IMPACT OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN UNIVERSITY-RELATED HIGH-TECH STARTUP COMPANIES
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Argosy University, Salt Lake City Campus College of Business Administration
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Business Administration
By Larry Daniel Cravens March, 2016
ii IMPACT OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN UNIVERSITY-RELATED HIGH-TECH STARTUP COMPANIES
Copyright ©2016 Larry Daniel Cravens All rights reserved
iii IMPACT OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN UNIVERSITY-RELATED HIGH-TECH STARTUP COMPANIES
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Argosy University, Salt Lake City Campus College of Business Administration
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Business Administration
By Larry Daniel Cravens
Dissertation Committee Approval:
Amy C. Hakim, Ph.D., Chair
Larry Banks, Ph.D., Member
Larry Banks, Ph.D., Department Chair
Date
iv ABSTRACT Servant leadership and learning organizations are two topics of interest to many startup companies and entrepreneurs. This dissertation investigated if servant-leadership can impact the development of learning organizations within university-related startup companies. Three research questions that guided the study asked if servant-leadership affected the ability of university-related startup technology companies to become learning organizations; did servant-leadership aid in the development of learning organizations; and which aspects of servant-leadership practices were most helpful in establishing learning organizations. Only companies within 25 miles of a major university were contacted, or asked to participate. Ten university-related startup companies, via their officer representatives who were selected from various parts of the United States, shared their lived experience through one-on-one interviews of how servant leadership impacted their firm’s ability to become a learning organization. In general the ten companies, all of which practiced servant leadership, seemed to have an increased capacity to develop a learning organization. Clusters of findings included employee development, multiple roles, a sense of mission, listening, building a community, employee growth. The findings agreed with literature that the qualities of servant-leadership included empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and commitment to the growth of people and building community. Research related to the impact of servant leadership on startup companies in general may be very impactful, and could be applied to a larger number of companies than this dissertation presented.
v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A special thanks to my wife and eternal companion Jill. She is a women and mother who is full of love and patience. I would also like to thank my mother Margaret Ann who died last year. She was my first teacher. My thanks to the participants in this research. Their time will hopefully benefit other startup companies. Also, a special thanks to my committee members, Dr. Amy Hakim and Dr. Larry Banks, for their help and guidance during this journey. Also, it is appropriate to give thanks to two former undergraduate professors at Quincy University. Dr. William Postigloine and Fr. Joseph Zimmerman OFM, Ph.D. both helped kindle a spirit of learning and inquiry.
vi DEDICATION To my late mother Margaret Ann who gave me a love of learning. May this dissertation contribute to her legacy as a mother and a teacher.
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM ....................................................................................1 Background of Problem .......................................................................................................1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................................3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................5 Research Questions ..............................................................................................................6 Limitations and Delimitations of Research..........................................................................7 Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................9 Significance of Research....................................................................................................10 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................12 University-Related Startup Companies..............................................................................12 Defining Servant Leadership .............................................................................................14 History of Leadership Studies ......................................................................................14 History of Servant Leadership .....................................................................................16 Status of Scholarship Related to the Theory of Servant-Leadership .................................25 Expected Outcomes of Servant-Leadership .......................................................................29 Learning Organizations ......................................................................................................30 Learning Organization: Theory and Background ........................................................30 Five Key Disciplines of Learning Organizations.........................................................34 How Learning Organizations Retain Knowledge Within Companies .........................37 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................40 Introduction ........................................................................................................................40 Research Design.................................................................................................................40 Research Questions ......................................................................................................45 Population ....................................................................................................................45 Sample..........................................................................................................................47 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................49 Data Collection ............................................................................................................51 Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................52 Validity ........................................................................................................................52 Internal validity ......................................................................................................52 External validity .....................................................................................................53 Reliability.....................................................................................................................54 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................54 Summary ............................................................................................................................55
viii Page CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS ...................................................................56 Restatement of Purpose......................................................................................................57 Reason and Impact of the Research .............................................................................57 Research Questions ......................................................................................................58 Research Process and Data Collection Procedure .......................................................60 Demographic Overview of Participants .......................................................................63 Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................66 Horizonalization.....................................................................................................67 Phenomenological reduction and elimination ........................................................67 Clustering of units of meaning ...............................................................................68 Validation ...............................................................................................................68 Textual description.................................................................................................68 Structural description .............................................................................................68 Synthesis of meaning and essences........................................................................69 Findings..............................................................................................................................69 Interview Question 1 ....................................................................................................69 Interview Question 2 ....................................................................................................71 Interview Question 3 ....................................................................................................72 Interview Question 4 ....................................................................................................80 Interview Question 5 ....................................................................................................86 Interview Question 6 ....................................................................................................90 Interview Question 7 ....................................................................................................93 Summary ..........................................................................................................................100 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................102 Discussion ........................................................................................................................102 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................103 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................116 Suggestions for Further Research ....................................................................................116 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................118 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................127 A. Interview Questions .............................................................................................128 B. Informed Consent.................................................................................................131 .
ix LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Leadership Positions Held by Participants ........................................................... 70 2. Cluster of Participant Responses to Interview Question 3 ................................... 77 3. 84Cluster of Participant Responses to Interview Question 4................................ 84 4. Cluster of Participant Responses to Interview Question 5 ................................... 89 5. Response to Interview Question 7a....................................................................... 98 6. Interview Question 7: Response Clusters ........................................................... 100
1 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM Background of Problem Startup technology companies face many challenges in their early years of existence. Even startup technology companies located in university-sponsored business incubators have a high rate of failure (Lee & Osteryoung, 2004; Mustar, 1997). However, university-based business incubators offer many valuable services to startup companies. In today’s fast paced high-tech era, knowledge is a key asset for most companies. Most high-tech, startup firms, many of which owe their existence to novel and proprietary technologies, find that knowledge and its retention are essential factors to survival. Many young high-tech companies are concerned with the issue of how to retain organizationally the knowledge they have obtained (Pena, 2002). Often the loss of knowledge manifests itself in a devastating way, and can be the difference between success and failure of a startup business (Corredoira & Rosenkopf, 2010). It is not uncommon for a key staff member, or even a founder, to leave a company not long after its founding. The loss of key staff members almost always take with them vital knowledge and skills that no one else in the organization has acquired. The loss of a key team player, or players, can lead to the demise of what otherwise would have been a successful startup company (Baron, 2000; Corredoira & Rosenkopf, 2010). One key advantage startup technology companies have over more established firms is their ability to innovate (Blumberg, 2013). Of course, knowledge and innovation are closely linked, so the loss of a key employee often has a devastating effect on a small technology startup company’s ability to create and compete for market share in a given
2 industry (Solomon, 2010, p. 2). Learning organizations help preserve and share knowledge with the membership of the organization. When more than one person knows the key aspects of an operation, the loss of staff members becomes less disruptive to the operations of the company (Driver, 2002). There are, of course, other reasons why startup businesses fail to succeed, and learning organizations can help address those situations as well. Some examples of other reasons why startup companies fail include employee motivation, management effectiveness, and the inability recruit needed talent into an organization (Shelters, 2013). Besides helping companies recover from the loss of key team members, learning organizations offer several benefits that help companies thrive. One benefit of learning organizations is greater employee morale. Strong morale improves employee performance, recruitment, and retention efforts within a company. Additionally, learning organizations are also seen to provide companies an overall competitive advantage (Khandekar & Sharma, 2005). According to Senge (2010), one can find additional benefits of learning organizations, including the ability to eliminate fragmentation within organizations. Fragmentation divides tasks an organization handles into parts. Fragmentation creates unique specialists within the organization. The specialists fragmentation creates can be difficult to replace in a small organization. Reactiveness is the tendency of organizations to only respond to outside forces. Learning organizations help to eliminate reactiveness, a negative quality. The learning organization gives its company the ability to plan ahead and seek innovate ways to stay ahead of the competition (Senge, 2010).
3 Learning organizations also relieve the problem of internal competition. Internal competition steals the focus away from collaboration, and changes it towards outdoing individuals within the organization. This type of competition also harms companies by reducing employee morale, and destroying the sense of unity from a common purpose (Senge, 2010). Research has explored the retention of knowledge within startup companies (Ries, 2011, pp. 37-38). One tool that has not been adequately explored is the use of servantleadership practices to promote the development of a learning organization within startup companies. Developing tools to retain knowledge is critical to the success of all business, especially young companies (Senge, 2006). If servant leadership can be used to develop a learning organization within startup technology companies, then young businesses will have acquired a generally cost-effective tool to retain their most vital resources, that of knowledge and information. Purpose of Study Learning organizations provide many benefits that aid the success of companies, particularly those engaged in high-tech fields of endeavor (Senge, 2010). There is little research related to the impact of servant leadership on startup companies, let alone the impact of this leadership theory on learning organizations within such companies. The purpose of this study was to see if university-related startup technology companies that have applied servant leadership principals enjoyed a greater ability to develop learning organizations within their companies.
4 Parris and Peachey (2013) provided a unique and valuable overview of the current state of scholarly literature related to servant leadership. The state of research related to servant leadership is lacking. According to Parris and Peachey (2013), The majority of research to date on servant leadership consists of developing theoretical and establishing measurement tools with the intention that future scholars can apply these tools to explore servant leadership in practice and as a tenable theory. Only a limited amount of research has empirically examined this construct. (p. 378) Parris and Peachey (2013) stated, “Despite servant leadership having been coined by Robert K. Greenleaf over three decades ago in 1970, it remains understudied yet still prominently practiced in boardrooms and organizations” (p. 378). At present there is a critical lack of research related to the role of servant-leadership in the development of learning organizations within university-related technology startup companies. A key goal of this dissertation was to explore the effect of servant-leadership on the development of learning organizations within university-related startup technology companies. Parris and Peachey (2013) stated that there is a need for research that empirically investigates the construct of servant leadership in various organizational types (p. 389). One of the contexts mentioned specifically by Parris and Peachey (2013) is the entrepreneurial setting (p. 389). If servant leadership is a tool that can aid startup companies, then it is indeed valuable not only to entrepreneurs but to society and the economy as a whole. According to Kane (2010) startup companies since at least the late 1970s have been responsible for the majority of job creation in the United States (p. 2). Ross and Patterson (2016) stated that university-related startup companies are generally an important local economic driver.
5 Methodology This dissertation utilized a phenomenological methodological approach. In phenomenological research one first observes what is being studied, and then develops a reflective structural analysis that accurately describes the essence of what has been experienced. The methodology to collect the data via observations and open-ended questions was designed to create a dialog between the researcher and the participants (Klenke, 2008). Next the researcher takes the data collected from the observations, dialogue, and the open ended questions, and forms naïve descriptions of what has been observed and recorded. The researcher next describes, after a process of reflection and interpretation, the structure of the experience based on the responses and dialogue with the participants (Creswell, 2012, pp. 112-113). Like other advanced research methodologies, the phenomenological approach contains many opportunities and aspects where a researcher may gain important insights into the subject matter being studied. A key aspect of phenomenological research is to describe and understand what the experience meant for the participants. From this understanding of the experience generalizable meanings are developed (Klenke, 2008). In presenting the research it is important that the researcher should try to take the reader through a similar process of discovery as the researcher experienced. By sharing the experience of discovery with the reader the researcher, at least in a sense, will add to the validity of the results of this effort (Klenke, 2008, p. 231). With regard to this dissertation the first step taken by the researcher was to conduct a literature review related to the topics of servant leadership and learning
6 organizations. Also literature was sought after and reviewed related to servant leadership and the development of learning organizations in startup companies. After a review of the relevant literature was conducted, research questions were developed. The research questions created serve as a guide for the development of the open-ended questions that allowed for open dialogue with the participants. The participants in the dissertation research project were executive level managers of startup technology companies in university-sponsored business incubators. Each participant in the group of company executives interviewed was asked a set of screening questions to determine if his or her organization engaged in servant leadership practices. Each interview was lengthy due to its open and conversational nature. A group of executives representing 10 separate companies were interviewed. Each of the participants were asked a set of open-ended questions designed to allow the researcher to gather information related to discovering the company’s application of servant leadership and the organization’s success at developing a learning organization. After the interviews the researcher reviewed and reflected upon the responses from each participant. The collected data were analyzed and composite structural and textual descriptions were developed from the responses. From the composite structural and textual descriptions generalizable meanings and essences were extracted. Research Questions As discussed, the focus of this dissertation was to see if servant leadership practices enhanced the ability of startup technology companies in university-sponsored business incubators to become learning organizations. The questions to be addressed in this dissertation are as follows:
7 1.
Does servant-leadership affect the ability of university-related startup technology companies to become learning organizations?
2. How does servant-leadership aid in the development of learning organizations in university-related startup technology companies? 3. Which aspects of servant-leadership practices are most helpful in establishing learning organizations within the companies being studied? Limitations and Delimitations of Research This dissertation used a qualitative methodology. Like most qualitative research, the sample in this project is smaller than one would find in a typical study using a quantitative methodology. The smaller size of the sample group will be a limitation. However, given time restraints of this project and a need for detailed data collection, a qualitative methodology will be most appropriate to capture the rich and complex level of data required. As discussed the data for this dissertation were collected via a series of interviews with high-tech startup companies in university-sponsored business incubators. Ten startup companies were interviewed and each firm was self-identified as practicing servant-leadership. An additional group of startup companies were interviewed who selfidentified as not practicing servant leadership. This group of companies will serve as a control group for this research project (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 51). The self-identification process related to the presence of servant leadership created a limitation with regards to this research. It could be somewhat arbitrary on the part of the companies, if left unaided, to identify themselves as practicing servantleadership. This circumstance could occur due to fact that many firms have a positive
8 view of servant leadership and simply wish to identify themselves with this practice (Inbarasu, 2008, p. 70). In order to reduce the impact of this situation the companies in this study were provided with an operational definition of servant leadership. A delimitation of this study is its somewhat narrow focus on high-tech startup companies with university ties. The reason for a focus, which is less general for all startup companies, is related to the unique environment of university-related startup companies. The startup companies related to universities almost exclusively are high tech companies. The proximity to universities provides a unique level of services and environment designed to help foster the growth and development of new businesses. Additionally, university-based business incubators generally offer unique opportunities to licensed technology that is the product of research taking place at the host institution (Scott, 2000, p. 2). An additional limitation of this research was the variation in uniformity as to the questions asked of companies that participated. Although a uniform set of questions were asked, it was expected that unscripted follow-up questions would be asked. These questions were varied from company to company and were to be in response to answers provided by the respondents. The goal of the follow-up questions was to garner as much detail and data from the respondents as possible (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 124). With regard to the literature review portion of this research project, an exhaustive presentation of the current state of scholarship related to servant leadership was not practical. Given that servant leadership is a popular topic of scholarship, given time restraints, and the need for some degree of brevity, a review of the entire gamut what has been written was simply not possible. Dawidowicz (2012) stated that exhaustive
9 literature reviews of topics with a large amount of scholarship are not always warranted in circumstances because the benefit would outweigh the practicality of such an exercise (p. 10). Instead the literature review section provides an overview of well-known scholars in the field of servant leadership. Additionally, given the breath of scholarship related to learning organizations, the literature review is limited in its coverage for the same reasons as stated with regard to servant leadership. The purpose of the literature review related to servant leadership and learning organizations is to provide readers a sense of what both concepts are and how they are practiced in the workplace. Definition of Terms Servant leadership. A concise definition of servant leadership is found in Laub (1999): “Servant leadership is an understanding practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader” (p. 81). Learning organization. According to Pedler, Burgogyne, and Boydell (1997), a learning organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. University-based business incubator. According to Mian (1997), a university business incubator provides a nurturing environment for new research/technology based firms (p. 1). The incubator is sponsored directly by the host university. University-related startup company. As found in DeSilva and McComb (2012) and Astebro, Bazzazian, and Braguinsky (2012), these are new companies located within close proximity to a major research university. These companies benefit from the environment of the university setting, and also from the spillover of technology and talent from universities.
10 Significance of Research According to a recent estimate over 75% of startup businesses fail (Arteage & Hyland, 2014, p. 7). According to Khandekar and Sharma (2005) companies that have developed learning organizations have a competitive advantage by improving employee morale, job performance, and customer satisfaction. Senge (2006) stated that learning organizations provide several other critical benefits that aid the success of companies, including the ability to be proactive and the elimination of organizational fragmentation. All of these beneficial qualities are a product of learning organizations and could greatly help the many startup companies that struggle to survive. The majority of startup companies have very limited resources. The cost of implementing several leadership styles within a company is generally low (Spears & Lawrence, 2002). A low-cost way to help startup companies be more successful will have a major positive impact on entrepreneurship and on the success of university-based business incubators. The impact of servant leadership on formation of learning organizations is limited. Parris and Peachey (2013) found that research related to the impact of servant leadership on organizations as a whole is too limited. What research that has been published indicates that servant leadership can have a positive impact on organizations (Banutu-Gomez & Banutu-Gomez, 2007; Cyert, 2006). Kane (2010) discussed the impact startup companies have had on the American economy over the past decades. Simply put startup businesses are responsible for the bulk of new job creations in the United States. If servant leadership and learning
11 organizations can help drive this economic engine, then the positive impact will greatly benefit society and entrepreneurship.
12 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW University-Related Startup Companies The purpose of this dissertation was to understand the effect of servant leadership on university-related startup technology companies with regard to their development into learning organizations. In order to proceed with this dissertation, it is important to differentiate a high-tech startup company related to a university from other new businesses. For the purpose of this definition the term university-related high-tech startup company shall be used. This term refers to any company in a university-sponsored research park, business incubator, or located within close proximity to a major university. University related startup companies can be defined by several elements. First, their proximity to a major research university is not accidental. De Silva and McComb (2012) stated that university-related startup companies benefit from “knowledge spillovers that are present in the university setting” (p. 112). Zucker, Darby, and Brewer (1998) stressed that key elements of university-related high-tech startup companies are their abilities to feast off the intellectual capital and basic research found in and around the communities that are home to major post-secondary research institutions. Bania, Eberts, and Fogarty (1993) stated that during the 1980s and 1990s universities and entrepreneurs became increasingly aware of the value of the basic research produced at universities. During the 1980s and continuing through the 1990s efforts were made by universities to harness their intellectual resources to create technology hubs similar to those found in Silicon Valley.
13 The rich intellectual and research environment not only comes from the university itself. Given the high level within the community of high-tech startup firms near and around major research universities the companies themselves cross-pollinate each other with ideas and help stimulate a vibrate culture of innovation (De Silva & McComb, 2012). For post-secondary research institutions the university-related, high-tech startup companies help promote part of their economic development mission. Visintin and Pittino (2014) stated that university-related high-tech startup companies help promote economic development by transferring basic research generated by research focused on post-secondary institutions into products and services, which in turn creates fuel to start new ventures and create new jobs. Astebro et al. (2014) found that the economic impact from university-related startup companies is often very significant in the area nearby a cluster of such firms (p. 665). Astebro et al. (2014) stated that universities can create their own unique entrepreneurial culture and climate. Over the past 40 years there has been an increase in university-related startup companies being created by faculty and recent university graduates. These companies are created in a unique and vibrant culture that are different from the atmosphere in which new ventures begin. According to Powers and McDougall (2005) one important aspect of universityrelated startup technology companies is their access to transferred technology from the institutions they are situated near. Over the past several years there has been increase in technology transfer from institutions to companies, including university-related startup companies (p. 293).
