Synthesis Paper
Instructions:
Write a paper (1,300 -1,500 words) that synthesizes the three articles. Do that by including the following:
A statement of at least three common themes addressed in all of the articles. This is NOT a synthesis of each article. Rather, this is a synthesis of all three articles together using common themes to develop a new paper. Refer to the attached Graded Synthesis Paper that you help developed as a guide.
A statement of the conclusions that can be drawn when the articles are taken together as a single entity. What is the overall message of the group of articles? What do these studies convey about the ethical use of power, authority, persuasion, and/or motivation?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Use the following Graded Synthesis you had helped me developed for a previous class as a model:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Articles to be used to develop the paper:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
References (APA Style) in alphabetical order:
1. Gabel, S. (2012). Power, leadership and transformation: the doctor’s potential for influence. Medical Education, 46(12), 1152-1160. doi:10.1111/medu.12036
2. Kottke, J., & Pelletier, K. (2013). Measuring and differentiating perceptions of supervisor and top leader ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 415-428. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1312-8
3. Rodriguez-Rubio, A., & Kiser, A. T. (2013). An examination of servant leadership in the United States and Mexico: Do age and gender make a difference? Global Studies Journal, 5(2), 127-149.
___________________________________________________________________________
The Global
Studies Journal
globalstudies.com
VOLUME 5 ISSUE 2
__________________________________________________________________________
An Examination of Servant Leadership in
the United States and Mexico
Do Age and Gender Make a Difference?
ALICIA RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO AND ANGELINA I. T. KISER
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
http://onglobalisation.com/
First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA
by Common Ground Publishing
University of Illinois Research Park
2001 South First St, Suite 202
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com
ISSN: 1835-4432
© 2013 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under
the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written
permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.
The Global Studies Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
Typeset in CGScholar.
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/
An Examination of Servant Leadership in the
United States and Mexico: Do Age and Gender
Make a Difference?
Alicia Rodriguez-Rubio, University of the Incarnate Word, Texas, USA
Angelina I. T. Kiser, University of the Incarnate Word, Texas, USA
Abstract: Servant leaders emphasize collaboration, trust, empathy, and the ethical use of power,
and their motivation is not to increase their own power but rather to better serve others (James,
2011). The current study addresses servant leadership with regards to gender and age between
people in Mexico and the United States. Studying culturally-linked leadership styles leads to a
greater understanding of working in a diverse workforce, and examining demographic differences
within those cultures helps to better operate in a global environment, which is a critical component
for today’s leaders. Typical perceptions are that women are more relationship oriented
while men are seen as more task oriented. Are there really differences in their values? Is age a
factor in determining them? Additionally, cultural norms that might fit the servant leadership
model in one county might not work in another country. Using data from the World Values
Survey, the purpose of this exploratory research was to examine how cultural values that are
related to servant leadership change for men and women of different ages in the United States
and Mexico.
Keywords: Servant Leadership, Leadership Styles, Gender, Age, Cross-cultural Values
OBJECTIVE AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
I
t has been suggested that culture directly impacts leadership styles (House and Aditya 1997,
410). Therefore, in a world that has become increasingly interconnected, it is important
to understand the differences in cultural values among countries as well as how they affect
leadership styles. Among the different leadership styles, servant leadership has received
great attention because the servant leaders emphasize collaboration, trust, empathy, and
the ethical use of power, and their motivation is not to increase their own power but rather to
better serve others (Kohnen 2011, 61). Moreover, it has been shown that men and women
emphasize different leadership dimensions (Gibson 1995, 263). However, there is limited research
about the relationship between age and the servant leadership style. It is therefore important
to understand the relationship between age, gender, cultural values and servant leadership.
Literature Review
It was Robert Greenleaf who first introduced the concept of “servant leadership” on which we
base the current model. Greenleaf spent 40 years in the business world as an executive at AT&T;
therefore, his concept of servant leadership combines both practical and theoretical principles
(Spears 1996, 33). Larry Spears, the CEO of the Greenleaf Center identified 10 major attributes
of Greenleaf’s servant leadership: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,
foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community
(Spears 1998, 6). The servant leader places others before self and manages others while mainThe
Global Studies Journal
Volume 5, Issue 2, 2013, http://onglobalisation.com/, ISSN 1835-4432
© Common Ground, Alicia Rodriguez-Rubio, Angelina I. T. Kiser, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
taining this particular leadership mindset. The goal of servant leadership is to help others achieve
their goals while still making a difference and positively impacting the organization (Vinod and
Sudhakar 2011, 456).
Page and Wong (2000, 16) were interested in measuring servant leadership and developed a
conceptual framework that included four domains of leadership: personality, relationship, task,
and process. The personality domain is concerned with the leader’s character and is shown by
having a servant’s heart and by serving others with commitment and integrity. Relationship is
related to building others up. The task component is associated with leadership activities such
as decision-making, vision, and initiative. The process domain is related to organizational
processes such as team building and modeling. Based on the four domains they developed the
following list of characteristics of a leader that are consistent with servant leadership: integrity,
humility, servanthood, caring for others, empowering others, developing others, visioning,
goal-setting, leading, team building, and shared decision making.
There has been increased attention focused on positivity in the workplace, and the effects it
has on employee performance (Walumbwa et al. 2010, 937). The effects of servant leadership
are important to study in order to gauge how this form of leadership might lead to more productive
employees and ultimately more profitable organizations. Research should inspect how
the influence of the leader is mediated through the followers they work with over time in order
to better understand the leadership process (Avolio and Luthans 2006, 77). A better understanding
of the leader and follower relationship could assist organizations in developing effective
policies and procedures.
From a cross-cultural perspective, the study of servant leadership could greatly enhance organizational
effectiveness as it provides insights into managing a diverse workforce. For this
particular study, the use of servant leadership in the United States (US) and Mexico was examined.
This is of particular importance to both cultures as the Hispanic population continues
to grow in the US. According to the US Census Bureau’s Hispanic Population: 2010 report
(Ennis, Rios-Vargas, and Albert 2010, 2), the Hispanic population increased from 13% in 2000
to 16% in 2010, and Mexicans accounted for three quarters of that growth.
