Article Component Papers (Ethical and Servant Leadership)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281559227

Servant Leadership: Approaching the Paradox from the Life-Stories of Ping Fu

Article  in  The Journal of Applied Management & Entrepreneurship · October 2014

DOI: 10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2014.oc.00005

CITATIONS

3

READS

247

6 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A dark side of political skill? Awareness and life satisfaction in a Latin American Business: View project

The entrepreneurial marketing of Trumpet Records View project

Alex Williams

Texas A&M University-Commerce

24 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Stephanie Pane Haden

Texas A&M University-Commerce

20 PUBLICATIONS   198 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Mario Hayek

Texas A&M University-Commerce

33 PUBLICATIONS   99 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Mildred Golden Pryor

Texas A&M University-Commerce

32 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brandon Randolph-Seng on 07 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 43

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

Servant Leadership: Approaching the Paradox from the Life-Stories of Ping Fu

John H. Humphreys, Texas A&M – Commerce

Wallace A. Williams, Jr., Texas A&M – Commerce

Stephanie Pane Haden, Texas A&M – Commerce

Mario Hayek, Texas A&M – Commerce

Mildred Golden Pryor, Texas A&M – Commerce

Brandon Randolph-Seng, Texas A&M – Commerce

Executive Summary

Although much has been written about the seeming paradox of servant leadership, scholars have yet to reach consensus on a theoretical model. In an attempt to resolve this conceptual confusion, van Dierendonck (2011) recently offered a broad framework emphasizing the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of servant leadership. Regrettably, we still lack sufficient studies that describe servant leadership in practice, leaving many fundamental questions unanswered. With current calls for examinations of leaders actually applying servant leadership, we argue that consideration of a contemporary leader whose philosophy, motivations, and practices resonate with, and in some ways reconcile, the paradoxical concept of leader as servant is warranted. We submit that Ping Fu, the founder and CEO of Geomagic, is such a leader. Accordingly, we analyzed her life-stories to further inform the servant leadership debate. Specifically, we integrate our insights concerning Fu’s leadership to illustrate the core of servant leadership emerging from her life-stories.

Servant leadership is a paradox … How can a person be a leader and a servant at the same time? Although servant leadership seems contradictory and challenges our traditional beliefs about leadership, it is an approach that offers a unique perspective.

(Northouse, 2013: 219)

I was still shy then … However, I was assertive in our assignments, going above and beyond … and driving our team to achieve excellence. Years later, I would find this approach written about in business management textbooks: it was a leadership style known as “servant leadership.”

(Fu & Fox, 2012: 64)

44 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The paradoxical notion of the servant leader was originated by Greenleaf (1970), largely based on his belief that service towards others is an essential element of human nature (Leduc, 2003). “However, despite its introduction four decades ago and empirical studies that started more than 10 years ago (Laub, 1999), there is still no consensus about a definition and theoretical framework of servant leadership” (van Dierendonck, 2011: 1229). In an attempt to resolve this conceptual confusion, van Dierendonck (2011) analyzed the plethora of models inspired by Greenleaf’s ideas, to offer a broad framework emphasizing the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of servant leadership. Regrettably, we still lack sufficient studies that describe servant leadership in practice, as the preponderance of servant leader writing has been prescriptive (Northouse, 2013). This leaves many fundamental questions unanswered (Parris & Peachey, 2013). As a result, Whetstone (2002: 390) suggested that the questions surrounding servant leadership might be “best answered by observing leaders genuinely adopting servant leadership.”

The above autobiographical reference to her own servant leadership style was made by an extraordinary entrepreneurial leader, Ping Fu, the founder and CEO of Geomagic, a 3D digital technology company. As we will show, the story of her strength, courage, and resilience in serving those in her sphere of influence is remarkable. With current calls for more examinations of leaders actually practicing servant leadership, we argue that consideration of a contemporary leader whose philosophy, motivations, and practices resonate with, and in some ways reconcile, the paradoxical concept of leader as servant is warranted. Accordingly, we analyzed her life- stories (Shamir & Eilam, 2005) to further inform the servant leadership debate.

We begin by describing the assumptions of logic, method, and theoretical lens directing our interpretive study. We then briefly review the current state of servant leadership theory, focusing on the recent theoretical framework proposed by van Dierendonck (2011). Next, we introduce Ping Fu and attempt to situate her leadership motives, attributes, and behaviors within van Dierendonck’s (2011) conceptual model of servant leadership. Finally, noting the unique and incongruous aspects of Fu’s servant leadership, we integrate insights gleaned from her case to illustrate the servant leader core emerging from her life-stories.