14 Markman, Phan, Balkin, and Gianiodis (2005) concurred with Powers and McDougall (2005) that a key aspect of university-related startup technology companies that separates them from other new ventures is the access to transferable intellectual property from institutions. Markman et al. (2005) stated that “the success of business incubators and technology parks in university settings is often determined by how well technology is transferred from the labs to their startup firms” (p. 241). In short Markman and colleagues (2005) illustrated that university-related startup technology companies were also unique from other ventures because they played a role in the success on part of a post-secondary institution’s mission to develop the economy. Defining Servant Leadership History of Leadership Studies The nature of leadership within organizations is a topic that is the subject of a great deal of debate and research. As far back as the ancient Greeks, the nature of what good leadership is has been debated. Plato’s work The Republic focused largely on the question of how one can create the ideal leader or ruler (Plato, 2000). Plato saw good leadership as benefiting the entire community. According to Plato’s The Republic, education and the pursuit of a moral life created the type of men and women, called philosopher kings and queens, who would be most effectively able to lead a society (Plato, 2000; Williamson, 2008). Aristotle’s leadership was a product of developing good habits and character. Developing the habit of learning and doing good acts gave one the character and the ability to lead well (Menaldo, 2009). Aristotle’s view of leadership as being related to character echoes that of quality of a servant leader found in Spears (2010).
15 An important medieval philosopher, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), agreed with both Aristotle and Plato that the leader in order to be effective needed to have a moral grounding. For Aquinas the moral and good leader needed to look after the interests of those they served (Turner, 2013). Later philosophers concurred largely with Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas with regard to the qualities needed for good leadership (Melchart, 2010). One example of a later philosopher in line with the classic view of leadership was John Locke. Locke valued learning and experience like his predecessors. Locke also valued service. Locke stated, “He that goes farthest out of the way, is thought fittest to lead, and is sure of most followers” (Locke, 2005, p. 28). For Locke service beyond one’s own interest was an important quality of leadership (Foster, 2011, p. 95). Modern philosophers, including Derrida, have stepped away from the view of leadership first exposed by Plato that was carried forward for centuries. Derrida, and the deconstructionist view he embraced, seemed to focus more on leadership being a product of authoritative power structures. Concepts such as morality and virtue are washed away as being somewhat naive notions of the past (Glendinning, 2011). Locke, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas all expressed many of the same leadership qualifications one would find in the study topic of this dissertation: servant-leadership. Although servant-leadership was not defined until the 1970s, the philosophical roots of the theory seemed to fall back centuries prior to the history of human social thought (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2009, p. 6). Leadership touches and impacts many organizational structures critical to human progress including those in commerce and government (Barrow, 1977). Leadership is
16 increasingly seen as an indispensable soft skill that is critical to the success of many different types of organizations today (Wong & Davey, 2007, p. 2). Many researchers are drawn into the study of leadership due to its power to improve the effectiveness of a wide range of impactful organizations. One could simply define leadership as the ability to motive a group of individuals to achieve goals, or objectives, which promote the organization’s wellbeing (Cyert, 2006; Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 377). Banutu-Gomez and Banutu-Gomez (2007) provided examples of effective leadership in practice. These examples include motivating followers within an organization to adopt a vision of what can be accomplished; helping followers find the path to accomplish certain goals; and moving an organization towards a new direction and goals. Cyert (2006) found that good leaders have the ability to influence the members of an organization to enthusiastically work toward goals that benefit the common good. There are many different leadership theories, and servant leadership is just one. Each of the major leadership theories, according to Bass and Bass (2008), attempt to understand and develop strategies in which leaders can most effectively motivate and use human capital. History of Servant Leadership Because much of this dissertation project revolves around the practice of servantleadership, it is important to define what it is. In order to study servant-leadership it is also critical to understand how it manifests itself in the workplace. In order to best understand a theory, it is important to study its development. The servant-leadership
17 movement founder is generally considered to be Robert K. Greenleaf. A key landmark was the publication of his book Servant Leadership in 1977. The book helped propel a movement that began to take a different look at how leaders operate within organizations (Greenleaf & Spears, 2002, pp. 1-2; Van Dierendonck, 2011, pp. 1230-1231). Greenleaf developed the concept of servant leadership after reading a book titled Journey to the East, by Herman Hesse (1956). The book tells the tale of a company of travelers who set out on a long journey (Crippen, 2005, p. 12). Within the company was a man named Leo. Leo seemingly was one of the least important members of the band. Leo did all the menial tasks that kept the party on track and able to progress (Hesse, 1956). However, one day Leo disappeared. While with the party, Leo seemed to play a fairly insignificant role. However, once Leo was gone, it was clear how important he was to the group’s success. Eventually the travelers decided they could not continue with their journey (Hesse, 1956). Eventually, the narrator reunites with Leo. At the reunion they discover that Leo was the leader of the organization who sponsored the journey (Hesse, 1956). The book had a deep impact on Greenleaf, and subsequently the field of leadership studies. The lesson Greenleaf learned from the story of Leo and travelers is that the one who serves the most is usually the true leader of the group (Crippen, 2005, p. 12). Besides Heese (1956), Greenleaf was also influenced by his Quaker faith and upbringing. Quakers believe that all humans have a spark of the divine in them. The religion also teaches that service, modeled after Jesus Christ’s life, is an important quality to cultivate (Frick, 2004, p. 126).
18 Quaker faith is reflected in servant-leadership. Service to others, integrity, honesty, and respect for all around oneself are cornerstone principles of servantleadership (Frick, 2004, pp. 126-127.) Greenleaf saw servant leadership as an extension of his own Quaker beliefs. Greenleaf stated that organizations were “how you get things done” (Frick, 2004, p. 129). Making better organizations through servant leadership could make the world a better place (Hill, 2013, pp. 17-18). Generally, one, in brief, could define servant leadership as the leader placing the needs and the well-being of his or her followers ahead of those of the organization. By placing the needs of the followers ahead of those of the organization, not only are the individuals who are part of the organization benefited, but also the organization itself prospers (Gillet, Cartwright, & van Vugt, 2011). Servant leadership does share much with other leadership theories, including ethical, transformational, and authentic leadership. However, servant leadership also offers some key differences from other theories (Rivkin, Diestel, & Schmidt, 2014, p. 55). Transformational leadership, which at times is confused with servant leadership, differs from servant leadership in that “it fails to consider the importance of a moral compass” (Graham, 1991; Rivkin et al, 2014). According Rivkin et al (2014), servantleadership differs from those theories that have a moral aspect to them, such as authentic leadership and ethical leadership. Unlike the two previously mentioned theories, “Servant leadership focuses on the success of the multiple stakeholders of the organization” (p. 55).
19 Another difference that exists between servant leadership and other theories is that the leadership of a servant is focused on the good of the followers. According to Smith, Montango, and Kuzmenko (2004) the servant leader has the key goal of developing the employees they lead, and supporting their success. This is a departure from other leadership philosophies that focus on the success of the organization. Wong and Davey (2007) stated that much of servant leadership’s philosophy is drawn directly from the New Testament, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. One example of a servant leadership principle is expressed in the New Testament as follows: But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-45, King James Version) Several definitions of servant leadership exist in the literature. Most of these definitions share many commonalities, and have borrowed from each other. Many of the definitions focus on the work of Robert K. Greenleaf and his successor Larry C. Spears (Van Dierendonck, 2011). According to Hale and Fields (2007) servant leadership can be described as “an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those lead over the selfinterest of the leader, emphasizing leader behaviors that focus on follower development, and de-emphasizing glorification of the leader” (p. 397). Other definitions of servant leadership also put service at the heart of the theory. One example is Boyatzis and McKee (2005) who found that the central principle of servant-leadership is the leader setting aside his or her potential of personal gain in order
20 to benefit the collective whole. Rivkin et al. (2014) stated, “Thus, servant leaders do not lead for their own or their organization’s benefit, but for the benefit of multiple stakeholders, and especially their employees” (p. 55). Larry C. Spears, the current head of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center, is generally considered to be not only an important servant leadership scholar, but also a key philosophical successor to Greenleaf (Van Dierendonck, 2011, p. 1231). Because of Spears’ important role in the current state and prior development of the servantleadership theory, it is important to understand what he has said on the topic. In an article by Spears (2010), we find a view of what some of the important aspects of his view of servant-leadership include. Like Aristotle, as discussed in Menaldo (2009), Spears (2010) viewed servant-leadership as a part of personal character. According to Spears (2010), “Character refers to deep structures of personality that are particularly resistant to change” (p. 26). Spears (2010), echoing his mentor Greenleaf, described servant-leadership in terms of service. The leader is first and foremost a servant who feels the desire and a natural sense of calling to serve. This desire is then followed by the conscious choice to aspire to be a leader. Spears (2010) also stated that leadership is not an exclusive possession of the leader. Servant leaders seek the engagement of the opinions and talents of others in the decision-making process. Additionally, servant leaders are to have a strong ethical sense with regard to decision-making processes. The welfare and needs of those being lead are primary concerns of the leader. The concern a leader shows for the welfare and growth of their followers will enhance and benefit the organization in the long run.
21 Spears (2010), besides providing valuable insights into the nature and core of servant-leadership, also listed 10 common qualities, or core practices, found in practitioners of this theory. Those qualities include listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and commitment to the growth of people and building a community (pp. 27-29). It is worth noting that these 10 leadership qualities identified by Spears (2010) are an extension of the work of Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf spoke extensively on these servant-leadership qualities in the latter years of life (Sipe & Frick, 2009). Additionally, it is important to understand that these qualities mentioned in Spears (2010) are generally accepted by many of the leading researchers in the field of servant-leadership. The list in Spears (2010) aided this dissertation in providing a list of qualities, or practices, to look for in the startup technology companies being studied. Companies that practice servant-leadership should have many of the qualities and practices mentioned in the list. Each of the qualities of servant-leadership listed by Spears (2010) adds much to organizations. Spears’ list of qualities related to servant-leadership have become commonly accepted in scholarly circles. Many servant-leadership scholars have accepted and expanded upon the meaning of Spears’ (2010) list of servant-leadership qualities (Crippen, 2005, pp.13-14). Autry (2001) commenting on listening stated that this quality of servant leadership requires the commitment and talent of listening to others. Bennis and Goldsmith (1997) regarding the quality of listening added that a servant-leader focus
22 themselves on silently listening and reflecting upon what they are being told, through both verbal and various non-verbal questions. Listening is an important leadership skill. Like, Autry (2001) and Bennis and Goldsmith (1997), DuPree (1989) added that the servant-leader’s ability to listen well is tied not only being able to speak and write well, but also to listen. Regarding the quality of empathy identified by Spear (2010), Block (2013) stated, “It is a misuse of our power (as leaders) to take responsibility for solving problems that belong to others” (p. 72). Simply put, “A good servant-leader strives to understand and empathizes with others. But this understanding should be supportive as opposed to patronizing (Crippen, 2005, p. 13). Healing is important because sickness or weakness in any person or aspect of an organization can be contagious (Crippen, 2005, p. 13). Spears’ (2010) quality of healing is expressed as the skill of being able heal others, and one’s own self, through a series of six stages of healing leadership. These six stages are described as by Sturnick (1998) as follows: (a) coming to an honest realization there is an issue with one’s health; often this is triggered by a dangerous or catastrophic event; (b) a willingness and desire to make changes that will improve health; (c) being willing to be taught and able to seek advice from those who are knowledgeable, (d) a support system that may include an entire organization, or a single person able to help; (e) understanding of the internal weaknesses and strengths; and (f) a return of the service given by others via servant leadership. Crippen (2005) stated that the quality of awareness as described in Spears (1998), and also discussed in Spears (2010), is a “general awareness, especially a self-awareness” (p. 13). Crippen (2005) added, “One develops awareness through self-reflection, through
23 listening to what others tell us about ourselves, through being continually open to learning, and by making the connection from what we know and believe to what we say or do” (p. 13). The skill of persuasion the servant leader possess is described by Crippen (2005) as “the servant-leader seeks to convince others, rather than coerce compliance” (p. 13). Greenleaf (1998) describes the power of persuasion as follows: One is persuaded, I believe, upon arrival at a feeling of rightness about a belief or action through one’s own intuitive sense. One takes an intuitive step, from the closest approximation to the certainty to be reached by conscious logic (sometimes not very close), to that state in which one may say with conviction, “This is where I stand.” The act of persuasion, as I limit the definition, would help order the logic and favor the intuitive step. And this takes time. The one being persuaded must take the intuitive step alone, untrammeled by coercion or stratagems. Both leader and follower respect the autonomy and integrity of the other and each allows and encourages the other to find his or her own intuitive confirmation of the rightness of the belief or action. (p. 85) Another of Spears’ (2010) qualities is conceptualization. Frick (2004), while discussing Robert K. Greenleaf’s view on this quality of servant leadership, stated, Conceptualizing is an ability that requires more than verbal skills. Greenleaf called it the prime talent. The conceptualizer has, “the ability to see the whole in the perspective of history–past and future–to state and adjust goals, to evaluate, to analyze, and to foresee contingencies a long way ahead. . . . The conceptualizer, at his or her best, is a persuader and a relation builder. (p. 342) Another one of the qualities listed in Spears (2010) is foresight. Crippen (2005) stated that is quality is “the ability to foresee or know the likely outcome of the situation” (p. 14). Sipe and Frick (2009) stated, Foresight is a practical strategy for making decisions and leading. In fact, Greenleaf said foresight is the only “lead” a leader has. Think about that. Why do we trust a person to be a leader? Usually it is because he or she appears to see a little further ahead. When a leader says, “Come, follow me,” we respond because we trust both the person and the leader’s vision of the future. In other words, we trust the leader’s foresight. (p. 106)
24 In addition to foresight, Spears (2010) listed stewardship as a quality of servant leadership. Crippen (2005) stated that Greenleaf believed all members of an institution or organization play significant roles in holding their institutions in trust (caring for the well-being of the institution and serving the needs of others in the institution) for the greater good of society. (p. 14) Stewardship supports servant leadership and its principles of empowering followers in order to better the organization. Regarding stewardship’s relationship to servant leadership, Daft (2014) stated that stewardship requires one to make a shift in thinking with regard to leadership. Leaders are curators and guardians of their organizations’ resources and mission, and thus place the long-term needs of the organization first. In their role as stewards leaders need to give followers the tools and ability to make decisions that allow followers to carry out their mission as employees (p. 177). An additional quality of leadership is having a commitment to the growth of people within the organization. Northouse (2013) discussed what this commitment looks like in practice, stating that servant-leaders treat each follower as a unique person with a high intrinsic value, beyond their immediately measurable value to the organization. Servant-leaders strive to help each of their followers grow personally and professionally. This high degree of commitment by the leader can take on several forms, including career development opportunities, skill development, employee involvement in decision making, and seeking input from followers on a regular basis (pp. 222-223). The final quality of leadership listed by Spears (2010) is community building. Trompenaars and Voerman (2009) regarding community building and servant-leadership stated that the organization’s atmosphere can change greatly. A transformation takes place were the workplace becomes much more than a loose collection of workers, but
25 rather a team dedicated to a shared mission and set of goals. The workplace becomes more than just a gathering of people looking to make money. The workplace becomes a place where people want to be together and treat each other with kindness, professionalism, and respect (p. 32). As found in Spears (2010), if we apply what servant-leadership bestows upon organizations and leaders, one can quickly see that it is very possible that creation of learning organizations could also be enhanced. Spears (2010) stressed that listening is one of the qualities servant-leadership brings to an organization. Sakalas and Venskus (2007) stressed that listening skills are critical to the development of learning organizations. Parris and Peachey (2013) concurred with Spears’ (2010) view of the qualities servant-leadership helps to foster. Parris and Peachey (2013) stated that servant leadership’s focus is on service to others, including the notion that a key role of organizations should be to create people who can lead themselves and enhance society. To at least a degree, servant-leadership popularity may be a response to the perception that the corporate world can be greedy, self-serving, and ethically void. Servant leadership may be seen as a way to enhance corporate responsibility to society as a whole, and reinforce the commitment to an organization’s employees. Status of Scholarship Related to the Theory of Servant-Leadership Servant-leadership, like many theories in general, is one which is undergoing transition. Van Dierendonck (2011) stated that servant-leadership can be somewhat difficult to define. However, for the purpose this dissertation servant-leadership needs to
26 be defined so that its relationship to learning organizations in university-related startup technology companies can be understood. Parris and Peachey (2013) found that one of the reasons as to the lack of a definition of servant leadership, or scholarly research, may be related to the treatment of how this approach has been viewed by its proponents (p. 378). Greenleaf (2008), for example, viewed servant-leadership as more of a way of life than a theory. Greenleaf’s (1977) view of servant-leadership was “meant to be neither a scholarly treatise nor a how-to-do-it manual.” This view of servant-leadership as being a personal philosophy of behavior is also found in Covey (1992), and other popular works of servant-leadership (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 378). The founder of the now popular servant-leadership movement is Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf (2008) described servant-leadership as coming from inside an individual who has the desire to lead. Greenleaf contrasts his theory of leadership from those who seek to lead to merely acquire material wealth and power. Spears’ (2010) list of servant-leadership traits is further refined into a theory by Van Dierendonck (2011). Van Dierendonck, much like Parris and Peachey (2013), attempted to present clear patterns and trends in his servant-leadership theory. Parris and Peachey (2013) also provided the unique tool of a systematic literature review, which helped to piece together a collection of literature that establishes servantleadership’s benefits. Parris and Peachey (2013) stated, “Through exploring existing empirical studies of investigating servant-leadership theory in organizational contexts, we provide evidence that servant-leadership is a tenable theory” (p. 378). Parris and Peachey (2013) found that the literature dealing with servant-leadership is multi-disciplined. The
27 discipline focus of the publications with scholarly articles on servant-leadership included education, psychology, business, leadership, recreation, ethics, and religion. Overall this hodgepodge of disciplines has produced a sample of 11 quantitative, 27 qualitative, and one mix methods study regarding the impact of servant-leadership on organizations. The “review illustrates that servant leadership is being explored quantitatively and qualitatively, and the topic has international appeal with studies being conducted in 11 counties” (pp. 382-383). In short Parris and Peachey’s (2013) work is valuable for many reason, one of those being that it exposes gaps within the literature related to servant-leadership. One area of a gap in the literature is somewhat of a lack of study on the impact of servantleadership within organizations in general (p. 378). Besides the gap some of the empirical research related to servant-leadership is of a questionable scholarly quality (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 388). Because servant-leadership is still a somewhat new area of study, there is a somewhat a diversity of opinion regarding the nature of this theory, and the qualities present in servant-leaders and their followers. However, the work of Greenleaf, and subsequently his successor Spears, forms much of the theoretical root of present day servant-leadership theory (Van Dierendonck, 2011, pp. 1230-1232). Concurring with other researchers in the field of servant-leadership, Russell and Stone (2002) in their research of important leadership qualities identified many of the same attributes as found in Spears (2010). Russell and Stone (2002) listed the following qualities: vision, influence, trust, respect, and willingness to share risks with those they lead. Additionally, servant-leaders gain influence and trust from the non-traditional
28 source of the service they render to those they lead. Bass (2000), like both Russell and Stone (2002), Spears (2010), and Sendjaya (2003) found that the servant-leader is inspirational, influential, aware, a healer, and focused on “individual consideration” (p. 33). It is hard to find any major scholars in the area of servant-leadership who disagree with the basic notions laid down by Greenleaf, or his successor Spears, regarding the basic tenants of the theory. Spears (2010), Bass (2000), Spears (2005), Sendjaya (2003), and Russell and Stone (2002) all shared a similar view on the attributes a good servantleader holds. Given the similarity among these respected servant-leadership scholars, the 10 elements of servant-leadership identified by Spears (2005) were used as a model for the qualities one should expect to find in a servant-leader. Van Dierendonck (2011) in differentiating servant-leadership from other leadership theories pointed out that most other leadership theories have a primary focus and allegiance to the organization. Servant-leadership rather is focused on the betterment of the follower. One leadership theory that has similarities to servant-leadership is leader-member exchange (LMX). The similarity occurs largely because of the close relationship between follower and leader and the focus on bettering followers (Van Dierendonck, 2011, pp. 1246-1247). Not all scholars are enthusiastic with regard to servant leadership. Johnson (2001) found servant leadership to be too naïve and idealistic to be a workable theory. Bowie (2000) was critical of servant leadership because it was based off of an unrealistic assessment of human behavior, and lacked applicability to all situations, one being the
29 military. However, despite the critics, servant-leadership seems to have a loyal and growing following (Van Dierendonck 2011; Paris & Peachey 2013). Expected Outcomes of Servant- Leadership An important concept related to this research was the ability of servant-leaders to teach and transmit their abilities and talents to those who follow them (Greenleaf & Spears, 2002, p. 277). Prior research into servant-leadership practices has shown that much of the teaching and learning as to servant-leadership helps develop the personal one-on-one leader-follower learning as important for the development of staff, and enhancement of overall performance within the business unit (McNeill, 2013). The people focus of servant leadership provides many benefits to individuals and their organizations. Rivkin et al (2014) stated that “recent research provides strong support for the idea that servant leadership exerts unique beneficial effects on various job attitudes, fairness perceptions, and, not least, job performance (p. 55). Ehrhart (2004) found that employees of organizations where servant leadership was practiced experienced many positive effects that were of benefit to their employers. These effects include higher levels of job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, stronger employee feelings of fairness and justice on the part of their employer; and a feeling of greater supervisor support by employees. Van Dierendonck (2011) provided another useful tool. The article provides a model and diagram illustrating how servant-leadership interacts with followers within an organization. The model utilized heavily Spears’ (2010) 10 characteristics of leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011, p. 1233).