There are cultural differences between the US and Mexico that may influence managers’
leadership styles and their effectiveness with their employees. Hofstede (1980) completed a
consulting project for IBM and then reinterpreted the findings in terms of how IBM employees
responded differently to a survey. His research led to the following five cultural dimensions
that he claimed affect people’s perceptions, decisions, and behavior: power distance, individualism-collectivism,
masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and time orientation (Williams
2012, 171). Power distance refers to how the unequal distribution of power and wealth is accepted.
Individualism-collectivism is the degree to which people value individual needs over
collective needs. Masculinity-femininity is concerned with which attributes are stressed—aggressiveness,
achievement, and the pursuit of material things, versus relationships, harmony,
and preservation of the quality of life. Uncertainty is how one deals with the uncertainty of the
future. Time orientation is concerned with short-term versus long-term orientation (Redpath
and Nielsen 1997, 328–329).
The two countries examined in this study, the US and Mexico, although close in geographical
vicinity, do not necessary fall within the same realm with regards to cultural values and beliefs.
According to House et al. (2004, 7) culture impacts leadership concepts, behaviors, and styles.
However, the authors further go on to state that according to findings from the Global Leadership
and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, while culture does indeed
influence leadership in many areas, there is still no clear indication of how and why these
variations occur differently in different countries. Understanding how and why cultural values
and beliefs affect management styles can lead to more effective and efficient leaders in organizations.
128
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
Table 1: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension for the US and Mexico
Dimension US Mexico
Power Distance 40 81
Individualistic 91 30
Masculinity 62 69
Uncertainty Avoidance 46 82
Time Orientation 29 –
(Lanzer, Kyytsonen, Pappe, Waisfisz, 2012)
Table 1 summarizes the five Hofstede cultural dimension scores for the US and Mexico. In the
US, hierarchies are established for convenience but managers are accessible and still rely on
individual employees as well as employee teams for their expertise while workers in Mexico
accept the power that comes with certain positions (Lanzer et al. 2012, 2). However, workers
in Mexico still want to be treated with respect by both employers and coworkers (Najera 2008,
109). Mexico is a collectivist culture based on the principles of male-dominance and age-based
authority while the US is considered an individualistic society (McCarty and Hattwick 1992,
35). The high number for the US indicates an expectation that people look out for themselves
and their families (Lanzer, et al. 2012, 2). Mexico and the US are both classified as masculine
indicating a tendency toward competition and winning as opposed to a feminine culture that
stresses quality of life and caring for others (McCarty and Hattwick 1992, 35; Lanzer, et al.
2012, 2). Mexican workers prefer “known” results to “unknown” future outcomes, making
them a society that is more like to avoid uncertainty (Najera 2008, 109). The US on the other
hand maintains a greater acceptance for new ideas, innovative products, and a willingness to
try new things (Lanzer et al. 2012, 3). US businesses are short-term oriented as is indicated by
them measuring performance on a short-term basis as opposed to long-term basis (Lanzer et
al. 2012, 3). The time-orientation score for Mexico was unavailable.
Hannay (2009, 9) applied Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to servant leadership in order to
examine which characteristics were best suited to a servant leadership management style. She
concluded that servant leadership would be most effective in cultures with low power distance,
low to moderate individualism, low to moderate masculinity, low uncertainty avoidance, and
a moderate to high long-term orientation. If Hannay’s model were to be applied to the US and
Mexico, then the US fits two dimensions (power distance and uncertainty avoidance), and
Mexico fits one dimension (individualistic). Therefore, neither country appears to have a culture
that is a good fit for servant leadership.
A study conducted by Irving and McIntosh (2010, 8) found that power distance was a hindrance
to servant leadership in Latin American countries, including Mexico. Their findings indicated
that Mexico’s high power distance rating was an obstacle to servant leadership because
in high power distance societies, people do not necessarily see anything wrong with power being
held by just a few or by a central leader. These high power distance societies often maintain
that hierarchal power is the most effective form of leadership. Therefore, if the same logic was
applied to US companies, the power dimension may not be an obstacle to servant leadership
but rather an opportunity for this type of leadership to be effective.
Choosing the correct leadership style is critical if organizations want to achieve desired results,
and to do that, leaders must have a clear understanding of how to measure the success of a
given leadership approach (Savage-Austin and Honeycutt 2011, 49). Servant leadership cannot
be successful if leaders do not know what barriers exist that impede the success of this leadership
model. Leaders and followers must form a partnership (Savage-Austin and Honeycutt 2011,
51). In their study of the experiences of 15 US business leaders who practice servant leadership,
129
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
they concluded that: 1) embracing servant leadership builds a sense of community within an
organization, 2) servant leaders still experience difficulty with convincing others that it is an
effective leadership model, and 3) barriers to servant leadership have a negative impact on organizations
and do not allow leaders to fully develop and teach their followers.
Traditional views of leadership are associated with the masculine dimension of gender and
include activities such as foresight, conceptualization, awareness, persuasion, risk-taking, and
assertiveness (Coleman 2003, 335). From the perspective of gender, caring and serving are
primarily associated with femininity and leading with masculinity; therefore, the elements of
servant leadership favor feminine-gendered behaviors (Reynolds 2011, 158).
As previously stated, both the US and Mexico are rated masculine on Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions scale. In a masculine society, men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused
on material success, but women are expected to be more modest, tender, and concerned with
quality of life, a characteristic of a servant leader. The only difference in a feministic society is
that men are also expected to be more modest, tender, and concerned with quality of life
(Migliore 2011, 41). The question then becomes whether or not a masculine society lends itself
to servant leadership and whether gender plays a role on the success or failure of the model.
Cultural values may ultimately affect how managers manage and how employees respond
that a specific leadership style. Applying one single management approach may not be adequate
for all settings and with all cultures. While some cultures may embrace a servant leadership
style, others may not. To be successful in cross-cultural management, an understanding of
cultural values and beliefs is necessary. Those cultural beliefs may also affect the management
styles between men and women. This study contributes to a better understanding of how culture
and gender affect the acceptance and effectiveness of servant leadership in the US and Mexico.