Assumptions and Approach

Although studies of contemporary organizational leaders can be phenomenological, tending to favor realism over internal validity (Chatman & Flynn, 2005), Shamir and Eilam (2005) argued that the experiences chosen by a leader to appear in their life-stories reflects the leader’s self-concepts, their concept of leadership, and the processes that enable their leadership practice. From this perspective, objectivity in the recounting of events is of lesser importance than the construction and interpretation of events (Neisser, 1994), as leaders select the elements of their stories. In doing so, they often ascribe meaning to prior events that may not have held significant meaning at the time of manifestation (Josselson, 1993). Thus, life-stories can be examined as “depositories of meaning” (Gabrial, 2000: 15) and “analyzed to discover those meanings” (Shamir & Eilam, 2005: 413). Shamir and Eilam (2005: 413) specifically endorsed the “autobiographies of leaders” as a desirable data source for such analysis.

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 45

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

As theories of servant leadership are still at a nascent stage (van Dierendonck, 2011), a life-stories case methodology grounded in inductive logic is appropriate (Yin, 2003). Siggelkow (2007) argued that interpretive conceptualization from unique cases could offer insights (Rowley, 2002) and explanatory knowledge (Tsoukas, 1989) that might not be achieved with other approaches. Moreover, Parris and Peachey (2013) recently called for studies focused on the personal attributes and backgrounds of servant leaders.

Consequently, taking a critical biographical approach to life-stories (Shamir & Eilam, 2005), the case of Ping Fu was not chosen randomly (see Siggelkow, 2007). Her case was selected because she self-described her leadership style as servant leadership and her autobiography, Bend, Not break – A life in two worlds, provides her narrative of the significant events and experiences that influenced her leadership across time (see Shamir, 2011).

In addition, Ping Fu’s life has been one of paradox. She recounted that, “I would study both art and science, embrace both a Chinese and an American identity, and develop as both a mother and an entrepreneur” (Fu & Fox, 2012: 125). Yet, she was able to reconcile these contradictions and develop a unified self-concept. This resonates with the contradictions inherent with a leadership approach charged with both leading and serving. Thus, we reasoned that an analysis of her case might allow us to not only compare the servant leadership process emerging from her life-stories with the theoretical framework of van Dierendonck (2011), but to also provide some intimation of how she was able to consistently exhibit this paradoxical leadership approach. Because we are attempting to offer an inductive framework of the servant leadership core emerging from the life-stories of Ping Fu, we follow the recommendation of Siggelkow (2007) to first describe the theoretical foundation for the study and then use the case of Fu’s leadership as illustration.

Servant Leadership

Greenleaf (1970) is credited with proposing the notion of servant leadership. Based upon his philosophy of service to others, he advanced a general leadership concept where the primary leader function is serving others (Greenleaf, 1977). Even though Greenleaf did not provide a precise definition of servant leadership, he did describe the effect on followers, while others have attempted to define the paradigm (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). For example, Spears (1998) defined servant leadership in terms of actions that honor the self-worth of followers. Laub (1999: 83) explained servant leadership as the “… practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader … for the common good ...” Similarly, Birkenmeier, Carson, and Carson (2003: 375) suggested that, “Servant leaders transcend personal self-interest and aspire to fulfill the physical, spiritual, and emotional needs of others.”

Beyond a general definition, clarifying discrete conceptual elements of servant leadership has proven even more complicated (Parris & Peachey, 2013). For example, Kiechel (1992) proposed five aspects: valuing people, listening, healing, self-effacing behavior, and stewardship. Spears (1995), however, outlined ten interrelated characteristics presented by servant leaders:

46 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. Laub (1999) proposed six distinct elements: valuing people, developing people, building community, showing authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership. Daft (1999), though, suggested four rudiments associated with servant leadership: service before self, listening as a means of affirmation, creating trust, and nourishing followers to become whole.

This list could go on, as numerous scholars have presented their own versions of the key elements of servant leadership (e.g., Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Patterson, 2003; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Wong & Davey, 2007). Unfortunately, these proposals had varying foci (Parris & Peachey, 2013) and most did not segregate behavior, precursors, and/or effects (van Dierendonck, 2011); thus, the current unenviable state of construct ambiguity.

In an attempt to produce an overall conceptual model of servant leadership, van Dierendonck (2011) examined the 44 characteristics imputed by the diverse models of servant leadership previously proposed. He argued that by “differentiating between antecedents, behavior, mediating processes, and outcomes and by combining the conceptual models with the empirical evidence” available, “one can distinguish six key characteristics of servant leadership that bring order to the conceptual plurality” (van Dierendonck, 2011: 1232).

