The Cross-Cultural Invariance of the Servant Leadership Survey: A Comparative Study across Eight Countries

Abstract

This paper tests and confirms the cross-cultural equivalence of the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) in eight countries and languages: The Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Finland. A composite sample consisting of 5201 respondents from eight countries that all filled out the SLS was used. A three-step approach was adopted to test configural invariance, measurement equivalence, and structural equivalence. For the full 30-item version of the SLS, configural invariance and partial measurement equivalence were confirmed. Implications of these results for the use of the SLS within cross-cultural studies are discussed.

Culture Blind Leadership Research: How Semantically Determined Survey Data May Fail to Detect Cultural Differences

“…The semantic method addresses these relationships, which are also important to most prevalent statistical models. The correlations or co-variances between items and scales are commonly used to build statistical models in survey research (Jöreskog, 1993;Borsboom, 2008;MacKenzie et al, 2011;Lamiell, 2013;Slaney, 2017;Van Dierendonck et al, 2017). To the extent that these are semantically determined, the semantic influence will be retained in all subsequent models.…”

Servant Leadership in Japan: A Validation Study of the Japanese Version of the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS-J)

“…Included among them is the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS; van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011 ), a multi-dimensional measure covering the essential aspects of SL (e.g., listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to people’s growth, and building community; Spears, 1995 ). It has been verified in cross-cultural studies ( Bobbio et al, 2012 ; Rodríguez-Carvajal et al, 2014 ; van Dierendonck et al, 2017 ). The SLS consists of 30 items that represent eight dimensions (Empowerment, Humility, Standing back, Stewardship, Authenticity, Accountability, Courage, and Forgiveness).…”

“…The SLS validity is confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis. Furthermore, the configural equivalence of the instrument was confirmed in eight European countries ( van Dierendonck et al, 2017 ). This is encouraging for the European context and culture; however, the Asian culture in general and the Japanese language in particular, brings its challenges.…”

“…Sample items for each dimension were as follows: “My manager gives me the information I need to do my work well” (Empowerment; seven items), “My manager learns from criticism” (Humility, five items), “My manager keeps himself/herself in the background and gives credit to others” (Standing Back, three items), “My manager emphasizes the importance of focusing on the good of the whole” (Stewardship, three items), “My manager is open about his/her limitations and weaknesses” (Authenticity, four items), “My manager holds me responsible for the work I carry out” (Accountability, three items), “My manager takes risks even when he/she is not certain of the support from his/her own manager” (Courage, two items), and “My manager keeps criticizing people for the mistakes they have made in their work” (reverse-scored item, Forgiveness, three items). In addition, the original short-version scale (SLS-short) consisted of five factors across 18 items ( van Dierendonck et al, 2017 ). Dimensions of the SLS-short included Empowerment (six items), Humility (three items), Authenticity (three items), Standing Back (three items), and Stewardship (three items).…”

“…However, it should be noted that this classification was not confirmed in the United Kingdom sample used in the same article. Furthermore, the long version of the SLS has been supplemented by a short version consisting of 18 items that has shown strong cross-cultural factorial stability ( van Dierendonck et al, 2017 ).…”