Research Questions
Research question 1: Are cultural values that point towards the acceptance of servant leadership
different for men and women in the US and Mexico?
Research question 2: Are servant leadership oriented values of older and younger generations
in the US and Mexico different?
Methodology and Data
Data for this study were from wave 4 of the World Values Survey (WVS). The WVS is conducted
by a global network of social scientists who survey people on all continents about their basic
values and beliefs (World values survey 2012). To collect data, interviews are carried out with
nationally representative samples of the population of different countries. There were five waves
of surveys: wave 1 was conducted from 1981 to 1984, interviews for wave 2 were conducted
1989 to 1993, wave 3 were 1994 to 1999, wave 4 was 1999 to 2004, and wave 5 was 2005
to 2008. Wave 4 was used for this study because it was the only wave that included responses
for the variables of interest in both the US and Mexico.
A total of 32 variables were selected to compare the differences between gender and among
age groups. Nine of the variables were ordinal and the rest were nominal. The ordinal variables
were: Importance of family in life; importance of friends in life; importance of leisure time;
importance of work in life; importance of service to others in life; satisfaction with life; following
instructions at work; freedom of choice and control; respect for individual human rights
nowadays. The nominal variables were: association with religious organization; association
with human rights organization; voluntary work in social welfare service for elderly, handicapped
or deprived people; voluntary work in religious or church organization; voluntary work in
human rights; voluntary work in education, arts, music or cultural activities; voluntary work
130
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
in organization concerned with health; most people can be trusted; good human relationships;
importance of having a respected job; importance of opportunity to use initiative at work; importance
of achieving something at work; importance of having a responsible job; importance
of having a job that meets one’s abilities; how business and industry should be managed; following
instructions at work; emphasis on money and material possessions in the future; importance
placed on work in the future; respect for authority in the future; emphasis on family life
in the future. The items and their scales are presented in Appendix A.
The variables were selected as proxies of different values and attitudes of the servant leader.
The servant leader puts others first and therefore the important of family, friends, and leisure
time were used to measure it. The servanthood characteristic of the servant leader was measured
with the importance of service as well as with the membership and volunteer work questions.
The leadership component was measured with the work related variables.
Results
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-Square analysis were used to explore country differences
between men and women respondents and among age groups. Three age group intervals were
used: 15 to 29 years old; 30 to 49 years old; 50 years old and older. The results are presented
in tables 2 through 9.
Table 2 shows the results of the ANOVA by gender for Mexico. The only variable with a
significant result at the 5% level was service to others, which was more important for Mexican
women than for Mexican men.
The results of the ANOVA by gender for the US are shown in Table 3. There were significant
differences between American men and women for the variables importance of family in life,
importance of service in life, and respect for individual human rights nowadays. American
women believed family and service to others are more important, while American men believe
there was more respect for individual human rights at the time of the survey.
The results of the chi-square analysis by gender for Mexico are presented in table 4. There
were significant differences between men and women for the variables member of religious
organization, voluntary work at religious organization, voluntary work at women’s group,
voluntary work at organization concerned with health, importance of opportunity to use initiative
at work, and importance place in work in the future. Mexican women were more likely
than Mexican men to belong to a religious organization; they were also more likely to do voluntary
work at a religious organization, at a women’s group, or at an organization concerned
with health; they believed that the opportunity to use one’s initiative is important in a job; they
were more likely to report that less importance placed on work in the future is a good thing.
Table 5 shows the results of the chi-square analysis by gender for the US. Just like Mexican
women, American women are more likely than American men to belong to a religious organization;
they are more likely to do voluntary work with the elderly, handicapped and deprived
people, as well as with a religious organization, women or youth group, or organizations concerned
with health; when asked about what is important in a job American women were more
likely to respond that the opportunity to use one’s initiative and that you can achieve something
were important; they were also more likely to respond that was a good thing that there would
be less importance placed on money and material possessions, more respect for authority, and
more importance placed on family.
Table 6 shows the results of ANOVA for Mexico by age group. Three variables were significant
at the 1% level: importance of work in life, importance of service to others, freedom of
choice and control. Work was more important for Mexican respondents between the ages of
30 and 49; service to others was more important for Mexicans age 50 or older; younger Mexicans
felt that they have less freedom of choice and control over their lives than those who were
over the age of 50.