We find this recent depiction to be the most comprehensive theoretical model of servant leadership in the journal literature. As this is the case, we elect to use the author’s words to elucidate his conceptualization. Within this framework, van Dierendonck (2011: 1254) proposed that servant leadership:

“… is displayed by leaders who combine their motivation to lead with a need to serve. Personal characteristics and culture are positioned alongside the motivational dimension. Servant leadership is demonstrated by empowering and developing people, by expressing humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, and stewardship; and by providing direction. A high-quality dyadic relationship, trust, and fairness are expected to be the most important mediating processes to encourage self-actualization, positive job attitudes, performance, and a stronger organizational focus on sustainability and CSR.”

However, though reasoned and thoughtful, this conceptualization is essentially an amalgamation of prior interpretations that failed to achieve consensus among servant leadership researchers, indicating that further debate is needed (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Accordingly, we followed the guidance of Whetstone (2002) to qualitatively assess the core of van Dierendonck’s (2011) model by contrasting his conceptualization with a practicing servant leader, Ping Fu.

The Life-stories of Ping Fu

Ping Fu’s life-stories provide a compelling narrative of resilience and triumph (see Fu & Fox, 2012). Although now the CEO of Geomagic, as a child (during the Cultural Revolution in

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 47

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

China) she was a coerced factory worker and abused political captive. Separated from her family at the age of eight, she was beaten and gang raped at age ten for her “black blood,” the term given to those whose families were affluent and educated. This traumatic event earned her the nickname of “broken shoe” – a disparaging expression typically given to prostitutes.

At the age of 25, Ping Fu was deported from China to the United States. She arrived with little money, no ability to speak English, and no family or friends. What followed was an amazing life as a maid, a waitress, a student, a software programmer, an innovator, a mother, an entrepreneur (named entrepreneur of the year in 2005 by Inc. magazine), a CEO, and a member of President Obama’s National Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. “Aided by her well- honed survival instincts, a few good friends, and the kindness of strangers, she grew into someone she never thought she’d be – a strong, independent, entrepreneurial leader” (Fu and Fox, 2012, jacket). Also, she explicitly labeled her own leadership style as “servant leadership” (Fu & Fox, 2012: 64). Thus, the life-stories of Ping Fu were analyzed to situate her servant leader elements and antecedents within the model proposed by van Dierendonck (2011).

Situating the Servant Leadership of Ping Fu into van Dierendonck’s Framework

The model of van Dierendonck (2011) commences with Greenleaf’s (1977) general premise that servant leaders have a combined need to serve and motivation to lead. The case of Fu supports this perspective, albeit beginning with a decided desire to serve others before any appearance of leadership motivation materializes. Our examination also supports the six servant leader elements as described by van Dierendonck (2011) as part of the core of servant leadership – empowering people, humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship. Yet, Fu’s leadership offers a persuasive case for an additional component that specifically contributed to her ability to reconcile serving with leading – hermeneutic processes. Furthermore, the servant leader antecedents described in Fu’s narratives significantly differ from van Dierendonck’s (2011) proposals. While the case supports moral cognitive development, self- determination and cognitive complexity appear to be largely incongruent with Fu’s servant leadership development, as artistic appreciation, strength, courage, resilience, and an underlying moral philosophy of personalism enabled her to act as a servant leader.

Illustrating the Servant Leadership Process from the Life-stories of Ping Fu

In illustrating the servant leadership core emerging from the life-stories (Shamir & Eilam, 2005) of Ping Fu (see Figure 1), we are in no way attempting to portray the model of van Dierendonck (2011) as specious. In fact, our study supports significant portions of this framework. Rather, we are pointing to the plurality of servant leadership theory (see Parris & Peachey, 2013) and attempting to join this particular scholarly conversation to further inform the servant leader debate (Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009).

48 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

Figure 1. An Inductive Illustration of the Servant Leadership Core Emerging from the Life-stories of Ping Fu

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 49

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

First, based upon our examination of the life-stories of Ping Fu (all quotes are from Fu and Fox, 2012); we take no issue with van Dierendonck’s (2011: 1243) assertion that “the cornerstone of servant leadership lies in the combined motivation to lead with a need to serve.” Although he shows the need to serve and motivation to lead together, primarily to maintain the possibility that either dimension could precede the other, in the case of Fu, her desire to serve others emerged before thoughts of her potential to lead others. She attributed this desire to serve others from the generosity and “acts of kindness” that carried her through her “darkest hours” (234). She even states that she was born with “the desire to help others …” (273).

Although Fu’s motivation to lead appeared secondarily in her life-stories, it is nonetheless evident. Her motive to lead, however, was underpinned by a helping power motivation (see Frieze & Boneva, 2001). She was even motivated to help one of her primary tormentors (a youth leader in the Red Guard) with her studies. This suggests that Fu did not have a low need for power as predicted by Graham (1991), or an attitude of powerless servility, but a need to use power to help others as proposed by van Dierendonck (2011). In return, she found that her kindness to others helped her overcome some of her timidity and inward focus over time. Thus, in our illustration, we portray the desire to serve others leading to the motivation to lead with a helping motivation, which corresponds to Greenleaf’s (1977) initial description.

