helping

others (their followers)? Do they have the spontaneity, the commitment

and the appreciation for what it takes to perform beyond self-imposed

limitations?

5. Service may be demonstrated in many different ways: by role modeling

(leading by example), through humility, showing respect for others

(acknowledging one’s self-worth), and listening, praising, supporting,

and redirecting them when they deviate from goals. In light of this, how

do leaders in this organization demonstrate service to their followers?

6. Some organizations may observe service through collective-problem

solving based on consensus, seeking involvement in decision making,

and creating a sense of community whereby people are bound by a

fellowship of endeavor (social interactions) rather than coercion,

genuine concern rather than instrumental manipulation, and

commitment to mutual goals. Can you comment on this?

56

7. An increasing number of organizations have adopted service as part of

their corporate philosophy. They recognize the importance of service to

others that is to be felt, understood, believed and practiced. In light of

this, do you think that the construct of service is good? Why? Do you

think that your organization would adopt it, and how?

Entry to participants was achieved through personal and professional

contacts. Once the initial contacts were made (by either email or telephone)

requesting their participation, the researcher then asked for appointments with

each participant at a mutually agreed location. It is premised that a mutually

agreed location will allow free flow of information.

The interviews began with the researcher explaining to the informants the

interview process, which included signing a Participant Agreement Form (see

Appendix A); the anticipated length or duration of the interview; taking hand-

written notes along with audiotape recording of the interview; the subsequent

transcription of the audiotape by the researcher; and the possibility for follow-up if

the researcher deem necessary, to ensure accuracy and consistency.

The researcher then conducted all the interviews (in English). It was

anticipated that every informant would be interviewed for the length of a 60-

minute tape, but it appeared that some were actually interviewed for less than 60

minutes. All the interviews were transcribed verbatim and an audit trail was

maintained (Merriam, 1988). The researcher had a small tape recorder filtered

with batteries in case of difficulty with electrical connections. To ensure accuracy

57

and consistency (by double-checking) of data, hand-written notes were also

taken by the researcher in lieu of taped conversations.

As per Rubin and Rubin (1995), the researcher used probes to help

specify the level of depth he wanted, to ask the informants to wind up their

current answer, or to return the discussion to the main concerns if they wondered

off. In tandem to this, the researcher commented occasionally to check or verify

the informants’ understanding of ethnocentristic or cross-cultural reading of

concepts like harambee. But basically the words were mainly those of the

informants. Further, as per Miles and Huberman (1994), the researcher noted

subtleties—such as body language—any personal impressions that emerged as

rapport is built. This revealed some notions that the informants may not have

talked about.

At the conclusion of the interviews, the researcher thanked the informants

for their participation and also reminded them of the possibility for follow-up if the

researcher deemed necessary. According to Rubin and Rubin (1995), follow-up

questions get the depth that is a hallmark of in-depth interviewing by pursuing

themes discovered and elaborating the context of answers.

Data Analysis

According to Huberman and Miles (2002), qualitative data analysis is

essentially about detection, and the tasks of defining, categorizing, theorizing,

explaining, exploring, and mapping are fundamental to the analyst’s role. Rubin

and Rubin (1995) saw the goal of analysis as finding themes that both explain

the research arena and fit together in a way that a reader can understand. While

58

this is true, Walsh (2003) poignantly pointed out that the goal of qualitative

analysis, which is usually complex and arduous, is to move from summarizing the

data to identifying related themes and patterns, to discovering relationships

among the themes and patterns (i.e., coding), and to developing explanations for

these relationships (i.e., interpretations).

Summarizing Data

After every interview, the researcher had the interview results (i.e., a

combination of audiotaped and handwritten notes) transcribed for qualitative data

analysis. Using audiotaped interviews, a long with handwritten notes ensured

accuracy and consistency of data.

After transcription of the audiotaped and handwritten interviews, the

researcher read the interview results, paragraph-by-paragraph and word-by-

word, marking off the main ideas, issues, concepts, or themes mentioned during

the contact (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). By transcribing or writing out the data, the

researcher was attempting to make sense of the data in a time-consuming

process called content analysis (Walsh, 2003).

Coding Data

The researcher used NUD*IST, a computer program that provides for non-

numerical unstructured data indexing, searching, and theory-building. Though the

job of coding or slicing the data can be done manually, it was better facilitated by

the use of NUD*IST. The program allowed for the coding of the transcribed data.

In other words, the researcher was able to sort data into categories based on

59

informant emphasis and frequent use of concepts, terms, or key words that are

indicative of servant leadership and the construct of service. As per Walsh

(2003), the researcher iteratively reviewed all categories many times, and some

were collapsed into a common category (i.e., dominant themes) while others

were discarded as inappropriate. Thus, the researcher coded the text according

to observed references to servant leadership theory’s construct of service

components.

Interpreting Data

Once coding was completed, a cross-interview analysis (Patton, 2002)

was conducted to group data into categories that allowed the researcher to

compare what different leaders said, what themes were discussed, and how

concepts were understood. This involved comparing the material within the

categories to look for variations and nuances in the meaning of servant

leadership theory’s construct of service, as well as across the categories in order

to discover connections between themes (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

Juxtaposing the categories against each other ensures that they are

conceptually distinct. Consequently, the categories that result are used to create

overarching themes that guide the development of a theoretical model of servant

leadership theory’s construct of service, in which the researcher presented a

“logical chain of evidence” (Walsh, 2003, p. 69), and eventually offered the

implications for the study (Rubin & Rubin).

60

Limitations of the Study

This study has several important limitations that should be addressed.

First, like many qualitative studies, which utilize a version of theoretical (or

purposive) sampling (Mason, 2002) this study limits generalization by focusing on

only a few leaders from the fields of business, government, non-governmental,

and educational institutions (universities) in Kenya. Thus, though the results are

meaningful theoretically and empirically, they are not generalizable to a larger

universe (Yin, 1994).

Because the researcher is usually in the presence of the informants only

briefly, and must draw inference from what happened during that brief period to

the rest of the informants’ life (including actions and perspectives), interviewing

poses some special problems for internal generalizability. The account based on

interviews may be valid (descriptively, interpretively, and theoretically) as an

account of the informants’ actions and perspective, but may miss other aspects

of the informants’ perspectives not expressed in the interview, and can lead to

false inferences about their actions outside the interview (Huberman & Miles,

2002).

In addition, the resources (e.g., time and money) available in this study

limited the researcher to a particular geographical region, Kenya, as well as to

just a handful of organizations. Although the results are generalizable to

theoretical propositions (Yin, 1994), a more diverse sampling would evince

greater clarity. Further, the results found in this study may have potentially been

somewhat idiosyncratic of the sample.

61

Finally, as with most qualitative methods of inquiry, the researcher is the

primary instrument for gathering and analyzing data. As human instrument, the

researcher is limited by being human. In other words, mistakes are made,

opportunities are missed, and personal biases interfere (Merriam, 1998). The

researcher is not neutral, distant, or emotionally uninvolved (Rubin & Rubin,

1995). Therefore, complete objectivity is not feasible. The researcher will bring

personal experience into the study, which may transcend interpretation and

influence data analysis.

Summary

This research, which utilized a qualitative method, focuses on making in-

roads into the primary postulate of this study: The acceptance and applicability of

Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context

of Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational backgrounds. The

study was accomplished through in-depth interviews of leaders and managers

from Kenyan organizations that espouse servant leadership. Since the cardinal

purpose of the study was to capture the self-perceptions of the informants (i.e.,

their perspective) on servant leadership theory’s construct of service, in-depth

interviewing—which allows researchers to elicit information in order to achieve a

holistic understanding of the informants’ point of view—seemed suitable and

appropriate (Huberman & Miles, 2002; Mason, 2002; Maxwell, 1996). In-depth

interviewing involved the use of standardized open-ended interviews of Kenyan

leaders and managers of varied organizational settings. The questions involved

related to self-perceptions that can only be evinced through the voices of the

62

informants. Thus, in-depth interviewing provided depth, complexity, and

roundedness in the data.

63

Chapter Four: Findings

The fundamental objective of this study was to examine Patterson’s

(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan

leaders and managers. According to Patterson, servant leaders signify those who

lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers are

the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. The study

focused on leaders and managers from four different sectors—Non-

Governmental Organizations (NGOs), institutions of higher learning (e.g.,

universities and colleges), corporate organizations, and governmental

organizations—to see if they understand and apply Patterson’s servant

leadership theory’s construct of service.

Description of the Research Participants

The researcher spent three and a half months in Kenya interviewing 25

leaders and managers in four organizational sectors: NGOs, institutions of higher

learning, corporate organizations, and governmental organizations. All of the

leaders and managers interviewed in this study hold college degrees and most of

them hold advanced degrees (e.g., masters and doctorates) in addition to being

in positions of leadership for a number of years in their current organizations. In

total, 9 (36%) CEOs, 3 (12%) deputy CEOs, and 13 (52%) division heads were

interviewed from NGOs, government, business corporations, and academic

institutions (see Table 1 for specific classification). There were 22 (88%) males

and 3 (12%) females interviewed (see Table 2). The demographic profile of the

64

leaders and managers interviewed, including age, length of time as a leader in

the organization, and highest degree received, was also taken into account (see

Table 3).

Table 1

Participants by Organizational Sectors

Government Business

Corporations

Academic

Institutions

Non-

Governmental

Organizations

CEO 2 3

1 3

Deputy CEO 1 0

1 1

Division Head 6

3 4 0

65

Table 2

Participants by Gender

Government Business

Corporations

Academic

Institutions

Non-

Governmental

Organizations

Male CEO 1 3

1 3

Female CEO 1 0

0 0

Male Deputy

CEO

1 0 0 1

Female

Deputy CEO

0 0 1 0

Male Division

Head

5 3 4 0

Female

Division Head

1 0 0 0

66

Table 3

Demographic Profile of Participants

Age Length of Time in Organization Highest Degree

Under 30 = 0 2 – 5 years = 8 Bachelors = 8

30 – 40 = 5 5 – 8 years = 4 Masters = 7

40 – 50 = 4 8 – 10 years = 2 Doctoral = 10

50 – 60 = 16 10 – 15 years = 2

Over 20 years = 9

For this study, each leader and manager was asked seven questions

using a standardized open-ended interview format that explored Patterson’s

(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service. The average length of the

interviews was about 45 minutes. Consequently, once the interviews had been

transcribed, there was a great deal of text to be handled and analyzed.

NUD*IST (Non-numerical, Unstructured, Data: Indexing, Searching and

Theorizing) facilitated analysis of the data. The data, which had been divided into

four documents as per the four categories of leaders and managers, was

imported into NUD*IST as raw files. For this project, it was decided that each

interview would carry the respondent’s name. Similarly, each text unit in every

document would be made up of interviewer’s questions, which were used as the

headings and marked with an asterisk. Since NUD*IST organizes data in a

system of nodes grouped together in a tree structure, the interviewer’s questions

or the headings from each document were used as the main categories or nodal

67

titles. The respondents’ responses on that particular question were used as sub-

categories (also nodes). Thus, at the end of the coding or indexing process, four

levels of data, where parent nodes had been split into sub-categories to facilitate

easier management of data, had been created. By the end of the coding or

indexing process, there were 143 nodes, all storing data relevant to answering

the research question: whether Kenyan leaders and managers understand and

apply Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service.

NUD*IST also facilitated a quick search for words, sentences, and

phrases related to the research question. Using a text search the researcher was

able to quickly pull together all material from the imported documents containing

a reference to a word or group of words, phrases, or patterns of characters

related to the construct of service. All the finds were saved as nodes and placed

in the text search area. The researcher used memos to record his thoughts and

comments about the node. At this point, the data set was ready to be used for

final analyses and write-up. The analysis of the responses resulted in seven

categories (a) role modeling, (b) sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs of

others (employees) and developing them, (d) service as a primary function of

leadership, (e) recognizing and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with

respect (humility), and (g) involving others (employees) in decision making.

Role Modeling

The participants stated that the primary way they demonstrated service to

their followers was by role modeling or leading by example. They said that they

expect leadership to be the best example in any situation, whereby others can

68

see what is required and how it is done. The participants asserted that one of

their responsibilities as leaders and managers is to influence others through their

own actions. They insisted that they like leading by example because if one

wants things to be done in a specific manner, they should be the first person to

do it that way. Table 4 presents the participants’ comments on role modeling.

