Servant Leadership Theory: Application of the Construct of Service in the
Context of Kenyan Leaders and Managers
Submitted to Regent University
School of Leadership Studies
In partial fulfillment of the Requirements
For the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership
Jeremiah Ntaloi Ole Koshal
April 2005

UMI Number: 3188226
3188226
2005
Copyright 2005 by
Koshal, Jeremiah Ntaloi Ole
UMI Microform
Copyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
All rights reserved.
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

ii

iii
Abstract
By extending the research of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory, this
dissertation explores the acceptability and applicability of servant leadership
theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. The
study examines 25 leaders and managers from varied organizational settings.
From the analysis of the responses, it emerged that (a) role modeling, (b)
sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs of others (employees) and
developing them, (d) service as a primary function of leadership, (e) recognizing
and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with respect (humility), and (g)
involving others in decision making are prevalent themes reminiscent to
Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service. Thus, the construct
of service has acceptability and applicability among Kenyan leaders and
managers.

iv
Acknowledgements
To God, for sufficient grace throughout the process of this dissertation.
To all my 15 brothers and sisters, especially Joshua and Samuel, for their
immeasurable moral support and perpetual prayers. Though you were all tens of
thousands of miles away, I knew you were thinking and praying for me.
To my community of Naikarra, for making me feel loved. Your support
and good will is something that I will always remember and treasure.
To my best friend, Dr. Steven Kiruswa, for the good example you have set
in academia so that I could follow. You are part of the reason why I got into this
program. We have indeed wintered and summered together.
To my friends Rev. Dr. Jan and Dave McCray, Al and Gail Barrett, Michael
Alban, Barbara Rosato, and Charles and Lauren Havener, for their prayers and
financial contributions toward the data collection for this project. Many thanks to
you guys!
To my best couples, Amos and Emmy Miring’u, for opening up their home
for me while I was collecting data, and to Joseph and Edna Mpaa, for the
unlimited usage of their car during the process of data collection.
To Dr. John Mulford, for making it possible for me to get into this program
by way of scholarship. Also, thank you for the opportunity of working with you.
To Dr. Bruce Winston, my committee chair, for insisting on rigor and
academic fervor. I appreciate your patience, efficiency and promptness—what an
example of a servant leader you have been! God bless you, sir!

v
To Dr. Kathleen Patterson and Dr. Corne Bekker, for being so supportive
as committee members.

vi
Definition of Key Terms
Several terms are instrumental to this study and, therefore, they are worth
defining:
Leader. Any member who consistently acts on behalf of and for the benefit
of others (Noonan, 2003). Leaders are those who serve their followers and are
first experienced as servants (Bass, 2000; Greenleaf, 1977).
Leadership. Involves a process whereby one person exerts intentional
influence over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and
relationships in the organization (Rost, 1993; Yukl, 2002). It is one of the highest
forms of service, which is best exercised when it freely motivates others to a
decision that is really theirs, but which may never have been reached without the
leader’s influence (Murray, 1997).
Servant Leader. One who directs attention away from himself or herself to
focus on the followers (Weinstein, 1998; William, 1994). Servant leaders focus
more on the well being of their followers than that of the organization (Patterson,
2003). They listen to their followers, as well as support and redirect them to make
sure they have made a difference in their lives and that they have also impacted
the organization (Blanchard, 1997).
Servant Leadership. An understanding and practice of leadership that
places the good of those led over the self-interests of the leader (Laub, 1999).
Servant leadership inspires the leader to give up personal rights to find greatness
in service to others (Bass, 2000; Blanchard, 2000; Greenleaf, 1977; Meyer,
Brown, & Browne, 1998; Spears, 1995, 1996).

vii
Service. The act of benefiting others or rendering help to someone else
(Kanungo & Conger, 1993), meeting others’ needs (Cohen, 2003), a concern for
others over one’s self (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), a release of ego and
understanding that a true sense of self connects us with the rest of humanity
(Lopez, 1995). “Service is the reason for leadership” and it should not be seen
merely as a qualification for leadership but an end of leadership (Bradley, 1999,
p. 49).
Harambee. A Swahili (a language spoken in East and Central Africa) word
for “pulling together” (Chieni, 1997). Its alternative linguistic interpretation is
derivation from the twin words halahala and mbee, which signify “doing things
quickly and collectively with a forward connotation” (Yassin, 2004, para. 7).
Harambee embodies and reflects the strong ancient value of mutual assistance,
joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community self-reliance, which
became sort of a voluntary movement in post-independence and has continued
to play an absolutely cardinal role in local development initiatives in Kenya
(Bailey, 1993; Chieni; Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977; Shikuku, 2000; Wilson, 1992).
Chief. An individual in the traditional African set up that represented a king
and one who would never impose his decision on his council or people. The chief
did not rule, he served and led by consensus (Ayittey, 1992).
Ubuntu. A focus on the person not living for himself or herself but rather
living for others (Gakuru, 1998; Mamadou, 1991; Mazrui, 1986)
Individualism. A cognitive recognition of one’s existence, and as
Descartes declared, “I think—hence I am” (as cited in Ellsworth, 2002, p. 227).