According to van Dierendonck (2011), leaders with a desire to serve and motivation to lead display the six servant leader elements of empowering people, showing humility, revealing authenticity, accepting others for who they are, providing direction when needed, and acting as stewards who consider what is in the best interest of the whole. We find support for each of these servant leader practices in the life-stories of Ping Fu.

Empowering people is a motivational concept that enables others to learn and perform (Conger, 2000; Greenleaf, 1998). Empowering leaders, therefore, encourage “self-directed decision-making …” (van Dierendonck, 2001: 1233) by followers. In her autobiography, Fu strongly supports the empowering of people, indicating that she “could become a bottleneck at Geomagic” if she attempted to make all of the crucial decisions herself and that she needed to trust her team and not become a ‘helicopter CEO’” (220).

Leaders with humility actively seek the expertise of others and put their own successes in proper perspective by acknowledging the contributions of others (Patterson, 2003). Fu’s humility resounds throughout her narratives, potentially influenced by the modesty associated with her Chinese heritage. Her stories recount her recognition of her personal “limitations” (173) and “blind spots” (194). She often referred to her “vulnerability” (e.g., 81, 274) and consistently demonstrated a curiosity and willingness to learn from friends and foe alike.

Such expressions of vulnerability are also associated with authenticity (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Servant leaders display their true selves and maintain behavioral integrity (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Again, Fu’s narratives consistently exhibit authenticity and the empowerment of authenticity from followers. For example, she recounted that, “By expressing my genuine feelings to Geomagic’s employees, I had opened the door for them to share theirs” (245). She admitted that to become an effective CEO she needed to develop her ability to “listen

50 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

with respect, communicate with clarity, and influence with authenticity …” (200). She also demonstrated her grasp of the important role of self-awareness in being perceived as an authentic leader. This can be evidenced by her quote of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu: “He who conquers others is strong. He who conquers himself is mighty” (92).

Self-aware leaders are better able to appreciate the perspectives of others (George, 2000) and use that perspective to enhance their own sense of the world. The ability to appreciate the perspective of others and the ability to let go of perceived wrongdoings imply interpersonal acceptance (McCullough, Hoyt, & Rachal, 2000), which ultimately engenders trust (Ferch, 2005). Ping Fu should be considered the role model for interpersonal acceptance. First, she forgave her captors and tormentors as a child, leaving her “even more compassionate and vulnerable” than she had been before (269). As a CEO, she proclaimed, “Blaming others, being fearful and angry, acting vengefully, building resentment, destroying trust – these negative responses to trying situations suck us into a downward spiral and sap our energy … Love even the people who drive us crazy, those who undermine us, and those who fail us, offering them compassion and forgiveness” (185). Her leader behavior was consistent with this approach. On one occasion she had allowed others to cast blame on a former employee. She invited this man to lunch and offered him the following apology (195):

I blamed you for wasting the money and not helping me build a viable company. I understand now that was not a fair point of view. You were just as inexperienced as I was, and I was just as responsible as you were. I admired you then, and I continue to admire you today. … I wanted you to know.

This perspective, however, does not suggest that Ping Fu was hesitant to provide direction to followers who needed it. In his model, van Dierendonck (2011) specifically included providing direction as a characteristic of an effective servant leader. Servant leaders let followers know of their expectations (Laub, 1999) but do so within their creativity to demonstrate new ways of solving old problems (Russell & Stone, 2002), something that Bass (1985) would label as intellectual stimulation. Fu used her creativity on numerous occasions to teach others new ways of looking at problems. In one instance in graduate school, her group was asked to design an intelligent traffic light control system. Though most students wrote a logic flow paper, Ping Fu had a “different idea” and convinced her group to “go along” with her (64). Instead, they built a working system using toy cars, resistors, capacitors, and transformers. She added her creativity to the problem solving abilities of the engineers in the class. She later brought the same creativity and direction to the group that created NCSA Mosaic, which became Netscape.

That creativity and direction, though, was supplied for the benefit of the group. This speaks to the idea of stewardship. Van Dierendonck (2011) argued that servant leaders should act as role models, taking responsibility for the broader group. Fu is an exemplar of this obligation. She modeled her expectations, saying on one occasion, “I didn’t want to profit from gamesmanship, and I needed to accept responsibility for my own mistakes” (195). Also, her focus was on the broader whole, “respecting mutual interests, and engaging others with compassion …” (201). When she stepped down as CEO shortly after her company’s founding,

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 51

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

her greatest concern was that she had “abandoned” her employees (182). It was her recognition of herself as a steward that prompted her to retake the helm when the firm struggled.