30 Van Dierendonck (2011) listed what some of the expected outcomes are related to followers and organizations that have been engaged in the servant-leadership process. Among followers one should find improved learning and knowledge retention. Also one can expect to find improved performance, and one can find an increased awareness and commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR; Van Dierendonck 2011, p. 1250). Employees in prior research have seen higher levels of self-actualization, health, knowledge, wisdom; positive job attitudes, self-autonomy, and a greater desire and ability to become leaders in their own right (Van Dierendonck 2011, pp. 1248-1250). Despite several different research efforts that show that servant-leadership has positive effects on both organizations and their members, there seems to be nothing in the literature that attempts to impact this leadership theory’s practice on learning organizations, or knowledge management, within startup companies. This dissertation attempted to help overcome this gap in the literature related to servant leadership and its impact on learning organizations. Learning Organizations Learning Organization: Theory and Background The concept of the learning organization could best claim Peter M. Senge as its founder. Senge’s 1990 book, The Fifth Discipline, helped many in the business and academic community become aware of learning organizations (Wallace, 2007, pp. 8384). Dowd (2000) stated that the study of learning organizations, or organizational learning, includes contributions from several different disciplines; psychology, management, sociology, anthropology, organizational theory, and production
31 management all contribute to the study of this important topic in the overall field of business (p. 1). There is a good deal of interchangeability between the terms learning organization and organizational learning. This interchangeability is quite often reflected in the terminology used in published research (Kim & Callahan, 2013, p. 185). However, there is a difference in the terms worth noting. Organizational learning describes a process. Because humans, who have a drive to learn, make up organizations learning becomes a natural process (Kim & Callahan, 2013; Ortenblad, 2001; Sun & Scott, 2003). Learning organizations foster and enhance the natural process of learning (Kim & Callahan, 2013; Sun & Scott, 2003). However, despite Senge’s coining of the term learning organization, the concept is likely not a new one. Gronhaug and Stone (2012) find that learning organizations, despite not being identified directly under than term, have existed for over 100 years (p. 261). Forbes and Prevas (2009) traced the practice of what we now call the learning organization back all the way to Persian emperor Cyrus the Great. Cyrus the Great reigned over the Persian Empire from 559–530 B.C. Cyrus the Great, of course, did not attend a graduate program in business, or read many books on organizational learning. However, he believed in his deputies sharing ideas with him and others within the leadership of his empire. Cryus the Great understood that superior knowledge gives a competitive advantage to organizations (Roberto, 2013, p. 1).
32 Strasser (1989) provides more recent examples of organizational learning being practiced. One example is that of the National Cash Register that began formal and uniform training programs for its company’s employees starting in 1886 (pp. 196-197). Gronhaug and Stone (2012) shared that during the 1980s the then popular term in management circles, continuous improvement, shared much with the current phrase learning organization. Continuous improvement is a notion that is closely related to learning organization. Continuous improvement, like the concept of learning organizations, involves a fairly well organized process of learning from both past triumphs and failures (p. 262). Senge (1990) maintained that learning organizations are “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together” (p. 3). More simply stated than Senge, Gorelick (2005) stated that the product of learning organizations is simply organizational learning. Learning organizations are critical because for many companies rapid change and the need for flexibility have become critical as to survival. Higher levels of adaptation have required organizations to seek new ways to tap the individuals within a company’s ability and commitment to learning (Senge, 1990, p. 4). One of the key functions and positive outcomes of successful learning organizations is the ability to help an organization make improvement through learning and the exchange of knowledge among members (Weldy, 2009, p. 59). In Senge (1990)
33 the learning organization is more than a talent a company develops to survive. Such survival type learning is referred to as “adaptive learning” (p.14). The learning organization has the capacity to foster greater creative talents, and to fulfill the need that an organization’s employees have to be part of a successful larger team. The learning that enhances creativity is called “generative learning” (Senge, 1990, p. 14). A key element of effective learning organizations is the transfer of knowledge to other members and strata within the company or group. A key role of the successful learning organization is its ability to put in place processes, policies, and structures that allow knowledge to be effectively transferred and retained (Kim & Callahan, 2013). It is also important that learning organizations, in order to be effective, need to develop a culture that places a strong value on learning and knowledge, and their transfer (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004). A sometimes overlooked value that learning organizations bring to companies is related to training and employee development costs. It was recently estimated that American companies spent $130 billion per year on training programs (Egan, 2008). All too often what is gained from these training and development efforts is lost because it is not put directly into practical use (Jaber & Sikstrom, 2004). Unlike many other training experiences, learning organizations put what has been taught into practice continually in the workplace. As stated by Kim and Callahan (2013), “Learning and working are synonymous” (p. 185). As mentioned earlier, perhaps the most important outcome learning organizations provide is the benefit of a competitive advantage. Bates and Khasawneh (2005) found
34 that learning organizations provide a competitive advantage because they reinforce continuous learning and support its application to facilitate ongoing organizational development and improvement (p. 99). Leadership plays a key role in learning and the development of a learning organization within companies. Kim and Callahan (2013) stated that “multiple results of studies implied that leadership for learning might be the most important dimension influencing the learning transfer” (p. 191). Five Key Disciplines of Learning Organizations Senge (1990) stated that learning organization contains five basic elements, or disciplines. These elements are systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning. Senge (2006) contributed to the popularity of these five disciplines in both popular and scholarly circles, while at the same time expanding upon the concepts expressed by Senge (1990). Hadley (1999) and Kiedrowski (2006) stated that the five disciplines identified by Senge are critical aspects of the learning organization. According to Senge (1990), systems thinking could be described as to comprehend and address the whole of an organization and to examine its constituent parts and their relationships with each other. This perspective allows one to understand well how the individuals and functions within an organization affect the whole (p. 12). Caldwell (2012), while concurring to a degree with Senge (1990) regarding system thinking, viewed the process involving systems thinking somewhat differently. Systems thinking merge with leadership theories to turn organizational learning into a type of distributed leadership. Simply, put leadership is seen as a critical player in the
35 development and maintenance of the learning organization, and the realization of its full potential (p. 39). Caldwell’s (2012) concern over some of the details of systems thinking does seem to represent or slow the enthusiasm for the concept. Henning and Chen (2012) found in a review of scholarly and popular literature that there is a great deal of acceptance for the notion of systems thinking presented in Senge (1990). A second key aspect one can expect to find in learning organization, according to Senge (1990), is personal mastery. Personal mastery’s necessity in an organization could be described as “organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning, but without it no organizational learning occurs (Senge, 1990, p. 139). One could define personal mastery as the ability of continuing to develop a personal vision and recommitting to its focus, while maintaining a grasp on reality (Senge 1990, p. 7). Simply, put personal mastery is optimistic in its commitment, but practical with regard to its application to situations and circumstances. Senge’s (1990) concept of personal mastery is a concept that contributes much to the overall theory of learning organizations. Bokeno (2009) supported the notion that personal mastery serves as a cornerstone of learning organizations (p. 309). Bokeno (2009) also credited the learning organization, and the quality of personal mastery its members must obtain, with helping regain the “mind of a child” or a “beginners mind” (p. 309). Such a mind might be described as one with a curious nature, full of wonder and exploration that are not
36 encumbered by organizational bureaucracy or institutional limits (Kofman & Senge, 1993). Senge (1990) stated that “mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures of images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (p. 8). Werhane (2008) concurred with the Senge’s (1990) definition of mental models. Werhane noted that mental models or mind-set are terms that represent the concept that human beings carry with themselves mental representations, mental pictures, or cogitative frames that are related to their experiences. These mental models serve to mentally organize experiences, and to the individual are likely to serve as predictive tools of what to expect when certain situations or stimuli are introduced. Mental models also may cause the individual to experience certain events through the filter of a lens effecting how stimuli may be perceived and responded to. Senge (1990) stated a shared vision is the habit of bringing forth within the organization a common vision or image of further commitment to organizational goals. Mascarenhas (2011) stated that the concept of shared vision found in Senge (2000) is more that an idea. “It is, rather, a force in people’s hearts, a force of impressive power” (p. 568). Mascarenhas (2011) added that the nature of this force is a commonly and passionately held view of the great feats an organization can achieve. Senge (1990) stated that one of the five disciplines served to integrate the other four; that is disciple is team learning (pp. 11-12). Kiedrowski (2006) provided a substantial review of the literature on learning organizations, and Senge’s (1990) in his five disciplines found that team learning is an important and still influential concept.
37 There is research that supports the notion that servant leadership enhances organizational learning. Referring to servant leadership, Choudhary, Akhtar, and Zaheer (2013) stated, “When the leader keeps in view the needs of an employee and educates them through training, workshops, and seminars, it increases the knowledge capability of an organization, and thus increase the organization’s knowledge” (p.435). Crippen (2005) and McClellan (2007) also argued that the overall learning environment of the organizations is enhanced by the influence of servant leadership. How Learning Organizations Retain Knowledge Within Companies Learning organizations and knowledge management are two concepts that are tightly intertwined. Aggestam (2006) stated, To be a Learning Organization (LO) requires Knowledge Management (KM), which in turn is dependent of a LO. It is like the chicken and the egg. It is impossible to answer the question which came first, and they are both dependent on one another for success. Literature emphasizes LO or KM, despite the fact they are dependent. An organization that wants to become a Learning Organization must pay attention to both, and therefore there has to be a shift in emphasis to LO and KM. (p. 295) In fact with regard to research related to both learning organizations (LO) and knowledge management (KM) there has been the development of an increasingly high level of interchangeability between the terms for more than a decade (Swan, Scarborough, & Preston, 1999). A recently published academic text (King, 2009) shows evidence of the effective merger of the two terms King (2009). King treats KM and LO with a high degree of interchangeability. Given the interchangeability of the terms it is important that an understanding of KM be obtained. In general terms knowledge management is a multi-disciplined approach designed to help make the best use of the information collected by an organization. Knowledge management practices are rooted in several different
38 disciplines including science, mathematics, logic, sociology, and computer science (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Knowledge management has become an important and ever more popular topic in business research. Increasingly, members of the business community, both academics and practitioners, are seeing information as a vital resource (Wallace, 2007). Because of the importance of information many firms have developed complex multi-departmental strategies to harness fully the benefits that can come from their organization’s knowledge base (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001, p. 185). Knowledge management is about more than just collecting facts and figures. Rather, knowledge management is a process that involves improving databases of information, and how people within an organization transmit knowledge and wisdom (Hedlund, 2007, pp. 70-71). Some examples of knowledge management include (a) processes that improve the learning and information retention ability of the organization;(b) technology that aids in the retention and transmission of knowledge; (c) cultural knowledge, both internal and societal, that aids in retention and learning; (d) organizational structures that support learning and knowledge gathering; and (e) increasing the ability of people within an organization to learn (Hislop, 2005). When the knowledge management process is working effectively within a company several positive effects occur. The process aids in the smooth transition between retiring employees and their successors. It reduces the loss of company memory over time (Groff & Jones, 2003). Additionally, knowledge management helps an
39 organization build up a tool kit that supports organizational wide learning and information retention (Alavi & Leidner, 1999).
40 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this chapter of the dissertation is to provide an overview of the methodology to be used to study the research topic, which is to determine if universityrelated startup technology companies that apply servant leadership principals enjoy a greater ability to develop learning organizations within their companies. In order to study this topic the researcher recorded and analyzed the collected lived experiences of university-related startup technology companies to see if applying servant-leadership principals resulted in the development of learning organizations. In this chapter the researcher described the research methodology that was used in this dissertation. Other topics addressed in this chapter included sampling, data collection methods, and analysis of the data. Additionally, this chapter also provides an overview of the selection of the participants and the role of the researcher in data collection. Research Design This dissertation uses a qualitative methodology with a phenomenological design. This design is most appropriate given that the researcher wishes to record and analyze the lived experience of key members of university-related startup companies that employ servant leadership principals, and the relationship of those practices to the establishment of learning organizations within their companies (Creswell, 2012). Qualitative methodology offers advantages over quantitative methodology, or mixed methods. Qualitative research is more appropriate when a research is seeking to discover a new phenomenon and gain a gain a clear picture of it. Quantitative and mixed
41 methods methodologies tend to be better suited towards replication and verification (Conklin, 2007). An overall qualitative approach to this dissertation is desirable because the researcher wants the participants to share their experiences. The qualitative approach allows the researcher to capture the richness of human experience, to engage, record, and analyze the data they are given by the participants. Simply put, qualitative research, although sometimes lacking the precision of quantitative efforts, provides the researcher and the researcher’s audience a greater level of detail (Creswell, 2012). In picking a research design for a dissertation, one should consider many different methodologies (Groenwald, 2004). Because, as discussed, the focus of this dissertation was to be on the lived experiences of those in startup companies, phenomenology allowed the participants the best way to share their experiences with the researcher. Creswell (2012) stated that phenomenology as a methodology allows for participants to effectively share their experiences with researchers. Lester (1999) added that phenomenological research techniques are adept at putting a clear light on the knowledge and views of the persons who are participants in a research project. Groenwald (2004) stated that in practice phenomenological research gives researchers an advantage in describing what is going on in certain social situation. Those engaged in phenomenological research have a good level of success in understanding social and psychological phenomena from the point of view of the people directly involved (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenological approach to research is a very personal one between researcher and participant. The researcher is able to discover many subtleties, details, and nuances
42 related to the experience the participants share (Moustakas, 1994). A greater part, as the philosopher Martin Heidegger (2005) suggested, of a phenomenological approach allows the researcher to get in the “being” of the participants’ experiences along with their perceptions. Another key feature the phenomenological approach is the ability to ask openended question, which method gather a richness of data for the researcher. This methodology allows the participants the ability to share their lived experiences and perceptions openly (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Additionally, Creswell (2012) found that the phenomenological approach is appropriate when a researcher is attempting to understand commonly shared experiences related to a phenomenon. Using this methodological approach, the researcher has a great deal of freedom to ask how the participants perceived the interaction between servant leadership and the development of learning organizations within their respective startup companies. This dissertation employed a transcendental approach to phenomenological methodology in order to allow a more structured effort to analyze the data collected. This approach to phenomenological research is deeply rooted in the philosophy of Edmund Husserl (Conklin, 2007). Transcendental phenomenology very much focuses on getting to the core of what is being studied (Luft, 2011). Conklin (2007) added that transcendental phenomenology strives to gain access to the personal variations within the various themes uncovered by the research. Transcendental phenomenology is focused not only the mere creation of knowledge, but this methodology is also devoted to closely tying information to the individual, and not
43 eliminating that which could seem idiosyncratic. Simply put, personal experience of the individual is at the heart of transcendental phenomenology. Transcendental phenomenology is retrospective by nature. Other methodologies seem to focus on some combination of the past, present, future. Transcendental phenomenology is very much focused on what happened, and how the events and phenomenon were perceived by the participants (Conklin, 2007). The retrospective nature of transcendental phenomenology is accidental and supports the mission of the methodology to promote understanding. The retrospective nature of this method promotes reflection. Conklin (2007) stated, “It is thought this reflection is what we make meaning of the things in our lives” (p. 5). Conklin (2007) stated that a key product of phenomenological research is to create meaning out of what is being studied. With this methodology, meaning is not acquired through only descriptions of events or the behavior of the participants, but rather the focus is on the participants’ experiences, and how they have made meaning from those events. The process of making meaning for the researcher “takes place at the intersection of the physical world in which the experience transpires, and the mental and emotional world of the participant” (p. 5). There are several other research methodologies one could undertake for this dissertation besides the selected phenomenological approach. One approach that was considered was that of grounded theory. Grounded theory, as the name hints at, is a methodological approach that is focused on the development of new theories related to the subject matter being studied (Oktay, 2012).
44 Creating theories can be a complex and detailed process. Typically in the course of this type of study, during the process of collecting data and analyzing it theories begin to emerge. The data that is collected provides the evidence in support of the theory developed during the course of the research (Charmaz, 2006). Although grounded theory is an interesting and a valuable approach to research, it was not appropriate for this dissertation. The goal of this research was to study the lived experience of the participants. A grounded theory approach is a tool better geared towards the creation of broad theories, and not understanding the lived experience of a small group of participants in a research project (Creswell, 2012). Case study was another possible methodology to consider for this dissertation. A case study originated in the medical field. As a methodology it focuses on studying what happens to an individual, or a group of individuals, within a specific community (Yin, 2009, p. 17). Because this dissertation focused on the experiences of participants in several different organizations, case study was likely not appropriate. Another possible methodological approach worth considering is ethnographic research. The ethnographic approach was pioneered by anthropologists Franz Baas, Robert Park, and Bronislaw Malinowski. This methodology is popular in the social sciences. The intent of this methodological approach was to develop a picture of the people being studied through the experiences of their daily lives (Creswell, 2013, p. 207). The approach was not suitable for this dissertation because it would require long-time observations of the participants, rather than just interviews.