131
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Table 2: ANOVA Mexico by Gender
P-value
Variable Male Female
(n=509) (n=488)
Important in life: Family 1.04 1.03 .365
Important in life: Friends 1.88 1.79 .076
Important in life: Leisure time 1.62 1.59 .622
Important in life: Work 1.13 1.17 .088
Service to others important in life 1.47 1.39 .035**
Satisfaction with your life 8.09 8.18 .538
Freedom of choice and control 8.30 8.19 .455
Respect for individual human rights nowadays 2.59 2.50 .119
** Significant at the 0.05 level
Table 3: ANOVA US by Gender
P-value
Variable Male Female
(n=490) (n=646)
Important in life: Family 1.08 1.03 .002***
Important in life: Friends 1.44 1.37 .054
Important in life: Leisure time 1.70 1.65 .288
Important in life: Work 1.55 1.63 .066
Service to others important in life 1.67 1.45 <0.001***
Satisfaction with your life 7.71 7.67 .696
Freedom of choice and control 8.08 7.97 .275
Respect for individual human rights nowadays 2.08 2.19 .011**
*** Significant at the 0.01 level
** Significant at the 0.05 level
132
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
Table 4: Chi-square: Mexico by Gender
P-value
Variable Male Female
(n=509) (n=488)
Member: Belong to religious organization .002***
Not mentioned 79.0% 70.3%
Belong 22.1% 24.6%
Member: Belong to human rights .777
Not mentioned 97.3% 97.5%
Belong 2.7% 2.5%
Voluntary work: elderly, handicapped or deprived people .055
Not mentioned 95.5% 92.6%
Belong 4.5% 7.4%
Voluntary work: religious or church organization .001***
Not mentioned 82.7% 74.2%
Belong 17.3% 25.8%
Voluntary work: education, arts, music or cultural activities .244
Not mentioned 93.5% 91.6%
Belong 6.5% 8.4%
Voluntary work: human rights .140
Not mentioned 99.2% 98.2%
Belong .8% 1.8%
Voluntary work: professional associations .343
Not mentioned 97.3% 98.2%
Belong 2.7% 1.8%
Voluntary work: youth work .903
Not mentioned 94.7% 94.9%
Belong 5.3% 5.1%
Voluntary work: women’s group .000***
Not mentioned 98.6% 94.7%
Belong 1.4% 5.3%
Voluntary work: peace movement .098
Not mentioned 98.0% 96.3%
Belong 2.0% 3.7%
Voluntary work: organization concerned with health .018**
Not mentioned 96.1% 92.6%
Belong 3.9% 7.4%
133
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Most people can be trusted .230
Most people can be trusted 24.5% 21.3%
Can’t be too careful 75.5% 78.7%
Good human relationships .214
Understand other’s preferences 49.2% 45.3%
Express one’s own 50.8% 54.7%
Important in a job: a respected job .124
Not mentioned 51.0% 46.1%
Mentioned 49.0% 53.9%
Important in a job: an opportunity to use initiative .020**
Not mentioned 45.1% 52.5%
Mentioned 54.9% 47.5%
Important in a job: that you can achieve something .853
Not mentioned 40.0% 40.6%
Mentioned 60.0% 59.4%
Important in a job: a responsible job .116
Not mentioned 41.2% 46.1%
Mentioned 58.8% 53.9%
Important in a job: a job that meets one’s abilities .659
Not mentioned 50.8% 49.4%
Mentioned 49.2% 50.6%
How business and industry should be managed .130
Owners should run their business 45.7% 44.7%
Owners/Employees participate in selection of managers 43.5% 39.8%
The State should be the owner 4.1% 5.1%
Employees should own the business and elect managers 6.7% 10.5%
Following instructions at work .117
Follow instructions 41.4% 44.9%
Must be convinced first 46.9% 47.1%
Depends 11.8% 8.0%
Future changes: Less emphasis on money and material .817
possessions
Good 58.2% 56.6%
Don’t mind 20.8% 20.9%
Bad 21.0% 22.5%
134
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
Future changes: Less importance placed on work .001***
Good 21.0% 31.1%
Don’t mind 13.5% 9.6%
Bad 65.5% 59.2%
Future changes: Greater respect for authority .477
Good 73.5% 76.2%
Don’t mind 20.0% 17.0%
Bad 6.5% 6.8%
Future changes: More emphasis on family life .409
Good 90.4% 89.3%
Don’t mind 6.7% 6.1%
Bad 2.9% 4.5%
*** Significant at the 0.01 level
** Significant at the 0.05 level
Table 5: Chi-Square: US by Gender
P-value
Variable 15–29 30–49
(n=490) (n=646)
Member: Belong to religious organization .000***
Not mentioned 48.8% 36.7%
Belong 51.2% 63.3%
Member: Belong to human rights .814
Not mentioned 94.9% 94.6%
Belong 5.1% 5.4%
Voluntary work: elderly, handicapped or deprived people .019**
Not mentioned 88.4% 83.4%
Belong 11.6% 16.6%
Voluntary work: religious or church organization .001***
Not mentioned 66.9% 57.1%
Belong 33.1% 42.9%
Voluntary work: education, arts, music or cultural activities .108
Not mentioned 82.0% 78.2%
Belong 18.0% 21.8%
Voluntary work: human rights .771
Not mentioned 97.3% 97.1%
Belong 2.7% 2.9%
135
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Voluntary work: professional associations .070
Not mentioned 87.3% 90.7%
Belong 12.7% 9.3%
Voluntary work: youth work .019**
Not mentioned 81.2% 75.4%
Belong 18.8% 24.6%
Voluntary work: women’s group .000***
Not mentioned 98.4% 84.7%
Belong 1.6% 15.3%
Voluntary work: peace movement .930
Not mentioned 97.8% 97.8%
Belong 2.2% 2.2%
Voluntary work: organization concerned with health .003***
Not mentioned 91.6% 85.9%
Belong 8.4% 14.1%
Most people can be trusted .241
Most people can be trusted 34.7% 38.1%
Can’t be too careful 65.3% 61.9%
Good human relationships .074
Understand other’s preferences 71.6% 76.3%
Express one’s own 28.4% 23.7%
Important in a job: a respected job .371
Not mentioned 55.9% 53.3%
Mentioned 44.1% 46.7%
Important in a job: an opportunity to use initiative .008***
Not mentioned 35.1% 42.9%
Mentioned 64.9% 57.1%
Important in a job: that you can achieve something .011**
Not mentioned 19.2% 13.6%
Mentioned 80.8% 86.4%
Important in a job: a responsible job .139
Not mentioned 43.3% 47.7%
Mentioned 56.7% 52.3%
Important in a job: a job that meets one’s abilities .705
Not mentioned 39.2% 38.1%
Mentioned 60.8% 61.9%
136
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
How business and industry should be managed .407
Owners should run their business 59.2% 59.4%