Table 4

Participants’ Comments on Role Modeling

Role modeling

signals to

others what is

important or

required

Role modeling

is the best

way to

influence

others

Leaders

should not

preach water

and then drink

wine

Service is

delivered

through role

modeling

CEO

2 4 1 1

Deputy CEO

1 0 1 0

Division Head

4 1 3 1

Total 7 5 5 2

A total of 19 (76%) out of the 25 participants interviewed indicated that

they demonstrate service to their followers through role modeling. Seven of the

19 participants indicated that role modeling signals to others (employees) what

the leader perceives to be important. For instance, Stanley Manduku, legal

69

advisor at Daima Bank, expressed that whatever he does triggers a sense of

importance and direction as far as the employees are concerned. He stated, “We

like leading by example; we realize that if you want things to be done in a specific

manner you be the first person to do it” (personal communication, November 2,

2004). Dr. Phillip Kitui, dean of the faculty of arts at Daystar University alluded to

this by saying:

If we say that this particular activity is a required activity then I should be

the first one to be there, in that activity. For instance, if I emphasize

training of staff as an important aspect of human resource development

then I cannot afford to tell them to go for the training and just sit back in

my office. (personal communication, November 3, 2004)

Another example of what leaders do to demonstrate service by

emphasizing what is important was expressed by Joseph Mpaa, general

manager of Serena Lodges. He stated, “My major way that I demonstrate service

is by doing sometimes what I want them to do by showing what they do is

important” (personal communication, October 7, 2004). Similarly, according to Dr.

Sarune Sena, director of Compassion International, the fundamental values

(including servant leadership, excellence, integrity, and cherishing family) that

their organization emphasizes are modeled first by the leaders. He explained,

“We cannot point them to employees without pointing them to ourselves. So role

modeling is our own beliefs of the leaders that we have here” (personal

communication, August 3, 2004).

70

Professor Peter Kibas, director of School of Management at the Kenya

Institute of Management, stressed that it is important for leaders to be conscious

of their actions before their followers. Though whatever they do may not have

meaning to them, it may carry a lot of meaning to the staff who are observing. He

stated:

Going back to probably the definition of what leadership is we talk of a

person who is in the forefront in terms of leading the way and getting the

subordinates and other workers see the best example. So we expect

leadership to be the best example in any situation whereby others can see

what is required and how it is done. (personal communication, August 30,

2004)

Five of the 19 participants stated that role modeling is the best way to

influence others. Dr. B. Waruinge, principal consultant at Sarowaki Management

Consultants LTD, believes that he influences others primarily through his

behavior. He stated, “A leader leads by example. It is how I treat customers here;

it is how I treat other people that have more influence than what I tell them. It is

more what I do, not what I say” (personal communication, September 25, 2004).

Joyce Kebathi, director of the department of adult education at the Ministry of

Gender, Sports/Culture, and Social Services echoed the same comments. She

stated:

You have to set an example because you have to lead by example and

the people who work with me I would influence the way they work. So if I

am unable to go beyond the call of duty then they will also be looking at

71

their watches that they come at 8 AM and leave at 5 PM. But if they see

that I am able to pursue the work that I have to do beyond the official

hours then they are also able to do the same. (personal communication,

September 24, 2004)

The idea of influencing others through role modeling also resonated from

Professor Godfrey Nguru, the vice-chancellor of Daystar University. He stated:

People bring into an organization various needs and as leaders our

responsibility is to influence, more so through what we do, the examples

and here service is very important because as you serve them so will they

be willing to follow and even serve others. (personal communication,

September 6, 2004)

Five of the 19 participants expressed that leaders should “walk the talk.” In

other words, they should not “preach water and then drink wine.” When asked to

comment on how she demonstrates service, Ann Lengerded, supervisor of

customer service at Telkom Kenya, explained:

I think through being a role model because even in work set up you don’t

have to take wine and preach water. So you are an example and by that

then you expect your employees to also emulate you in any set up, even

in the family. (personal communication, October 11, 2004)

Dr. Joshua Okumbe, deputy CEO at the Center for Corporate Governance,

stressed that their organization is known for modeling what they believe (the

fundamental value of integrity). He stated:

72

I think we have to a high degree espoused highest degrees of integrity

and the people we talk to not only want to believe they know what we do

but also know from the way we do things that we walk the talk and talk the

walk. So they know we are living by example. (personal communication,

September 13, 2004)

According to Kangethe Wagathigi, director of Biselex Kenya Limited,

leaders need to be extra careful because the kind of leadership or service that

they show to their employees is what they will copy. He stated:

If your leadership is bad, if it is crooked, your staff will be crooked. If you

tell them I want us to follow these strict ethical and moral standards and

you yourself you don’t, don’t preach water and you wallow in wine. You

preach water and then drink water. (personal communication, October 8,

2004)

Professor Godfrey Nguru stated that leaders should avoid a situation of double-

personality. In stead, they should lead by example. He stated:

In this country we are now telling people you lead from the front, not from

the back and that is role modeling so that if we say that we want quality

then your leadership too should be quality leadership—whether it is the

issue of time, whether it is the issue of hard work, whether it is the issue of

integrity, whether it is the issue of fulfilling the promises. All those traits

you should show them by example, not to preach water and then drink

wine. (personal communication, September 6, 2004)

73

Two of the 19 participants expressed that the leader must be an example

of good service to others. John Lelaono, general manager of Keekorok &

Samburu Lodges, explained:

The leader must ensure that he/she is an example of good service to the

guests or to the general public then from there the workers, who are under

him/her will follow the suit and take a good example from him or her.

(personal communication, October 18, 2004)

The following excerpt from an interview with Dr. Isaac Bekalu, director of

International Rural for Reconstruction, expressed his idea of service being

delivered through role modeling:

It is not like you are delivering goods to somebody’s door, but through

modeling, through examples, through your own abilities or your own

approach, you are delivering service because the staff in your organization

learn from you and look at you as a model. (personal communication,

September 24, 2004)

Summary

The participants believed that service is about role modeling. They

expressed that service is best demonstrated through role modeling and by

examples because the staff in the organization learn primarily from the leader,

looking to them as a model. If a leader leads by example, they set the standard,

which the employees or the staff is likely to emulate. Thus, leaders are better

understood when they lead with an example.

74

Sacrificing for Others

The participants’ view of sacrificing for others is embedded in the way they

give their time, resources, and even themselves for the work of others. The

participants indicated that they have accepted low pay on many occasions in

order to serve others. The idea of sacrificing for others also borders on the

Kenyan harambee philosophy. Table 5 presents the participants’ short

statements on sacrificing for others.

Table 5

Participants’ Statements on Sacrificing for Others

Service calls

for sacrifice in

terms of time,

resources and

self

Service as an

act of sacrifice

due to

inadequate

working

resources

Service has

meant going

for low pay

Service

borders on the

Kenyan

harambee

philosophy

CEO 2 1 3 1

Deputy CEO 1 0 0 0

Division Head 4 2 0 3

Total 7 2 3 4

A total of 16 (64%) out of the 25 participants interviewed indicated that

they sacrifice in order to serve others, mainly their followers. Seven of the 16

participants strongly expressed a desire to sacrifice their time, resources, and

75

self in order to serve others. J.K. Gikuumah, officer in charge of registry at the

Ministry of Lands, stated that she used to put in extra time in order to clear the

backlog, all without an extra pay. She explained, “So I used to stay over time yet

I was never paid a single penny for the time that I worked over time” (personal

communication, October 22, 2004). According to Ann Lengerded, a leader should

sacrifice his or her time for both the employees and even the customers. She

stated:

Manpower in any given organization, in any given set up is actually the

prime move. It is the biggest asset that an organization can have and one

as a leader, you can always go a step ahead even to sacrifice your own

time, to counsel those who have got needs. And for customers, even to go

ahead and explain whatever kinds of products you have and to give all the

assistance that even goes beyond your job description. (personal

communication, October 11, 2004)

Dr. Chweya Ludeki, chairman of the Department of History and

Government at the University of Nairobi, expressed that he spent extra time

coaching and helping students for which he is not paid. He explained with an

example:

Take for example, last night I had to come to this office at 7.30 PM

because that was the only time I had to attend to a masters student, who

had a thesis that was supervised by one lecturer, who has since then

departed and I had to substitute. I could not see the student for two days

because of meetings, but I told him to come at 7.30 PM; we sat here until

76

midnight. And you see that time I should have been home relaxing with my

little boys; I felt sorry for them. (personal communication, November 4,

2004)

The participants also viewed service in terms of selflessness. For

instance, Dr. Joshua Okumbe explained that:

Anybody who occupies any position of leadership must know on the very

onset that their very function as they occupy those positions is to serve, to

be selfless. I mean, if you want to define leadership in terms of

selflessness that is what it means—to be out there to provide, to avail your

skills and potentials for the benefit of mankind. (personal communication,

September 13, 2004)

In the words of Dr. Saruni Sena, a leader also forfeits himself or herself for the

benefit of others. He stated, “Unless you give your time to others you are not

really giving yourself. What other things do we forfeit: you forfeit yourself”

(personal communication, August 3, 2004).

According to Dr. Chweya Ludeki, leaders should even go to the extent of

spending personal resources for the welfare of the people they are leading. He

explained:

There are some ways you spend your own money to make sure that the

group you are leading or the unit you are leading actually succeeds. So to

the extent that a leader even spends one’s own money, personal

resources in it suggests that the leader does not treat the job from a purely

official standpoint but treats it at the personal level as well, and sees

77

personal stake in the matter. (personal communication, November 4,

2004)

Two participants, both from government, expressed that working for the

government has been an act of sacrifice due to lack of necessary resources.

According to Joseph Nkadayo, principal superintending engineer of roads at the

Ministry of Roads and Public Works, working for the government calls for

endurance and great sacrifice. He explained:

I have personally worked for twenty years and have served in many areas.

But I have to be honest with you that we have so many limitations (e.g.,

equipment). However, in spite of the limitations we try to keep our

motivation and commitment high. (personal communication, October 26,

2004)

Joyce Kebathi alluded to the same comments. She stated:

Actually we will go beyond what is expected of us as a government

because when we started this program in the early 1980s, we used to

have a lot of resources from the government in terms of teachers, in terms

of materials but these days things are not the same, and sometimes we go

beyond ourselves in even buying materials for the students. (personal

communication, September 24, 2004)

Three of the 16 participants stated that their current jobs have been a

matter of sacrifice. In other words, their pay is not commensurate with their

training and what they do. Godwin Mzenge, executive director of Family

78

Planning Association of Kenya, believed that he has sacrificed a lot in order to

give the necessary leadership in the organization. He stated:

May be for a long time I was one of the lowest paid executives in the

world. I could have easily threatened and resigned, but I had a feeling that

I needed to give good leadership to this organization in order to grow. It is

only last October when there was an international assessment of this

organization and that they raised the issue of compensation for the chief

executive because one of the standards is that the chief executive should

be well compensated. (personal communication, September 23, 2004)

Chris Kuto, director general of Kenya Civil Aviation Authority, strongly felt that his

profession could have taken him far if he had chosen not to sacrifice for others.

He explained:

I want to believe that my being here has been because I have sacrificed to

be here. Technically, my profession could have taken me elsewhere for

better pay if that is what I wanted. First and foremost, I saw myself

contributing to the growth of the industry in this country at various levels

as I grew up in the system. I went to the extent of sacrificing, rather going

for low salary for job satisfaction. You know public service in this country is

not well paying and I have been around without what I think I am worth.

(personal communication, November 3, 2004)

Similarly, for professor Godfrey Nguru, change of jobs has meant sacrificing a lot.

He stated:

79

When I came to Daystar first, I sacrificed my job at Kenyatta University,

which had all the potential. At that time Daystar was a very small

organization. My coming second time has meant sacrificing a very stable

position at St. Pauls Theological Seminary for an institution that may not

be doing very well financially at this point. It has all meant sacrifice. And

that is what leadership, servant leadership is all about; it is to sacrifice

yourself for others. (personal communication, September 6, 2004)

Four of the 16 participants expressed that service borders on the Kenyan

harambee philosophy, which calls for sacrificing for the benefit of others. The

following excerpt from an interview with Dr. Chweya Ludeki expressed his idea of

the connection between service (sacrifice) and harambee:

You see there are two ways in which you can look or understand service.

One, of course, you can look at the standpoint of the harambee

philosophy, which is serving by sacrificing for the interests of others. So

that is one, which borders on something like voluntary, probably sacrifice,

dedication of your time and profession to the service of others. (personal

communication, November 4, 2004)

According to Mohez Kamarli, director of Concorde Car Hire, the harambee

spirit has been an excellent way of meeting the needs that people face. He

stated:

I think the harambee spirit has been a tremendous Kenyan way of having

to sort of attend to the needs of our individual relatives or people, and I

think it is the spirit that has tremendous or a very a good place in our

80

society here. When we put our resources together, obviously we can help

one another and with that in mind, we can alleviate lots of difficulties

people have faced having to sort of go through problems by themselves.