45 Research Questions As discussed in the first chapter, the following is the research question which is at the heart of research involved with this dissertation: What is the effect of servantleadership on the development of learning organizations within university related startup technology companies? Other questions being considered and that are directly related to the topic just mentioned include the following: 1. How does servant-leadership aid in the development of learning organizations in university-related startup technology companies? 2. Which aspects of servant-leadership practices are most helpful in establishing learning organizations within the companies being studied? Population There are a large number of companies in the United States who would qualify to be considered a university-related startup company. According to the American Association of Technology Managers there were just over 4,000 university-related startup companies in the United States as of 2012 (Lever, 2013). In qualitative research projects, such as this dissertation, it is a good practice for the researcher to select a small fraction of the specific population they are trying to study. Such a small representative group with a shared set of characteristics related to a research project is called a sample (Creswell, 2012). The population for this dissertation were university-related high-tech startup companies. Because startup companies employ many different people, for the purpose of this dissertation, officers of the companies in the sample of firms were studied. It is assumed that the officers of a company could best comment on the application of servant
46 leader and the development of learning organizations within their respective firms (Meyers, 2013). For the purposes of this dissertation university-related startup companies can be described as those who are within close geographic proximity, 25 miles or less from a major research university, and benefiting from the intellectual capital offered by their neighboring institution of higher learning. The intellectual capital offered by the university can benefit the startup company in two ways, either via research or though the talent of human capital (De Silva & McComb, 2012; Lee & Osteryoung, 2004). Companies who participated were asked about their beneficial relationship to the university. A reason for this dissertation research was the impact of startup companies on the economy of areas near a major research university, and the American economy as a whole. As of 2012 there were just over 4,000 university-related startup companies, creating many high paying jobs (Lever, 2013). Astebro, Bazzazion, and Braguinsky (2014) found that university-related startup companies have a significant positive economic impact on the communities close to them. Also, it is important to note that Kane (2010) stated that startup companies have created in recent decades the bulk of new jobs in the United States (p. 2). Learning organizations offer vital benefit to companies, and could help startup companies be more successful. As discussed earlier in this dissertation, one benefit is an overall completive advantage (Khandekar & Sharma, 2005). Kane (2010) found that the addition of more successful startup companies could provide a benefit to the economy of the United States.
47 Sample As much as feasible and practical, participants were selected from various parts of the United States in order to obtain a broad set of perspectives. Additionally, both purposeful and snowball sampling were utilized in this dissertation. The use of purposeful sampling allowed the researcher to select participants who could supply a rich amount of information (Patton, 2002). Purposive sampling is used in order to help identify participants who share the characteristics related to this dissertation (Blankenship, 2010, p. 86). The small sample of 10 companies, via their officer representative, used in this research is typical in qualitative and transcendental phenomenology research. A small sample size is needed to enable the researcher to record and analyze the lived experiences of the officers interviewed from the participant companies (Patton, 2002). Klenke (2008) stated that sample size is a consideration, however, not to the same degree as found in quantitative research. The size of a sample is less important than the depth of the interviews and the richness of the data garnered during the course of the research. Several companies and their respective officers were contacted. Not all companies were willing, or suitable, to be participants in this dissertation research. Among those who were willing to participate, their suitability was determined by asking the companies to identify if servant leadership was practiced within their organization. If a company’s officer was unfamiliar with the term servant leader, the following definition was provided: Servant leadership is the leader placing the needs and the well-being of their followers ahead of those of the organization. By placing the needs of the followers ahead of those of the organization, not only are the individuals who are part of the
48 organization benefited, but the organization itself prospers (Gillet, Cartwright, & van Vugt, 2011). In order to help facilitate further reflection by the officers contacted whether their company practices servant leadership, the respondents were asked to identify the following qualities identified by Spears (2010) that were promoted within their company: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and commitment to the growth of people and building community. After the definition and Spears’ (2010) list of servant leadership qualities were read, the officers were asked if their firm practice servant leadership. Those who indicated that their company practiced servant leadership were asked if they considered their company to be a learning organization, or at least working towards that as a goal. Those that were uncertain what a learning organization is were provided with the following definition: A learning organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself (Pedler et al., 1997). Spencer (1997) found that self-identification can be a useful tool in helping the researcher select participants. Those officers who indicated that their companies practiced servant leadership and were learning organizations, or engaged in the process of becoming such, were asked to become participants in this dissertation research. The companies also disclosed their relationship to a major university. The researcher obtained the consent of 10 officers from 10 different companies to participate in the interviews, which provided data for this dissertation. First contact with the participants was obtained using a combination of emails and phone calls. Potential
49 participants were given an overview of the research related to this dissertation, and were then asked to participate. Instrumentation Qualitative methodology provides many different options with regard to obtaining information, including focus groups, observations of the participants, and direct in-depth interviews (Creswell, 2012). As mentioned earlier, direct in depth interviews were selected as the data collection method for this dissertation. In-depth semi-structured interviews were selected because the one on one, participant–researcher format allowed for the best opportunity to collect a rich amount of data, and to capture nuances. Additionally, this format allowed the participants to expand upon their answers, and for the researcher to ask follow-up questions that helped to shed greater light on the lived experiences of the officers of the companies involved in this dissertation (Creswell, 2012; Klenke, 2008). The researcher, with the assistance of a voice recorder, recorded the responses of the participants in this dissertation research. Hahn (2008) suggested voice recordings can help greatly in the transcription process and can improve accuracy in data collection. Recordings were made only with the permission of the participants, and were utilized in order to ensure that the participants’ statements were accurate. Critical parts of the research process was the development and asking questions of the participants by the researcher (Creswell, 2012). In order to address the research question involved in this dissertation the following questions (Appendix A) were asked of the participants in order to facilitate a discussion and to collect helpful data: 1. What is your current position within your company?
50 2. How long have you been with this company, and what other roles or titles have you held? 3. How has your company worked to promote servant leadership? a. What examples could you provide? 4. How has your company worked to develop into a learning organization? a. What examples could you provide? 5. Could you please reflect and comment on the impact of servant leadership on your company? 6. Could you please reflect and comment on the impact of being a learning organization, or working towards becoming a learning organization, has had on your company? 7. What factors have helped your organizations efforts to become a learning organization? a. Has servant leadership played in role in helping your company become a learning organization? i. (Ask if “yes” to 5a) Are there examples you could provide of how servant leadership has helped with this transformation? ii. (Ask if “yes” to 5a) Are there certain aspects or elements of servant leadership which you find most useful in your company’s process to become a learning organization? Data Collection As mentioned previously, data collection for this dissertation was accomplished through semi-structured interviews conducted by the researcher. Creswell (2012) stated
51 that the use of the semi-structured interview allows often for a more open exchange between the participant and the research, as well as for a richer collection of data. It is highly likely that the more open an exchange is between the participants and the researcher, an enhanced level of data are collected on the lived experiences of those being studied. The open interviews were done in accordance with the informed consent (Appendix B) guidelines put in place by Argosy University. Participants were informed at the start of their involvement that they could withdraw their participation at any time, and what was be expected of them during the course of the research. Additionally, the companies were consulted with to ensure that no trade secrets, or other sensitive company-related information, were released to the public due to this dissertation. The names of the companies and officers who participated in this research are kept confidential in order to further ensure that no trade secrets of the organizations involved is released (Coldwell, 2004). Interviews, in order to meet practical and convenience considerations of both the participants and the researcher, were conducted either by telephone or via computer video conference. Participants, out of respect for their time, were given a wide range of choices when the interview will take place. Recordings from the interview, as well as notes taken by the researcher, were stored electronically on a non-public password protected research dedicated computer (Fritsch, 2013, p. 37). Validity and Reliability The questions that were presented to the participants were designed to provide a maximum degree of useful data to assist the researcher’s effort with regard to this
52 dissertation (Creswell, 2012). An important consideration in any research is its credibility. Honesty and integrity in the research process are necessary elements if research is to be accepted and valued by the scholarly community. It is important the researcher work to set aside any possible biases that are related to the research (Penslar, 1995). In order to help ensure an ethical and honest dissertation this researcher frequently referred to the Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (Sales & Folkman, 2000). Validity Recker (2011) stated, “Validity is concerned with whether the data collected really measured what the researcher set out to measure; whereas, reliability is concerned with the consistency of the research model” (pp. 67-68). Since this dissertation involves data collected from personal interviews of individuals sharing their lived experiences with the researcher, there was a fairly strong presumption that the data collected were valid. Additionally, because the researcher had designed the questions asked, it was possible to address the core question at the heart of this dissertation. Validity was also enhanced because the focus of this dissertation was to explore the interaction of servantleadership within the development of learning organizations, rather than to test a theory (Maxwell, 2013). Internal validity. There are two types of validity a researcher needs to be concerned with: internal and external. Internal validity is the degree to which the research’s design and data help lead to conclusions about cause and effect. The researcher attempted to provide an open atmosphere where participants felt free to answer questions and share their lived experience. Data collected from the participants were
53 categorized and analyzed in light of relevant existing literature. Analysis and categorization, along with triangulation from participant data and other published research, helped ensure internal validity of the dissertation (Creswell, 2012). The methodology behind this dissertation, transcendental phenomenology, also supports internal validity. During the course of a study that uses transcendental phenomenological methodology the researcher engages in what is called the epouche. This step in the research project requires that the researchers examine themselves to find possible bias, and work to isolate it from their thoughts related to project. Researchers focus on accepting the value of the things they observe and recording them with an open mind and fresh perspective (Luft, 2011). Bracketing the research in one’s mind and a process of self-reflection were also used to support the epoche process (Creswell, 2012). External validity. External validity, as the name hints at, is the degree to which a research project’s findings can be related to situations outside the study. External validity is related to the generalizability of the dissertation. Generalizability is much harder to achieve in a qualitative study, such as this dissertation, than it is in quantitative research (Creswell, 2012). This qualitative dissertation, while not ideal for generalization, does seem to provide important insights into the life experience of others and provide background and insight such as the relationship of servant leadership to learning organizations (Conklin, 2007). Reliability Reliability shares with external validity a sense of being able to apply research to situations other than the ones being studied. Reliability refers to the ability of the research to be replicated. Qualitative research, and likely this dissertation as well, would
54 be difficult to replicate. Qualitative research, and this dissertation is no exception, often deals with the unique views and experiences of the participants. Creswell (2012) stated that it would be a difficult proposition to validate qualitative research projects due to the uniqueness of circumstances and people. With this being said, documentation and uniformity during the course of this dissertation’s research likely did a great deal to help supply a higher degree of reliability to this effort (Seale, 1999). Data Analysis The process of reviewing and interpreting the data from a research project is called data analysis. A critical tool in the data analysis process of this dissertation is the researcher (Creswell, 2012). The interviews with participants, in the form of notes and recordings, were keenly analyzed in order to discover common themes within the data provided by the participants. NVivo software was used to help establish themes and patterns in the data (Bazeley, 2007). The researcher used the principles of transcendental phenomenology, discussed earlier, to provide a clear and open mind with regard to the data analysis process. The goal of this process was to provide a general description of the phenomenon being studied in this dissertation (Moustakas, 1994). Although the researcher is the main source of data analysis, research-related software also assisted in this process. In qualitative research it is a concern that the researcher’s own possible bias may taint how the research data is analyzed. In order to help alleviate concerns over this possibility, the researcher used NVivo Version 10 to assist in the process of organizing, coding, and establishing themes in the data (Bazeley, 2007).
55 NVivo is a tool the researcher used to help add efficiency to the data analysis aspect of the dissertation. However, the researcher did not abandon his judgment to the computer. Related prior research was consulted by the researcher. NVivo’s output was reviewed carefully by the researcher in order to ensure that the patterns and themes discovered by the software accurately reflected the data provided by respondents regarding the phenomenon being studied (Bazeley, 2007). Summary The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of the research methodology related to this proposed dissertation. The dissertation had the goal of gaining a vision of the lived experiences of the officers of startup companies with regard to the impact servant leadership has on the development of learning organizations. The overall methodological approach for this dissertation was transcendental phenomenology. Participants were interviewed by the researcher after the informed consent had been obtained. Analysis of the data collected looked for common themes and patterns. These themes and patterns represented the nexus of the common lived experiences of the participants in this dissertation.
56 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS Chapter 4 presents a description of the data collected by the researcher for this dissertation. Moustakas (1994) stated that phenomenological research is a very intimate type of methodology. This approach to research creates the opportunity for the researcher to share the lived experience of the participants. The researcher thought questioning of the participants, subsequent review, reflection, and analysis would aid the discovery of many subtleties, details, and nuances related to the experience the participants provided. Creswell (2012) stated that the goal of this type of research methodology is to provide a comprehensive description of the experience being studied. Phenomenological research provides some key advantages over other methodologies with regards to studying a social phenomenon, such as the focus of this dissertation (Groenwald, 2004). Lester (1999) stated that phenomenological research techniques are adept at shedding light on the knowledge and views of the persons who are participants in a research project. Groenwald (2004) also found that those engaged in phenomenological research have a strong chance of success in understanding social phenomena from the point of view of the participants directly involved. Chapter 4 of this dissertation provides the interview questions asked of the participants. The questions asked of the participants were designed to help answer the research questions of this dissertation. Additionally, this chapter also provides the major cluster of themes that emerged from the data collected from the participant interviews. The chapter also provides a restatement of the purpose of the dissertation research, reason for the study, an overview of research and data collections procedures, a brief
57 demographic breakdown of the participants, interview questions, explanation of the data collected, the findings, and a summary. Restatement of Purpose The purpose of this dissertation was to discover if university-related startup technology companies that have applied servant leadership principals enjoy a greater ability to develop learning organizations within their companies. In order to facilitate the purpose of this dissertation the officers of 10 university-related startup companies were interviewed by the researcher. Reason and Impact of the Research Parris and Peachey (2013) found that despite the theory of servant leadership being at present several decades old, it remains understudied. Currently there is a critical lack of research related to the role of servant-leadership in the development of learning organizations within university-related technology startup companies. A key goal of this dissertation was to explore the effect of servant-leadership on the development of learning organizations within university-related startup technology companies. One of the areas specifically mentioned by Parris and Peachey (2013) was that more servant leadership-related research was needed in the entrepreneurial setting (p. 389). The success of startup companies has important economic ramifications for the United States. Kane (2010) related that since at least the late 1970s startup companies have been responsible for much of job creation in the United States, and has done much to drive the economy of the nation (p. 2). Ross and Patterson (2016) added that “many start-ups start locally and grown locally (i.e., near the university where innovation is
58 being commercialized). As such, they tend to hire locally and spend locally, making them engines for economic development” (p. 10). Learning organizations often provide substantial benefits that help provide a path towards success for companies, particularly those engaged in high-tech fields of endeavor (Senge, 2010). Corredoira and Rosenkopf, (2010) found that the loss of knowledge can have a devastating impact on a startup company. There is little research related to impact of servant leadership on startup companies, let alone the impact of this leadership theory on learning organizations within such companies. Research on the impact of the development of learning organization within startup companies may provide a tool that allow these business to have a greater overall rate of success and benefit the economy to a greater degree. Research Questions The following research questions were addressed in this study: 1. Does servant-leadership affect the ability of university-related startup technology companies to become learning organizations? 2. How does servant-leadership aid in the development of learning organizations in university-related startup technology companies? 3. Which aspects of servant-leadership practices are most helpful in establishing learning organizations within the companies being studied? Creswell (2012) stated that qualitative research questions are designed to be openended. The opened ended questions in qualitative research projects allow the researcher the opportunity to follow up with participants. The goal of the nature of open-ended qualitative research questions is to allow the researcher to obtain a rich level of data from
59 the participants. Ideally, the questions asked in a qualitative research project should create a dialog between the researcher and the participants (Klenke, 2008). A critical part of the research process is the development and asking of questions to the participants by the researcher (Creswell, 2012). In order to address the research question involved in this dissertation the following questions (see below or Appendix A) were asked of the participants in order to facilitate a discussion, and to collect helpful data: 1. What is your current position within your company? 2. How long have you been with this company, and what other roles or titles have you held? 3. How has your company worked to promote servant leadership? a. What examples could you provide? 4. How has your company worked to develop into a learning organization? a. What examples could you provide? 5. Could you please reflect and comment on the impact of servant leadership on your company? 6. Could you please reflect and comment on the impact of being a learning organization, or working towards becoming a learning organization, has had on your company? 7. What factors have helped your organization’s efforts to become a learning organization? a. Has servant leadership played a role in helping your company become a learning organization?
60 i. Ask if “yes” to 5a, Are there examples you could provide of how servant leadership has helped with this transformation? ii. Ask if “yes” to 5a, Are there certain aspects or elements of servant leadership which you find most useful in your company’s process to become a learning organization? Research Process and Data Collection Procedure As much as feasible and practical, participants were selected from various parts of the United States in order to obtain a broader set of perspectives. Additionally, purposeful sampling was utilized in this dissertation. The use of purposeful sampling allows the researcher to select participants who can supply a rich amount of information (Patton, 2002). Purposive sampling is used in order to help identify participants who share the characteristics related to this dissertation (Blankenship, 2010, p. 86). The small sample of 10 companies, via their officer representative, used in this research is typical in qualitative and transcendental phenomenology research. A small sample size helped make it feasible for the researcher to record and analyze the lived experiences of the officers interviewed from the participant companies (Patton, 2002). Before contacting companies who participated, or their representatives, permission was obtained from Argosy University, Salt Lake City’s Institutional Research Board (IRB), to conduct the dissertation research. After IRB permission was granted, 19 companies, via their respective officers, were contacted. Only companies within 25 miles of a major university were contacted, or asked to participate. Not all companies contacted were willing, or suitable, to be participants in this dissertation research. However, 10 suitable companies did participate in the research.