Owners/Employees participate in selection of managers 31.6% 33.9%
The State should be the owner 1.0% .9%
Employees should own the business and elect managers 8.2% 5.7%
Following instructions at work .054
Follow instructions 69.0% 62.1%
Must be convinced first 18.2% 22.3%
Depends 12.9% 15.6%
Future changes: Less emphasis on money and material .000***
possessions
Good 59.4% 71.2%
Don’t mind 33.3% 24.6%
Bad 7.3% 4.2%
Future changes: Less importance placed on work .041**
Good 31.6% 34.4%
Don’t mind 32.2% 36.5%
Bad 36.1% 29.1%
Future changes: Greater respect for authority .000***
Good 64.9% 76.3%
Don’t mind 27.6% 18.9%
Bad 7.6% 4.8%
Future changes: More emphasis on family life .020**
Good 92.9% 96.4%
Don’t mind 6.3% 2.9%
Bad .8% .6%
*** Significant at the 0.01 level
** Significant at the 0.05 level
137
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Table 6: ANOVA Mexico by Age
P-value
Variable 15–29 30–49 50 +
(n=408) (n=418) (n=171)
Important in life: Family 1.04 1.03 1.03 .585
Important in life: Friends 1.79 1.91 1.78 .084
Important in life: Leisure time 1.66 1.56 1.60 .174
Important in life: Work 1.20 1.09 1.15 .001***
Service to others important in life 1.50 1.42 1.28 <0.001***
Satisfaction with your life 8.10 8.01 8.51 .055
Freedom of choice and control 8.16 8.13 8.73 .007***
Respect for individual human rights nowadays 2.57 2.55 2.47 .463
*** Significant at the 0.01 level
** Significant at the 0.05 level
Table 7: ANOVA US by Age
P-value
Variable 15–29 30–49 50 +
(n=296) (n=493) (n=347)
Important in life: Family 1.07 1.06 1.03 .209
Important in life: Friends 1.48 1.42 1.30 <0.001***
Important in life: Leisure time 1.72 1.66 1.65 .380
Important in life: Work 1.47 1.55 1.78 <0.001***
Service to others important in life 1.66 1.54 1.45 <0.001***
Satisfaction with your life 7.59 7.47 8.07 <0.001***
Freedom of choice and control 8.15 7.92 8.05 .208
Respect for individual human rights nowadays 2.22 2.16 2.03 .002**
*** Significant at the 0.01 level
** Significant at the 0.05 level
138
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
Table 8: Chi-Square: Mexico by Age
P-value
Variable 15–29 30–49 50 +
(n=408) (n=418) (n=171)
Member: Belong to religious organization .011**
Not mentioned 77.9% 75.4% 66.1%
Belong 22.1% 24.6% 33.9%
Member: Belong to human rights .155
Not mentioned 98.5% 96.4% 97.1%
Belong 1.5% 3.6% 2.9%
Voluntary work: elderly, handicapped or deprived ***
people
Not mentioned 98.3% 93.3% 86.0% <0.001
Belong 1.7% 6.7% 14.0%
Voluntary work: religious or church organization .006***
Not mentioned 82.6% 78.0% 70.8%
Belong 17.4% 22.0% 29.2%
Voluntary work: education, arts, music or cultural .183
activities
Not mentioned 90.9% 94.3% 93.0%
Belong 9.1% 5.7% 7.0%
Voluntary work: human rights .400
Not mentioned 98.8% 99.0% 97.7%
Belong 1.2% 1.0% 2.3%
Voluntary work: professional associations .736
Not mentioned 97.5% 98.1% 97.1%
Belong 2.5% 1.9% 2.9%
Voluntary work: youth work .113
Not mentioned 93.1% 96.2% 95.9%
Belong 6.9% 3.8% 4.1%
Voluntary work: women’s group .007***
Not mentioned 98.5% 96.2% 93.6%
Belong 1.5% 3.8% 6.4%
Voluntary work: peace movement .420
Not mentioned 97.3% 97.8% 95.9%
Belong 2.7% 2.2% 4.1%
139
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Voluntary work: organization concerned with health .526
Not mentioned 95.3% 93.5% 94.2%
Belong 4.7% 6.5% 5.8%
Most people can be trusted .663
Most people can be trusted 23.3% 21.8% 25.1%
Can’t be too careful 76.7% 78.2% 74.9%
Good human relationships .588
Understand other’s preferences 46.3% 46.9% 50.9%
Express one’s own 53.7% 53.1% 49.1%
Important in a job: a respected job .569
Not mentioned 49.0% 49.8% 45.0%
Mentioned 51.0% 50.2% 55.0%
Important in a job: an opportunity to use initiative .859
Not mentioned 49.3% 48.8% 46.8%
Mentioned 50.7% 51.2% 53.2%
Important in a job: that you can achieve something .899
Not mentioned 39.5% 40.9% 40.9%
Mentioned 60.5% 59.1% 59.1%
Important in a job: a responsible job .206
Not mentioned 45.1% 44.5% 37.4%
Mentioned 54.9% 55.5% 62.6%
Important in a job: a job that meets one’s abilities .023**
Not mentioned 54.7% 48.6% 42.7%
Mentioned 45.3% 51.4% 57.3%
How business and industry should be managed .154
Owners should run their business 42.6% 45.7% 50.3%
Owners/Employees participate in selection of 44.4% 40.4% 38.0%
managers
The State should be the owner 5.4% 3.3% 5.8%
Employees should own the business and elect 7.6% 10.5% 5.8%
managers
Following instructions at work .000***
Follow instructions 37.7% 42.3% 57.3%
Must be convinced first 52.5% 47.6% 32.7%
Depends 9.8% 10.0% 9.9%
140
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
Future changes: Less emphasis on money, material .218
possessions
Good 57.6% 55.7% 61.4%
Don’t mind 23.3% 20.3% 16.4%
Bad 19.1% 23.9% 22.2%
Future changes: Less importance placed on work .194
Good 29.7% 24.2% 21.1%
Don’t mind 11.5% 11.2% 12.9%
Bad 58.8% 64.6% 66.1%
Future changes: Greater respect for authority .469
Good 72.3% 75.8% 78.9%
Don’t mind 20.3% 18.2% 14.6%
Bad 7.4% 6.0% 6.4%
Future changes: More emphasis on family life .324
Good 91.7% 89.0% 88.3%
Don’t mind 5.9% 6.9% 5.8%
Bad 2.5% 4.1% 5.8%
*** Significant at the 0.01 level
** Significant at the 0.05 level
Table 9: Chi-Square: US by Age
P-value
Variable 15–29 30–49 50 +
(n=296) (n=493) (n=347)
Member: Belong to religious organization <0.001***
Not mentioned 57.1% 38.3% 34.0%
Belong 42.9% 61.7% 66.0%
Member: Belong to human rights .188
Not mentioned 94.6% 95.9% 93.1%
Belong 5.4% 4.1% 6.9%
Voluntary work: elderly, handicapped or deprived <0.001***
people
Not mentioned 89.2% 88.4% 78.4%
Belong 10.8% 11.6% 21.6%
Voluntary work: religious or church organization <0.001***
Not mentioned 71.6% 56.0% 60.2%
Belong 28.4% 44.0% 39.8%
141
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Voluntary work: education, arts, music or cultural .460
activities
Not mentioned 77.4% 80.5% 81.0%