viii
Individualism is the atomistic notion that a community is no more than the sum of
the individuals in it. An individualistic system is driven by competition and
materialism (Waddock, 2002).
Collectivism. Serves in many ways as a counterpoint to individualism, and
is characterized by an emphasis on community (i.e., people who live together
and share similar ideologies or backgrounds). Under collectivist systems, people
believe that the needs and interests of the community take precedence over
those of individuals (Fairholm, 1997; Waddock, 2002).
In-depth interviewing. A type of interview that researchers utilize to elicit
information in order to achieve a holistic understanding of the interviewee’s point
of view or situation. It involves asking informants open-ended questions, and
probing them wherever necessary to obtain deep, “rich” and salient data deemed
useful by the researcher (Mason, 2002).

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................iv
Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................xi
Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Rationale of Study ....................................................................... 4
Research Question ........................................................................................... 5
Expected Findings ............................................................................................ 6
Research Postulate........................................................................................... 8
Method and Analysis......................................................................................... 8
Importance of the Study.................................................................................. 12
Limitations of the Study................................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ............................................................... 16
Definition of Service........................................................................................ 16
Servant Leadership Theory............................................................................. 20
Patterson’s (2003) Definition of Servant Leadership Theory........................... 26
Leadership and Service in the African Context ............................................... 32
The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee ............................................................ 36
Summary and Hypotheses.............................................................................. 42
Chapter Three: Method and Procedure.............................................................. 44
Description of Research Design...................................................................... 44
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................... 47
Research Participants..................................................................................... 50
Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 52
Data Collection................................................................................................ 52
Standardized Open-ended Interview............................................................... 53
Interview Procedure ........................................................................................ 54
Data Analysis.................................................................................................. 57
Summarizing Data .......................................................................................... 58
Coding Data.................................................................................................... 58
Interpreting Data ............................................................................................. 59
Limitations of the Study................................................................................... 60

x
Summary......................................................................................................... 61
Chapter Four: Findings....................................................................................... 63
Description of the Research Participants ........................................................ 63
Role Modeling................................................................................................. 67
Sacrificing for Others ...................................................................................... 74
Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them ................. 81
Service as a Primary Function of Leadership.................................................. 90
Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ........................................................ 97
Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)................................................. 105
Involving Others (Employees) in Decision Making........................................ 113
Chapter Summary......................................................................................... 121
Chapter Five: Discussion.................................................................................. 126
Leadership and Service in the African Context ............................................. 126
The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee .......................................................... 129
Commentary on the Findings........................................................................ 131
Role Modeling............................................................................................... 132
Sacrificing for Others .................................................................................... 133
Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them ............... 134
Service as a Primary Function of Leadership................................................ 135
Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ...................................................... 136
Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)................................................. 137
Involving Others in Decision Making............................................................. 139
Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................... 140
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 141
References ....................................................................................................... 143
Appendix A ....................................................................................................... 154

xi
List of Tables
Table 1 Participants by Organizational Sectors.................................................. 64
Table 2 Participants by Gender .......................................................................... 65
Table 3 Demographic Profile of Participants....................................................... 66
Table 4 Participants’ Comments on Role Modeling............................................ 68
Table 5 Participants’ Statements on Sacrificing for Others................................. 74
Table 6 Participants’ statements on meeting the needs of others and developing
them ............................................................................................................ 82
Table 7 Participants’ Comments on Service as a Primary Function of Leadership
.................................................................................................................... 91
Table 8 Participants’ Comments on Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ... 98
Table 9 Participants’ Statements and Comments on treating and showing
Respect for Others .................................................................................... 105
Table 10 Participants’ Comments and Statements on Involving Others in
Decision-making........................................................................................ 114
Table 11 Participants’ Responses and Frequency leading to the 7 Categories
(Overriding Themes) ................................................................................. 123