61 The researcher obtained the consent of 10 officers from the 10 different companies that participated in the interviews that provided data for this dissertation. First, contact with the participants was obtained using a combination of email and phone calls. Potential participants were given an overview of the research related to this dissertation, and were then asked to participate. Consent and information regarding the research were provided using an informed consent document (Appendix B). Interviews were set up in advance and set up at a time convenient for both the participants and the researcher. In order to be the most convenient for the participants and the busy schedule that typically is associated with the life of entrepreneurs, interviews were contacted face to face, using Skype, or via the telephone. Moustakas (1994) suggested that entering into a social conversation at the start of the interview process can help create a comfortable environment that aids the development of frank and insightful conversations regarding the participants’ lived experiences. For the reason just stated, each interview began with at least a short social conversation generally unrelated to the research. With participant knowledge and consent beforehand, the interviews were recorded via a digital audio recorder. The purpose of recording the interviews was to ensure an accurate record of what each participant shared, and to assist the researcher’s efforts in identifying themes and clusters presented in the responses. Among those who were willing to participate, their suitability was determined by asking the companies early in the interview process to identify if servant leadership was practiced within their organization. If a company’s officer was unfamiliar with the term servant leader, the following definition was provided:
62 Servant leadership is the leader placing the needs and the wellbeing of their followers ahead of those of the organization. By placing the needs of the followers ahead of those of the organization, not only are the individuals who are part of the organization benefited, but the organization itself prospers. (Gillet et al., 2011) In order to help facilitate further reflection by the officers contacted whether their company practiced servant leadership, the respondents were asked to identify the following qualities identified by Spears (2010) related to servant leadership that are promoted within their company: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship and commitment to the growth of people and building a community. Those who identified their companies as practicing servant leadership were invited to participate in the research. After the servant leadership definition, and Spears’ (2010) list of servant leadership qualities were read, the participants and the researcher discussed learning organizations. Those participants who were uncertain what learning organizations were provided with the following definition: A learning organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself (Pedler et al., 1997). The officers were asked if they considered that their company was a learning organization. Spencer (1997) found that self-identification can be a useful tool in helping the researcher select participants. Those officers who indicated that their companies practiced servant leadership and either developed a learning organization, or were engaged in the process of becoming a learning organization were asked to become participants in this dissertation research. Before beginning the interview process the researcher engaged in the epoche process. According to Moustakas (1994) the epoche process requires the researcher to set
63 aside his or her possible biases. The epoche process helps eliminate or at least reduces biases that include prior experiences, learned knowledge, associations, prejudgments, and pre-conceptions. Because the researcher had experience with startup companies, it was important for him to bracket those experiences in order to avoid bias. According to Creswell (2012) the research views the participants’ responses and lived experiences with a sense of newness. After determining the suitability of the participant and his or her company, the research questions listed in Appendix A were asked of each participant. The interview length varied from anywhere between 32 to 75 minutes. During the interview process the researcher became an active listener. Reflective listening, which is considered part of the active listening process, is a technique to help interviewees to provide and recall a deep level of detail regarding their experiences (Rost & Wilson, 2013). The researcher asked follow-up questions of the participants, and engaged in a process of reflective listening to draw out more detailed responses. The researcher’s goal during the interview process was to gain a rich understanding and a disclosure of the lived experiences of the participants related to the research questions of this dissertation. Demographic Overview of Participants The participants interviewed were from different part of the United States. Two participants were from Illinois, three were from Indiana, four were from Idaho, and one from Utah. Nine of the participants were either founders, or held a substantial ownership interest in the company they were involved with. One of the 10 participants was an officer who did not have a substantial ownership interest in the company he worked with.
64 All 10 of the participants were currently officers within their respective startup companies. Seven of the 10 participants were either the CEO or president of their respective companies. Nine of the 10 participants were male. With regard to age all the participants were either in their 30s or 40s, with only one being in the 50s. Beyond all being young high-tech companies, each of the participants came from a wide range of different high-tech industries. Two companies were connected to agriculture; one company provided assistive technology to individuals with disabilities; another provided software solutions to the photographic industry; one company developed new acoustic amplification systems; another provided renewable resin to the plastics industry; one firm came from the bio-tech sector; another was the developer of electronic games, and one company developed technology that helped make household appliances less likely to pose a fire risk to homes and businesses. The mix of firms helped provide a wage range of high-tech firms that will likely expand the applicability of the findings of this dissertation to other startup companies (Maxwell, 2013, p. 137). In order to preserve the confidentiality of the participants and their companies, each person who was interviewed was only identified by a participant number. The participants were as follows: Participant 1. Participant 1, a male, was the Chief Technology Officer and cofounder of a startup assistive technology company located in Indiana. This was the second startup company he has had a leadership and founding role in. Participant 2: Participant 2, a male, was in his 30s. He was the president of an Indiana-based company that made electronic games.
65 Participant 3: Participant, a male, was in his 40s. He was the founder and president of his company, which was based in Idaho. The company had developed technology that pertained to lowering fire risks of major appliances. Participant 4: Participant 4, a male, was in his 40s. He was the founder and president of a company that developed water recovery and storage technologies that support agriculture in areas with limited water resources. Participant 5: Participant 5, a female, was in her 30s. She was the president of a company that developed software-based solutions for photographers. Her company was located in Utah. Participant 6: Participant 6, a male, was in his 30s. He was the president of a company located in Indiana. The company designed high-end audio amplification equipment. Participant 7: Participant 7, a male, was his 30s. The company was located in Illinois as a bio-tech company. The participant served as a vice president for the company. Participant 8: Participant 8, a male, was in his 30s. The company, which was located in Idaho, developed a renewable way to manufacture plastic resin. The participant is the COO for the company. Participant 9: Participant 9, a male, was in his 50s. The company works in the field of alternative energy, and is located in Indiana. He had experience in the leadership of other startup companies, and currently served as the president of his organization.
66 Participant 10: Participant 10, male, was in his 30s. The company, which provides real time data to agricultural firms, is located in Illinois. The participant is the CEO of his company. Data Analysis Creswell (2012) stated that data analysis in qualitative research projects is focused on organizing and preparing information gathered for breakdown and study. The data are reduced down to themes via coding. The data collected is worked thought several levels of abstraction and analysis in order to fully understand the lived experience of the participants in a research project. A method of analysis described in Moustakas (1994) was used in this dissertation. This method of analysis required the researcher to use the following steps in order to understand the lived experience of the participants related to the phenomenon being studied. Those steps are as follows: 1. Horizonalization, 2. Phenomenological reduction and elimination, 3. Clustering of units of meaning, 4. Validation, 5. Textual description, 6. Structural description, 7. Synthesis of meaning and essences The research methodology of this dissertation was transcendental phenomenology. Moustakas (1994) stated that the seven-step analysis process just listed is in accord with transcendental phenomenology (p. 87).
67 Horizonalization. The first step in the analysis process in this dissertation was horizonalization. Moustakas (1994) stated that the process of horizonalization involved “being receptive to every statement” of the participant in a research project (p. 122). Creswell (2012) stated that horizonalization is a process where all statements made by the participants in a research project have an equal level of value. Each horizon, or unit of meaning, is not repetitive or seen as overlapping, and the researcher is obliged to consider what each participant has shared from his or her experience. Moustakas (1994) asserted that the consideration due during the horizonalization process involves the researcher making a line-by-line reading and listening to all that was shared by the participants. Salmons (2012) stated that the horizonalization process also helps to ensure that the statements made by participants are related to the questions asked by the researcher (p. 266). Phenomenological reduction and elimination. The second step in the data analysis process of this dissertation was the reduction and elimination of the data. Moustakas (1994) stated that researchers are to eliminate data that does not contain some experience that is necessary for understanding the phenomenon being studied. Also experiences that are difficult to label should be eliminated as well (pp. 120-121). Eliminating the responses that are not necessary for understanding the phenomenon, or those that are difficult to label allows the researcher to discover, through a process of elimination, the invariant constituents (Hays & Singh, 2012, p. 354). The researcher sought and found invariant constituents and then created a list of nonrepetitive and non-overlapping statements made by the participants.
68 Clustering of units of meaning. In the third step, statements that added to the understanding of the phenomenon were clustered together by the researcher. The clustered statements were placed under themes. Moustakas (1994) stated that such a clustering of invariant constituents helps the researcher identify core themes of the lived experiences. Computer data analysis aids in the process of identifying and organizing clusters and key themes related to understanding the phenomenon being studied. The researcher utilized NVivo 10©, which is a computer, software-based, qualitative data analysis program. NVivo 10© was designed to aid researchers working on qualitative research projects (Richards, 2015). Validation. Validation is the fourth step in the data analysis process. The NVivo 10© software was a helpful tool in the process of clustering units of meaning into themes, and also assisted the researcher in establishing a connection between the themes and the raw data (Richards, 2015). Textual description. The fifth step in the data analysis process was focused on textual descriptions of the shared experiences of the participants. The descriptions came from the notes and recordings of the interviews of the participants. The textual descriptions are helpful to the researcher as they can help flesh out the lived experience of the participants and provide useful examples of the lived experiences of some of the participants in the research study (Creswell, 2012). Structural description. In the sixth step in the analysis process the researcher develops a written description of how in general the phenomenon is being studied. This
69 type of description forms the basis of the structural description of what participants shared with the researcher (Moustakas, 1994). Synthesis of meaning and essences. In the final step of the analysis the structural and textual descriptions were combined. This combination forms the basis as to the researcher’s interpretations of how the experience of servant leadership impacted the development of learning organizations within startup companies. Seven interview questions in this dissertation, some with multiple parts, were asked of each participant. Moustakas (1994) argued that qualitative research offers the opportunity to obtain a rich level of data from participants. As shared earlier, the use of a series of open-ended questions can aid the conversation between the participants and the researcher, and thus can be useful in obtaining the richest level of detail (Creswell, 2012; Klenke, 2008). Findings Interview Question 1 The first interview question asked of participants was as follows: “What is your current position in the company?” The answers to this question are summarized in Table 1. The question was not asked with the purpose of collecting a tremendous amount of data related to the research questions of this dissertation. Rather the interview question served a couple of purposes, which aided the research carried out in this dissertation. First, the question served as an opportunity to verify that each of the participants was qualified to be a part of the research. Specifically, the question was designed to determine if each of the participants was at least an officer in in his or her respective company.
70 Secondly, the first question was also designed to help set a comfortable environment where the participants would talk about their experiences within their respective organizations. The logic behind this approach is discussed in Moustakas (1994) as to creating a comfortable and engaging environment so the researcher can enhance the level of interaction between the participant and himself or herself, thus yielding a richer level of responses and helpful data. Table 1 Leadership Positions Held by Participants Position CEO/president
6
CFO
1
Vice president
3
Totals
10
Note. Some participants provided multiple responses which were often included in two or more clusters.
The positions of those interviewed varied somewhat. One participant was a vice president and a CFO, and another was a vice president and general manager. Two participants identified themselves as being a vice president within their organization. Six participants stated that they were either the president or CEO of their company. Some details shared by the participants were related to their role in the founding and technical development of their respective companies. Eight of the participants, five of which were either the president or CEO, described themselves as a founder of their startup company. Three of the participants who stated they were founders were either the
71 CFO or a vice president. Six of the participants claimed to have either developed or invented, at least in part, the technology related to their startup business. Only one of the six participants who claimed to be either a developer or inventor was not a president or CEO of their organization. Interview Question 2 Interview Question 2 asked of the participants was as follows: “How long have you been with this company, and what other roles or titles have you held?” The responses to this question varied from one to five years. The average length of time with the company was 2.7 years among the 10 participants. None of the 10 participants held other positions in their organizations. However, several of the respondents later in their respective interviews indicated they “wear multiple hats.” Participant 1 stated, “You can’t ask someone to do something, or to supervise them doing something, without having done it yourself.” Participant 1 added, “It is difficult to come up with a job description for a position without understanding firsthand what that job should entail.” Participant 1 shared how he has cleaned the bathroom at his office, and unloaded a supply truck from time to time. “Servantleadership for me means taking on tasks that need to be done, regardless of one’s title. If something needs to be done in my company, and I have time, I do just do it.” Participant 8 spoke about how servant leadership and taking on multiple roles within his company benefited the company. He stated, “Servant leadership philosophy makes it easier for everyone within our business to take on multiple roles, and learn from them.” More on the topic of multiple roles is shared later in this chapter because of it coming up in several of the participants’ responses to other interview questions.
72 The first two interview questions did not uncover much that answered the two research questions. However, the first two questions did provide some background information, and helped the researcher build a relationship with the participants which likely helped create an avenue for the sharing of their lived experiences at their respective startup companies. Interview Question 3 The third interview question asked of the participants was in two parts: “How has your company worked to promote servant leadership?” (a) “What examples could you provide?” The question was the first designed to help address the main research questions. Specifically, the third interview question was designed to answer the following research questions: 1. Does servant-leadership affect the ability of university-related startup technology companies to become learning organizations? 2. How does servant-leadership aid in the development of learning organizations in university-related startup technology companies? 3. Which aspects of servant-leadership practices are most helpful in establishing learning organizations within the companies being studied? The third interview question asked of the participants was designed to get the participants to think about not only what they have done to promote servant leadership, but also the role of servant leadership within their companies. The second part of the question was designed to help the participants share more of their experience with servant leadership in their companies. Several of the responses were insightful, and helped
73 address the core issue of the impact of servant leadership on the development of learning organizations within the university-related research of startup companies studied. Participant 8 in answering Interview Question 3 stated, When I came to [company name ] I sat down with the employees to discover what their needs and desires were. I found that some wanted to learn new things; others wanted to enhance their resumes; some wanted to advance down a career path; and some just wanted to grow as people. Understanding these needs was part of my effort to put servant leadership into practice. Spears (2010) stated that demonstrating a growth to the commitment of people is part of servant leadership. Participant 8 seemed to have made this commitment as evidenced by his response. Participant 8’s practice of addressing the needs of his employees was closely tied to servant leadership. Greenleaf (2008) stated that a central practice of servant leadership is putting the needs of the individual ahead of those of the organization. It is interesting to note that all four of the needs identified by his employees could relate, at least to a degree, to learning, namely, growth, learning, career development, and resume enhancement. As mentioned earlier, Participant 1, stated, “You can’t ask someone to do something, or to supervise them doing something, without having done it yourself.” Participant 1 added, “Servant-leadership for me means, taking on tasks that need to be done, regardless of one’s title. If something needs to be done in my company, and I have time, I just do it.” For Participant 1 the application of servant leadership was fulfilled in some measure by working side-by-side with his employees regardless of the humble nature of the task. This philosophy of humble leadership expressed by Participant 1was very much in keeping with the nature of servant leadership expressed by the theory’s founder Robert K. Greenleaf (2008).
74 Participant 3 shared this in response to Question 3, “If you take care of your workers the company will benefit.” Participant 1 seemed to concur with Participant 3 by stating, “If you take care of employees they will take care of you.” These statements also echoed Robert K. Greenleaf’s philosophy that when the followers’ needs of an organization are taken care of the business will benefit as a whole (Greenleaf, 2008). Along the same lines as Participants 1 and 3, Participant 8 addressed the issue of taking care of employees’ needs when he stated, “At [company name omitted] we try to look after the needs of our employees, and add to their quality of life.” Participant 2 also echoed a commitment to taking care of the needs of employees. He stated in response to Interview Question 3, “The goal of our company is to allow those who work for us to support their families.” Participant 2 also touched on learning and financial security as being goals of the organization. Referring to the business, he stated, “This is a lifestyle company, doing everything, learning new things, and helping employees enjoy the same lifestyle as we [the owners] do.” Participant 7 when addressing Interview Question 3 took a bit of a different take on servant leadership within his startup company. When reflecting on his company’s servant leadership efforts he spoke about service to the larger community. He stated, “I think the very concept of what we are doing is servant in nature. We are trying to help people with cancer.” Participant 7 also spoke about the company’s mission in regards to servant leadership. He stated, “Our sense of mission helps us listen to people with cancer, and gives us sense of curiosity which helps us grow.” He also added, “Servant leadership helps us listen better, and develop a better product.”
75 Although Participant 7’s view of servant leadership diverged somewhat from some of the other respondents, it did fall within the bounds of what is considered to be part of the philosophy. Spears (2010) provided a list of 10 qualities commonly associated with servant leadership: commitment to the growth of people, listening, building community, and healing. One could make an argument that Participant 7’s responses related well to each of these four qualities. Participant 7 also shared a similar vision of servant leadership with Participants 4 and 9. Speaking about the mission of his startup company, Participant 7 stated, “Sustainable energy is the focus of our company. The founders want to create opportunity for sustainable energy to grow.” He also added that a goal of the company was to build “a community dedicated to sustainable energy,” and to promote “stewardship though the development of sustainable energy.” The values of stewardship and building community are easily recognizable qualities associated with servant leadership (Spears, 2010). Participant 4 in response to Interview Question 3 stated, “As a company we are trying to help people be better stewards of water resources. If we are successful then the people and economy of the state will be benefited.” He also added, “We do consider ourselves to be a servant leadership company. We are here to make money, but also we want to benefit the people of Idaho.” Participant 5 spoke about building a community as being a goal of her organization. Her organization had been successful, in part, by helping create a network and sense of community among what Participant 5 called “the cutthroat” if the
76 photography industry. She stated in response to Question 3, “Our entire business and marketing is modeling about building community among photographers.” However, Participant 9 shared some of the same vision of servant leadership as other respondents regarding the impact of the philosophy on the well-being of employees. He stated, “The definition of successful leadership is contingent on the success of your team.” Participant 10 also considered his company to be a servant leadership firm. Community within the organization is an important goal for this respondent. He stated, “We do everything as a team. Taking care of people and rewarding them for performance helps our business.” Although this answer seemed a little more utilitarian than some of the other participants’ responses to Interview Question 3, it did reflect a key practice of the servant leadership philosophy held by the theory’s founder Robert K. Greenleaf, that taking care of one’s employees benefits the organization as a whole (Greenleaf, 2008). Participant 10 also added that servant leadership has enhanced the ability of people to take on many different roles in the company. Participant 10 shared, “Leaders need to get their hands dirty, and do the same things that the people they leading are. This often involves people in the company taking on a lot of different roles.” Participant 10’s responses were similar to those of Participants 1 and 8 regarding servant leadership being related to development of leaders and employees being willing and able to take on several different roles within the company as needed. Participant 6 viewed servant leadership in his company as being focused on developing people. In response to Interview Question 3 he stated,
77 My typical employee is younger, green behind the ears. Many of them have technical degrees. I try to teach them a list of practical skills. These skills can help them down the line in their careers. I want to help them to work independently, and be self-sufficient. Besides addressing the growth of his employees, Participant 6 also addressed the importance of listening. He stated, “I don’t want them to be ever afraid to ask me a question.” From Interview Question 3 several concepts emerge related to the research questions in this dissertation. First the participants all self-identified themselves as being in startup companies that practiced servant leadership. In this regard, Interview Question 3 served as a check to ensure that those interviewed were affiliated with startup companies that practiced servant leadership (Table 2). Table 2 Cluster of Participant Responses to Interview Question 3 Title of Cluster Learning
6
Multiple roles
3
Needs of employees
6
Listening
2
Stewardship
3
Building community
2
Totals
10
Note. Some participants provided multiple responses which were often included in two or more clusters.