Belong 22.6% 19.5% 19.0%
Voluntary work: human rights .249
Not mentioned 95.9% 98.0% 97.1%
Belong 4.1% 2.0% 2.9%
Voluntary work: professional associations .303
Not mentioned 91.6% 88.8% 87.9%
Belong 8.4% 11.2% 12.1%
Voluntary work: youth work <0.001***
Not mentioned 81.4% 71.4% 84.1%
Belong 18.6% 28.6% 15.9%
Voluntary work: women’s group .004***
Not mentioned 94.9% 90.3% 87.3%
Belong 5.1% 9.7% 12.7%
Voluntary work: peace movement .112
Not mentioned 96.6% 98.8% 97.4%
Belong 3.4% 1.2% 2.6%
Voluntary work: organization concerned with health .455
Not mentioned 89.9% 88.6% 86.7%
Belong 10.1% 11.4% 13.3%
Most people can be trusted <0.001***
Most people can be trusted 25.0% 36.5% 46.7%
Can’t be too careful 75.0% 63.5% 53.3%
Good human relationships <0.001***
Understand other’s preferences 65.5% 74.8% 81.0%
Express one’s own 34.5% 25.2% 19.0%
Important in a job: a respected job .271
Not mentioned 51.4% 54.0% 57.6%
Mentioned 48.6% 46.0% 42.4%
Important in a job: an opportunity to use initiative <0.001***
Not mentioned 45.9% 41.4% 31.4%
Mentioned 54.1% 58.6% 68.6%
Important in a job: that you can achieve something .101
Not mentioned 19.9% 14.8% 14.4%
Mentioned 80.1% 85.2% 85.6%
142
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
Important in a job: a responsible job .099
Not mentioned 46.3% 48.7% 41.2%
Mentioned 53.7% 51.3% 58.8%
Important in a job: a job that meets one’s abilities .060
Not mentioned 40.2% 41.2% 33.4%
Mentioned 59.8% 58.8% 66.6%
How business and industry should be managed .003***
Owners should run their business 58.8% 55.8% 64.8%
Owners/Employees participate in selection of 29.7% 36.5% 30.5%
managers
The State should be the owner 2.4% .6% .3%
Employees should own the business and elect 9.1% 7.1% 4.3%
managers
Following instructions at work .280
Follow instructions 63.2% 65.5% 66.0%
Must be convinced first 24.3% 18.5% 20.2%
Depends 12.5% 16.0% 13.8%
Future changes: Less emphasis on money, material .002***
possessions
Good 57.8% 70.8% 66.6%
Don’t mind 36.8% 24.3% 26.8%
Bad 5.4% 4.9% 6.6%
Future changes: Less importance placed on work .480
Good 31.4% 35.5% 31.4%
Don’t mind 37.5% 33.7% 33.7%
Bad 31.1% 30.8% 34.9%
Future changes: Greater respect for authority <0.001***
Good 61.8% 72.2% 78.4%
Don’t mind 32.1% 21.9% 15.6%
Bad 6.1% 5.9% 6.1%
Future changes: More emphasis on family life .001***
Good 90.5% 96.6% 96.3%
Don’t mind 7.8% 2.8% 3.7%
Bad 1.7% .6% .0%
*** Significant at the 0.01 level
** Significant at the 0.05 level
143
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
The results of the ANOVA for the US by age group are presented in table 7. There were significant
results for importance of friends, importance of work, importance of service to others,
satisfaction with life, and respect for individual rights nowadays. Friends and service to others
were more important to American respondents age 50 or older; work was more important for
those between the ages of 15 and 29; respondents between the ages of 30 and 49 were more
satisfied with their lives; those who are 50 or older believe there is more respect for human
rights nowadays.
Table 8 shows the results of the chi-square analysis by age for the country of Mexico. There
were significant differences by age group for the variables membership to religious organization,
voluntary work with the elderly, voluntary work with religious organization, voluntary work
with women’s group, importance of a job to meet one’s abilities, and following instructions at
work. Mexican respondents who were age 50 or older were more likely than their younger
counterparts to belong as well as do voluntary work at a religious organization; they were more
likely to do voluntary work with the elderly, handicapped, or deprived people; moreover, the
same cohort is more likely to follow a superior’s instruction at work even if they don’t agree
with it.
The results of the Chi-square analysis by age with the data from the US are shown in Table
9. There were significant differences by age group for the variables membership to religious
organization, voluntary work with the elderly, voluntary work with religious organization,
voluntary work with youth group, voluntary work with women’s group, most people can be
trusted, good human relationships, importance of opportunity to use initiative at work, how
business and industry should be managed, less emphasis on money and material possessions
in the future, greater respect for authority in the future, and more emphasis on family life in
the future. American respondents who were age 50 or older were more likely to belong to a
religious organization; they were also more likely to do voluntary work with the elderly, handicapped,
or deprived people and with women’s groups; moreover, they were more likely than
younger respondents to believe that for good human relationships it is important to understand
others’ preferences; they are were more likely to believe it is important to have the opportunity
to use one’s initiative in a job; a larger percentage of this group also believed that owners of a
business should run their business as oppose to letting employees or the state run it; this age
group is also more likely to believe that a greater respect for authority in the future is a good
thing. On the other side, those who were between the ages of 30 to 49 were more likely to do
voluntary work for a religious organization or a youth group; and more likely to believe that
in the future it is a good thing to put less emphasis on money and material possessions and
more emphasis on family life.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate if cultural values that are related to servant leadership
are different for men and women and for people of different ages in the US and Mexico.
The results suggest that gender and age make a difference in cultural values that point towards
the acceptance of servant leadership.