1
Chapter One: Introduction
Snyder, Dowd, and Houghton (1994) posited that writers who study
leadership advocate that one of the primary motivations of leadership should be
serving others. Service to others calls for leaders, who genuinely serve others’
needs (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Murray, 1997; Nair, 1994), meaning that a
strong relationship exists between service and leadership (“A draft,” 2000; Bass,
1995; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Bradley, 1999; Fuller, 2000; Murray; Nair; T’Shaka,
1990; Taninecz, 2002). Sarkus (1996) observed that much of the current
literature that supports serving and valuing people has been presaged by the
work of Robert K. Greenleaf. Servant leadership, which is a paradigm of
leadership based on the philosophy of Greenleaf (1977), calls for leaders to be of
service to others (e.g., employees, customers, and communities), to give more
than they take, and to serve others’ needs more than their own. Though
Greenleaf is the one most responsible for popularizing the theory of servant
leadership (Spears, 1996), the theory has been practiced for many years
throughout all cultures (Nyabadza, 2003).
Two key notions underlie the various definitions of servant leadership:
First, servant leadership emphasizes service (Blanchard, 2000; Farling, Stone, &
Winston, 1999; Greenleaf; Lee & Zemko, 1993; Lubin, 2001; Melrose, 1995;
Russel & Stone, 2002; Sarkus; Spears, 1995, 1996, 1998; Spears & Lawrence,
2002; Tatum, 1995; Wis, 2002), and second, servant leadership is other-centered
rather than leader or self-centered (Covey, 2002; Fairholm, 1997; Greenleaf;
Joseph, 1997; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Laub, 1999; Melrose; Pollard, 1997;

2
Spears & Lawrence; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003). Similarly, according to
Saunders (1993), servant leadership means supporting others in their growth and
development. Blanchard (1997) and Yukl (2002) posited that servant leaders
listen to their people, praise them, support them, and learn about their needs. In
other words, they are constantly trying to find out what their needs are in order to
be successful. Some of these characteristics, including service, appear in the list
of characteristics that are central to the development of servant leaders (Spears,
1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). Thus, the emergence of servant leadership is likely to
meet the deep desire in our society for a world where people truly care for one
another, where workers and customers are treated fairly, and where the leaders
can be trusted to serve the needs of their followers rather than their own (Spears,
1998).
To help create a platform for more specific research on servant
leadership, Patterson (2003) developed a working theory of servant leadership
comprising the constructs of agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust,
empowerment, and service. The idea of service is at the core of servant
leadership theory and it occurs as the leader serves others, mainly his or her
followers (Arjoon, 2000). Though servant leadership crosses all boundaries and
is being applied by myriad organizations (Spears, 1996), the theory is mainly
concentrated in North American organizations (Autry, 2001; Branch, 1999;
Douglas, 2003; Galvin, 2001; Levering & Moskowitz, 2000, 2001; McLaughlin,
2001; Pollard, 1997; Rubin, Powers, Tulacz, Winston, & Krizan, 2002; Spears,
1996; Spears & Lawrence, 2002; Taninecz, 2002), where it has provided a

3
means for companies to value their people in order to be successful (Fletcher,
1999; Lowe, 1998). Thus, Patterson’s servant leadership theory and the
construct of service may be contextually constrained. In other words, the theory,
and more specifically the construct of service, needs research in various contexts
in order to see if it applies in varied cultural and organizational settings like
Kenya.
A study by Nelson (2003), which explored Patterson’s (2003) servant
leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism, empowerment, humility, love,
service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in South Africa, found that
Patterson’s servant leadership theory has acceptability and applicability among
black leaders in South African organizations even though there were some
contextual concerns. Capitalizing on the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the
person not living for himself or herself, but rather living for others (“An afro-
centric,” 2001; Dia, 1994; Mamadou, 1991; Mazrui, 1986; Mbiti, 1969; Mibigi &
Maree, 1995; Wright, 1984), Nelson found service to be the primary function of
leadership among black leaders in South Africa. Service was not based on the
leaders’ own interests, but rather on the interests and welfare of their employees.
The study, however, is limited in the sense that it can only be generalized to
black leaders in South African organizations. Thus, there is need to undertake a
similar study in the Kenyan context.
The fact that ubuntu and other concepts and philosophies that relate to
serving others (e.g., “I am because we are: and since we are, therefore I am”)
(Mbiti, 1969, p.10) are widely shared across Africa, would mean that servant