78 One cluster that came out of the discussion with the participants is that of learning. Even though learning is not mentioned in Interview Question 3 it is mentioned by several of the participants as part of their company’s practice of servant leadership. Six of the 10 participants (Participants 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10) all spoke directly about learning, or the development of employees, as being part of their company’s efforts to implement servant leadership. Also, three respondents (Participants 1, 2, and 10) spoke about the need for employees to take on multiples roles aiding the learning and development of employees. One aspect of servant leadership theory is humility of serving others in the organization, even in ways that seem to be beneath one’s job title or description (Greenleaf, 2008). It seems this humility and drive to serve others may help the employees and leaders within startup companies learn several different roles, and develop new skills and knowledge. The six participants who addressed Interview Question 3 by discussing learning or employee development contributed greatly in answering Research Questions 1 and 2. Research Question 1 asked the participants: “Does servant-leadership affect the ability of university-related startup technology companies to become learning organizations?” With regard to Research Question 1, it seemed that the participants’ practice and implementation of servant leadership within their startup companies placed a strong focus on learning and employee development. Learning and the development of followers seemed to be a goal of servant leadership. Research Question 2 asked, “How does servant-leadership aids in the development of learning organizations in university-related startup technology companies?” The six participants who spoke about learning and employee development
79 indicated that learning and the development of employees was part of their approach to developing servant leadership. Given these responses, it may be that servant leadership and learning often go hand in hand in many startup companies. Further evidence of the relationship between learning and servant leadership was provided by three participants who identified learning as a need of their employees was a need their companies tried to fulfill. Other clusters emerged from the participants’ responses to Interview Question 3. One of these was the needs of employees that were identified by six participants (Participants 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10). As mentioned previously, three of the participants (Participants: 1, 3, and 8) listed learning as a need of their employees. Meeting the needs of the employees is a response that is typically associated with servant leadership theory. One of the major tenants of servant leadership was that meeting the needs of followers allowed them to better benefit the organization (Spears 2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Other clusters of themes emerged from the responses to Interview Question 3. Two participants provided responses that can be clustered under listening. The two participants who gave these responses (Participants 6 and 7) also addressed learning as part of the process of implementing servant leadership within their organization. Myhill, Jones, and Hopper (2006) stated that listening is an important aspect of learning. Although listening and learning have a close relationship, the responses seemed somewhat redundant with regard to the research questions being addressed. Three participants identified themes that can be clustered under stewardship (Participants 4, 7, and 9) in their responses to Interview Question 3. Two participants (Participants 5 and 7) provided responses that can be clustered under building
80 community. Spears (2010) listed both building community and stewardship as traits associated with servant leadership. However, these clusters did not seem directly related to the first two research questions in this dissertation. Research Question 3 asked, “Which aspects of servant-leadership practices are most helpful in establishing learning organizations within the companies being studied?” Some of the responses to this research question shed light on this question as well. It is likely that those responses in the listening cluster, those respondents that indicated that learning was a need of their employees, those who spoke about multiple roles, and possibly stewardship all contributed to development of a learning organization within the startup companies in this dissertation. Interview Question 4 The fourth interview question asked of the participants was as follows: “How long has your company worked to develop into a learning organization?” The question had a subpart which asked, “What examples could you provide?” All 10 participants indicated that their companies were working towards becoming learning organizations. As one would expect the answers among the participants varied. However, there was a pretty strong consensus that people taking on multiple roles within the company aided the development of the learning organization. Participant 1 touched upon “wearing multiple hats” within his organization as a tactic engaged in to develop a learning organization. Participant 1 said in response to Question 4, “We encourage people in our company to take on multiple roles, or to try on new roles; this helps promote learning.” He also added, “We have upper management that is willing to be a SWAT team that comes up, and help us work thought crunches.”
81 Participant 8’s response to the question spoke about developing a school inside his company. He said, “We are working into developing into an internal school.” He also stated, “We are trying to develop a farm system, one that allows our employees to prepare themselves for future opportunities within the company. We like to hire and train future managers.” He added, “We want people to be able to grow with our organization.” Participant 8 also echoed some of the comments that Participant 1 related to on multiple roles within the company. He said, “Learning also happens in our organization due to multiple roles. Being a young company we can provide people an opportunity to learn a lot of different roles, accounting, HR, project management.” He also added, “These multiple roles provide opportunities for leadership, and also provide opportunity for those who enjoy growth.” Participant 3 also discussed multiple roles in his answer. He stated, “Having multiple roles prepares people for others roles.” He also shared that “having to take on multiple roles aids my learning, and those in my company’s learning.” Participant 7 spoke about the culture of servant leadership, and how it helped promote the development of a learning organization within his startup company. He shared, “Being small and new, we don’t have much of a structure; however, the culture of servant leadership causes the development of a learning organization.” He also shared how a sense of mission and stewardship helped motivate the development of a learning organization. He stated, “We ask, ‘What can we do to learn what we can do to help those with cancer, to help them survive?’ This helps us want to learn new technology, and share it.”
82 Participant 7 also concurred with others that were interviewed by sharing that the development of the learning organization is impacted by roles being shared within the company. He shared, “No job is too insignificant. Multiple roles helped us learn a lot.” Participant 10 in response to Interview Question 4 talked about how taking on more than one role helped develop his firm into a learning organization. He said, “We don’t provide a lot of training. We make people wear a lot of hats, and it helps us learn as a company.” He also added, “Our size provides a lot of opportunities for growth.” Participant 10 also discussed having a collaborative environment. “We share new things we learn, and technology relevant to our business, with each other on a regular basis.” He added, “Servant leadership and learning organizations work together to create a community where both good news and bad can be shared.” Participant 2 in response to Interview Question 4 spoke about creating an environment where people feel comfortable to learn. He shared, “There is an environment of comfort, it allows the flexibility to allow people to say, ‘Let’s look at how we can use our product in a different way.”” Like other participants Participant 7 spoke about multiple roles and learning. He said, “Our flexibility includes employees one day doing product development, the next doing assembly.” He added, “Wearing many hats aids in learning within the organization. The more different jobs employees have, the wider their experience.” Participant 9 responded to Question 3 by echoing some of what Participant 2 said about creating an environment for learning. He stated, “The way you develop a learning organization is to create an environment where you focus on professional development. One needs also to accept failure as a learning opportunity.”
83 Participant 6 shared some of the same views as Participant 9 with regards to the question. He stated, “Things don’t happen the way they do in books. You have to make people feel comfortable learning from mistakes.” He added that a comfortable environment also allows “people in the company to share what they have learned with those who are newer.” Participant 5 spoke about developing a community and using social media to help develop her company into a learning organization. She stated, “Social media is huge in our customer’s industry. We use it to create a community for our customers.” She added, “Sharing technology in our customer’s industry is huge on social media. It provides us a chance to learn, and share what we learn with others.” She also stated, “Our social media efforts have also helped us to promote our business.” Participant 4 had a different perspective on the development of a learning organization within his company. He stated, “A huge part of who we are is being a learning organization. As the political climate has changed we have had to share our knowledge with each other, and learn to change our perspective.” He also added that “investor expectations have driven the company to become more learning focused. We have had to become a learning organization to realize better returns.” Interview Question 4 does seem to shed some light on the research questions of this dissertation. With regard to Research Question 1, the question asked of the participants does present fairly compelling responses that indicate that servant leadership’s impact on the development of learning organization within this group of startups is a positive one (Table 3).
84 Table 3 Cluster of Participant Responses to Interview Question 4 Cluster of responses Building community
5
Employee growth
2
Multiple roles
6
Totals
10
Note. Some participants provided multiple responses which were often included in two or more clusters.
Spears (2010) indicated that one of the attributes of servant leadership is building community. Five of the 10 participants (Participants: 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10) provided responses that can be clustered together as a building community. These participants gave answers that indicated that creating a comfortable environment where questions could be asked and answers, where people could learn from mistakes, or where knowledge can be shared helped them develop a learning organization. Two of the participants (8 and 10) spoke about employee growth being important in how their companies have developed into learning organizations. Spears (2010) also identified the growth of individuals as an important attribute of servant leadership. A prominent cluster in the responses provided by the participants was a company’s efforts and reliance on employees taking on multiple roles in the organization, and how this helped develop greater learning within the businesses studied. Six of the participants (Participants: 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10) cited multiple roles as a tool to develop a learning organization with their companies.
85 Greenleaf (2008) cited that one of the foundational principals of servant leadership theory is the notion that the one who is willing to serve is a true leader. Van Dierendonck (2011) stated that Robert K. Greenleaf is considered the founder of the servant leadership as a theory. Greenleaf before formalizing his theory was influenced by the tale of a pilgrimage. In the novel Journey to the East the traveler who was willing to take on any task, regardless of how humble, turned out in the end, and unbeknownst to the other travelers, to be the real leader of the pilgrimage (Hesse, 1956). A fruit of the efforts of several of the startup companies interviewed was a result of promoting the view that no duty or job was below anyone’s station in the organization, which resulted in the desire and willingness of employees to perform their duties. Greenleaf (2008) and Van Dierendonck (2011) found that humble service to others is a key quality and evidential factor of the presence of servant leadership within an organization. This dedication to humble service among the employees by taking on multiple roles may well be an example of servant leadership in action within these companies. The participants’ responses to Interview Question 4 related to employees taking on multiple roles within the organization also shed light on Research Question 2. If the desire to serve in multiple roles is related to servant leadership, as just discussed, then the leadership theory’s practice in the startup companies studied in this dissertation enhanced their ability to develop learning organizations. Relating to servant leadership was evident given the fact the participants responded in significant numbers to both Interview Questions 3 and 4 that multiple roles were impacting their companies. In regards to Research Question 3, it is likely one can
86 assume that one of the most important aspects of servant leadership in developing a learning organization within the startup companies in this dissertation was humility with regard to taking on new and additional roles and duties. Other themes that emerged included single participants citing communication, meeting the needs of employees, formal learning processes, company survival, developing a culture of servant leadership, and stewardship. These themes were isolated responses, and did seem to relate well to the development of learning organizations. Interview Question 5 Interview Question 5 asked the participants the following: “Could you please reflect and comment on the impact of servant leadership on your company?” The participants once again provided some insightful replies that reflected their lived experience. Participant 1 shared this: “Many of the employees have been with the company a long time, and servant leadership keeps them motivated. Here work is about more than just the money.” This statement was related to a sense of mission that servant leadership gave to the employees in the participant’s company. Beyond providing a sense of mission, Participant 1 also reflected on the impact servant leadership has had on learning within his company. He shared, “Servant leadership has helped contribute to a wide knowledge base, people not being pigeonholed, and also have helped us develop creative solutions.” Participant 1 also shared a point related to multiple roles in the company. “The servant leadership prospective has helped people want to pitch in where they are needed, especially in a crisis.”
87 Like Participant 1, Participant 2 credited servant leadership with a low turnover in his firm. He stated, “Servant leadership allows people to be happier, and we have a low turnover, and higher job satisfaction.” He also credited servant leadership with not only low turnover but also in addition, “It helps network knowledge within the company, and keeps good teachers within the organization.” Participant 8 shared, “Servant leadership has helped stimulate growth.” Reflected on the company’s growth and success, Participant 8 credited servant leadership with developing a culture conducive to “employees wearing multiple hats.” Also making a statement related to multiple roles in the organization was Participant 3. He shared, “Servant leadership has made it so helping out where needed is a practice by everyone in the company.” Participant 10 felt that servant leadership had helped his company. He stated, “Servant leadership has sharing of roles and learning to occur.” Participant 5 credited servant leadership with helping her company develop a community, and to promote the sharing of knowledge within that community. She said, “The biggest impact of servant leadership has been the development of community. Community has helped us build trust with our clients.” She also added, “Community serves as a learning tool for us, and for our clients.” Participant 7 shared this, referring to servant leadership: “It keeps us together. We have a mutual interest in being servants. The common goal is not big money, we don’t want the ball to drop.” He added, “Our sense of mission helps us go out and find interesting technology.” Related to mission, and in a similar answer to Participant 7, Participant 9 shared a story about when he first came he agreed to work for the company without pay.
88 Referring to this time he said, “In my mind that is showing I am servant to the well-being of the company and its mission.” Participant 4 also addressed mission: “We came to make money, but we are also trying to be good stewards, and support the economic viability of our region.” Participant 6 addressed the impact of servant leadership by saying, “It’s just the way we do things. I didn’t go to school for leadership.” Commenting on employee development he added, “Helping people grow by praising them and reminding them how much they have grown in their abilities has benefited the company” (Table 4). Table 4 Cluster of Participant Responses to Interview Question 5 Cluster of responses Multiple roles
4
Develop learning organization
7
Reduce employee turnover
2
Business success
3
Sense of mission
4
Totals
10
Note. Some participants provided multiple responses which were often included in two or more clusters.
Interview Question 5 In the participants responses to Interview Question 5 a common cluster once again emerged. The cluster was existence of multiple roles within their startup companies.
89 Participants 1, 3, 8, and 10 all cited that multiple roles have been a benefit of servant leadership within the startup companies represented. Several of the participants also credited multiple roles as helping promote learning within their companies. Greenleaf (2008) and Van Dierendonck (2011) both indicated that humility and a willingness to serve those around you are closely related and encouraged by servant leadership. Clusters related to learning and employee development are present in the responses of the participants. Question 5 is not an exception to the pattern. Participants 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 all credited servant leadership with helping their organization become a learning organization. This set of responses does much to help answer the three research questions of this dissertation. It seems that several of the participants credited servant leadership with being a driving force in the development of learning organizations within their startup companies. Research Question 3 focused on how servant leadership helps develop learning organizations within startup companies. Mission, a sense of service to others, employee satisfaction and retention, and multiple roles were all factors the participants cited as to how learning organizational development has been stimulated by servant leadership in their respective startup companies. The participants’ responses to Interview Question 5 shed some light not only on the impact of servant leadership on the development of learning organizations, but also on one of the key issues of concern for startup companies, the loss of key talent. Pena (2002) stated that the loss of talent represents a critical issue that can affect the survival of many startup companies. Often knowledge is one of the most important assets of a high-tech startup company. Solomon (2010) asserted that often knowledge in a startup
90 company is often tied to a key employee (p. 2). Participants 1 and 2 credited servant leadership with reducing employee turnover. Servant leadership, if it helps employee retention, may impact the ability of startup companies to retain knowledge. Growth and success were other clusters that emerged from the participants’ responses. Participants 1, 6, and 8 all credited servant leadership with helping make their business more successful. The three participants in discussing the growth and success of their businesses spoke about the creation of culture where people are willing to take on multiple roles, and where sharing of knowledge is encouraged. Van Dierendonck (2011) and Greenleaf (2008) both indicated that the desire to serve and volunteer to help others within the organization are key aspects of servant leadership. Participants 1, 4, 7, and 9 all made comments in response to the question that can be classified under a cluster concerning mission. All four of these participants worked for companies that had a strong focus on providing a benefit to a group of people, or society as a whole. Each of the four executives felt like servant leadership helped their companies strengthen their sense of having a mission to fulfill. Participant 5 spoke about how servant leadership helped her company build community. For this participant building community had become a key strategy in sharing learning wit in her company, and with her clients. Spears (2010) cited building community has a key practice of servant leadership. Because of this Participant 5’s response was clustered under learning and employee development. Interview Question 6 Interview Question 6 asked the participants the following: “Could you please reflect and comment on the impact of being a learning organization, or working towards
91 becoming a learning organization, has had on your company?” The question was asked to help elicit more detail about how the presence, or progress toward creating a learning organization, has impacted the company, with a hope that this discussion would generate more detail about the role servant leadership may have had in this process. The question did not generate as rich a level of helpful data as hoped for by the researcher. Participant 1 in discussing the impact of having a learning organization within his company said, “It allows us to be better able to leap from task to task. New people can be trained easier. These two benefits give us an economic advantage over our competitors.” Participant 8 said regarding the question, “Being a learning organization helps put us in a better position to get from point A to point B quicker.” He also added, “The learning organization saves time on training.” Participant 3 also found a training benefit from being a learning organization. He said, “When I hire a new employee the learning organization will help me to better to train them to be the employee I need. It helps me to train them in what I have learned.” Participant 3 also shared that “our learning process helps better prepare employees to take on more than one role in the company.” Participant 7 also spoke about the value of learning. Participant 7 shared the following: “Our company’s nature is to be a knowing organization.” He added, “Being a learning organization helps us focus on knowledge.” Participant 2 credited his learning organization with “helping us retain knowledge, and added to employee satisfaction.” Participant 2 did not elaborate much on his answers. He said the following regarding the question, “Hard to answer, it [the
92 company] has always been a learning organization. This is the environment we have always had.” Participant 9 spoke to developing a learning organization in his new startup, without talking in detail about the benefits. He said, “Right now we are at the base level. It is much easier to move to a new organization to be a learning organization. Culture at an existing organization can be hard to change.” Regarding the benefits he did add, “I think being a learning organization will help us grow and be more creative.” Participant 4 shared a couple of points related to the benefit of being a learning organization. He said, “If you don’t become a learning organization you get passed by.” He also shared, “Being a learning organization helps one adapt, and this is important if you want to stay in business.” Participant 10 also addressed the issue of adaptability. He said, referring to being a learning organization, “It has helped us adapt in economically challenging times.” He added, “It helps us adjust to new technology.” Participant 10 also added, “Being a learning organization helps us respond and adjust our marketing.” Participant 5 credited her company’s learning organization with helping to build up a community that has been vital to that business. She stated, “A sense of community has helped us grow into to who we are. Sharing knowledge and learning has been the source of our growth.” She stated the community supports learning by “providing a safe place to learn and support, and ask questions. This has been a source of growth for our company.” Participant 6 shared that his company has been benefited by its learning organization with a greater ability to react to change. He said, “Without that [a learning
93 organization] we could have been pushed aside during periods of change.” He added, “We as a company can keep up on changes in the industry, and it allows employees to adapt to new roles.” The responses garnered from this question did not have a great impact on answering the three research questions of this dissertation. One of the less than surprising results from the participants when asked this question was that all 10 gave responses that can be clustered under learning and employee development that supported the notion that learning organizations aid learning within their respective startup companies. Useful data did emerge. Three participants (Participants 1, 3, and 6) formed a cluster of responses related to learning organizations supporting multiple roles within the companies. These multiple roles were seen as being helpful to making the respective companies succeed, and also promote learning. Another cluster that came forth from the responses was learning organizations promoted adaptability. Participants 4, 6, and 10 made statements that fell into this cluster. Along the same lines, Participants 5 and 9 stated that learning organizations supported the growth of their startup companies. Interview Question 7 Interview Question 7 was asked of the participants in four possible parts. It should be noted that all participants responded to the four parts. The multiple parts were designed to garner a richer level of detail regarding the participants’ experiences with regard to servant leadership and learning organizations within their companies. The
94 question (Interview Question 7) was as follows: What factors have helped your organizations efforts to become a learning organization? a. Has servant leadership played in role in helping your company become a learning organization? i. (Ask if “yes” to 5a) Are there examples you could provide of how servant leadership has helped with this transformation? ii. (Ask if “yes” to 5a) Are there certain aspects or elements of servant leadership which you find most useful in your company’s process to become a learning organization? With regard to Interview Question 7, Participant 1 shared the following perspective: “Market pressure has been one of the key forces leading us to move towards being a learning organization.” He also shared that “the cross -training which has been implemented has improved employee satisfaction.” Participant 1 also spoke about the development of his company’s learning organization with regard to employee needs. He shared, “We see the learning organization as a way for employees to help achieve self-actualization.” He added, “People like to teach others [referring to the learning organization] we help them do that.” Participant 3 also addressed multiple roles in his response to the question. He said, “Servant leadership has been a factor that has allowed us to develop into a learning organization by encouraging people to wear many hats in our company.” Regarding the impact of servant leadership he added, “Everyone learns, and gets experiences in different areas.”