The first research question aimed to answer if men and women in Mexico and US have different
cultural values and if this points to an acceptance of servant leadership. Service to others,
volunteer work at different organizations, and the opportunity to use initiative at a job were
more important for Mexican and American women than for Mexican and American men. These
findings suggest that women in both countries are more likely to exhibit values that are consistent
with servant leader characteristics, such as service to others and initiative. Although Mexico
and the US have been classified as masculine countries based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
scores (Lanzer et al. 2012, 2), the results of this study suggest that there is a gender difference
in cultural values in both countries. Moreover, less importance placed on work was a good
144
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
thing for Mexican women while less importance placed on money and more importance on
family were a good thing for American women. This is also consistent with previous studies
that report that feminine gendered behaviors favor a servant leadership style (Reynolds 2011,
158).
The second research question was about age differences in cultural values that are consistent
with the servant leadership style. The results suggest that younger and older people in the US
and Mexico have different values. Service was more important for Mexican and US respondents
who were 50 years old or older. This indicates that servant leadership traits may be displayed
by older people in both countries. Those who were under the age of 29 in Mexico reported a
sense of less freedom of choice and control, while American in the same age group reported
that work was more important. These two variables indicate that the younger age group may
be less inclined to perceive the servant leadership style as a good thing. Moreover, both in
Mexico and the US, those who were 50 years old or older were more likely to do voluntary
work at different organizations. American respondents in the same age group also said that for
good human relationships it is important to understand others’ preferences, which is also one
of the values attributed to servant leaders. Finally, Americans between the ages of 30 to 49 reported
that a good thing in the future would be to place less emphasis on money and material
possessions and more emphasis on family life, which are characteristics consistent with servant
leadership.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
One of the limitations of this study is the use of secondary data. Data for this study were from
the WVS, which is a cultural values survey and is not specifically designed to measure servant
leadership attributes. Therefore, all the variables in this study were used as a proxy of servant
leadership characteristics.
Another limitation is that wave 4 (2000) of the WVS was used because it was the only wave
that had the variables of interest for both countries. Therefore, the results are only for one point
in time, when data was collected.
In the future it would be of interest to investigate if there is an age effect within a specific
gender. For example, are women of a specific age group more likely to exhibit cultural values
consistent with servant leader characteristics?
Conclusion
The relationship between cultural values and leadership styles has become popular in the past
years as the world becomes increasingly interconnected. It is important to understand the differences
in cultural values among countries as well as how they affect leadership styles. Because
of its emphasis on collaboration, trust, and service, servant leadership has received great attention.
Although there is a perception that the US and Mexico may not be countries where the servant
leadership style would be embraced, our study suggests that some groups within each country
hold values that align with the servant leader model. Our findings indicate that American and
Mexican women have cultural values such as service and initiative at work, that are part of the
servant leadership model. Moreover, people who are 50 years old or older also reported that
service to others is an important part of their lives. Therefore, leaders in the US should consider
the background of their followers to determine if the servant leadership style would be accepted
in their organization. The results of this study suggest that women and people who are older
may perceive the servant leadership style as a good thing.
.
145
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
REFERENCES
Avolio, Bruce J., and Fred Luthans. 2006. The high impact leader: Moments matter for accelerating
authentic leadership development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Coleman, Marianne. 2003. “Gender and the orthodoxies of leadership.” School of Leadership
& Management 23(3), 325–339.
Ennis, Sharon R., Merarys Rios-Vargas and Nora G. Albert. 2011. “The Hispanic population
2010.” U.S. Census Bureau, May 2012. Accessed Jun 1, 2012. http://www.census.gov/
prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br–04.pdf
Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values
(California: Sage, 1980), 11.Gibson, Christina B. 1995. “An investigation of gender
differences in leadership across four countries.” Journal of International Business
Studies 26(2): 255–279.
Hannay, Maureen. 2009. “The cross-cultural leader: The application of servant leadership
theory in the international context.” Journal of International Business and Cultural
Studies 1: 1–12.
House, R. J. & Aditya, R. N. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?
Journal of Management, 23(3), 409–473.
House, Robert J., Paul J. Hanges, Javidan Mansour, Peter W. Dorfman, and Vipin Gupta.
2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
California: Sage Publications.
Irving, Justin, and Timothy McIntosh. 2010. “Investigating the value of and hindrances to
servant leadership the Latin American context: Initial findings from Peruvian leaders.”
Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies 2: 1–16.
Kohnen, J. 2011. Servant-leadership across cultures: Harnessing the strengths of the world’s
most powerful management. The Quality Management Journal, 18(4), 61.
Lanzer, Fernando., Matti Kyytsonen, Sjaak Papper, and Bob Waisfisz. “The Influence of Organizational
Culture in Business”. Geert Hofstede Seminar. Accessed 1 Jun 2012.
http://www.henryorg.fi/page?pageId=2941
McCarty, John. A., and Patricia M. Hattwick. 1992. “Cultural value orientations: A comparison
of magazine advertisements from the United States and Mexico.” Advances in
Consumer Research, 19: 34–38.
Migliore, Laura Anne. 2011. “Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions.” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1):
38–54.
Najera, Melissa. 2008. “Managing Mexican workers: Implications of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.”
Journal of International Business Research 7(2): 107–126.
Page, Don. and Paul T. P. Wong. 2000. “A conceptual framework for measuring servantleadership”,
in The Human Factor in Shaping the Course of History and Development,
edited by Senio B-S K. Adjibolosoo. Maryland: University Press of America.
Redpath, Lindsay, and Marianne O. Nielsen. 1997. “A comparison of native culture, nonnative
culture and new management ideology.” Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 14(3): 327–339.
Reynolds, Kae. 2011. “Servant-leadership as gender-integrative leadership: Paving a path for
more gender-integrative organizations through leadership education”. Journal of
Leadership Education, 10(2): 155–170.
Savage-Austin, Amy. R., and Andrew Honeycutt. 2011. “Servant leadership: A phenomenological
study of practices, experiences, organizational effectiveness, and barriers.”
Journal of Business & Economics Research 9(1): 49–54.
Spears, Larry C. 1996. Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal 17(7): 33–35.
146
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
Spears, Larry. C. 1998. Introduction to Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and
servant-leadership edited by Larry C. Spears, 1–12. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Vinod, Sangeetha., and Sudhakar, B. 2011. “Servant leadership: A unique art of leadership.”
