The validation of the servant leadership scale

Abstract

Research approach/design and method: A convenience sample of 1764 respondents, employed in both private and public sectors (employed in 31 different organisations), relatively well representative of the South African workforce in general, was used for this study.Main findings: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis yielded a one-factor solution of servant leadership that has acceptable psychometric and fit properties. The instrument was further found to have adequate convergent validity (compared with cognate leadership and organisational behaviour constructs).Practical/managerial implications: The SLQ7 version was found to be suitable for use across different samples, including the private and public sectors, and could be used with confidence within the South African context. Contribution/value-add: This study's contribution to science, practice and the community is based on the importance of the servant leadership construct when leading people, specifically in the South African (and African) context. The study confirms the servant leadership scale as a valid and reliable measuring instrument in the South African context and, determines how servant leadership impacts organisational behaviour within the South African and African context.

Servant leadership, team-based learning and hope and optimism: A sectoral comparative study

“…The SLQ7 uses a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Liden et al (2015) reported acceptable reliabilities of 0.80, 0.81 and 0.89 across three independent samples for the SLQ7, while Grobler and Flotman (2020)…”

“…The 7-item SL questionnaire (SLQ7), developed by Liden et al (2008), was used to measure SL. To determine the structural validity of the instrument for the South African population, Grobler and Flotman (2020) confirmed the unidimensional nature of the original SLQ7. A typical item of the SLQ7 reads 'My leader can tell if something work-related is going wrong' (item 1).…”

“…Consequently, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between servant leadership (SL) and a positive future expectation (from now on referred to as H&O) in the workplace, as well as the impact that TBL has on this relationship. It is postulated that both SL and TBL could have a decisive influence on individual behaviour and attitudes, particularly within the context of the South African collectivistic culture and the Ubuntu leadership and organisational philosophy (Grobler & Flotman, 2020). According to a recent study by Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, Van Dierendonck and Liden (2019) organisations that implement SL practices (e.g.…”

African business leadership: Perspectives from aspiring young leaders

“…Researchers, such as Bolden and Kirk (2005), Chasi and Levy (2016), Chatbury, Beaty andKriek (2011), Littrell andNkomo (2005), Spangenberg and Theron (2016) and Walumbwa et al (2011), make compelling arguments that Africa has its own values and practices, and that these should be an integral part of leadership practices for the continent. The authors, such as Obiakor (2004), Grobler and Singh (2018), Grobler and Flotman (2020) and Msila (2008), have criticised Western theories on practices of leadership in the African context outright and have called for an African-centred leadership approach that is relevant to the values of Africans. Whilst these researchers (Grobler & Flotman, 2020;Grobler & Singh, 2018;Msila, 2008;Obiakor, 2004) argue against the Eurocentric approach to leadership and leadership development programmes, they provide no evidence of a clear definition of what leadership is for Africa.…”

“…The authors, such as Obiakor (2004), Grobler and Singh (2018), Grobler and Flotman (2020) and Msila (2008), have criticised Western theories on practices of leadership in the African context outright and have called for an African-centred leadership approach that is relevant to the values of Africans. Whilst these researchers (Grobler & Flotman, 2020;Grobler & Singh, 2018;Msila, 2008;Obiakor, 2004) argue against the Eurocentric approach to leadership and leadership development programmes, they provide no evidence of a clear definition of what leadership is for Africa.…”