95 Participant 8 addressed Question 7 by stating this was a motivation for developing a learning organization: “When you want people to succeed it is a logical step to look for ways to influence their development.” He added, “We have a mindset where we see people as an investment that can benefit the company.” Also, Participant 8 shared, “The culture of servant leadership has helped our transformation into a learning organization.” A key element in the process related to servant leadership he identified was listening. Spears (2008) identified listening as an important servant leadership-related practice. He said, “Listening is important in the promotion of a learning organization. If you understand the needs of the people you lead, it makes it easier, servant leadership and the learning organization.” Participant 7 shared the following perspective: “In order to become a learning organization we have had to develop an open mind in order to learn.” He stated that what has helped drive the move to be a learning organization was “a desire to change the world. We want to solve a problem.” Beyond a sense of mission, Participant 7 found that listening was a key element of servant leadership that helped facilitate the development of a learning organization. He stated, “Listening to people has helped us to learn.” Participant 2 seemed to feel that putting people ahead of his company’s bottom line has helped in the development of a learning organization. He shared, “By creating an environment where there is not expansive pressure to turn a high profit, we can enjoy being a company and learning.” He added we decided to be a servant leadership company by deciding how we were going to grow. We wanted to grow people along with the business. Regarding the interplay between servant leadership and learning
96 organizations he said, “Being a servant leadership company has helped us be a learning organization. They are tied hand in hand; you can’t be one without the other.” Participant 9 also addressed the relationship between servant leadership and the development of a learning organization. He shared, “The four founders of this company committed themselves early on to develop a learning organization through servant leadership. He also added, “Both servant leadership and learning organizations are intertwined; you cannot have a learning organization without a degree of servant leadership.” Regarding multiple roles and learning organizations Participant 9 shared, “The wearing of multiple hats has helped people develop and create a learning organization.” Another important factor in creating a learning organization, according to Participant 9, is “creating a culture and organization where people feel comfortable to learn, and ask questions.” Participant 4 felt like curiosity had been a critical element in developing a learning organization within his company. He stated, “I think our group of people have a sense of curiosity about them.” He also felt that a sense of stewardship aided the development of a learning organization. He shared, “Many of the people in our company come from the public sector. The public sector experience creates for them a sense of responsibility to learn in order to promote the public good.” Participant 4 also touched on the impact of multiple roles on developing a learning organization. He stated, “Multiple roles being held by members of our company has helped develop our learning organization.” As mentioned earlier, Greenleaf (2008)
97 and Van Dierendonck (2011) both viewed servant leadership as a force that encourages people to server others within the organization. Participant 4 also discussed listening and the development of his company’s learning organization. He shared, “It is important that everyone is willing to listen and learn. No one should be afraid to share their opinion.” Participant 10 also felt that servant leadership had impacted the development of a learning organization within his company. In total he provided four elements that contributed to the development of a learning organization within his company. He stated, “Four things, I believe, helped us become a learning organization. Those are the economic environment, the culture of servant leadership, macro-economic issues, and technological development.” Regarding servant leadership and learning, he added, “Servant leadership causes you to work closely with people, and learn from them.” Besides working with people he stated that “building community and listening are some other elements of servant leadership that help build learning organizations.” Participant 5 also addressed the role of community in building a learning organization within her startup company. She stated, “Social media has been a tool for us to build a community.” She also added regarding community, “We have created a place where people can be safe to learn and discuss problems.” She also added, “The elements of servant leadership that have helped us develop learning organization and community include, listening, healing, and a commitment to people.” Spears (2010) included community building, healing, listening, and a commitment to people as key elements of servant leadership.
98 Participant 6 also felt that servant leadership played a role in the development of his company’s learning organization. He stated, “Yes, servant leadership has been part of the development of a learning organization with my business, and it [referring to servant leadership] has helped move my company forward.” One of the elements that Participant 6 expressed was that servant leadership helped promote the development of a learning organization in his company, which enhanced a sense of service to others. He said, “Part of being happy for our employees is helping out each other. Working helps them be happy” (Table 5). Table 5 Response to Interview Question 7a Participant response Yes
5
No
2 Totals
10
The participants’ responses in Question 7 shared a common thread. All 10 participants in response to this question stated either directly, or indirectly, that servant leadership assisted in the development of a learning organization within their company. This cluster of responses does much to answer the three research questions asked in this dissertation. It seems, at least as far as these participants are concerned, that servant leadership supports the development of learning organizations within university-related startup companies (Table 6).
99 Table 6 Interview Question 7: Response Clusters Response clusters Multiple roles
3
Listening
6
Meeting needs of employees
4
Stewardship
2
Healing
1
Commitment to the growth of the people
1
Totals
10
Note. Some participants provided multiple responses which were often included in two or more clusters.
Other clusters that emerged from the responses included the relationship of multiple roles within the startup companies promoting the development of learning organizations. Participants 1, 3, and 9 all directly discussed the impact of multiple roles in the development of a learning organization within their company. Spears (2010) identified several core qualities or practices within the servant leadership philosophy. The participants mentioned several of these practices and qualities in their responses to Interview Question 7. Six participants (Participants: 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10) all identified the servant leadership practice of listening as being important to the development of a learning organization within their company. Consideration of the needs of the employees was mentioned by Participants 1, 2, 6, and 8 as having a key role in the development of their learning organization. Building community was listed by
100 Participants 5 and 10 as an element. Participants 4 and 7 clustered together under stewardship being an element that helps develop learning organizations. Individual participants also identified healing and commitment to the growth of people. Although the elements of what the participants considered important to the development of learning organizations differed somewhat, most were clearly qualities related to servant leadership. Summary Moustakas (1994) stated that the purpose of phenomenological research is to gain a rich understanding of the experience of the participants related to the topic being studied. This dissertation is not an exception. The goal of this project was to explore, via the research and interview questions, the impact of servant leadership on the development of learning organizations within a group of university-related startup companies. The responses from the participants in this dissertation were very insightful and assist in answering the research question presented. Spears (2010) provided a list of practices and qualities that are related to servant leadership. The participants identified several qualities and practices they experienced as being helpful to them in the development of a learning organization within their startup companies. One cluster that appeared in the responses of several participants is that of multiple roles within the company. Several participants indicated that multiple roles promoted the development of a learning organization. Greenleaf (2008) argued that servant leaders are generally humble and willing to take on almost any role within their organization. If this is true then the drive of so many employees within the companies
101 interviewed to take on multiple roles may be related to the practice of servant leadership within those organizations. The participants also shared experiences that servant leadership has aided in the development of a learning organization within their companies. All 10 of the participants indicated directly, or indirectly, that servant leadership has aided their companies in developing learning organizations.
102 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS Discussion This author of this dissertation endeavored to study the relationship between servant leadership and the development of learning organizations within universityrelated startup companies. Parris and Peachey (2013) found that despite the theory of servant leadership being decades old, aspects of this approach remained understudied. One area in particular that has been understudied is the impact of servant leadership on the development of learning organizations within university-related startup companies. It was one of the goals of this dissertation to help bridge this knowledge gap. Because startup companies have had an important positive impact on the American economy, a second impact of this dissertation is on the economy of the United States. Kane (2010) found that since the late-1970s startup companies have been responsible for the majority of job creations in the United States. Startup companies also have an important economic impact in their local communities. Ross and Patterson (2016) stated that “many startups start locally and grown locally (i.e. near the university the university who innovation is being commercialized). As such, they tend to hire locally and spend locally, making them engines for economic development” (p. 10). Learning organizations have been credited as benefiting companies and aiding their ability to succeed. Companies that are high-tech are even more likely to benefit from a learning organization (Senge, 2010). If university-related startup companies successfully implement servant leadership as a tool to develop learning organizations, then it is likely that these firms will become potent economic drivers.
103 In order to facilitate the research for this dissertation, a qualitative phenomenological methodology was employed. This methodology was selected because the researcher wished to garner an understanding of the lived experiences of the participants with regard to servant leadership and the development of learning organizations. Creswell (2012) stated that qualitative research, due in part to the use of openended questions, allows the researcher to ask follow-up questions. The use of openended questions allowed the researcher to garner a richer level of detail regarding the phenomenon being studied. The dissertation had three research questions it addressed: 1. Does servant-leadership affect the ability of university-related startup technology companies to become learning organizations? 2. How does servant-leadership aid in the development of learning organizations in university-related startup technology companies? 3. Which aspects of servant-leadership practices are most helpful in establishing learning organizations within the companies being studied? Conclusions With regard to Research Question 1, the researcher obtained responses from the participants that indicated that servant leadership did positively affect the ability of the companies involved in this dissertation. Responses to Interview Question 7 gave clear evidence of the participants’ impressions as to the impact of servant leadership with regard to servant leadership aiding the development of learning organizations within their companies.
104 In response to Interview Question 7, all 10 participants either directly or indirectly indicated that servant leadership positively impacted their organization’s ability to develop a learning organization. Moustakas (1994) stated that phenomenological research attempts to capture and report the lived experiences of the participants. It seems likely that from the responses of the participants that servant leadership did positively impact the university-related startup companies being studied. Spears (2010) identified a list of qualities and practices associated with the practice of servant leadership by organizations. This list included listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and commitment to the growth of people and building a community (pp. 27-29). Many of the qualities identified by Spears (2010) seemed to have a relationship to the development of learning organizations. Marquardt (2011) and Senge (2014) both stated that developing listening skills, facilitating employee growth, the ability to conceptualize, and the development of community within a company aided in the development of learning organizations. Several of Spears’ (2010) qualities and practices were cited by the participants as contributing to the presence of a learning organization within their company. Greenleaf (2008) also cited attitudes and qualities present in those individuals practicing servant leadership included humility, a desire to serve, and leaders putting the needs of employees ahead of those of the company. The attitudes and qualities found in Greenleaf (2008) were also found to be present in the responses of the participants. Greenleaf (2008) stated that a humble desire to serve others is a key product of servant leadership. Several of the participants indicated that humble service existed in their companies as
105 evidenced by the willingness of employees, and leaders also, being willing to take on multiple roles. In response to Interview Question 7 three participants credited the acceptance of multiple roles to be a key factor in developing a learning organization within their startup company. Spears (2010) cited listening as a key practice within organizations that practiced servant leadership. In response to Interview Question 7, six of the 10 participants credited listening as being a key factor in their organization being able to develop a learning organization. The participants’ responses were consistent with research regarding learning. Myhill and colleagues (2006) found that listening was a key component of the learning process. Senge (2014) and Marquardt (2011) stated that the development of listening skills can aid in the creation of learning organizations. In response to Interview Question 7, four of the 10 participants gave responses that could be clustered under a title of meeting the needs of employees as being an important factor in helping their companies become learning organizations. Greenleaf (2008) and Van Dierendonck (2011) both stated that a key tenant of servant leadership is the notion that leaders who meet the needs of their followers generally see their organizations benefit as a result. In response to Interview Question 7 four participants viewed learning and personal development as a need of their employees that they attempted to meet. These four respondents saw their efforts to help meet the needs of their employees to develop and learn helped foster the development of a learning organization. Spears (2010) indicated that a commitment to the development of people is a quality and practice
106 common to servant leadership. As mentioned, Senge (2014) and Marquardt (2011) found that developing employees also aids the development of learning organizations. It seems possible that these respondents, and their respective companies, by addressing the needs of their employees may have also, along the way, helped aid learning within their organizations. This sort of benefit to the organization as a consequence of aiding followers is a notion consistent with the philosophy of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2008). Other responses to Interview Question 7 included other qualities and practices of servant leadership advocated by Spears (2010). Two respondents indicated the development of a sense of stewardship due to servant leadership helping to develop a learning organization within their company. Three cited servant leadership’s promotion of their employees’ willingness to take on multiple roles as promoting the development of a learning organization. One respondent cited healing of people within the company as a quality and practice of servant leadership that aided the development of a learning organization within their company. Interview Question 7 was not the only question asked of participants that shed light on Research Question 1. Interview Question 5, which asked participants to “reflect on and comment on the impact of servant leadership on your company?” shed a good deal of light on Research Question 1. In response to Interview Question 5, seven respondents stated that servant leadership had aided their company’s ability to develop into a learning organization. These responses corroborated with responses to Research Question 1, which revealed that a good portion of the responses felt servant leadership
107 had a role in the development of learning organizations within their respective startup companies. Two respondents to Interview Question 5 stated that servant leadership helped increase employee retention. Although increasing employee retention does not address learning organizations directly, employee retention can be helpful in helping establish and maintain learning organizations within a company (Khandekar & Sharma, 2005). Four participants, when asked Interview Question 5, shared that servant leadership had encouraged employees within their companies to take on multiple roles. These responses were consistent with research and thought regarding the impact of servant leadership on organizations. Greenleaf (2008) and Van Dierendonck (2011) both indicated that the application of servant leadership causes the members of an organization to be more willing to serve one another in areas that might fall outside their typical duties. Interview Question 5 also elicited responses that were not directly related to the development of learning organizations. Three respondents, somewhat generically, credited servant leadership with helping their companies be more successful. Four credited servant leadership with aiding their companies develop a greater sense of mission. Spears (2010) indicated that a sense of mission, or a sense of stewardship, is one of the qualities of an organization that practices servant leadership. Interview Question 4 asked the participants to discuss the efforts the participant companies have made to become learning organizations. Answers provided by five respondents could be clustered under building community, and six respondents clustered as employees taking on multiple roles. Both of these clusters of responses seemed
108 consistent with the results one might expect to see in organizations practicing servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2008; Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Two respondents provided answers that could be clustered as a commitment to employee growth. Spears (2010) stated that a commitment to the growth of people is a result of the application of servant leadership within an organization. Greenleaf (2008) and Van Dierendonck (2011) also concurred that a commitment to the growth of people is also a result of servant leadership being applied within an organization. Senge (2014) and Marqaurdt (2011) claimed that the development of employees can aid in the creation of a learning organization. The participants’ responses to the interview questions of their lived experiences as executives in this dissertation research would indicate that the startup companies being studied as to their practices of servant leadership impacted positively their ability to develop into a learning organization. Parris and Peachey (2013) and Van Dierendonck (2011) both indicated that there is need for more research to understand the impact of servant leadership within organizations. Senge (2010) found that learning organizations can help the members of company be more creative and effective in interacting and collaborating with peers. The participants’ responses to Research Question 1 indicated that servant leadership may have a positive impact on startup companies by helping to promote the development of learning organizations. Senge (2010) and Senge (1990) shared five disciplines that aided in the development of a learning organization within a company. The five disciplines seemed to have a great deal in common with Spears’ (2010) list of the qualities and practices related to the practice of servant leadership within organizations. Many of Spears (2010)
109 qualities such as building community, a commitment to the growth of people, healing, and stewardship are all represented in the clusters of responses to the interview questions. Greenleaf (2008) identified promoting humble service as being a key aspect of servant leadership. These qualities seemed to be present also in the participants’ responses related to learning, which was identified as a need by several respondents, and also a willingness to take on multiple roles, as evidence of humble service to others in the organization. These servant leadership practices identified by Spears (2010) and Greenleaf (2008) seem to share much with the disciplines Senge (1990, 2010) identified as promoting the development of learning organizations. Senge’s (1990, 2010) theme of personal mastery seems closely related to Spears’ (2010) quality of a commitment to the development of people. Senge’s (1990, 2010) discipline of building a shared vision seems related to Spears’ (2010) notion of stewardship. Senge’s (1990, 2010) discipline of team learning seems to share a great deal with Greenleaf’s (2008) notion of humble service and the participants’ experiences that servant leadership has encouraged employees to take on multiple roles outside of their job description. With regard to Research Question 2, the interview questions asked the participants shed some light on how servant leadership has impacted the development of learning organizations within their companies. All ten participants gave examples of how servant leadership has positively impacted the development of a learning organization within their startup companies. However, the participants’ examples did fall under different clusters of responses.
110 In response to Interview Question 3, which asked the participants to discuss how their companies have worked to promote servant leadership, six of the participants provided responses that were clustered under the theme of employee development. Spears (2010) cited the growth of people as a key practice and quality of servant leadership. Senge (2014) found that employee growth can contribute to the development of learning organizations. The participants’ responses to Interview Question 3 showed one fairly clear example of how an aspect of servant leadership has impacted the development of learning organizations in a majority of the companies in this dissertation research. Other responses to Interview Question 3 touched upon qualities and practices related to servant leadership. One cluster two participants provided was that servant leadership helped promote greater listening among members of their company. Spears (2010) listed listening as one of the qualities and practices associated with organizations that practiced servant leadership. Senge (2014) and Marquardt (2011) stated the developed skill of listening aided in the creation of learning organizations. One respondent indicated that servant leadership helped build a greater sense of community within their company. Spears (2010) cited building community as a key practice and quality of servant leadership. Senge (2014) and Marquardt (2011) found there was a connection between community building and the development of learning organizations. With regard to building learning organizations, Senge (1990, 2010) shared some of the practices that seemed very similar to servant leadership qualities. Two practices encouraged by Senge (1990, 2010) were personal mastery, which is commitment to lifelong learning by the
111 members of an organization, which seems to share greatly with Spears’ (2010) servant leadership quality of a commitment to the growth of people. The six participant responses clustered under employee development would also seem closely related to Senge’s (1990, 2010) notion of personal mastery, and Spears’ (2010) servant leadership quality of commitment to the growth people. The six participant responses related to the development of employees seemed closely related to another Senge’s (1990, 2010) organizational concept of team learning. In discussing learning within their organizations, each of the six participants discussed how learning in their organization was shared among its members. This notion of sharing learning seemed also closely related to Spears’ (2010) qualities and practices of servant leadership, including listening, building community, and a commitment to the growth of people. Senge (2014) stated that the growth of people can help contribute to the development of learning organizations. The participants’ responses clustered under listening, which is a quality and practice of servant leadership discussed by Spears (2010), and building community, also mentioned by Spears (2010), seemed to be closely related to Senge’s (1990, 2010) organizational practices of personal mastery, and likely also team learning. Senge (2014) stated that communities can help develop learning organizations within companies. When looking overall at the participants’ responses combined with Spears’ (2010) qualities of servant leadership and Senge’s (1990, 2010) disciplines related to the development of learning organizations, one could argue that there are many overlaps and complementary relationships that synchronize between servant leadership and learning organizations.
112 Interview Question 4 asked the participants to reflect upon what their companies had done to develop into a learning organization. The responses provided by the participants shed some additional light on the impact of servant leadership on the companies that participated in this dissertation research. In response to Interview Question 4, five of the participants shared answers that were clustered under building community. Spears (2010) stated that building community is a key practice and quality of servant leadership. Spears (2010) also identified a commitment to the growth of people being a key practice of servant leadership. Senge (2014) stated that the growth of people within an organization is linked to the development of learning organizations. Two participants in this dissertation research gave responses that were clustered under a theme of employee growth. A commitment to employee growth was very arguably related to a commitment to the growth of people. Another cluster emerged from the responses from the participants to Interview Question 4. Six respondents shared responses that were clustered under multiple roles. As mentioned previously, Greenleaf (2008) argued that servant leaders were generally humble and willing to take on almost any role within their organization. If this is true, then the drive of so many employees within the companies interviewed to take on multiple roles may be related to the practice of servant leadership within those organizations. Also in may be arguable that the members of the companies in this dissertation research having a willingness to take on multiple roles could also corroborate Spears’ (2010) servant leadership quality of stewardship. Senge (2014) stated that stewardship can aid the development of learning organizations.