Having revealed these six elements of servant leadership in the life-stories of Ping Fu provides support for the servant leadership elements advanced by van Dierendonck (2011). However, allowing the case data to speak, there is evidence that her servant leadership was also characterized by hermeneutic processes associated with the emerging concept of aesthetic leadership (see Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Pane Haden, Diaz, Humphreys, & Hayek, 2013).

Hermeneutics implies seeking, questioning, interpreting, and crafting meaning (Woodward & Funk, 2010). Hermeneutic leaders, or Hermenauts, craft meaning by relying on their own past experiences, as well as their pre-existing mental schemas, predispositions, attitudes, and curiosity (Berman, 2006). This is consistent with Leduc’s (2003:32) assertion that servant leaders are “reflective” individuals. Triggering the practice of hermeneutics are the aesthetic processes that require leaders to tap into their senses in order to interpret and create meaning for others (Woodward & Funk, 2010).

Although these hermeneutic processes are more commonly associated with artist-leader (Woodward & Funk, 2010) and leading beautifully (Ladkin, 2008) perspectives, Ping Fu’s curiosity and meaning-making exemplify these positions. This is not surprising, as Ping Fu describes herself as “an artist and a scientist whose chosen expression is business” (www.amazon.com/Ping-Fu). Moreover, her autobiography is filled with references to art and beauty. She said she was a “scientist and artist by nature” (135). She also took art classes because artists offer a “different perspective” (102). She proclaimed that as a child she “sought out beauty” (103) and as an adult searched for the “underlying beauty” in technology (97), “creating beautiful objects from computer programs” (103), as programming was as much “art as science” (64). She recounted that she searched for “beauty in a world where so much around us in rough and crude” (84). She even described the name of her company as “a poetic version of what we want to do” (154).

Fu suggests that her ability to practice servant leadership was due in part to her artistic character (125). Her “appreciation of ideas” (12) and intense “curiosity” (273), exhibited in conjunction with her ability to create meaning through “an engaging narrative” (102), certainly resonant with current definitions of hermeneutic processes (Woodward & Funk, 2010). We argue that these hermeneutic processes played an important role in her capacity to reconcile the paradox of serving with leading, and the duality of her leader self-concept, and should therefore be included in the elements within her servant leader core. We reason the inclusion of hermeneutic processes could allow servant leadership to move beyond the predictable “idealistic” (van Dierendonck, 2011: 1254) critiques and into the domain of effective practice.

Doing so, of course, necessitates identifying the individual characteristics that inform these processes. We argue that the hermeneutic processes inherent in Fu’s servant leader elements emerged from her artistic appreciation. “When the artist is alive in people, whatever their kind of work may be, they become inventive, searching, daring, self-expressing creatures …” (Henri, cited in Sandelands & Buckner, 1989: 128). Therefore, artistic appreciation is a way

52 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

of perceiving that can be applied to anything, not just art (Springborg, 2010). The artistic appreciation process extends beyond only analytical interpretation of data and events (Springborg, 2010). While leaders do benefit from analyzing data using their rational minds (science), utilizing the process of artistic appreciation can broaden the scope of information gathered and assist in making sense of complex situations (Springborg, 2010) in order to craft meaning for followers (Woodward & Funk, 2010). Thus, in our conceptualization, we add artistic appreciation as an individual characteristic antecedent of the servant leader elements emerging from Fu’s life-stories.

In van Dierendonck’s (2011) proposal, the individual antecedents proposed are self- determination, moral cognitive development, and cognitive complexity. Self-determination, an awareness of choice in initiating one’s actions, arises from three psychological needs: feeling competent, feeling connected, and feeling autonomous. When these needs are met, a self- determined leader operates from an integrated perspective rather than for egocentric purposes (van Dierendonck, 2011). Yet, the life-stories of Fu indicate that while tenacious, she often lacked confidence (e.g., 178) and felt isolated (e.g., 234) and insecure (163). Even as a CEO she felt “uncertain” about her “ability to lead” (172). She understood that her future was in her hands but the persisting doubts are indicative of an individual struggling with self-determination.

We interpret similar incongruity with cognitive complexity as a potential antecedent. Cognitive complexity speaks to an individual’s capacity to accurately judge social situations (van Dierendonck, 2011). Ping Fu readily admitted she was shy and introverted by nature and uncomfortable with social situations. Though her life-stories show development in this element of her leader self-concept, it is difficult for us to assign antecedent status to this characteristic.

We do, however, find support for van Dierendonck’s (2011) proposal that moral cognitive development is a likely antecedent to servant leadership. In Kohlberg’s (1969) stages of moral development, one has achieved the highest level of development when mutual respect becomes a guiding principle. Fu speaks often of “respecting mutual interests” (201) and listening with “respect” (200), even describing her first taste of entrepreneurship as a collegial relationship “based on camaraderie and mutual respect” (69).