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 2(2): 456–467.
Walumbwa, Fred O., Suzanne J. Peterson, Bruce J. Avolio, and Chad A. Hartnell. 2010. “An
investigation of the relationships among leader and follower psychological capital,
service climate, and job performance.” Personnel Psychology 63(4): 937–963.
Williams, Chuck. 2012. MGMT 5. Ohio: Cengage-Southwestern.
World Values Survey. 2012. “Learn more about the WVS.” Accessed March 20.
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
Appendix A
No Code Item Scale
1 ‘Very important’
1 A001 Family important in life 2 ‘Rather important’
3 ‘Not very important’
4 ‘Not at all important’
1 ‘Very important’
2 A002 Friends important in life 2 ‘Rather important’
3 ‘Not very important’
4 ‘Not at all important’
1 ‘Very important’
3 A003 Leisure time important in life 2 ‘Rather important’
3 ‘Not very important’
4 ‘Not at all important’
1 ‘Very important’
4 A005 Work important in life 2 ‘Rather important’
3 ‘Not very important’
4 ‘Not at all important’
1 ‘Very important’
5 A007 Service to others important in life 2 ‘Rather important’
3 ‘Not very important’
4 ‘Not at all important’
1 ‘Mentioned’ 6 A065 Belong to religious organization 2 ‘Not mentioned’
1 ‘Mentioned’ 7 A070 Belong to human rights 2 ‘Not mentioned’
Unpaid work social welfare service for 1 ‘Mentioned’
elderly, handicapped or deprived people 8 A081 2 ‘Not mentioned’
Unpaid work religious or church organ- 1 ‘Mentioned’
ization 9 A082 2 ‘Not mentioned’
Unpaid work education, arts, music or 1 ‘Mentioned’
cultural activities 10 A083 2 ‘Not mentioned’
147
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
1 ‘Mentioned’ 11 A087 Unpaid work human rights association 2 ‘Not mentioned’
1 ‘Mentioned’ 12 A089 Unpaid work professional associations 2 ‘Not mentioned’
1 ‘Mentioned’ 13 A090 Unpaid work youth work 2 ‘Not mentioned’
1 ‘Mentioned’ 14 A092 Unpaid work women’s group 2 ‘Not mentioned’
1 ‘Mentioned’ 15 A093 Unpaid work peace movement 2 ‘Not mentioned’
Unpaid work organization concerned with 1 ‘Mentioned’
health 16 A094 2 ‘Not mentioned’
1. ‘Most people can be trusted’. 17 A165 Most people can be trusted 2. ‘Have to be very careful’.
1. Understand other’s preferences 18 A169 Good human relationships 2. Express one’s own
1. Dissatisfied 19 A170 Satisfaction with your life 10. Satisfied
1. Not at all. 20 A173 How much freedom of choice and control 10. A great deal.
1 ‘Mentioned’ 21 C014 Important in a job: a respected job 2 ‘Not mentioned’
Important in a job: an opportunity to use 1 ‘Mentioned’
initiative 22 C016 2 ‘Not mentioned’
Important in a job: that you can achieve 1 ‘Mentioned’
something 23 C018 2 ‘Not mentioned’
1 ‘Mentioned’ 24 C019 Important in a job: a responsible job 2 ‘Not mentioned’
Important in a job: a job that meets one’s 1 ‘Mentioned’
abilities 25 C021 2 ‘Not mentioned’
1. Owners should run their business.
How business and industry should be
managed 26 C060
2. Owners/Employers participate in
selection of managers.
3. State should be the owner.
4. Employees should own the business.
1. Follow instructions
27 C061 Following instructions at work 2. Must be convinced first
3. Depends
148
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
1. Good. Future changes: Less emphasis on money and
materialpossessions 28 E014 2. Don’t mind.
3. Bad
1. Good.
29 E015 Future changes: Less importance placed on work 2. Don’t mind.
3. Bad
1. Good.
30 E018 Future changes: Greater respect for authority 2. Don’t mind.
3. Bad
1. Good.
31 E019 Future changes: More emphasis on family life 2. Don’t mind.
3. Bad
1. There is a lot of respect.
32 E124 Respect for individual human rights nowadays 2. There is some respect.
3. There is not much.
4. There is no respect at all.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Alicia Rodriguez-Rubio: Dr. Alicia Rodriguez is an Assistant Professor of Finance at the
HEB School of Business, University of the Incarnate Word, in San Antonio, TX. Her research
interest include servant leadership, small business management, and household economic decisions.
Dr. Angelina I. T. Kiser: Dr. Angelina I. T. Kiser is an associate professor and department chair
for management, management information systems, international business, and sports management
at the University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, TX. Her research interests include
business ethics, diversity, and technology in education. She has presented her work at peer reviewed
national and international conferences and has been published in numerous peer reviewed
journal. Dr. Kiser has traveled to several countries including England, France, Switzerland,
Canada, Greece, Guatemala, and Mexico where she has had the opportunity to explore business
and diversity issues. She has also conducted study abroad experiences with students where they
have the chance to visit businesses in order to gain a better understanding of their policies and
procedures. Dr. Kiser teaches a variety of business management courses that include a global
perspective, and she emphasizes the importance of working in a diverse workforce.
149
RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO: AN EXAMINATION OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
The Global Studies Journal is devoted to mapping
and interpreting new trends and patterns in
globalization. This journal attempts to do this from
many points of view, from many locations in the world,
and in a wide-angle kaleidoscopic fashion.
Intellectually, the journal takes three steps: the first
is a “this-worldly” step, mapping the details and
extrapolating to big picture analyses in order to interpret
what is at times challenging, dangerous and excitingly
positive about the “New Globalization”. The second step
is to set this New Globalization in the context of earlier
globalizations – what are the continuities, and what is
genuinely new? The third step is to re-examine and
redefine the very concept of globalization – in theoretical,
anthropological and philosophical terms. The journal
works between fastidiously empirical and profoundly
generalizing modes of engagement, analyzing one of
the central phenomena of our contemporary existence.
The Global Studies Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly
journal.
ISSN 1835-4432
Copyright of Global Studies Journal is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