(personal communication, August 24, 2004)

The following excerpt from Dr. James Kombo, dean of faculty of post-

graduate studies at Daystar University, puts emphasis on people combining their

meager resources in order to help others:

Harambee as you know, is the political motto that the founders of this

nation rallied around that term to pull the meager resources that the

country had and still has in order for them to be able to push forward

beyond the budgetary allocations to provide the necessary services. There

was an understanding that there would be the budgetary allocations but

that wouldn’t be enough. So people will go an extra mile on their own and

then be in a position to give. (personal communication, November 5,

2004)

81

Summary

The participants believed that it is almost impossible to serve people

(others) without sacrifice. In situations, where others were affected, leaders were

willing to sacrifice a lot. In other words, the participants were willing to work

beyond their job descriptions with no extra pay, to hold low paying jobs that may

not be commensurate with their training and expertise in order to turn around

institutions for the benefit of others, and to even go to the extent of spending their

own resources in order to help others come out of strenuous circumstances. The

participants who worked for the government have had to sacrifice a lot more due

to lack of necessary resources. All these border on the Kenyan harambee

philosophy, which centers on leaders making a great sacrifice for the service of

others. The harambee spirit has been a tremendous way of alleviating the

problems that people have had to face.

Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them

The participants expressed that it is important for a leader to sufficiently

remunerate their employees where they can adequately meet all their needs.

These include competitive salaries or wages, medical coverage, travel bonuses,

and even loan schemes. As a way of making employees comfortable, the

participants insisted that they are mandated to ensure that a conducive-working

environment exists for the employees in terms of equipment and other materials,

where they have the tools to enhance their skills and talents. The participants

also believed in guiding their followers in order to identify their personal and

professional goals so as to develop them to their full potential. This means

82

helping them to identify and maximize their strengths while minimizing their

weaknesses. Further, the participants said that they have an obligation to

develop the staff under them through training. In other words, they aspire to

encourage the people that work with them to keep improving and bettering

themselves by updating their skills. All these are indicators that the participants

view the employees as the greatest assets that any functional organization can

have. Table 6 presents the participants’ statements on meeting the needs of

others and also developing them.

Table 6

Participants’ statements on meeting the needs of others and developing them

People

only follow

those who

are ready

to meet

their needs

Providing a

conducive

working

environment

Helping

others to

achieve

their goals

and

objectives

Developing

others

through

training

The staff

as an

important

element or

asset

CEO 3 1 3 2 1

Deputy

CEO

0 0 0 0 2

Division

Head

5 4 3 2 5

Total 8 5 6 4 8

83

A total of 21 (84%) out of the 25 participants interviewed provided strong

views that are reminiscent of leaders and managers that care about meeting the

physical as well as the developmental needs of their employees. Eight of the 21

participants proffered that people only follow leaders who are ready to meet their

needs. This was the case with Professor Godfrey Nguru, who said:

You can only lead if there are followers and people are likely to follow if

they can see that their interests are being taken care of. They are more

easily to follow if they can identify the one they are supposed to follow and

people are identified best if they see a person who is ready to listen to

them and to respond to their needs. (personal communication, September

6, 2004)

Dr. Chweya Ludeki echoed Professor Nguru by saying that at times leaders go to

the extent of investing personal resources for the welfare of the people that they

lead. He proffered, “There are some ways you spend your own money to make

sure that the group you are leading or the unit you are leading actually succeeds”

(personal communication, November 4, 2004). Joseph Mpaa was even more

candid and cogent about taking care of employees’ needs. He stated, “I always

make sure that the staff are comfortable. We do this in line of their

accommodation; we take care of their accommodation in terms of their food, in

terms of the working environment and respect” (personal communication,

October 7, 2004).

According to Stanley Manduku, banks have developed a comprehensive

package for their employees. He condescendingly explained:

84

What banks have done, they try as much as possible to ensure they give

various packages, which will include full medical cover, which is so that in

the event that you are sick you can immediately get medical attention.

They also try to give you house loans depending on whether you satisfy

the criteria. (personal communication, November 2, 2004)

Mohez Kamarli expressed that though his workers are not remunerated

where they can adequately pay for all their needs in terms of rent, transportation,

and family requirements, he has at least tried to put them above the minimum

wage. He stated:

In my own organization I have had to look certainly beyond the particulars

or guidelines of salaries or wages set by the government. Here we have

medical, travel bonuses and our own kind of salaries are higher than the

basics that are stipulated in the wage schedules. (personal

communication, August 24, 2004)

Dr. Phillip Kitui expressed that students constitute his purpose for being at

the university and that their learning (students) is first and foremost their

(teachers) main responsibility. He went on to explain:

It is our responsibility to plan for it, it is our responsibility to devote our

energies and resources to it, it is our responsibility to give more time even

outside class to mentor them and to guide them in their learning,

especially to win them or help transition from being people who are

dependent on the lecturers for their learning to people who are probably

85

interdependent with each other and ultimately independent of each other.

(personal communication, November 3, 2004)

Five of the 21 participants said that providing a conducive-working

environment for the workers has always been a core agenda for them. Joseph

Mpaa expressed that giving employees the priorities they deserve will cause

them to take good care of the company’s clients. He stated, “As the general

manager, I personally and I have seen it work give every effort to make sure that

the staff have a working tool and that the environment for the staff to produce is

enabling” (personal communication, October 7, 2004). Ole Ndere, finance

director of Ewuaso Ngiro South Development Authority, gave a similar idea. He

stated, “As a leader, one has an obligation to develop the staff under him or her.

So definitely the kind of the working environment you create as a leader matters

and it has a direct bearing on the output of the employees” (personal

communication, October 17, 2004). Professor Peter Kibas said that his role is

that of a coach. He further explained, “I help employees under me to achieve the

objectives by assisting them in the area they need help by providing the

necessary environment in terms of the equipment and any other material they

may need” (personal communication, August 30, 2004).

In the words of Professor Godfrey Nguru, the university exists to provide a

conducive-environment for learning and teaching for the students. He went on to

explain:

To do this will require the staff and the staff too have got their own

individual needs and individual interests, which must be taken care of if

86

they are going to realize their full potential, and if they are going to give

their best. And so it is my responsibility also to ensure that the staff, who

work in this institution, both teaching staff and support staff are also

enabled materially, intellectually, and even emotionally to do their best, to

realize their potential. (personal communication, September 6, 2004)

Similarly, as pertaining to faculty and staff, Dr. James Kombo stated:

We ensure that we put measures and systems in place to affirm them and

make their work not a lot more easier, but a lot more productive to enable

them to be able to do what they ought to do in a manner that takes into

consideration their self worth as people. (personal communication,

November 5, 2004)

Six of the 21 participants indicated that they are attuned to helping others

to achieve their goals and objectives. Professor Godfrey Nguru said that for

people to grow and realize their full potential, they must be helped. He stated, “In

addition to achieving the objectives of an organization, you also want to achieve

the objectives of the people you are working with because they too have goals,

personal goals, and sometimes professional goals” (personal communication,

September 6, 2004). In the words of Dr. B. Waruinge, evaluating employees’

strengths and weaknesses is a crucial undertaking if they are to grow. He

stressed, “I think the role of a leader is to evaluate those that he or she works

with, to know their strengths and their weaknesses and encourage them to build

their strengths” (personal communication, September 25, 2004).

87

For Joseph Nkadayo, though the environment is unfavorable at times, he

tries to guide and encourage the employees. He stated:

I always prefer guiding and encouraging people in doing the right thing.

What I do in most cases is that I try to identify their capabilities and then

build on those strengths. In other words, I try to minimize their

weaknesses. (personal communication, October 26, 2004)

Dr. Phillip Kitui also commended on the idea of helping employees to capitalize

on their strengths while overcoming their weaknesses:

I recognize that everybody has a talent that is different from that of other

people and the main goal for me is to identify the talent or the strengths of

each individual and to help them to use these areas of strength to excel in

what they do and possibly help them to overcome some of their

weaknesses so that they can be better performers, they can achieve

greater success and possibly excellence in what they do. (personal

communication, November 3, 2004)

Four of the 21 participants said that they put emphasis on developing their

followers through training. Chris Kuto expressed that for the employees to be

able to provide an efficient service they need to be trained in the areas of those

services. He went on to explain, “They should have customer care in their

portfolio. It means you have to train them to be able to appreciate the customer,

they have to appreciate that they are providing a very essential service”

(personal communication, November 3, 2004). For Ann Lengerded, training helps

employees stay longer in the organization because it creates a sense of

88

ownership of it. She stated, “I think what I have done about it is really

encouraging them to take training; they need to keep updating their skills as

years go by and really feel like they own the organization” (personal

communication, October 11, 2004). Joseph Mpaa sees training in a similar

manner. He expressed, “We also want to help them realize that they have a

future in us by enabling and encouraging training on the job and allowing those

who are lucky sometimes to have opportunities to go for further studies”

(personal communication, October 7, 2004).

According to Joyce Kebathi, training becomes even handier during times

of succession. She explained, “One thing I have tried to do as much as possible

is to train the younger officers so that they will be able to take over after most of

us, who have been here many years have left” (personal communication,

September 24, 2004).

Eight of the 21 participants all made comments suggesting that employees

are the most valuable assets they have in their organizations. Joshua Okumbe

acknowledged this fact when he said, “Our employees as few as they are we

must recognize that they are the most important resource that this organization

has” (personal communication, September 13, 2004). In her own words,

Professor Mary Jones, deputy vice-chancellor of Africa Nazarene University,

said, “I am not all I would say but I try and show genuine and caring concern, that

I regard people as people and not as just objects” (personal communication,

September 7, 2004).

89

The following excerpt from an interview with Kangethe Wagathigi

expressed his idea of valuing employees:

The most important asset any company has are the employees. You might

have a very good product, a fantastic product, but if you do not have the

loyalty of your staff, you are doomed. You should have a bonding with

your people. And for us, these are not employees; they are assets

because without them you cannot move on. (personal communication,

October 8, 2004)

John Lelaono views the employees as the performers, stating that the

success of any management is gauged by the kind of employees that

management has. He stressed, “The employees are a very important resource

because without the employees, management cannot do the work that the

employees do” (personal communication, October 18, 2004). According to Ole

Ndere, since the employees are desperately needed in every organization they

must be satisfied. He stated, “Employees are the most important resource in any

organization since they have the potential to either mismanage other resources

or the potential to also make sure the other resources available to the

organization are utilized both efficiently and effectively” (personal communication,

October 17 2004). Similarly, Ann Lengerded shared, “Manpower in any

organization, in any given set up is actually the prime move. It is the biggest

asset that an organization can have” (personal communication, October 11,

2004). Professor Peter Kibas expressed that the world is moving towards valuing

others, valuing subordinates, and inculcating in them the attitude of service. He

90

went on to explain, “I want to say that we at Kenya Institute of Management have

continued to inculcate that appropriate leadership, whereby leadership means

taking others to be key. In other words being able to value others and their

contributions” (personal communication, August 30, 2004).

Summary

The participants were very ebullient about leaders and managers pursuing

the physical and the developmental needs of their followers. To meet the

physical needs of the followers, the participants must pursue comprehensive and

competitive remuneration packages (e.g., salaries and wages, medical coverage,

and loan schemes). Leaders may also be forced from time to time to invest their

own time, energies, and personal resources for the benefit of the employees.

Similarly, a conducive-working environment (e.g., tools and equipment) is also

crucial. Further, the participants expressed the cardinal importance of training as

a way of helping employees to achieve their own personal and professional

goals, leading to growth and development. Training ensures that they stay with

the organization longer and at the same time prepares them to assume

monumental functions and responsibilities.

Service as a Primary Function of Leadership

The participants did not find a dichotomy between service and leadership.

They said that the two concepts are so intertwined that they can be used

interchangeably. They expressed that leadership is about providing a service. In

other words, a leader is supposed to serve and be selfless, not to be served. The

91

participants observed that in the absence of service there is no leadership

because leaders should do things for others. They also expressed that service

delivery is only possible through leaders who model. That is, service is

something that is observed by others, a service that is emulated. Further, service

calls for strict adherence to certain key leadership principles, including integrity

and excellence. These are the utmost qualities of a leader. Table 7 presents the

various comments about what the participants said concerning service as the

primary function of leadership.

Table 7

Participants’ Comments on Service as a Primary Function of Leadership

Leadership is

first service

There is no

leadership

without

service

Service is

delivered by

leaders who

model

Service calls

for adherence

to certain key

leadership

principles

CEO 2 1 3 2

Deputy CEO 2 0 0 1

Division Head 3 4 3 1

Total 7 5 6 4

A total of 18 (72%) out of the 25 participants interviewed offered

incendiary views of service as the primary function of leadership. Seven of the 18

92

participants perceived leadership as first service. In the words of Dr. Saruni

Sena, a leader is intent on giving service, “You are a leader, who provides

service and the first service you give is yourself so that they too give themselves

to you” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). Professor Godfrey Nguru

sees service as being a critical in terms of leadership as an element. He stated:

You can only lead if there are followers and people are likely to follow if

they can see that their interests are being taken care of. They are more

easily to follow if they can identify the one they are supposed to follow and

people who are identified best if they see a person who is ready, one, to

listen to them and two, to respond to their needs. And that is what service

is all about. (G. Nguru, personal communication, September 6, 2004)

In the words of Dr. Joshua Okumbe, service is the main function of

leadership. He explained, “A leader is out there to serve, not to be served.