Moreover, we think that her underlying moral philosophy offers another potential modification to van Dierendonck’s (2011) framework. In his servant leader model, van Dierendonck (2011) included culture in the way of humane orientation and power distance. While we take no exception with the idea that societies that encourage such tendencies are likely to develop more servant leaders, we find portraying the cultural influence as a direct antecedent feeding into the servant leader core awkward. Any number of contextual influences could impact the likelihood of servant leader development. Also, we think that van Dierndonck (2011) actually alluded to a better way to include these proclivities. He differentiated servant leadership from other leadership forms based on the attitude towards other actors. “As in personalism (Whetstone, 2002), there is a growing commitment to treat each individual respectfully, with an awareness that each person deserves to be loved” (van Dierendonck, 2011: 1231). Whetstone (2002) argued that servant leadership was the leadership form most consistent with personalism.

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 53

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

Personalism regards persons and relationships as the starting point of social theory (Bartnik, 1995) and “makes explicit the duty of respect … and care for people, emphasizing human dignity and the innate rights of every human being” (Melé, 2009: 229). The life-stories of Ping Fu are replete with examples intimating her moral philosophy of personalism. This is best shown by her acknowledgement that she “came to see that everybody is somebody” (167). She also offered that that this philosophy “must come from within our own hearts” (167). We propose, then, that an underlying moral philosophy of personalism as an individual antecedent is a superior representation than the inclusion of cultural probabilities. Also, since this underlying moral philosophy influences one’s motivation to lead (van Dierendonck, 2011) outside of the seven servant leader elements directly, we show this antecedent effect as well.

Additionally, the individual characteristics of strength, courage, and resilience resound through Fu’s life-stories. This is best revealed by her Shanghai Papa’s story from his traditional Chinese garden concerning the three friends of winter (10-11):

There are three friends of winter: the pine tree, the plum blossom, and bamboo … Pine trees are strong. They remain happy and green throughout the year. In the unbearable heat of summer and the severe cold of winter, they stand unperturbed.

The crimson petals of the plum blossom gleam brilliantly against the white snow … The ability to bloom in the midst of misfortune suggests dignity and forbearance under harsh circumstances.

Bamboo is flexible, bending with the wind but never breaking, capable of adapting to any circumstance. It suggests resilience, meaning that we have the ability to bounce back from even the most difficult times.

Ping Fu understood that these parables referred to “strength, courage, and resilience” (34). She consistently demonstrated all of these characteristics in her life-stories, with resilience being the dominant theme.

In summary, attempting to extricate the antecedents and elements of the servant leader core from the life-stories of Ping Fu, we propose that her servant leadership combined an altruistic desire to serve with a motivation to lead emerging from a helping power motivation and influenced by a moral philosophy of personalism. Beyond this underlying moral philosophy, the elements of servant leadership were also influenced by the individual characteristics of artistic appreciation, moral cognitive development, strength, courage, and resilience. As a result, Ping Fu’s servant leadership was demonstrated by empowering people, by expressing humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, and stewardship; and by providing direction through the utilization of hermeneutic processes.

Discussion, Contributions, Limitations, and Future Research

Upon advancing his synthesized model, van Dierendonck (2011: 1256) concluded that although servant leaders have been around for centuries, “servant leadership is an intriguing new

54 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

field for … researchers.” While we agree, after forty years of conceptualization and a decade of empirical work, the lack of clarity encompassing the elements of servant leadership should serve as a cautionary tale for scholars, as the current state points to the dangers of significant empirical research and the development of assessment instruments prior to a sensible level of construct consensus (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). We argue that we too often fail to generate adequate qualitative evidence initially to support subsequent deductive research, a step that is important in the production of operational knowledge (Adcroft & Willis, 2008).

Readers will also note that we focused only on elements involved in supplying the core of servant leadership. We purposely did not attempt to address the outcomes of servant leadership, though van Dierendonck (2011) did within his model. While we do not necessarily disagree with his results assessment in totality, the support for the individual, team, and organizational outcomes in his framework emerged from studies utilizing inconsistent servant leader facets and definitions. Consequently, we argue that resulting climates and outcomes should be addressed only once greater consensus has been reached about the core features of servant leadership, as “good science has to begin with good definitions” (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991: 15).

Therefore, answering calls for examinations of the attributes (Parris & Peachey, 2013) of practicing servant leaders (Whetstone, 2002), we observed a leader whose words and practices resonate with, and even reconciled, the paradoxical concept of the servant leader. Scrutinizing the narratives of Ping Fu, we applied a life-stories approach (Shamir & Eilam, 2005) to illustrate the antecedents and elements informing the core of her servant leadership. Although one contribution of this research is the promotion of life-stories as a qualitative research method, more significantly, we hope that our conceptualization might resurrect the elemental debate and encourage scholars working within this domain to focus attention and reach consensus on a general model of servant leadership before additional empirical work leads us farther afield.