113 Interview Question 5 asked the participants to share what impact servant leadership had on their companies. Significantly, seven of the participants provided responses that were clustered as the development of learning organization. These responses indicated that several of the participants felt, at least fairly strongly, that servant leadership impacted positively their company’s ability to develop a learning organization. Again in Interview Question 5, answers clustered under multiple roles were provided by four participants. In Interview Question 6, which asked the participants to comment on the impact of, or work towards, being a learning organization, three respondents shared responses that were clustered under a theme of multiple roles. As discussed earlier, the presence of a cluster of responses as to multiple roles was evidence of the influence of servant leadership per the qualities identified in Spears (2010) and Greenleaf (2008). Other clusters appeared in the responses to Interview Question 5. Four participants gave responses that related to sense of mission, four stated a greater sense of mission, three discussed greater business success, and two spoke about improved employee retention. These responses to Interview Question 5 provided clues to possible topics of future research related to startup companies and servant leadership. Research Question 3 asked, “Which aspects of servant-leadership practices are most helpful in establishing learning organizations within the companies being studied?” The responses to several of the interview questions helped to provide some answers to this interrogatory. Significantly, six of the participants shared responses to Interview Question 3 that were clustered under learning. Interview Question 3 asked the
114 participants how their companies have worked to promote servant leadership. These responses may indicate that a majority of the participants viewed a relationship between learning and servant leadership. These responses seem to share a similar view to Van Dierendonck (2011) who stated there was a connection between servant leadership and learning organizations. In response to Interview Question 4, which asked participants how their organizations had worked to develop into a learning organization, five responses were clustered under building community. As discussed before, Spears (2010) stated that building community is a key practice and quality of servant leadership. It is likely significant that five of the 10 participants clearly identified building community, a servant leadership practice, as being important in developing a learning organization within their companies. Marquardt (2011) found that developing community within a company aided in the development of a learning organization. Senge (2014) stated that community building activities and strong communities, helped build communities (pp 502-504). Two other servant leadership related qualities emerged in the clusters of responses to Interview Question 4. Two participants formed a response cluster of employee growth as contributing to the development of servant leadership. Six participants gave answers that were clustered together under multiple roles. Greenleaf (2008), and under the notion of stewardship, Spears (2010), both seemed to include service to others, evidenced by multiple roles, to be a fruit of servant leadership. Senge (2014) felt that stewardship can impact positively the ability of a company to develop into a learning organization.
115 As mentioned two responses to Interview Question 4 were clustered under employee growth. Senge (2014) and Marquardt (2011) both stated that employee growth within organizations aids in the development of learning organizations. Interview Question 5 helped to shed further light in regards to helping answer Research Question 3. Interview Question 5 focused on the impact servant leadership has had on the companies participating in this dissertation research. Interestingly, seven of the participants cited their ability to develop a learning organization as being a result of their application of servant leadership. This response echoes the sense expressed in Van Dierendonck (2011) that servant leadership impacts the development of learning organizations. In response to Interview Question 5, four respondents provided answers that were clustered together under multiple roles. Greenleaf (2008), and under the topic of stewardship (Spears, 2008), both seemed to include service to others as evidenced by multiple roles to be a benefit of servant leadership. As mentioned earlier, Senge (2014) felt that a sense of stewardship with a company can aid it into developing a learning organization. Four respondents provided answers that were clustered as a sense of mission. Spears (2010) listed mission as a quality of companies that practiced servant leadership. Senge (2014) argued that a sense of mission can be helpful in the development of a learning organization within a company. Armstrong and Foley (2003) found that a sense of mission helps a company develop a plan to become a learning organization.
116 Summary of Findings With regard to the 10 companies, represented by their officers, who took part in this dissertation research expressed in some way that servant leadership did positively impact the ability of startup ventures to become learning organizations. As discussed in Spears (2010), the qualities servant leadership provides the firms that practice it include stewardship, a commitment to the growth of people, listening, and building community. These qualities seemed to have enhanced the university-related companies which took part in this dissertation research to become learning organizations. The impact of this research is important. Ross and Patterson (2016) stated that university-related startup companies are an important economic driver in their local areas. Kane (2010) stated that startup companies for many years have been an important job creator in the U.S. economy. Blumberg (2013) stated that a key strength of many young companies is their ability to innovate. Senge (2010) argued that companies that have become learning organizations are more likely to be innovative. In short, if servant leadership can be used to help startup companies develop into learning organizations then this research may well have an important impact on job creation and economic growth. Suggestions for Further Research This research focused on the impact of servant leadership on the development of learning organizations within university-related startup companies. Research related to the impact of servant leadership on startup companies in general may be very impactful, and could be applied to a larger number of companies than this dissertation presented. This type of research could have a positive impact on startup companies which, as discussed in Kane (2010), are an important economic driver in the United States.
117 Another possible area of future research would be the impact of other leadership styles on the development of learning organizations within startup companies. In might also be helpful to research if servant leadership is as an effective leadership style as others with regard to developing learning organizations within startup companies.
118 REFERENCES Aggestam, L. (2006). Learning organization or knowledge management—Which came first, the chicken of the egg? Information Technology and Control, 35, 295-302. Armstrong, A., & Foley, P. (2003). Foundations for a learning organization: Organization learning mechanisms. The Learning Organization, 10(2), 74-82. Arteaga, R., & Hyland, J. (2014). Pivot: How top entrepreneurs adapt change course to find ultimate success. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Astebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2014). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663-677. Autry, J. (2001). The servant leader. Rosedale, CA: Prima Publishing. Baron, R. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs' success. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(1), 106-116. Bania, M., Ebers, R., & Fogarty, M. (1993). Universities and the startup of new companies: Can we generalize from Route 128 and Silicon Valley. Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(4), 761-766. Banutu-Gomez, M. B., & Banutu-Gomez, S. M. T. (2007). Leadership and organizational change in a competitive environment. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 2(2), 6991. Barrow, J. C. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 2, 233-251. Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and management applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Bates, R. A., & Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations. International Journal of Training & Development, 9(2), 96-109 Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1997). Learning to lead. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Block, P. (2013). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Blumberg, M. (2013). Startup CEO: A field guide to scaling up your business, + Website. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Bokeno, R. (2009). Marcuse on Senge: Personal mastery, the child’s mind and individual transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(3), 307-320.
119 Bowie, N. (2000). Business ethics, philosophy, and the next 25 years. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 7-20. Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Caldwell, R. (2012). Leadership and learning: A critical reexamination of Senge’s leadership organization. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 25(1), 39-55. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 433-440. Conklin, T. A. (2007). Method or madness phenomenology as knowledge creator. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 275-287. Corredoira, R. A., & Rosenkopf, L. (2010). Should auld acquaintance be forgot? The transfer of knowledge through mobility ties. Journal of Strategic Management, 31(2), 159-181. Covey, S. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Crippen, C. (2005). Servant-leadership as an effective model for educational leadership and management: First to serve, then to lead. Management in Education, 18(5), 11-16. Cyert, R. (2006). Defining leadership and explicating the process. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1(1), 29-38. Daft, R. L. (2014). The leadership experience. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Dawidowicz, P. (2010). Literature reviews made easy: A Quick Guide to Success. USA: IAP. De Silva, D., & McComb, R. (2012). Research universities and regional high-tech firm start-up and exit. Economic Inquiry, 50(1), 112-130. Driver, M. (2002). Learning and leadership in organizations. Management Learning, 33(1), 99-126.
120 Dowd, S. B. (2000). Organizational learning and the learning organization in health care. Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 21(3), 1. DuPree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York, NY: Dell Publishing. Egan, T.M. (2008). The relevance of organizational subculture for motivation to transfer learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(4), 299-322. Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 279-301. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unitlevel organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61-94. Forbes, S., & Prevas, J. (2009). Power ambition glory: The stunning parallels between great leaders of the ancient world and today and the lessons you can learn. New York, NY: Crown Business. Foster, G. (2011). Starting with Locke. New York, NY: Continuum. Frick, D. M. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Gillet, J., Cartwright, E., & van Vugt, M. (2011). Selfish or servant leadership? Evolutionary predictions on leadership personalities in coordination games. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 231-236. Glendinning, S. (2011). Derrida: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gorelick, C. (2005). Organizational learning vs the learning organization: A conversation with a practitioner. The Learning Organization, 12(4), 383–388. Goulding, C. (2005). Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: A comparative analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 294-308. Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977/2002). Servant-leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The servant leadership: Essays. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler.
121 Greenleaf, R. (2008). Servant as leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Greenleaf, R., & Spears, L. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1). Retrieved March 3, 2008 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/html/groenewald.html Gronhaug, K., & Stone, R. (2012). The learning organization: An historical perspective, the learning process, and its influence on competitiveness. Competitiveness Review, 22(3), 261-275. Hadley, T. (1999). Student affairs researcher Information broker. New Directions for Student Services, 85, 83-91. Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417. Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and time. Oxford: Blackwell. Henning, P. B., & Chen, W. (2012). Systems thinking: Common ground or untapped territory? Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29, 470-483. Hesse, H. (1956). The journey to the east. New York, NY: Picador. Hill, G. (2013). Servantship: Sixteen servants on the four movements of radical servantship. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Inbarasu, J. (2008). Influence of servant-leadership practice on job satisfaction. University of Phoenix. Jaber, M. Y., & Sikstrom, S. (2004). A numerical comparison of three potential learning and forgetting models. International Journal of Production Economics, 92(3), 281-294. Johnson, C. E. (2001). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kane, T. (2010). The importance of startups in job creation and job destruction. Retrieved from: http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%2 0covers/2010/07/firm_formation_importance_of_startups.pdf
122 Khandekar, A., & Sharma, A. (2005). Organizational learning in Indian organizations: A strategic HRM perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(2), 211-226. Kiedrowski, P. J. (2006). Quantitative assessment of a Senge learning organization intervention. The Learning Organization, 13(4), 369-383. Kim, J. & Callahan, J. L. (2013). Finding the intersection of the learning organization and learning transfer: The significance of leadership. European Journal of Training & Development, 37(2), 183-200. King, W. R. (2009). Knowledge management and organizational learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Klenke, K. (2008). Qualitative research in the study of leadership. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group. Kofman, F., & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 5-23. Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership (SOLA) instrument (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University). Lee. S. S., & Osteryoung, J. S. (2004). A comparison of critical success factors for effective operations of university business incubators in the United States and Korea. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(4), 418-426. Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Taunton: Stan Lester Developments. Retrieved from http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy.pdf Locke, J. (2005). Locke: Two treatises of government and letter concerning toleration. Stillwell, KS: Digireads.com. Luft, S. (2011). Subjectivity and lifeworld in transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 241263. Marquardt, M. J. (2011). Building the learning organization: Achieving strategic advantage through a commitment to learning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey. Mascarenhas, O. A. (2011). Business transformation strategies: The strategic leader as innovation manager. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
123 Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McClellan, J. L. (2007). The advisor as servant: The theoretical and philosophical relevance of servant leadership to academic advising. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 41-49. Melchert, N. (2010). The great conversation: A historical introduction to philosophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Menaldo, M. (2009). Aristotle’s magnanimous statesman: Rethinking theories of leadership in international relations. Annual association of Conference Papers— Midwestern Political Science Association. Mian, S. A. (1997). The university business incubator: A strategy for developing new research/technology-based firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2), 191-208. Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mustar, P. (1997). How French academics create hi-tech companies: The conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 37-43. Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R. (2006). Talking, listening, and learning. New York, NY: Open University Press. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ortenblad, A. (2001). On differences between organizational learning and learning organization. Learning Organizations, 8(3), 125-133. Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A systematic literature review of Servant Leadership Theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pedler, M., Burgogyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1997). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development (2nd ed.). London: McGraw Hill. Pena, I. (2002). Intellectual capital and business start-up success. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(2), 180-198. Plato. (2000). The republic. Mineola, NY: Dover.
124 Powers, J., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing. 20, 291-311. Richards, L. (2015). Handling qualitative data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup. New York, NY: Random House. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rivkin, W., Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K. (2014). The positive relationship between servant leadership and employees’ psychological health: A multi-method approach. Zeitschrift Fur Personalforschung, 28(1/2), 52-72. Roberto, M. A. (2013). Why great leaders don’t take yes for an answer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational. Ross, D., & Patterson, C. (2016). Research to revenue: A practical guide to university start-ups. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Rost, M., & Wilson, J. (2013). Active listening. New York, NY: Routledge. Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 23(3), 145-147. Sakalas, A., & Venskus, R. (2007). Interaction of learning organization and organizational structure. Engineering Economics, 3(20), 65-70. Salmons, J. (2012). Cases in online interview research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scott, L. (2000). Hatching the equity nest egg: The role of a university incubator in creating successful startup firms (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Washington, Department of Education). Sendjaya, S. (2003). Development and validation of Servant Leadership Behavior Scale. http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_lead ership_roundtable/2003pdf/sendjaya_development_validation.pdf. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Random House. Senge, P.M. (2010). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Crown Business.
125 Shelters, D. (2013). Start-up guide for the technopreneur: Financial planning, decision— making, and negotiating from incubation to exit. Solaris South Tower, Singapore: Wiley. Sipe, J. W., & Frick, D. M. (2009). Seven pillars of servant leadership: Practicing the wisdom of leading by serving. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Smith, B. N., Montango, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Context and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91. Solomon, Y. (2010). From startup to maturity: A case study of employee creativity antecedents in high tech companies. Retrieved from http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1306413/16905891/1330655736360/Solomon +Dissertation+020510_Final.pdf?token=a9BGCFm1rG0vW5FSTxNALBXndgA %3D Spears, L., & Lawrence, M. (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Spears, L. (1998). The power of servant-leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kochler. Spears, L. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 35-30. Strasser, S. (1989). Satisfaction guaranteed: The making of the American mass market. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Sturnick, J. (1998). Healing leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. Sun, P. Y., & Scott, J. L. (2003). Exploring the divide—Organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organization, 10(4), 202-215. Swan, J., Scarborough, J., & Preston, J. (1999). Knowledge management —The next fad to forget people. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Systems, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark. Trompenaars, F., & Voerman, E. (2009). Servant leadership across cultures: Harnessing the strength of the world’s most powerful management philosophy. Oxford, UK: Infinite Ideas. Turner, D. (2013). Thomas Aquinas: A portrait. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 20(10), 1228-1261.
126 Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge management: Historical and cross-disciplinary themes. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Weldy, T. G. (2009). Learning organizations and transfer: Strategies for improving performance. The Learning Organization, 16(1), 58-69. Werhane, P. H. (2008). Mental models, moral imagination and system thinking in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics. 78, 463-474. Williamson, T. (2008, August). The good society and the good soul: Plato’s Republic on leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 19(4), 397-408. Wong P. T. P., & Davey, D. (2007). Best practices in servant leadership. Presented at Regent University Servant Leadership Research Roundtable Proceedings, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/wongdavey.pdf Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university-based spin-off companies. Technovaton, 34(1), 31-43. Zucker, L., Darby, M., &, Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of the U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290-306.
127
APPENDICES
128
APPENDIX A Research Questions
129 APPENDIX A Interview Questions
Questionnaire: Dissertation Research - Larry D. Cravens
1. What is your current position within your company? 2. How long have you been with this company, and what other roles or titles have you held? 3. How has your company worked to promote servant leadership? a. What examples could you provide? 4. How has your company worked to develop into a learning organization? a. What examples could you provide? 5. Could you please reflect and comment on the impact of servant leadership on your company? 6. Could you please reflect and comment on the impact of being a learning organization, or working towards becoming a learning organization, has had on your company? 7. What factors have helped your organizations efforts to become a learning organization? a. Has servant leadership played in role in helping your company become a learning organization? i. (Ask if “yes” to 5a) Are there examples you could provide of how servant leadership has helped with this transformation?
130 ii. (Ask if “yes” to 5a) Are there certain aspects or elements of servant leadership which you find most useful in your company’s process to become a learning organization?
131
APPENDIX B Informed Consent
132 APPENDIX B Informed Consent Informed Consent to Participate in Research Introduction/ Purpose: Larry Daniel Cravens a graduate student at Argosy University – Salt Lake City is conducting a research study to find out more about the interaction of servant leadership and the development of learning organizations in startup companies. Procedures: If you agree to be in this research study you will be interviewed by the principal investigator and asked questions related to servant leadership and the development of learning organizations within your organization. The answers provided will be recorded via audio and/or video recording, and also in written form. The answers you provide will be analyzed, coded, and conclusions will be developed in part based off the responses you provide. New Findings: During the course of this research study, you will be informed of any significant new findings (either good or bad), changes in the procedures, risks or benefits resulting from participation in the research, or new alternatives to participation that might cause you to change your mind about continuing in the study. If necessary, your consent to continue participating in this study will be obtained again. Risks Related to Participation: Few risks associated with participation in this research are expected. Participants will be asked questions that are designed to facilitate a discussion of each individuals experience with the interaction of servant leadership and the development learning organizations within their companies. One possible concern identified is inadvertent release of trade secrets during the course of interviews. In order to eliminate an inadvertent public disclosure of trade secrets the principal researcher will not discuss publically, or in his dissertation, any specific products, services, technologies, or processes offered by the participants company. Additionally, names of the participants and their companies will be kept confidential, and will not be published or released in anyway publically. Benefits: Participants, and their respective organizations, are likely to gain a greater understanding of how servant leadership may aid the development of beneficial learning organizations within their companies. No financial compensation will be given the participants for their time. Explanation and Offer to Answer Questions: Larry Daniel Cravens, the principal investigator, has explained this research study to you and answered your questions. If you
133 have other questions or research-related problems, you may reach Mr. Cravens at 208380-3075. Right to Withdraw from Participation: Involvement in this research by participants is of a voluntary nature. Participants have a right to withdraw from this research, without consequence, at any time. In order to withdraw participants may simply notify the principal investigator. Confidentiality: Research records will be kept confidential, consistent with federal and state regulations. Only the principal investigator will have access to the data which will be kept in a locked file cabinet or on a password protected computer in a locked room. To protect your privacy, personal, identifiable information will be removed from study documents and replaced with a coded study identifier. Identifying information will be stored separately from data and will be kept. Stored information will be destroyed upon the completion and final defense of the principal investigator’s dissertation. The names of the study participants, and their organizations, will be kept confidential and not identified within the dissertation. IRB Approval Statement: The Institutional Review Board for the protection of human participants at Argosy University – Salt Lake City has approved this research study. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights or a research-related injury and would like to contact someone other than the research team, you may contact Argosy University – Salt Lake City’s IRB Administrator at (801)-601-5000. Copies of Informed Consent: You have been given two copies of this Informed Consent. Please sign both copies and keep one copy for your files. Principal Investigator Statement: I certify that the research study has been explained to the individual, by me, and that the individual understands the nature and purpose, the possible risks and benefits associated with taking part in this research study. Any questions that have been raised have been answered. Signature of Principal Investigator _______________________________ Date: ________________ Larry Daniel Cravens Principal Investigator (208) 380-3075
[email protected]
134 Signature of Participant - By signing below, I agree to participate. _______________________________
______________________________
Participant’s signature
Date