Anybody who occupies any position of leadership must know on the very onset

that their very function as they occupy those positions is to serve, to be selfless”

(personal communication, September 13, 2004). While alluding to the fact that

service is the primary function of leadership, Joseph Nkadayo indicated that

service gives the leader an opportunity to bring their best capabilities to work for

the welfare of others. He stated, “Service helps those being led to access the

capabilities of the leader. Service calls for the leader to give his or her time and

resources to the development of other people” (personal communication,

October 26, 2004).

93

Dr. Chweya Ludeki expressed that at times leaders spend personal

resources to serve others and ensure their success. He noted that what matters

to every leader is seeing people succeed in all they do, a fact he described as

the litmus test of leadership. He further explained, “There are some ways you

spend your own money to make sure that the group you are leading or the unit

you are leading actually succeeds” (personal communication, November 4,

2004).

Five of the 18 participants expressed that leadership is futile and

meaningless if service is not there. According to John Lelaono, service is

determined by the kind of leadership that is inherent in the organization. He

stated, “For the employees to be able to perform to their best, for them to be able

to serve the guests to the best of their abilities, they must be given good

leadership” (personal communication, October 18, 2004). In the words of J.

Gikuumah, premises officer at the National Bank of Kenya, “If you don’t give

proper leadership, service is going to be poor. If you got a very sound leadership,

there will be progress” (personal communication, October 22, 2004). As per Ann

Lengerded, service is paramount for a leader. She stated:

Service is really vital in any leadership position because as a leader

service has to be from bottom-up and from up to bottom because at the

end of it all the mission and vision of an organization is actually defined

also along the service lines. (personal communication, October 11, 2004)

The following excerpt from Godwin Mzenge emphasizes the fact that leadership

and service cannot be divorced from one another:

94

In the absence of service or poor quality service, then leadership has no

meaning. In our case, for example, if it transpires that the services we are

offering in our clinics and the field offices are not meeting the expectations

of the communities out there that have a reflection directly to the

leadership of the organization. If we are able to anticipate properly,

correctly the needs of the community members, the poor people out there

and satisfy that need through offering our services that has a reflection on

leadership. (personal communication, September 23, 2004)

Six of the 18 participants expressed that service is best delivered when it

is modeled. Stanley Manduku believed modeling is important if a service is to be

given. He explained, “In fact, technically for you to offer the requisite service, first

of all you must be above reproach, whereby you must be a good example”

(personal communication, November 2, 2004). Dr. Isaac Bekalu expressed that

service is usually observed and emulated by others (e.g., employees). He

explained:

Leadership is actually about providing service. It is not like you are

delivering goods to somebody’s door, but through modeling, through

examples, through your own abilities or your own approach, you are

delivering service because the staff in your organization learn from you

and look at you as a model, and that is a service that you are providing.

(personal communication, September 24, 2004)

Dr. B. Waruinge strongly believed that leading by example has more

influence in terms of service delivery than just talking or telling. It is how he treats

95

customers and employees that matters most, not what he tells them. He further

explained, “My influence is through my behavior. And if I tell them that I want

them to give good service, I have to live my example. I think that is really what I

believe; it is how I treat others” (personal communication, September 25, 2004).

Kangethe Wagathigi asserted that modeling keeps a leader from accumulating

extra work because his or her employees look at him or her as a role model and

emulate his or her behavior. He stated, “So in your provision of your services to

the customers, the kind of leadership you show to your employees is what they

will copy. If your leadership is bad, if it is crooked, your staff will be crooked”

(personal communication, October 8, 2004).

Four of the 18 participants indicated they identify service with certain

fundamental leadership principles. These include integrity and excellence, which

are described as the utmost qualities of a leader. Dr. Saruni Sena mentioned

these principles while discussing service and leadership. He stated, “One of them

is servant leadership, another one is excellence, another one is integrity, and

another one is cherishing family” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). In

reference to service, Professor Peter Kibas talked of continuous improvement

(excellence), which is being able to do better everyday. He continued, “So in this

case then it means striving towards excellence and encouraging every member

in this organization to strive towards excellence by doing better, by improving, by

being more efficient and by emulating good practices” (personal communication,

August 30, 2004).

96

According to Dr. B. Waruinge, honesty and integrity are very important in

service delivery. He stressed that being firm and principled on what you believe

is very important. Using an example of his employees he further explained, “One

of the problems we had was customers would leave and forget their things and

they would disappear. And so we figured who was doing this and started talking

to them about honesty and integrity” (personal communication, September 25,

2004). Similarly, Dr. Joshua Okumbe attributed the growth of their organization

(Center for Corporate Governance) to excellence. He explained, “It has grown

this big generally because we believe in excellence at work. It is because of this

commitment towards excellence at work that we have been able to do what we

have done” (personal communication, September 13, 2004).

97

Summary

The participants said that leadership and service are intertwined. They

expressed that leadership is about providing service. In other words, a leader is

simply out to serve others selflessly. They serve by giving their time and

resources for the development and betterment of others. In the absence of

service, leadership becomes murky and meaningless. This is because leaders

primarily do things for others. Service is determined by the kind of leadership that

is inherent in the organization, and for the employees to perform maximally they

must be given good leadership. Service is delivered through modeling. Service

also calls for adherence to certain fundamental leadership principles, including

integrity and excellence. Leaders and employees who walk and practice

excellence and integrity are able to grow and improve their organizations.

Recognizing and Rewarding Employees

The participants said that recognizing and rewarding employees takes

center stage in their organizations. They believed that when employees’ efforts

are recognized and rewarded, they become committed to excellence in whatever

they do. In other words, people work better when they know that their

contribution is being recognized and appreciated. The participants expressed

that they put measures and systems in place to affirm, including training; they

capitalize on both verbal and written messages when addressing their

employees; they host parties and get-togethers to appreciate and acknowledge

employees’ performance; and they promote and encourage divergent views as

98

part of being accommodating and as a means of legitimizing the work

environment as a learning process. Table 8 presents the various comments

about what the participants said concerning recognizing and rewarding

employees.

Table 8

Participants’ Comments on Recognizing and Rewarding Employees

Measures and

systems are in

place to affirm

Verbal and

written

messages

Parting and

celebrating

together

Encouraging

divergent

views

CEO 0 5 1 1

Deputy CEO 0 0 0 1

Division Head 4 2 1 2

Total 4 7 2 4

A total of 16 (64%) out of the 25 participants interviewed offered the

necessary buttress to recognizing and rewarding employees. Four of the 16

leaders and managers said that they already have some measures and systems

in place to affirm the employees in the organization. These measures and

systems provide a way of granting awards and promotions to the outstanding

workers while putting pressure on the perfidious employees. Ole Ndere

expressed that performance appraisal is used as a means of praising and

promoting employees. He stated:

99

I also make sure that the employee appraisal, performance appraisal is

done fairly and I make a proposal for both training and also for promotion,

where I feel an employee has done so well and he/she needs to be

promoted so he/she gets some sort of motivation. (personal

communication, October 17, 2004)

To Saoli Nkanae, vice-chairman of Service Commission, appraising employees is

also an acceptable surrogate. He explained:

Those who do their job perfectly, you appraise them; we have an appraisal

form by the way. Every year we discuss it and we use it as a basis for

promotion. The employee and the head of department must meet once in

a while and discuss about their performance if they are meeting our

strategy. (personal communication, October 22, 2004)

John Lelaono strongly believed that there must be definite criteria to

reward outstanding performances. He said that if someone’s performance is

good, that is the criteria they are going to use. He further explained:

We have things like gold stars, which are awards given every month to the

outstanding employees. So if you are the outstanding performer in the

month of January, for instance, you get a gold star, and it goes like that.

Then per quarter we have the employee of the quarter and at the end of

the year, we have employee of the year, which is very prominently

displayed so that everybody’s guests and staff alike can be able to see

and know that this was the person most outstanding in the organization in

this particular year. (personal communication, October 18, 2004)

100

According to Joseph Mpaa, it is vitally important for a leader to create an

enabling environment for the employees as part of appreciating and rewarding

them. This way, employees will be motivated and elated to accelerate their

performance. He stated:

I personally and I have seen it work give every effort to make sure that the

staff have a working tool and that the environment for the staff to produce

is enabling, that the staff feel appreciated and recognized and fairly

rewarded for the efforts done. (personal communication, October 7, 2004)

Seven of the 16 participants said that they emphasize both verbal and

written messages as part of recognizing and appreciating their employees for

excellent performance. Professor Godfrey Nguru expressed that a leader needs

to affirm their followers because people work better when they are being

appreciated and when their contribution is being recognized. He further

explained:

Just to meet with a member of staff and say, I liked what you did last time,

you did a good job and I have known that to be very important to many

people. Believe it or not all like to be appreciated; we all like to be told well

done at one point in our life and that I make it a point of doing. I do that

through special notes, I do that through even SMS (short messages

system) these days. After the installation ceremony, I sent SMS to many

of the people just to say thank you for making the day; your contribution

was useful and some of them replied. (personal communication,

September 6, 2004)

101

Dr. Isaac Bekalu believes that people get even more energized when they

are appreciated in public, something not many leaders do. He stated:

I also try to appreciate people, praising them in front of others,

acknowledging that this was done by so and so; I think it was an excellent

job. Occasionally, I send them a note to appreciate that they have done a

good job. (personal communication, September 24, 2004)

Similarly, John Lelaono said that they show formal appreciation for outstanding

performances. He stressed, “If a person goes out of his or her way and does

something beyond what is expected of him or her, we show appreciation. We

show formal appreciation by giving letters of appreciation” (personal

communication, October 18, 2004). Dr. B. Waruinge also said he praises his

employees in public. He explained with an example:

There is a lot of work involved in laying these walls. It is done by one of

my waiters who is the least educated but I noticed that he had a talent for

stonework and so he has become my stone expert and I would praise him

in front of leaders as the architect of Olepolos. (personal communication,

September 25, 2004)

Joyce Kebathi acknowledged appreciating the employees that work for her. She

stated:

I like acknowledging each and every employee. For instance, I always feel

that each of us have a very great role to play in the smooth running of this

department and even the lady, who cleans my office, I make her feel that

102

she is very important because if she never dust my table and make sure

that the office is clean then I will not be working in a conducive

environment. (personal communication, September 24, 2004)

Godwin Mzenge reiterated the idea of appreciating employees. He said

that whenever people talk well of their services, he is always sure to pass the

praise on to the employees. He explained:

Occasionally I would meet somebody out there and I introduce myself as I

work for Family Planning Association of Kenya and the person says you

have a wonderful maternity clinic. And in the morning when I come in

before I take the stairs I would go to the clinic and tell the nurses I met

somebody yesterday, who spoke highly of your service, congratulations.

(personal communication, September 23, 2004)

Two of the 16 participants indicated that partying, get-togethers, and

common celebrations act as a precursor to recognizing and rewarding

employees. According to Dr. Saruni Sena, employees are rewarded and

recognized through various celebrations. He stated:

Everybody’s birthday is celebrated in this office. Also, every now and then

we come together for parties just to say thank you to the employees. Our

leaders truly appreciate the employees and the employees reciprocate by

giving excellent topnotch service (personal communication, August 3,

2004).

103

The following excerpt from Godwin Mzenge puts emphasis on partying or

celebrating as part of recognizing and rewarding employees:

This organization was awarded the UN population award in 2003 and I

had to go to New York to the United Nations to receive it from the

Secretary General. So when I came back I decided let us celebrate and

the best way to celebrate is to look back in our history and see those who

have given outstanding contributions to this organization and award them

recognition certificates or something like that. (personal communication,

September 23, 2004)

Four of the 16 participants stated that they promote divergent views from

their employees in order to encourage and motivate them. They believe that

divergent views take people out of their myopic thinking and place them in a

position to accommodate the views of others. Stanley Manduku stressed that

even when a divergent view is not taken, the approach should be such that it is

accommodating. He stated:

We have divergent views that are productive despite the fact that they will

be against what you think but at the end of the day you appreciate the fact

that that view can be productive. Those ones when you are dealing with

them even if you have to say no, you will have to do in such a manner that

it is quite accommodating. (personal communication, November 2, 2004)

Mohez Kamarli expressed that divergent views are not necessarily negative. He

further elaborated, “In my mind it is positive because then you can look at the

whole spectrum of what problems you may have; shutting out those with

104

divergent views is shutting out the treasure of solutions that lay ahead of you”

(personal communication, August 24, 2004).