We also encourage researchers to further consider how servant leadership might be presented to avoid being refuted as naïve, idealistic, paradoxical, and unrealistic (Bowie, 2000). With the case of Ping Fu, we conclude that the dual nature of being a scientist and an artist allowed her to harness the contradiction of leading and serving. As a result, our interpretation supported the inclusion of certain elements of aesthetic leadership (Pane Haden et al., 2013) in her leader characteristics and practice. Specifically, we argue that it was her artistic appreciation (Springborg, 2010) that led to her utilization of hermeneutic processes (Woodward & Funk, 2010) to craft meaning for followers. We contend that these elements allowed her to function as “an adaptive innovator” who created a “new landscape” for her organization and those she leads (Fisher, 2004: 5). We agree with Ladkin and Taylor (2010, p. 236) that organizational leaders would be “well-advised to look to the artist, whose purpose throughout the ages has been to navigate unchartered territories and reveal the difficulties as well as the glories lurking within them.” As this is the case, additional concepts from aesthetic leadership should be considered, as they might prove beneficial in the conceptualization of servant leadership.

In addition, within our interpretation, we advanced the idea that Fu’s underlying moral philosophy of personalism influenced her motivation to lead from a helping power base, as well

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 55

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

the elements of servant leadership inside her servant leader core. Further research is needed to particularly account for the role of personalism (Whetstone, 2002), as well as other closely related philosophies (e.g., existentialism), in directing servant leadership.

Also, we encourage future research that examines the psychological capital (PsyCap) of servant leaders. The leadership domain imported the concept of PsyCap from the positive psychology movement (Hannah & Luthans, 2008). PsyCap is a second-order construct comprised of four first-order constructs: hope, resilience, optimism, and confidence (Luthans, 2002). With resilience considered a crucial aspect of the PsyCap directing authentic leadership development (Luthans & Avolio, 2003), and van Dierendonck’s (2011) subsuming of authentic leadership into his servant leader model, we analyzed Fu’s life-stories searching for evidence of PsyCap. Although we found a multitude of references to her resiliency, her life-stories show little evidence of the other first order constructs of PsyCap. We have already detailed her lack of confidence in her leadership ability. She did indicate that it was her resiliency that allowed her to “cultivate hope” (262). Yet, her optimism was not robust, as she asserted that her life journey had taught her “not to count on a better outcome before life presents you with it” (196-197). It may be that the PsyCap resources for servant leaders differ from authentic leaders.

We do recognize the limitation of a unique case utilizing a life-stories methodology. While we acknowledge the limited ability to generalize from this study, the offsetting strengths provide justification (see Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Siggelkow, 2007). Also, the current state of construct confusion regarding servant leadership would indicate the realization of generalizability is premature (see Fairhurst, 2009). van Dierendonck (2011) posited that servant leadership might be Plato’s ultimate form, as described in The Republic. If so, then we should make a concerted effort to achieve conceptual consensus of such a positive leadership approach.

References

Adcroft, A., & Willis, R. (2008). A snapshot of strategy research 2002-2006. Journal of Management History, 14(4), 313-333.

Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326. doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091

Bartnik, C. (1995). Personalism. Lublin: Czas.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations: Free Press.

Berman, M. P. (2006). Locke the Hermenaut and the mechanics of understanding. Humanitas, 19.

Birkenmeier, B., Carson, P. P., & Carson, K. D. (2003). The father of Europe: An analysis of the supranational servant leadership of Jean Monnet. International journal of organization theory and behavior, 6, 374-400.

56 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

Bowie, N. E. (2000). Business ethics, philosophy, and the next 25 years. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7-20.

Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 13-22.

Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2005). Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior research. Organization Science, 16(4), 434-447.

Conger, J. A. (2000). Motivate performance through empowerment. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 137-149). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice: Dryden Press Fort Worth, TX.

Dennis, R., S. , & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600-615.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2009). Considering context in discursive leadership research. Human Relations, 62(11), 1607-1633.

Ferch, S. R., & Center, R. K. G. (2003). Servant-leadership, forgiveness, and social justice: Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership.

Fisher, J. R. (2004). Leaders as Artists. Executive excellence, 21, 5-5.

Frieze, I. H., & Boneva, B. S. (2001). Power motivation and motivation to help others. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 75-89). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Fu, P., & Fox, M. M. (2012). Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds: Penguin Group US.

Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in Organizations: Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies: Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies: Oxford University Press.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The Servant as Leader. Indianapolis: The Robert Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant leadership: essays: Berrett-Koehler.

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 57

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

Hannah, S. T., & Luthans, F. (2008). A cognitive affective processing explanation of positive leadership. In R. H. Humphrey (Ed.), Affect and Emotion: New Directions in Management: Theory and Research (pp. 97). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Josselson, R. (1993). A narrative introduction. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), The narrative study of lives (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Sage.