4
leadership, and the construct of service might be positively received by the
Kenyan leaders and managers. The traditional African leadership set-up has
been more intent on reaching consensus (Ayittey, 1992; Mamadou; Mersha,
2000) and has always placed the community’s interest ahead of its own. Even
the African communities themselves believed that the welfare of an individual
means the welfare of the entire community (Bell, 2002; Gakuru, 1998; Mamadou;
Waiguchu, Tiagha, & Mwaura, 1999; Wright). Furthermore, the Kenyan
philosophy of harambee, which was adopted by Jomo Kenyatta who was the
founding president (Chieni, 1997; Versely, 1997), is based on African traditions of
community cooperation and mutual aid (Hill, 1991; Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977;
Ngau, 1987). It embodies and reflects a strong ancient value of mutual
assistance and community reliance (Bailey, 1993; Chieni; Ngau; Shikuku, 2000;
Yassin, 2004). The harambee philosophy, which is usually used in the discussion
of economic and social developments (Chieni; Ngau), became a kind of voluntary
movement in post-independence (after 1963) and has continued to play an
absolutely cardinal role in local development initiatives or projects (Bailey, 1993;
Chieni; Hill; Ndegwa, 1996; Ngau; Wilson, 1992).
Purpose and Rationale of Study
The purpose of this study is to build on Patterson’s (2003) work on servant
leadership theory. By developing a working theory of servant leadership,
Patterson opened the door to empirical research on the theory. Further, as a
possibility for more research, Patterson indicated that the theory needs
contextual research–-that is looking to see if the theory applies in varied cultural

5
settings and, if so, how it looks in such settings. Nelson’s (2003) study, which
explored Patterson’s servant leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism,
empowerment, humility, love, service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in
South Africa, found that Patterson’s servant leadership theory has acceptability
and applicability among black leaders in South African organizations even though
there were some contextual concerns. Nelson’s study, however, can only be
generalized to black leaders in South African organizations. Thus, this study
specifically seeks to explore the acceptability and applicability of Patterson’s
servant leadership theory’s construct of service among Kenyan leaders and
managers of varied ethnic origins. The study also seeks to determine if the
construct of service can be applied in organizational settings throughout Kenya.
Research Question
This study stems from Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory, which
premises that the primary focus of servant leaders is serving their followers.
Servant leaders are more concerned with the followers’ welfare than the
organization. Autry (2001), a top-selling author and former CEO of Meredith
Corporation says in his book, The Servant Leader: How to Build a Creative
Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-line Performance, “service to
others” is the most efficient way to lead. In other words, servant leaders should
always seek to find if their colleagues have grown professionally during their
leadership tenure. Bradley (1999) stated, “Service is the reason for leadership”
(p. 49). Service is not seen merely as a qualification for leadership but as an end
of leadership. Therefore, this study seeks to do the following:

6
1. Determine if Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service
has validity and acceptability in Kenyan organizations.
2. Determine if, and to what degree, Kenyan leaders and managers of varied
organizational backgrounds (settings) apply Patterson’s servant
leadership theory’s construct of service with their followers.
Expected Findings
Many researchers have argued for the universality of servant leadership
theory. According to Spears (1996) and Tatum (1995), servant leadership
crosses all boundaries and is being applied by a wide variety of people working
for myriad organizations. Bradley (1999) pointed out that servant leadership
theory should find a “home” in numerous religions and philosophies. Similarly,
Nair (1994) noted that the importance of service to leadership has also been
acknowledged and practiced for many years. For instance, the ancient monarchs
acknowledged that they were in the service of their country and their people.
Today’s modern coronation ceremonies and inaugurations of heads of state
would always acknowledge their service to God, country, and the people.
According to Taninecz (2002), history’s greatest leaders (e.g., Jesus Christ,
Confucius, Gandhi, and Buddha) have been servant leaders. Similarly, in ancient
West Africa, the king was the servant and shepherd of the people (T’Shaka,
1990). Further, in South Africa each tribe had (as is still today) a traditional leader
who did not exercise as an autonomous individual but in collaboration with a
tribal council that represented the people. People saw him as a spiritual, cultural,
and judicial leader (“A draft,” 2000). Since the above statements about servant