Dr. Phillip Kitui believed that divergent views could be productive if people

take them as part of learning. He explained:

What I find is that people tend to listen to their peers in that case when it

comes to opposing views, rather than the person in authority. And so I

would want to invite those different views at that level so that people also

learn what their peers are thinking about. (personal communication,

November 3, 2004)

Summary

According to the participants, recognizing and rewarding employees takes

center stage. For instance, certain measures and systems, including

performance appraisal, which provide the criteria for awards granting and

promotion to the outstanding employees, have been put in place. The

participants put emphasis on both verbal and written messages as part of

appreciating and recognizing excellent performance. They also indicated that

parties, get-togethers, and common celebrations are events that motivate

employees a great deal. Such events are used to thank the employees, award

recognition certificates, or even at times just to celebrate their birthdays. The

participants further said that they encourage divergent views from their

employees. They strongly believed that divergent views jettison people out of

their myopic thinking in order to accommodate a wide spectrum of others’ views.

105

Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)

The participants believed that those leaders who have adopted humility

exercise great respect for others. They said that humility is crucial because

everybody’s self-worth and inner citadel must be allowed to show. As a result,

the participants expressed that they see and regard everybody as equal and

important, that they take the time to listen to others (open door policy), and they

handle corrections and criticisms in a manner that does not destroy the individual

but that builds up the individual. Table 9 presents the various statements and

comments that the participants expressed concerning their treatment and

showing respect while interacting with others (employees).

Table 9

Participants’ Statements and Comments on treating and showing Respect for

Others

Seeing everybody

equal and

important

Open-door policy

(listening to

others)

Corrections and

criticisms done in

a humble manner

CEO 5 3 3

Deputy CEO 1 1 0

Division Head 6 5 1

Total 12 9 4

A total of 17 (68%) out of the 25 participants interviewed gave splendid

and detailed support to treating others with respect as a sign of humility. They

106

saw humility as a way of connecting with others and respecting them. Twelve of

the 17 leaders and managers showed renditions of valuing all and seeing them

as equal and important. According to Professor Mary Jones, people need to be

regarded as people in every organization. She stated, “I try and show genuine

and caring concern, that I regard people as people and not as just objects. And

all of this is to mean that each person does mean something to the organization”

(personal communication, September 7, 2004). Dr. Saruni Sena stressed that

power distance is a thing of the past in their organization. He stated, “It is

absolutely, completely clear that if you stayed here two, three hours you may not

know who is a director except perhaps for the gray hair. That tells you we joke a

lot and play with each other” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). In the

words of Dr. Isaac Bekalu, though people play different roles and functions, there

is need to regard them equally. He explained:

I would like to see everybody as a person who is created equally. To me, it

does not matter if it is my deputy or a janitor; they have got the same

value, they are human beings and I try to treat them equally. They do

different jobs, they have different roles, but they have a human value that

is equal. (personal communication, September 13, 2004)

Similarly, J.K. Gikuumah insisted that regarding all employees as equal is an

important leader’s obligation. She observed, “Though they are given different

responsibilities, you value each one of them according to the nature of the work

that you have given to them” (personal communication, October 22, 2004).

107

In the words of Kangethe Wagathigi, employees should never be

categorized or placed in a gallery of some sort. He stated, “Do not classify your

employees that this is a watchman, this is a sweeper, this is an accountant, this

is a sales manager, this is a track driver, no. Treat them as equals” (personal

communication, October 8, 2004). John Lelaono believed that every leader

should emphasize the importance of each individual in the organization. He

explained, “We tell them that everyone is important, from the grounds to the

office. The most important place should not just be the manager’s office. The

most important place should be everybody’s working place” (personal

communication, October 18, 2004). Dr. Phillip Kitui said he finds humility

important when it comes to connecting with everybody in the organization. He

stated, “Humility is important because everybody’s self-worth must be allowed to

show, he or she must be allowed to know that they are actually important”

(personal communication, November 3, 2004).

Dr. B. Waruingi, who runs a country club, said that his desire for a society

that is less stratified has made him ameliorate the gap between the “high” in

society and the “low.” He believed that it is important to respect all people and

show them that one is very serious when it comes to humility. He continued:

As you can see that my customers are big people in Kenya, but I tell them

to forget their offices out there. You come here you are just customer one,

two, three, four, and they will be a minister and so on, but it really does not

matter. (personal communication, September 25, 2004)

108

When asked by the researcher what they do when employees deviate or

fail to meet their goals, the participants expressed that they redirect them with

humility. According to Dr. Joshua Okumbe, humility and treating employees fairly

go hand in hand. He stated, “We have demonstrated high levels of humility. I will

tell you, interestingly some of the people are very intelligent and some of them

are not as intelligent as others. But we treat all of them as equals” (personal

communication, September 13, 2004). As per Professor Peter Kibas, inculcating

an attitude and a culture, whereby people are valued along with their

contributions is a necessary undertaking. He stated:

We value every individual beginning from the sweeper, the cleaner. This is

what I personally try to do, by showing, and by encouraging my colleagues

and my juniors and other workers that everybody has something to

contribute in any organization, whether they are in the very low office or

very high office like the CEO, all of us. My chief executive has also that

attitude, where we value everybody in terms of his or her contributions.

(personal communication, August 30, 2004)

Alluding to this was Joyce Kebathi, who stressed that she likes acknowledging

each and every employee. She further explained:

I always feel that each of us have a very great role to play in the smooth

running of this department and even the lady, who cleans my office, I

make her feel that she is very important because if she never dust my

table and make sure that the office is clean then I will not be working in a

conducive environment. (personal communication, September 24, 2004)

109

Nine of the 17 participants stated that they take the open door policy as a

very cardinal element of leadership. They stressed that they leave their doors

opened wide so that their employees and customers can access them without

much difficulty. Kangethe Wagathigi indicated that they operate more or less in

an open system. He explained, “This door is permanently opened, anybody can

walk in; there is nobody from the lowest to the highest, who will say they need an

appointment to see the boss, they just walk in” (communication, October 8,

2004). According to Dr. Isaac Bekalu, attempts have been made to make sure

that everybody has a right and a voice. He stated, “People can walk to my office

and tell me whatever they feel in their heart and I think that open door policy is

itself an element of leadership” (personal communication, September 24, 2004).

Saoli Nkanae said he does the same. He stated, “One thing I know about myself

is that my office is opened to all, whatever juniors, so long as I have time”

(personal communication, October 22, 2004). Dr. B. Waruinge said he preferred

sitting in a strategic place so that all can see him. He explained, “They feel free to

talk to me any time and where you saw me sitting is really my outside office,

where people can come with any problems, can come and have a discussion

with me” (personal communication, September 25, 2004). Professor Mary Jones

also observes the open door policy. She stated:

I take time and I try to make sure that I have a good time and my door is

opened, but I keep it closed but when people need to see me I see. Once

in a while I put someone off for a day or so but I would do whatever I can

110

to accommodate someone to see them. (personal communication,

September 7, 2004)

According to Dr. B. Waruingi, employees can proffer so much in terms of

ideas if they get listened to. He explained, “I try to tell people that I have no

monopoly of ideas. And whatever little project we are doing I listen to them and

some of the great ideas have come from employees and they are very many”

(personal communication, September 25, 2004). Dr. Phillip Kitui expressed that

he opens his doors to both his students and to those who are reporting to him so

as to sit down with them and listen to them. He stated, “When I have the time I

like to meet them and listen because I find that it is only in listening that I can get

to help them the best way I can” (personal communication, November 3, 2004).

Similarly, Dr. Isaac Bekalu puts emphasis on listening to his subordinates. He

stated, “I take time to listen to anyone who would want to talk, it could be angry,

could be anything. I would sit down here calmly and listen for as long as it takes

to listen” (personal communication, September 24, 2004).

Joseph Nkadayo acknowledged that leaders who have adopted humility

and respect for others, and listen to others have been very successful in

influencing and getting the support of their workers. He, however, made a

confession that it is difficult to be humble in government, where orders must be

followed to the letter. He explained:

We are a hard industry, whereby when orders are given they must be

followed to the latter. You see government operate by orders and

directives, some of which do not necessarily require humility. But I always

111

endeavor to communicate and I always try to put a human face and touch.

(personal communication, October 26, 2004)

Ole Ndere offered similar remarks. He stated that humility is important but

government traditions encumber it. He further explained:

Like in the public sector, there has been a tradition of trying to elevate the

boss above everybody else in terms of—of course, he/she has the

authority but the employees have kind of been conditioned to kind of not to

feel free in front of the boss; they call him sir and the like. And what I have

been trying to do where I work is that I try to make them feel comfortable

and I discourage them from referring to me as sir when they are

addressing me. We are on first name basis. (personal communication,

October 17, 2004)

Four of the 17 participants indicated that humility calls for leaders who are

ready and willing to correct and criticize others in a manner that does not destroy

them but that builds them up. Dr. B. Waruinge said that he never allows for his

employees to be reprimanded publicly. He stated:

Because I treat them and I listen to them and I have time for them and

nobody is allowed, even my supervisors to reprimand anybody in public. I

tell them to take them aside and tell them slowly, quietly what they have

done wrong. (personal communication, September 25, 2004)

112

In the words of Professor Godfrey Nguru, corrections are healthy and are

part of life, but they need to be done in a manner that does not destroy the

individual but that builds the individual up. He further explained:

There are times when people have to be corrected and in correction what

you really need to do is to do it with humility and not condemning and

assuring them that really they do not measure up but they are capable of

doing better, and with encouragement they can do better. (personal

communication, September 6, 2004)

J. K. Gikuumah believes that people should not be harassed when they make

mistakes—instead they should be warned humbly. She stated, “I used to listen to

my employees and I used to praise them when they do well, but when they do

bad I used to question them, perhaps with a humble warning letter or talk to

them” (personal communication, October 22, 2004).

Summary

The participants showed renditions of valuing each individual and seeing

them as equal and important. In other words, people have the same human

value—whether sweeper, watchman or manager—but they perform different

functions and responsibilities. This is the function of humility, which allows

everybody’s self-worth to show. The participants indicated that they leave their

doors wide open (open door policy) to allow their employees and customers to

have access to them without much difficulty. Leaders in government, however,

acknowledged that strict adherence to orders and elevation of the boss above

everyone else hampers humility. Further, the participants noted that humility calls

113

for leaders who are ready and willing to correct and criticize others in a manner

that does not destroy them but that builds them up.

Involving Others (Employees) in Decision Making

The participants strongly believed that they have no monopoly of ideas

and experiences and that there is a need to always bring others on board when a

decision needs to be made. They expressed that collective responsibility is now

the way forward for every organization unlike in the past when it was the pro

forma for a leader to get into their office and then make a solitary decision. The

participants indicated that they consult with their staff—in form of departmental

meetings—before taking any action on nearly all decisions. Unlike in the past,

where leadership was more or less by intimidation, people are now receiving

training on teamwork and team basis. They also noted that in consensus

building, people’s ideas and suggestions are solicited and then people agree to

accept and respect other people’s opinions as long as their own opinions are not

the popular opinions. The participants further expressed that when decisions are

reached by consensus, people get motivated and they will ensure that the

decisions or solutions arrived at are fully implemented. Table 10 presents the

various statements and comments that the participants expressed concerning

involving others in decision making.

114

Table 10

Participants’ Comments and Statements on Involving Others in Decision-making

Hold

consultation

meetings

Adopt

teamwork

Accept and

respect

others’

opinions

Consensus

has a

motivating

impact

CEO 4 1 1 2

Deputy CEO 1 0 1 1

Division Head 6 2 3 3

Total 11 3 5 6

A total of 22 (88%) out of the 25 participants interviewed offered a

paragon of support to involving others in decision making. They saw collective

decision making as a necessary precursor for healthy functioning of modern

organizations. Eleven of the 22 participants said they consult with their deputies

and other staff members before taking most of their decisions. Joyce Kebathi

believes she has no monopoly of knowledge or experience and as such she has

to involve others. She explained, “I have tried as much as possible to involve my

deputies and other senior staff. We have a consultation every Monday morning

so that we can look at the work that is ahead of us” (personal communication,

September 24, 2004). For Stanley Manduku, a collective talk is usually inevitable

whenever a problem arises. He stated:

115

The first option we normally give is that if there is a general problem that

has come up, the best thing is to have a collective talk. We call people

down and discuss it with a view to solving it. (personal communication,

November 2, 2004)

Similarly, Joseph Nkadayo said they usually build consensus before taking

collective decisions on many issues. He stated:

One of the most common ways of building consensus in our organization

is to meet as heads of branches to discuss various problems affecting the

organization. This way we are able to take collective decisions on issues

dealing with description, service and ability to meet goals, and generally to

plan and assess completed projects. (personal communication, October

26, 2004)

According to Professor Godfrey Nguru, the best method for making

decisions is when people understand where you are coming from, which is more

of participation and consultative. He explained:

There are those who think that meetings take too long or they waste so

much time, but at the end of it all you let people express themselves, let

people talk rather than saying this must be done and they will go and do it

and tomorrow they won’t do it because you forced it. (personal

communication, September 6, 2004)

Five participants indicated that they usually meet as heads of departments

before making key decisions. Joseph Mpaa stressed that he seeks individual

116

views and then matches them together in order to get the best way for managing

a particular problem or challenge. He stated, “We do it in the perspective of

meetings of key heads of departments, where we all, the general manager, the

heads of departments will come together and say what problems, what

challenges” (personal communication, October 7, 2004). Dr. James Kombo also

puts emphasis on departmental meetings. He stated, “We have department

heads and those department heads are supposed to represent the teachers and

in some cases staff from their departments. What the department head says is in

some sense representative of the department” (personal communication,

November 5, 2004). For Dr. Chweya Ludeki, it is in the departmental meetings

where key decisions for the department are made. He explained, “We meet as a

department and agree on the course allocations and then we give them

(students) as many electives as we can afford to give. And then we do a

timetable that is suitable for the students” (personal communication, November 4,

2004). Ann Lengerded also put emphasis on departmental meetings. She stated,

“What we do is we get all the departments and try to get to a consensus on how

we can move forward” (personal communication, October 11, 2004). Saoli

Nkanae stressed that even for employee appraisal to be implemented these

days, it must be discussed and agreed by the employee and the head of

department. He explained, “It is no longer the pro forma, where somebody goes

to his office and then assesses the person; they must be there together and

he/she is told you are not performing or you are performing” (personal

communication, October 22, 2004).