Kiechel, W. (1992). The leader as servant: TIME INC TIME & LIFE BUILDING ROCKEFELLER CENTER, NEW YORK, NY 10020-1393.

Ladkin, D. (2008). Leading beautifully: How mastery, congruence and purpose create the aesthetic of embodied leadership practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 31-41.

Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010). Enacting the ‘true self’: Towards a theory of embodied authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 64-74.

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization; Development of the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(02).

Leduc, L. (2003). Governance-More light on the paradox: More on the characteristics of the servant leadership approach. CA Magazine-Chartered Accountant, 136(7), 31-32.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-258). San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Publishers.

McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T., & Rachal, K. C. (2000). What we know (and need to know) about assessing forgiveness constructs. In E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 65-88). New York: Guilford.

Melé, D. (2009). Integrating personalism into virtue-based business ethics: The personalist and the common good principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 227-244.

Neisser, U. (1994). Self-narratives: True and false. In U. Nessier & R. Fivush (Eds.), The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in the self-narrative (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.

Ordónez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). On good scholarship, goal setting, and scholars gone wild. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 82-87.

Pane Haden, S. S., Diaz, S., Humphreys, J. H., & Hayek, M. (2013). Leading aesthetically: Emily Edwards, Rena Maverick Green, and the San Antonio Conservation Society. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Lake Buena Vista, FL.

58 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-17.

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. (Ph.D.), Regent University, United States -- Virginia. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=765319521&Fmt=7&clientId=22256&RQT=309&VName =PQD

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification: Oxford University Press.

Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management research news, 25(1), 16- 27.

Russell, F. R., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157.

Sandelands, L. E., & Buckner, G. C. (1989). Of art and work: Aesthetic experience and the psychology of work feelings Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 105-132). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.

Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 307-315.

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What's your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 395-417.

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20-24.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and Servant Leadership: Content and Contextual Comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91. doi: 10.1177/107179190401000406

Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership - how Robert Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers Wiley.

Spears, L. C. (1998). Insights on leadership: service, stewardship, spirit, and servant- leadership: Wiley.

Springborg, C. (2010). Leadership as art-leaders coming to their senses. Leadership, 6(3), 243-258.

Tsoukas, H. (1989). The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 551-561.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4 59

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249- 267. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1

Whetstone, J. T. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: the servant leader with a transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385-392.

Wong, P. T. P., & Davey, D. (2007). Best practices in servant leadership. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent University.

Woodward, J. B., & Funk, C. (2010). Developing the artist-leader. Leadership, 6(3), 295- 309.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

About the Authors

John H. Humphreys (D.B.A., Nova Southeastern University) is Professor of Management at Texas A&M University – Commerce, and Texas A&M University System graduate faculty. His work has appeared in numerous venues including the Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, Business Horizons, Management Decision, Thunderbird International Business Review, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Journal of Management Inquiry, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Journal of Management History, and the Journal of Services Marketing.

Wallace (Alex) Williams, Jr. is an assistant professor in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce, where he teaches organizational behavior and human resources. His primarily research interests include Leadership & Management History. He earned his PhD in Management at The University of Mississippi (Oxford) and his Bachelor of Arts from Morehouse College (Atlanta, GA). Additionally, he has extensive experience as both a social entrepreneur and a business professional.

Stephanie Pane Haden is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce. She obtained a Ph.D. in Management from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Her research interests include management history, leadership and motivation, green management, and corporate social responsibility. She teaches courses in organizational behavior and human resource management. Her work has appeared in various outlets such as Management Decision, Sloan Management Review, the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, and the Journal of Management History.

Mario Hayek is an assistant professor in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce. He obtained a Ph.D. in Management from the University of Mississippi. His research interests include management history, entrepreneurial cognition, social responsibility and ethics. He has been teaching entrepreneurship and strategic management

60 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4

at the undergraduate and graduate levels for over 13 years. In addition, he has acquired over 15 years of experience as an international entrepreneur.

Dr. Mildred Golden Pryor is Professor of Management at Texas A&M University – Commerce. Her Ph.D. fields are Production/Operations Management, Organizational Theory and Behavior, and Quantitative Methods. Research interests include Ethics, Strategic Management, Organizational Transformation, Quality Management, Workplace Spirituality, High Performance Teams and Empowerment. Her publications appear in the Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Industrial Management, Journal of Management History, International Journal of Management, and other scholarly journals.

Brandon Randolph-Seng is an assistant professor of management in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce. He received his Ph.D. from Texas Tech University. His research interests include the social and cognitive factors involved in leadership, groups and entrepreneurship.

View publication statsView publication stats