7
leadership are presumed to be applicable to most cultural settings, it is expected
that the responses from the Kenyan leaders and managers on servant leadership
theory’s construct of service would reflect this assertion.
According to Rowe (2003), servant leadership is embedded in many
indigenous cultures. Moreover, anthropologists demonstrate that people who led
others in tribal situations very often were the servants of others. These cultures
were holistic, cooperative, and communal. Mamadou (1991) and Mersha (2000)
presented the African culture as being characteristically similar to this
description. For instance, though led by a chief, most decisions affecting the
African people were based on consensus more than litigation by the book.
Similarly, in the African traditional social-set up people regarded each other as
brothers and sisters. African communities strongly believed that the welfare of an
individual means the welfare of the whole community (Ayittey, 1992; Gakuru,
1998; Mbiti, 1969). Giving a specific example from Kenya, the philosophy of
harambee, meaning “let us all pull together” embodies ideas of mutual
assistance, joint effort, and community self-reliance (Bailey, 1993; Chieni, 1997;
Hill, 1991; Shikuku, 2000; Wilson, 1992). The efforts of the people, private sector,
and the government come together in a cooperative endeavor to speed up
development. Thus, it is expected that the Kenyan leaders and managers accept
and apply servant leadership theory’s construct of service.
Further, the results of the study undertaken by Nelson (2003), which
examined the validity and acceptability of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership
theory in the context of black leaders in South Africa, found the theory to be

8
applicable and acceptable though it has some contextual constrains. Capitalizing
on the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the person not living for himself or
herself but rather living for others (“An afro-centric,” 2001; Dia, 1994; Mamadou,
1991; Mazrui, 1986; Mbiti, 1969), Nelson found service to be the primary function
of leadership among black leaders in South Africa. Service was not based on the
leaders’ own interests but rather on the interests and welfare of their employees.
Thus, though Nelson’s study is limited in the sense that it can only be
generalized to black leaders in South African organizations, the fact that ubuntu
and other concepts or philosophies relating to serving others are widely shared
across Africa would mean that this study might be positively received by the
Kenyan leaders and managers.
Research Postulate
The primary postulate in the study is that Patterson’s (2003) servant
leadership theory’s construct of service has acceptance and applicability among
Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational backgrounds.
Method and Analysis
This study seeks to examine Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership
theory’s construct of service (i.e., acceptance and applicability) in the context of
Kenyan leaders and managers. Since not much research has been done on
servant leadership, especially in cross-cultural settings, this study calls for a
qualitative investigation that will attempt to enhance existing literature through
revelation of details not captured in qualitative inquiry (Creswell, 1994; Merriam,

9
1998). The proposed research lends itself to qualitative inquiry because the
researcher seeks reality as seen by the participants in the study (Maxwell, 1996).
Miles and Huberman (1996) also associated qualitative studies with certain
strengths, which are pertinent to this study.
Qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on relatively small samples,
selected purposefully. The logic and power behind purposeful or theoretical
sampling lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in-depth (Bryman &
Burgess, 1999; Mason, 2002; Patton, 2002). Theoretical sampling provides just
enough data since the researcher will look for indicators of saturation (Morse &
Richards, 2002; Seidman, 1998; Yin, 1994). Using a theory-based sampling
strategy, which is one of the strategies for purposefully and theoretically selecting
information-rich cases, this study will select 25 leaders and managers (from the
executive and upper management) from Kenyan organizations, to examine using
the in-depth interviewing (standardized open-ended) technique (Huberman &
Miles, 2002; Mason; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The
sample population of leaders and managers is selected based on the theory-
driven criteria for being a servant leader. These leaders and managers, who
seem to espouse Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of
service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy, represent corporate
organizations, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and institutions of higher learning (e.g., universities and colleges), all of
which are perceived to practice servant leadership as stipulated in their mission
or vision statements. To do justice to the research question, the researcher used

10
the following predetermined questions, along with probes (or follow-up) in order
to understand or verify the participants’ understanding of ethnocentristic or cross-
cultural reading of concepts like harambee.
1. Like the harambee philosophy, which is guided by the principle of
collective good rather than individual gain, consider service as putting
others’ welfare (e.g., employees, customers, and community) and interest
first. Service is caring for others enough to facilitate their growth,
development, and success without expecting any reward. In light of this
description, what is your own understanding of service? What do you see
as the role of service in your organization?
2. Leadership being the process whereby the leader (one who acts for the
benefit of others) exerts influence over others (e.g., employees) in the
organization, do you see service as the primary function of leadership?
Why? Why not?
3. Do leaders in this organization understand that serving others is most
important? For instance, do they reflect an overarching helping concern
for others (e.g., employees) without any regard for self-interest, even
when such concern involves considerable sacrifice or inconvenience (i.e.,
harming self-interest) on their part? Are they the type of leaders that would
rather give more than take (e.g., resources and time), and serve others’
needs rather than theirs? In other words, do they view employees as the
most important resource of the organization and as having an intrinsic
value that goes beyond their tangible contributions as workers?