117

Three of the 22 participants said they have adopted the principle of

teamwork in their organizations. They argued that unlike in the past, where

leadership was more or less by intimidation, employees are now receiving

training on team spirit. Ole Pere, head of supervisory division at the Central Bank

of Kenya, indicated that his organization is inculcating the culture of teamwork in

its employees. He stated, “What they are trying to do the last two years is train

people on team basis, teamwork and I believe that is the direction that the

organization wants things to go” (personal communication, August 21, 2004).

Teamwork and team spirit is highly cherished where Dr. Saruni Sena works. He

explained, “What we emphasize here is teamwork and participation and

consensus rather than coercion, punishment and those things that do not guide

team spirit” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). According to Joseph

Mpaa, teamwork yields better returns. He stated, “We put a lot of emphasis on

teamwork and team spirit. And working together as a team is always more

fulfilling, more rewarding and even the output is higher than working on individual

level” (personal communication, October 7, 2004).

Five of the 22 participants proffered that they always take into account the

opinions of others whenever they make decisions. They said that soliciting

people’s ideas and suggestions and then agreeing to accept and respect the

popular views is reminiscent of good leadership. The following excerpt from Dr.

James Kombo shows the pinnacle of this idea:

In meetings, the procedures are: you bring your views, I bring my views,

and we all bring our views. And we see them and the way consensus is

118

often built is people first agree when they go to those meetings that they

will accept and respect other people’s opinions even if their own opinions

are not the popular opinions. (personal communication, November 5,

2004)

John Lelaono alluded to this by saying that their organization is very much

attuned to the idea of brainstorming. He explained, “We think and we brainstorm,

everybody. It is not a dictatorial kind of meeting, whereby it is a free for all; you

give your views, it is discounted or it is taken, that is how it goes” (personal

communication, October 18, 2004).

Professor Mary Jones indicated that whenever they have meetings they

usually go around and make sure everyone is spoken on the issue. And in the

final analysis when people bring their views together, the decision they make

becomes “their decision.” She stated:

When I meet with people we sit in the room and I would state my feelings,

my views, whatever I feel I need to share to help in the decision making

process. So when I leave, whatever the decision was, it is our decision. I

don’t say well, I thought we should have done this and that. (personal

communication, September 7, 2004)

Chris Kuto also believes in seeking the opinions of others. He stated:

Many times because I have been here for so long I may believe that I

know it all, but I always let people bring their views. Even if I think I know I

make sure I send it out and get commends from my managers and then

119

consolidate. Many at times I find may be I have to modify my original

thinking. (personal communication, November 3, 2004)

The following excerpt from Professor Peter Kibas shows a practical

example of soliciting the views of others:

We have two campuses and we want to buy a bus for our students. What

we have done is we have asked the managers and their officers to give us

their views—what sort of bus they want to buy. Of course, we have given

the parameters in terms of the money available, the budget, and we said

we involve them to make a decision. (personal communication, August 30,

2004)

Six of the 22 participants expressed that consensus has a motivating

impact. They said that when decisions are reached by consensus, people get

highly motivated and they will make sure that the decisions or solutions reached

are fully implemented. Dr. Joshua Okumbe stated:

What we are noticing is that through consensus-building, through

participation and through a review of different view points, then we are

likely to build the consensus and the most important thing about

consensus-building is that it has a motivating impact when everybody

feels they participated in the decisions then they buy in the momentum

with which they will implement it and see to it that it is not the portion of

the greater. (personal communication, September 13, 2004)

Ole Ndere offered a similar explanation. He stated:

120

Whenever there is a problem to be addressed I call a meeting and

encourage everybody to speak up his/her mind without necessarily having

to control or direct him or her to a certain direction. Then after that we

could reach a consensus and once we reach a consensus it becomes very

easy to rally all the employees behind the consensus reached to make

sure that it is implemented. (personal communication, October 17, 2004)

The following excerpt from Dr. Phillip Kitui points to the fact that consensual

decisions birth commitment and ownership on the part of all the participants:

I like collective decision making process because once people come

together and they reason together about decisions and the need for them

and they make the decisions on the way forward, I find that they get more

committed to the decisions that they make that way together. And in the

process, of course, they will determine their roles in implementing these

particular decisions. (personal communication, November 3, 2004)

Another excerpt from Stanley Manduku shows that chances of solving problems

through consensus are much higher than in solitary situations:

Ordinarily when a problem arises that affects generally the environment

we work in, the first thing is that we try as much as possible to look at it

collectively because we understand the fact that if there is a problem and

it has faced us it is collective and the fact that there are more of you giving

a thought to one specific problem, chances of solving it becomes much

easier. (personal communication, November 2, 2004)

121

Summary

The participants strongly believed in consensus building. They expressed

that they usually get in collective talks with others whenever problems or issues

arise; they especially meet as heads of departments before making any key

decisions. They indicated that organizations are now inculcating a culture of

teamwork and team spirit, and many of their people are receiving training in such

areas. It has been noted that teamwork yields better returns. In consensus

building, the participants solicit people’s ideas and suggestions and then people

agree to accept and respect the opinions of others as long as it is the popular

opinion. The participants further expressed that when decisions are reached by

consensus, people get highly motivated and they make sure that the decisions or

solutions reached are fully implemented.

Chapter Summary

The data from the standardized open-ended interviews provided a myriad

of general insights into Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct

of service as viewed by the 25 participants in this study. Using NUD*IST software

tool, the researcher searched for words, sentences, and phrases or patterns of

characters related to the research question (i.e., the construct of service). The

participants’ responses related to the research question were retrieved and

analyzed. Based on the respondents’ emphasis and frequent use of concepts,

terms, or key words that are indicative of the construct of service, the researcher

was then able to sort and dichotomize the data into seven general categories,

namely (a) role modeling, (b) sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs of

122

others (employees) and developing them, (d) service as a primary function of

leadership, (e) recognizing and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with

respect (humility), and (g) involving others in decision making. Table 11 shows

participants’ responses—in form of comments and statements—that created

each construct of service’s category (also called overriding themes). The seven

questions presented to the participants on the construct of service provided the

framework upon which the researcher was able to make connections between

the various categories and how they relate with the acceptability and applicability

of Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of

Kenyan leaders and managers.

123

Table 11

Participants’ Responses and Frequency leading to the 7 Categories (Overriding

Themes)

Category (overriding

theme)

Comments and

statements made about

the overriding theme

Frequency

Role modeling

Signals what is important

Best way to influence

Don’t preach water and

drink wine

Service delivered through

modeling

19

Sacrificing for others

Sacrificing time and

resources

Working with inadequate

resources

Going for low pay

Borders on harambee

16

Meeting the needs of

others and developing

them

People follow those who

meet their needs

Providing a conducive

working environment

21

124

Helping others achieve

goals and objectives

Developing others

through training

Staff as important asset

Service as a primary

function of leadership

Leadership is first service

No leadership without

service

Service delivered by

leaders who model

Service calls for

adherence to certain

leadership principles

18

Recognizing and

rewarding employees

Measures and systems in

place to affirm

Verbal and written

messages

Parting and celebrating

Encouraging divergent

views

16

Treating employees with

respect

Seeing everybody equal

and important

Open door policy

17

125

Corrections and

criticisms done humbly

Involving others in

decision making

Hold consultation

meetings

Adopt teamwork

Accept and respect

others’ opinions

Consensus has a

motivating impact

22

126

Chapter Five: Discussion

The previous chapters have built on the fundamental objective of the

study, which is to examine Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s

construct of service in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. By

summarizing and discussing the results of the study, this chapter is set out to

cogently describe the extent to which Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s

construct of service is acceptable and applicable among Kenyan leaders and

managers of varied organizational backgrounds. To comprehensively and

exhaustively address this undertaking, this chapter covers four areas:

1. Leadership and service in the African context.

2. The Kenyan philosophy of harambee.

3. Commentary on the findings.

4. Recommendations for future research.

Leadership and Service in the African Context

The leaders and managers in this study, who mostly occupy gregarious

and influential positions in government, business corporations, NGOs, and

academic institutions, indicated service as a fundamental goal in their careers.

As a matter of fact, they did not find a dichotomy between leadership and

service. They expressed that leadership is all about providing a service. In other

words, a leader is simply out there to serve and be selfless. For instance, in the

words of Dr. Joshua Okumbe, “A leader is out there to serve, not to be served.

Anybody who occupies any position of leadership must know on the very onset

that their very function as they occupy those positions is to serve, to be selfless”

127

(personal communication, September 13, 2004). Such exuberance and

enthusiasm about service is not a strange viewpoint, given that some of the

prevalent African values (e.g., ubuntu) put emphasis on the person not living for

themselves but rather living for others (Mibigi & Maree, 1995). Similar emphasis

is found in Mbiti’s (1969) often-quoted line: “I am because we are: and since we

are, therefore I am” (p. 10) from his widely read book, African Religions and

Philosophy.

The participants expressed leadership as being futile and meaningless in

the absence of service since leaders primarily do things for others. They

perceived leadership as service first. In the words of Dr. Sarune Sena, “You are a

leader, who provides service and the first service you give is yourself so that they

too give themselves to you” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). Further,

the participants argued that leaders at times succumb to spending personal

resources in pursuits to serving others. Dr. Chweya Ludeki stated, “There are

some ways you spend your own money to make sure that the group you are

leading or the unit you are leading actually succeeds” (personal communication,

November 4, 2004). The outcome of this study is in line with a recent study by

Nelson (2003), which explored Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory (all

constructs: altruism, empowerment, humility, love, service, trust, and vision)

among black leaders in South African organizations. By capitalizing on ubuntu

philosophy, Nelson found service to be the primary function of leadership. In

other words, service was not based on the leader’s own interests but rather on

128

the interests and welfare of their employees. Thus, service is a critical aspect of

African leadership.

The participants indicated that they have no monopoly of ideas and

experiences and as a result they are adherents of consensus building. They said

that collective responsibility and plurality decisions take precedence as compared

to solitary decisions. According to Joseph Mpaa, individual views are sorted and

then matched together in order to find the best way for managing a particular

problem or challenge. He stated, “We do it in the perspective of meetings of key

heads of departments, where we all, the general manager, the heads of

departments will come together and say what problems, what challenges”

(personal communication, October 7, 2004). Plurality decisions extrapolate a

crucial pattern of traditional African leadership, which inexorably puts the

community’s interest (service) ahead of its own. For instance, the chief did not

rule but rather served and led by consensus (Ayittey, 1992). Also, the traditional

judge in black Africa is more intent on reaching consensus rather than litigating

by the book (Mamadou, 1991). Similarly, while studies based on African

organizations indicate that decisions based on consensus still have greater

acceptability in most African societies, a study based on Kenyan industries

showed that both workers and managers preferred a modern democratic style of

leadership to build consensus and trust (Mersha, 2000). Thus, the fact that

leaders and managers in this study are attuned to the idea of consensus building

means that plurality decisions and service for that matter remains an agile part of

African leadership.