11
4. Service occurs when we naturally and authentically claim and champion
someone else’s excellence, success, and fulfillment. In light of this, how
do leaders in this organization feel about serving or helping others (their
followers)? Do they have the spontaneity, the commitment, and the
appreciation for what it takes to perform beyond self-imposed limitations?
5. Service may be demonstrated in many different ways: by role modeling
(leading by example), through humility, showing respect for others
(acknowledging one’s self-worth), listening, praising, supporting, and
redirecting them when they deviate from goals. In light of this, how do
leaders in this organization demonstrate service to their followers?
6. Some organizations may observe service through collective-problem
solving based on consensus, seeking involvement in decision-making, and
creating a sense of community whereby people are bound by a fellowship
of endeavor (social interactions) rather than coercion, genuine concern
rather than instrumental manipulation, and commitment to mutual goals.
Can you comment on this?
7. An increasing number of organizations have adopted service as part of
their corporate philosophy. They recognize the importance of service to
others that is to be felt, understood, believed, and practiced. In light of this,
do you think that the construct of service is good? Why? Do you think that
your organization would adopt it?
There are three distinct components to the analysis of the data collected
during this study. The first component consists of the transcription of the data

12
(material) collected from the in-depth interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Walsh,
2003). The second component consists of coding the transcribed data and
material using NUD*IST, a computer program that provides for non-numerical
unstructured data indexing, categorizing, searching, and concept and theory
building. The third and final component involves the synthesis (interpretation) of
the results of the first and second components (Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin;
Walsh). Since the main goal of qualitative research is to demonstrate the
trustworthiness of the findings (Walsh), the researcher addressed the questions
of validity and reliability by making the data collection methods and analyses
detailed and explicit (Creswell, 1996; Huberman & Miles, 2002; Mason, 2002;
Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994).
Importance of the Study
The concept of servant leadership is not new. Though Greenleaf, who is
perceived as the father of servant leadership, was only able to coin the concept
in 1970 (Spears, 1996) in order to bring to the forefront the perspective that
leaders are those that are servants first; the theory has been around for many
years (Greenleaf, 1977; Nyabadza, 2003). Patterson (2003) developed a working
theory of servant leadership comprising of the constructs of agapao love,
humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service, which helps create a
platform for more specific research. One of Patterson’s main concerns was that
the theory needs researching contextually, to see if it applies in varied cultural
settings and if so, how the theory looks in various organizational settings. Thus,
through this study, servant leadership theory and the construct of service in

13
particular is likely to receive further contextual validation in varied cultural and
organizational settings.
According to Rubin et al. (2002) and Spears (1996), servant leadership
theory has already been used to transform modern corporations in North
America. Individuals within such corporations have adopted servant leadership
as a guiding philosophy. An increasing number of organizations have adopted
the theory as part of their corporate philosophy (e.g., as part of their mission
statement). Further, the theory has also influenced many of today’s noted writers
(e.g., Max DePree, Peter Senge, Peter Block, and James Autry), to mention but
a few. Lloyd (1996) observed that leadership theory that is based on the concept
of service is now the central paradigm in current leadership literature; however,
there are still major challenges to be made in this area. With more research of
this magnitude, servant leadership is likely to become even more influential and
impacting in the realm of leadership studies throughout the world. Thus, the
results of this study solidified the appropriateness of the theory’s construct of
service and also put it on the limelight to globalization and internationalization.
Further, the theory of servant leadership can be used as a template for
training and instilling the attitude of service in the Kenyan organizations, which
have been plagued by poor service emanating from leaders that focus on
themselves instead of focusing on their followers, customers, and the community
at large. Though the African philosophy (e.g., the Kenyan philosophy of
harambee) promotes a caring culture, where people are suppose to show
concern and care for one another, there is need to transform organizations

14
through servant leadership by igniting and invoking such cultural iconic
statements. There is a need for leaders who see themselves as servants in
Kenya today.
Limitations of the Study
This study has several important limitations that should be addressed.
Like many qualitative studies, which utilize a version of theoretical (or purposive)
sampling (Mason, 2002) this study limits generalization by focusing on only a few
leaders from the fields of business, government, non-governmental, and
educational institutions (universities) in Kenya. Thus, though the results will be
meaningful theoretically and empirically, they are not generalizable to a larger
universe (Yin, 1994).
Because the researcher is usually in the presence of the informants only
briefly, and must draw inference from what happened during that brief period to
the rest of the informants’ life, interviewing poses some special problems for
internal generalizability (Huberman & Miles, 2002).
In addition, the resources (e.g., time and money) available in this study
limited the researcher to a particular geographical region, Kenya, as well as to
just a handful of organizations. And, although the results are generalizable to
theoretical propositions (Yin, 1994), a more diverse sampling would evince
greater clarity. Further, the results found in this study may potentially be
somewhat idiosyncratic of the sample.
Finally, as with most qualitative methods of inquiry, the researcher is the
primary instrument for gathering and analyzing data. As a human instrument, the

15
researcher is limited by being human. In other words, mistakes are made,
opportunities are missed, and personal biases interfere (Merriam, 1998). The
researcher is not neutral, distant, or emotionally uninvolved (Rubin & Rubin,
1995). Therefore, complete objectivity is not feasible. The researcher may have
brought personal experience into the study, which may have transcended
interpretation and influenced data analysis.