129

The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee

The participants in this study expressed strong feelings about sacrificing

for the sake of others. Their view of sacrificing is embedded in the way they give

their time, their resources, and even themselves for the work of others. According

to Dr. Chweya Ludeki, at times leaders go to the extent of spending personal

resources for the sake of those that they are leading. He explained, “There are

some ways you spend your own money to make sure that the group you are

leading or the unit you are leading actually succeeds” (personal communication,

November 4, 2004). The idea of sacrificing for others borders on the Kenyan

harambee philosophy, which is guided by the principle of collective good rather

than individual gain. The harambee philosophy for the most part embodies

mutual assistance, joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community

reliance. In other words, the end product benefits the public as opposed to an

individual (Chieni, 1997).

The following excerpt from Dr. Chweya Ludeki shows how the harambee

philosophy helped him understand service. He explained:

You see there are two ways in which you can look or understand service.

One, of course, you can look at the standpoint of the harambee

philosophy, which is serving by sacrificing for the interests of others. So

that is one, which borders on something like voluntary, probably sacrifice,

dedication of your time and profession to the service of others. (personal

communication, November 4, 2004)

130

Such a description is in line with Gakuru’s (1998) concept of African

interdependence, which is most famously articulated by Nigerian novelist, Chinua

Achebe, who wrote: “Whereas an animal scratches itself against a tree, a human

being has a kinsman to scratch it for him” (para. 4). In other words, there is a

very strong belief in the African communities that the welfare of an individual

means the welfare of the entire community. According to Hill (1991), it is such

African traditions of community cooperation and mutual aid that spiral the

harambee philosophy.

The participants (e.g., Mohez Kamali) applauded the harambee spirit as

an excellent way of meeting the needs that people face both in organizations and

in their own individual lives. The harambee spirit calls for people to put their

resources together in order to help one another and as a result alleviates a lot of

suffering or difficulties people have faced by themselves. This whole idea and

practice of giving a hand to others, whether one acts individually or through

organization, is as old as Africa. Voluntary individual and communal activities

retain deep roots among Africans. One helps and works with neighbors and

fellow villagers as the need arises and dictates (Waiguchu et al., 1999). The

perception of harambee—which is solidly grounded in the indigenous cultures of

most Kenyan communities—as the collective and cooperative participation of a

community, was an attempt to fill the perceived needs of others through

utilization of available meager resources (Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977).

It is the pugnacious attitude about sacrificing for others, which the

participants in this study strongly expressed, that have sustained the harambee

131

spirit, even though a contained corruption still existed (Versely, 1997). Hence, the

fact that leaders are able to go beyond what is expected of them and even use

personal resources in order to help others means that Kenyan leaders and

managers are indeed guided by the principles of service to others and collective

good rather than individual gains. In other words, they are adhering to the

traditional Kenyan philosophy of being mindful of each other’s welfare.

Commentary on the Findings

The leaders and managers who participated in this study gave statements

and comments that led to the emergence of themes reminiscent to Patterson’s

(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service and the Kenyan

harambee philosophy. According to the participants, the construct of service

comprises of: (a) role modeling, (b) sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs

of others (employees) and developing them, (d) service as a primary function of

leadership, (e) recognizing and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with

respect (humility), and (g) involving others in decision making. For the most part,

the participants were plausible as far as their understanding of the construct of

service is concerned, and in fact, they expressed incendiary views about serving

others (e.g., their employees). However, some participants, especially those who

work for the government, felt that their environment is at times a hindrance to

practicing service.

132

Role Modeling

The participants in this study stated that one of their major ways of

demonstrating and practicing service is by modeling their behavior and actions.

They said that role modeling signals to their followers what is important and

expected of them. The Kenyan harambee philosophy became a success

because the leaders lived it. It is the leaders, along with the help of their

communities who spearheaded harambee as an undertaking for collective good

(Bailey, 1993).

Leaders who lead by the example are able to establish a standard which

their employees are likely to adopt and emulate. The leaders in this study

asserted that the best way for a leader to impact and influence others is by being

the best example in every situation. This is in line with the servant leadership

model which establishes service as the gift that attracts followers, who in turn

pass along the same gift through example (Sarkus, 1996). Influence through

example seems to play a cardinal role in leadership, which is one of the highest

forms of service (Murray, 1997). Kenyan leaders and managers seem to adopt

role modeling as a way of giving service to their followers.

Recommendations

The participants embraced role modeling as a good way of influencing and

impacting others. Given Africa’s current leadership problem, this is a very

important virtue that should be given prime promotion in every organization. The

researcher further recommends that leaders continue to emphasize “walking the

133

talk” and “talking the walk.” It is the only way to bring meaningful change among

the employees and subsequently among the nation.

Sacrificing for Others

The participants in this study indicated sacrifice as being inexorable when

it comes to serving others. They asserted that it is almost impossible to serve

people without sacrifice because situations will present themselves where a

leader is left with no choice but to sacrifice. This borders on the Kenyan

harambee philosophy, which calls for leaders to make a great sacrifice for the

service of others. Leaders are to give their time and their resources in order to

provide goods, education, health services, passable roads, and even day-to-day

essentials for others (Chieni, 1997).

The participants expressed a willingness to work beyond their job

descriptions with no extra pay, a willingness to hold low paying jobs that may not

be commensurate with their training and expertise in order to turn around

institutions for the benefit of others, and a willingness to go to the extent of

spending their own personal resources in order to help others come out of

strenuous circumstances. The participants working for the government strongly

stated that circumstances (e.g., inadequate resources like equipment) force them

to sacrifice a great deal. No wonder, as reiterated by Lee and Zemko (1993),

Greenleaf insisted that leaders earn their followers’ trust only by virtue of their

selfless natures. The proponents of the harambee philosophy participate in an

attempt to fill the perceived needs of others by utilizing their own meager

134

resources (Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977), which in many cases call for

considerable personal sacrifice or inconvenience.

Recommendations

The researcher recommends that leaders, especially those who work for

the government, learn to sacrifice for others even when circumstances are not

forcing them to do so. It is important that their actions and behaviors reflect an

overarching helping concern for others at all times and in all situations.

Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them

Servant leaders are known to deeply commit themselves to the personal,

professional, and spiritual growth of those in their sphere of influence (Spears,

1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). Pursuing both the physical and the developmental

needs of the followers was a core agenda for the participants in this study. They

indicated the urgency for competitive and comprehensive remuneration

packages, including salaries and wages, medical coverage, and loan schemes.

Similarly, like the proponents of the harambee philosophy, the participants

indicated a willingness to invest their own time, energies, and personal resources

for the benefit of the employees. Again, as far as “African communalism” goes,

life’s means are relatively minimal and natural resources are scarce, and every

individual must depend on his or her community (Wright, 1984).

The participants indicated training as a way of guiding their followers in

order to identify and develop their personal as well as professional goals. To the

participants, unless employees are trained to be competent in the areas of the

135

services they provide, they will not be efficient and effective. The harambee

philosophy encourages a close collaboration between the leaders and their

people in order to be successful in their self-help efforts (services). In other

words, the leaders are to take the lead as the other people follow (Chieni, 1997).

Recommendation

Though the harambee philosophy seems to embody more of collective

effort for the entire community (communal aspect), it is still driven by the spirit of

service to others as espoused by Patterson (2003). It is, however, recommended

that the participants continue to inculcate the same spirit among their followers,

not only to benefit them as individuals but the nation as a whole. The harambee

spirit is that of the entire nation and not only for the individuals in corporations.

Service as a Primary Function of Leadership

The harambee philosophy calls on Kenyan leaders to serve their

constituents by being a part of the self-help projects that are aimed at promoting

the common good of everyone (Chieni, 1997). In this study, the participants did

not find a dichotomy between service and leadership. They expressed that

leadership is about providing service. In other words, a leader is out there to

serve others selflessly (e.g., by giving their time and resources for the

development and betterment of their followers). And because leaders primarily

do things for others, leadership becomes meaningless in the absence of service.

This is in line with Farling et al.’s (1999) views of service as being a primary

function of leadership. To them, service should not be based on one’s own

136

interests, but rather on the interests and welfare of others. Similarly, Bennis and

Nanus (1985) posited that leaders must understand that one of their primary

functions as leaders is to serve the needs of their constituents.

The participants’ view of service as being a primary function of leadership

resembles the traditional African view of leadership, which places the

community’s interests (service) ahead of its own (Ayittey, 1992). Thus, the

participants understand and apply the construct of service.

Recommendations

Though there seems to be a perfect match between what the participants

purport to know and do and what harambee and traditional African leadership

seem to suggest about service and leadership, there is a need for the leaders to

continue teaching and promoting this relationship in their organizations. Perhaps

more training in the area of service is needed.

Recognizing and Rewarding Employees

Servant leaders constantly try to find out what the needs of their followers

are in order to help them succeed. In doing this, they listen to them, praise them

and redirect them when they deviate from goals (Blanchard, 1997). According to

the participants in this study, recognizing and rewarding employees, takes center

stage. The participants have put certain measures and systems in place (e.g.,

performance appraisal), which provide the criteria for promotion and awards

granting. They use both verbal and written messages to appreciate and

137

recognize excellent performance. Divergent views are also promoted as part of

encouraging and motivating them.

Since individual achievements are much less valued than are

interpersonal relations in African traditions (Dia, 1994), not much emphasis is

given in terms of recognition or rewarding for those who do well. It is rather taken

as an obligation that has to be fulfilled. Furthermore, Africans see themselves as

part of a “community” and not as “discrete individuals” (Bell, 2002). Thus, even

those who take part in harambee efforts are seen as fulfilling what society

requires and expects of them and not anything special or extraordinary. This is

not to say that recognizing and rewarding those who do well is unheard of in

African values and traditions, it is just that it is not overemphasized. It is more

implicit than explicit.

Recommendation

Recognizing and rewarding those who excel and do well is a good virtue

that should be emphasized in organizational settings. The leaders should

continue to be explicit about recognizing and rewarding their employees. This will

continue to encourage and motivate employees from all levels of the

organization.

Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)

Humility, which allows everybody’s self-worth to show, is rooted in the

harambee philosophy, which encourages mutual sharing of resources (mutual

social responsibility) for the benefit of others. It calls for people to be mindful of

138

each other’s welfare—whether rich or poor, whether black or white (Chieni,

1997). According to the participants in this study, every employee has a right, a

voice, and the same human value even though each performs different functions

and responsibilities. They indicated that they adopt an open door policy so that

their employees and customers can access them without much difficulty.

Corrections and criticisms are also handled in a manner that builds the individual

up instead of destroying them. This is in line with servant leadership, which calls

for leaders to listen to their people, praise them, and redirect them when they

deviate from goals (Blanchard, 1997).

However, leaders in government acknowledged that strict adherence to

orders and the public service tradition of elevating the boss above everybody

else hamper humility. They indicated that the government still operates by orders

and directives, some of which do not necessarily require humility. This is not a

strange occurrence since government officials still tend to adopt the colonial

mentality of controlling employees and intimidating them instead of being

humble. However, since the harambee philosophy is a product of government

legislation, we should see more government officials embrace humility in their

dealings with others.

Recommendation

To mollify government leaders into being adherents of humility, the

researcher recommends more training in the area of service (servant leadership)

sensitivity. This type of training will hopefully help the government leaders come

139

out of the colonial mentality (similar to scientific management) of controlling and

intimidating employees.

Involving Others in Decision Making

Like the harambee philosophy, which calls for leaders and their people to

pull their resources together in order to build and strengthen themselves and

their nation at large (Chieni, 1997; Wilson, 1992), the participants in this study

strongly believed in consensus building in nearly all their decisions. They

indicated that they usually get in collective talks as heads of departments before

making any key decisions. The participants stated that organizations are now

inculcating a culture of teamwork and team spirit, and many of their people are

receiving training in such areas. This is in line with servant leadership, which is

inclusive rather than exclusive. Laub (1999) advocated for the use of workgroups

or teams that are small enough to allow group members to become a community,

with strong collaborative relationships.

The participants further expressed that when decisions are reached by

consensus, people get highly motivated and they make sure that the decisions or

solutions reached are fully implemented. Perhaps that is why they also believed

in teamwork yielding better returns. Similarly, this could be the same reason why

Jomo Kenyatta (founding president) stressed a continued collaboration between

the people throughout their self-help efforts, the government, and the leaders

(Chieni, 1997). Even the traditional chief and judge in black Africa were more

intent on reaching consensus (Mamadou, 1991). Furthermore, a study based on

140

Kenyan industries showed that both workers and managers preferred a modern

democratic style of leadership to build consensus and trust.

Recommendations

The participants embraced consensus building in decision making. To

help them to continue initiating teamwork and team spirit, the researcher highly

recommends that leaders involve everybody in the organization in decision

making and not only those who represent the various departments. There is need

for consultation at every level of the organization. Also, the on-going training on

teamwork should be extended to all. This is the only way people could become

effective team players.