16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In order to understand the construct of service in the context of Kenyan
leaders and managers, which was the fundamental objective of this study, the
following review of the literature mainly concentrates on:
1. The definition of the concept of service.
2. Servant leadership theory (Greenleaf, 1977).
3. Definition of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory.
4. Leadership and service in the African context.
5. The Kenyan philosophy of harambee.
Definition of Service
Writers, who study leadership, advocate that one of the primary
motivations of leadership should be serving others. In their book, Vision, Values
and Courage, Snyder et al. (1994) argued that a real customer focus requires
leadership with service to others—an interest in or an orientation to other people
that places importance on their well-being. Murray (1997), who is a consultant in
philanthropy, submitted that the servant leadership concept has maximum
opportunity to portray its value when practiced within the framework of
philanthropy. Philanthropy encourages the sharing of resources, talents, time,
and effort on the part of those who have to those who do not–-all of which are
part of service. Murray further observed that there are quotes after quotes, which
underscore service:

17
Albert Schweitz, a physician, whose love for others took him to Africa, said
as follows in a commencement speech: “I don’t know what your destiny
will be, but one thing I know: the only ones among you who will be truly
happy are those who have sought and found how to serve.” Marian Wright
Edelman, known for her concern for underprivileged children, said:
“Service is what life is all about; it never occurred to me not to be involved
in the community.” Charles F. Kettering, one of America’s great inventors
had this to say: “You have got to be a servant to somebody or something.”
Sebastian Kresge, founder of what have become K-Mart and the well
known foundation carrying his name, urged: “Find out where you can
render a service, and then render it. The rest is up to the lord.” (p. 3)
According to Murray, these four personalities have made a difference in society
and they challenge everyone to carve out a niche in their home, neighborhood,
town, or suburb, or even at the national level to serve others. Living to serve
others brings the greatest joy that humans can experience.
According to Nair (1994), Mahatma Gandhi placed before us a higher
standard of leadership based on an enduring spirit of personal service. Gandhi,
who is acknowledged as a servant leader says: “We must place service at the
core” (as cited in Nair, p. 59). Gandhi further challenged leaders to treat others
as themselves, for the ideal service is selfless service: you see everybody as
yourself and expect no reward. According to Kanungo and Mendonca (1996),
there is an increasing realization today for business leaders to become more
responsible, not just to their stockholders but also to other stakeholders (e.g.,

18
consumers, employees, suppliers, the government, and the local communities).
Nair noted the existence of service in business between companies and their
customers, shareholders, management, and employees, a relationship that is
mainly sustained by altruistic behaviors, which reflect a helping concern for
others without any regard for self-interest, even when such concern involves
considerable personal sacrifice or inconvenience (i.e., harming self-interest)
(Kanungo & Mendonca).
Nair (1994) further observed a strong connection between service and
leadership. Service is an important component of leadership, which has been
acknowledged and practiced for many years. For instance, the ancient monarchs
acknowledged that they were in the service of their country and their people.
Today’s modern coronation ceremonies and inaugurations of heads of state also
acknowledge their service to God, country, and the people. Taninecz (2002)
observed that history’s greatest leaders (e.g., Jesus Christ, Confucius, Gandhi,
and Buddha) have been servant leaders. Such leaders treated and inspired their
followers by serving them. Thus, the success of future corporate leaders will not
be measured by the market share, profit, and increased shareholding alone, but
by their effectiveness as missionaries, stewards, and custodians of the human
spirit.
According to Fuller (2000), Confucius believed one who leads must be
able to discern the characteristics of the group (i.e., what it can or cannot do) and
also honor God, for such a tradition encourages self-discipline and self-
overcoming behavior, which are paramount requirements for a good leader.