Recommendations for Future Research

The study showed that Kenyan leaders and managers for the most part

understand and apply Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of

service. However, it raises several issues that need to be explored in future

research:

1. While being interviewed on the construct of service, most of the

leaders and managers indicated that the researcher should also talk to

their subordinates on the same issues in order to ascertain and solidify

their discussions. Future studies should, therefore, interview the

leaders’ subordinates as another way of especially gauging if they truly

practice and apply the construct of service.

141

2. This study found that humility caused government leaders some

challenges. So because government leaders struggled with humility,

future studies should ascertain the candid reason for this.

3. This study focused on 25 leaders and managers from government,

business, NGOs, and academic institutions, meaning that

generalization is limited to the few that were interviewed. In order to

evince more implications of the construct of service, future studies

should enlarge the sample size.

4. The study focused mostly on the top stratum of the organizations.

Therefore, it is recommended that future studies should target even

those who hold non-management positions to see if they will offer a

different perspective.

5. The literature supporting the harambee philosophy emanates from the

broader literature on traditional African leadership and communalism.

Therefore, future studies should target the existing traditional chiefs

and kings to see if their view will be different.

Conclusion

The fundamental objective of this study was to examine Patterson’s

(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan

leaders and managers. In other words, to see if Kenyan leaders and managers of

varied organizational settings understand and apply the construct of service. It

emerged that (a) role modeling, (b) sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs

of others (employees) and developing them, (d) service as a primary function of

142

leadership, (e) recognizing and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with

respect (humility), and (g) involving others in decision making were prevalent

themes reminiscent to Patterson’s construct of service. These characteristics

help leaders to serve their employees. Thus, for the most part, this study found

that Patterson’s construct of service has understandability and applicability

among Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational backgrounds,

namely government, business corporations, NGOs, and academic institutions.

143

References

A draft discussion document towards a white paper on traditional leadership and

institutions. (2000, April 26). Retrieved April 16, 2004, from

http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/discuss/draft-traditional1.html

An affro-centric alliance: Indigenizing organizational change—localization

in Tanzania and Malawi. (2001). Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(1)

59-78.

Arjoon, S. (2000). Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business. Journal of

Business Ethics, 28, 159.

Autry, J. A. (1991). Love and profit: The art of caring leadership. New York: Avon

Books.

Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop

great morale, and improve bottom-line performance. USA: Prima

Publishing.

Ayittey, G. B. N. (1992). Africa betrayed. New York: A Cato Institute Book.

Bailey, J. (1993). Kenya: The nation epic. Nairobi, Kenya: Kenway Publications.

Bass, B. M. (1995). Concepts of leadership: The beginnings. In J. T. Wren

(Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages

(pp. 50-69). New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7, 18.

Bell, R. H. (2002). Understanding African philosophy: A cross-cultural approach

to classical and contemporary issues. New York: Routledge.

144

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New

York: Harper and Row.

Blanchard, K. (1997). Situational leadership. In K. Shelton (Ed.), A new

paradigm of leadership: Visions of excellence for 21st century

organizations (pp.149-153). USA: Executive Excellence Publishing.

Blanchard, K. (2000, March). Leadership by the book. Executive Excellence,

17(13), 4-6.

Bradley, Y. (1999, September). Servant leadership: A critique of Robert

Greenleaf’s concept of leadership. Journal of Christian Education, 42(2),

44-53.

Branch, S. (1999). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune,

139, 118.

Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. G. (Eds.) (1999). Qualitative research. Thousands

Oak, CA: Sage Publications.

Chieni, S. N. (1997). The harambee movement in Kenya: The role played by

Kenyans and the government in the provision of education and other

social services. Retrieved July 17, 2003, from

http://boleswa97.tripod.com/chieni.htm

Cohen, P. S. (2003). Value leadership: The 7 principles that drive corporate

value in any economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Covey, S. (2002). Servant-Leadership and community leadership in the twenty-

145

first century. In L. Spears (Ed.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership

for the 21st century. (pp. 27-34). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Creswell, J. A. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dia, M. (1994). Indigenous management practices: Lessons for Africa's

management in the '90s. In I. Serageldin & J. Taboroff (Eds.), Culture

and development in Africa (pp. 165-191). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Douglas, M. E. (2003, February). Servant leadership: An emerging supervisory

model. Supervision, 64(2), 6-9. Retrieved June 11, 2003, from ABI Inform

Global Database.

Ellsworth, R. R. (2002). Leading with purpose: The new corporate realities.

Standford, CA: Standford University Press.

Fairholm, G. W. (1997). Capturing the heart of leadership: Spirituality and

community in the new American workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting

the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 49-

72.

Fletcher, M. (1999). The effects of internal communication, leadership and team

performance on successful service quality implementation A South African

perspective. Team Performance Management, 5, 150.

Fuller, T. (Ed.). (2000). Leading & leadership. Notre Dame, IN: University

146

of Notre Dame.

Gakuru, O. (1998, First Quarter). Lean on me. Orbit, 68. Retrieved July 7, 2003,

from http://www.oneworld.org/vso/pubs/orbit/68/volunt.htm

Galvin, T. (2001). A culture of the heart. Training, 38(3), 80-81.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of

legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Hill, M. J. D. (1991). The harambee movement in Kenya: Self-help, development

and education among the Kamba of Kitui District. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:

The Athlone Press.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Joseph, J. A. (1997, December 15). The idea of African renaissance: Myth or

reality? Vital Speeches of the Day, 64(5), 133-135. Retrieved July 6, 2003,

from ABI/Inform Global Database.

Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1993). Promoting altruism as a corporate goal.

Academy of Management Executive, 7(3), 37-48.

Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it,

why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the

organizational leadership assessment (OLA) instrument. Dissertation

Abstracts Online. Retrieved October, 2003.

147

Lee, C., & Zemke, R. (1993). The search for spirit in the workplace. Training,

30(6), 21-35. Retrieved May 28, 2003, from ABI Inform Global Database.

Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2000). The 100 best companies to work for in

America. Portland, OR: Plume.

Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2001, February 4). The 100 best companies to

work for in America. Fortune, 143(3), 60-61.

Lloyd, B. (1996). New approach to leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 17(7), 29-32.

Lopez, I. O. (1995). Becoming a servant leader: The personal development path.

In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K.

Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top

management thinkers (pp.149-160). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lowe, J. (1998). Trust: The invaluable asset. In Spears, L. C. (Ed.), Insights on

Leadership (pp. 69-76). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lubin, K. A. (2001). Visionary leader behaviors and their congruency with servant

leadership characteristics. Dissertation Abstracts Online. Retrieved

January 15, 2004.

Mamadou, D. (1991, December). Development and cultural values in Sub-

Saharan Africa. Finance & Development, 28(4), 10. Retrieved July 6,

2003, from ABI/Inform Global Database.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.

148

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mazrui, A. A. (1986). The Africans: A triple heritage. USA: Little Brown &

Company.

Mbithi, P., & Rasmusson, R. (1977). Self-reliance in Kenya: The case of

harambee. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.

Mbiti, J. (1969). African religions and philosophies. London, Heinemann.

McLaughlin, K. (2001, March). A strong foundation. Training, 38(3), 84.

Melrose, K. (1995). Making the grass greener on your side: A CEO’s journey to

leading by service. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in

education (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mersha, T. (2000). Quality, competitiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa. Industrial

Management & Data Systems, 100(3). Retrieved June 11, 2003, from ABI

Inform Global Database.

Meyer, A. G., Brown, T., & Browne, S. J. M. N. (1998, November). Do we really

want more leaders in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(15), 1727-

1736.

Mibigi, L., & Maree, J. (1995). Ubuntu: The spirit of African transformation

management. Johanesburg: Knowledge Resources.

Miles, M. G., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

149

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative

methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Murray, M. (1997, October/November). Philanthropy: No better arena for

servants and leaders. Executive Speeches, 12(2), 27-30.

Nair, K. (1994). A higher standard of leadership: Lessons from the life of

Gandhi. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Ndegwa, S. N. (1996). The two faces of civil society: NGOs and politics in Africa.

West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, Inc.

Nelson, L. (2003). An exploratory study of the application and acceptance of

servant-leadership theory among black leaders in South Africa. Regent

University: Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3086676)

Ngau, P. M. (1987, April). Tensions in empowerment: The experience of the

harambee (self-help) movement in Kenya. Economic Development and

Cultural Change, 35(3). Retrieved April 17, 2004, from ABI/Inform Global.

Noonan, S. J. (2003). The elements of leadership: What you should know.

Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Nyabadza, G. W. (2003, February 7). Leadership at the peak—the 10th trait of

effective leaders: Servant Leadership [Electronic version]. Zimbabwe

Independent – AAGM. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from LexisNexis.

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership theory: A theoretical definition and a

150

presentation of the virtues of the servant leader including love, humility,

altruism, vision, trust, empowerment and service. Regent University:

Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3082719)

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pollard, W. C. (1997, September/October). The leader who serves. Strategy and

Leadership, 25(5), 49-51. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from ABI Inform Global

Database.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rowe, R. (2003, February). Leaders as servants. New Zealand Management,

50(1), 24-25.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing

data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rubin, D. K., Powers, M. B., Tulacz, G., Winston, S., & Krizan, W. G. (2002,

December 2). Leaders come in all shapes and sizes but the great ones

focus on people construction demands new skill sets from rising stars.

ENR, 249(23), 34-36. Retrieved May 28, 2003, from ABI Inform Global

Database.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:

Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 23(3), 145-157.

Sarkus, D. J. (1996, June). Servant-leadership in safety: Advancing the cause

and practice. Professional Safety, 41(6).

151

Saunders, V. R. (1993, February). A few good leaders. Training & Development,

47(2).

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers

in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers

College Press.

Shikuku, W. (2000, October 24). Why “harambee” spirit is dying. Daily Nation.

Retrieved July 17, 2003, from

http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/24102000/Letters/Letters4.

html

Snyder, N. H., Dowd, J. J., Jr., & Houghton, D. M. (1994). Vision, values and

courage: Leadership for quality management. New York: Free Press.

Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s

theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33-35.

Spears, L. C. (Ed.) (1998). The power of servant leadership: Essays by Robert

K. Greenleaf. San Francisco, CA: Berrtt-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Spears, L. C. (2002). Tracing the past, present, and future of servant-leadership.

In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the

twenty-first century (pp. 1-16). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spears, L.C., & Lawrence, M. (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership

for the twenty-first century. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

152

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. A. (2003, October). Transformational

versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Paper presented

at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach,

VA.

T’Shaka, O. (1990). The art of leadership. Richmond, CA: Pan Afrikan

Publications.

Taninecz, G. (2002, Summer). Healing the corporate soul. Chief Executive, 8-11.

Tatum, J. (1995). Meditations on servant leadership. In Spears, L. C. (Ed.).

(1998), In reflection on servant leadership (p. 308). New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Versely, M. (1997, December). Kenya's watershed elections. African Business,

227, 18-21. Retrieved July 6, 2003, from ABI/Inform Global Database.

Waddock, S. (2002). Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, values added.

USA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Waiguchu, J. M., Tiagha, E., & Mwaura, M. (1999). Management of organizations

in Africa: A handbook and reference. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Walsh, K. (2003, April). Qualitative research: Advancing the science and practice

of hospitality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,

44(2), 66-74.

Weinstein, B. (1998). I hate my boss. USA: McGraw-Hill.

William, C. (1994). Creating quality work environment. Security Management.

Retrieved October 25, 2002, from ABI/Inform Global Database.

Wilson, L. S. (1992, June). The “Harambee” movement and efficient public good

153

provision in Kenya. Journal of Public Economics, 48(1), 19.

Wilson, R. T. (1998). Servant leadership. Physician Executive, 24(5), 6-13.

Wis, R.M. (2002). The conductor as servant leader. Music Educators Journal,

89(17).

Wright, R. A. (Ed.). (1984). African philosophy: An introduction (3rd ed.).

New York: University Press of America.

Yassin, A. (2004, November 23). Rethink new law that restricts participation in

harambee. Sunday Nation. Retrieved April 17, 2004, from

http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/23112003/Letters/Letters23

1120039.html

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

154

Appendix A Participant Consent Form

Jeremiah Koshal/Researcher

Regent University

This is a qualitative study undertaken by Jeremiah Ole Koshal, a Ph.D. student at Regent University (School of Leadership Studies) in Virginia Beach, VA, U.S.A. The study examines Servant Leadership’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. You are requested to participate in the study, and with your consent, the interview will be audiotaped. The researcher may also take shorthand notes while the interview is going on. Your participation in the study is voluntary and there will be no monetary benefit for participating. You are free to stop participating in the study at any point. By the end of the interview, the researcher will give you a copy of this consent form to keep. You will also be given a summary of the findings of the study when the research has been completed. The researcher (Jeremiah Ole Koshal) can be contacted at 757-424-1056 (phone) or by email ([email protected]) I have read the above information and I consent to participate in the study without any financial expectation. Signature of Participant ________________________ Date ________________ Signature of Researcher _______________________ Date ________________