19
While this is true of Confucius, Thomas Aquinas saw a Christian leader (like
Jesus) as a servant of the people in detachment from the trappings of worldly
success that go with ruling positions. We are also by nature members of
communities and thus responsible to and for each other. T’Shaka (1990) noted
that in ancient West Africa, the king was the servant and shepherd of the people.
In other words, his main and most important function was to serve the people.
This shows that African democracy was collective, communal, and rooted in the
will of the people contrary to the notion that indigenous African political tradition
was dictatorial (only a few despotic leaders existed). Prior to colonialism in South
Africa, a number of tribal regimes based on patriarchy and ascriptive norms
existed. Each tribe, as is still today, had a traditional leader, who did not exercise
as an autonomous individual but in collaboration with a tribal council that
represented the people. People saw him not only as a spiritual, cultural, and
judicial leader, but also as the custodian of the values of his community. His
leadership role was a bonding factor as he was responsible for the common good
(“A draft,” 2000).
Similarly, Murray (1997) posited that leadership is one of the highest
forms of service and it is best exercised when it freely motivates others to a
decision that is really theirs–-but which may never have been reached without
the leader’s beneficial influence. Likewise, Bradley (1999) stated, “Service is the
reason for leadership” (p. 49), it is not seen merely as a qualification for
leadership but an end of leadership. Though she acknowledged servant
leadership as having made its mark in the leadership literature, Bradley offered a

20
critique of the concept by looking at its origins, the Biblical interpretations to it,
and the benefit for leadership practice in educational organizations. Bradley
found the idea of serving others as a fine attitude for all humans to adopt, in
whatever role that they might be cast. Bass (1995) said that enlightened
leadership is service and not selfishness. The leader grows more and lasts
longer by placing the well being of others above one’s own. As per Bennis and
Nanus (1985), leaders must understand that one of their primary functions as
leaders is to serve the needs of their constituents. While talking about the new
leader, Bennis and Nanus observed the leadership of service as the pivotal force
behind successful organizations. If this is true, then this study will find that
Kenyan leaders and managers understand and apply the construct of service in
organizational settings throughout Kenya.
Servant Leadership Theory
Sarkus (1996) observed that much of the current literature that supports
serving and valuing people has been presaged by the work of Greenleaf (servant
leadership). The emphasis on servant leadership is to humbly serve without
expectation to be served by those who follow. The model establishes service as
the gift that attracts followers who in turn pass along this same gift. Though
Greenleaf (1977) is the one most responsible for popularizing the theory of
servant leadership for the last 30 years, the theory has been practiced for
centuries upon centuries throughout all cultures (Nyabadza, 2003). Greenleaf
popularized the concept of servant leadership through an essay titled The
Servant as Leader, and a later book incorporating that essay Servant

21
Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness.
Greenleaf credited Herman Hesse’s Journey to the East (1956) as the source of
his idea of the servant leader. Greenleaf coined the concept in 1970 (Spears,
1996) in order to bring to the forefront the perspective that leaders are those that
are servants first. He proposed, “The great leader is seen as servant first, and
that simple fact is the key to his greatness” (Greenleaf, p. 21). For Greenleaf,
servant leadership:
Begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then
conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply
different from one who is leader first. The difference manifests itself in the
care taken by the servant—first to make sure that other people’s highest
priority needs are being served. (p. 27)
Greenleaf, argued that the best test of servant leadership is
Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become
healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to
become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in
society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived? (p. 27)
Two key notions underlie the various definitions servant leadership:
service and other-centered (Greenleaf, 1977). Farling et al. (1999) posited that
service is the core of servant leadership. In other words, servant leaders know
they are servants first. In their study, which presented a theoretical model of
servant leadership that assimilates the literature-based variables of vision,
credibility, trust, and service, Farling et al. argued that service is and should be a

22
primary function of leadership, and that it should not be based on one’s own
interests, but rather on the interests and welfare of others. Russell and Stone
(2002) concurred that service is the core of servant leadership and that this
service is a choice over self-interest. In their study, which presented values and
attributes (i.e., vision, honesty, integrity, truth, modeling, pioneering, appreciation
of others, empowerment, and service) as the starting point of a practical model of
servant leadership, Russell and Stone proffered that service and concern for the
welfare of others are central aspects of the model. To Wis (2002), the servant
leader is called to serve and he or she sees life in totality as a mission of service.
While reiterating Greenleaf’s philosophy, Lee and Zemko (1993) observed that
leaders exist only to serve their followers and they earn their followers’ trust only
by virtue of their selfless natures. Servant leadership emphasizes service to
others as a holistic approach to work, personal development, and shared
decision making. Such characteristics are in the mainstream of conventional talk
about empowerment, total quality, and participative management.
By looking at all of Greenleaf’s works, Spears (1995, 1998) discussed
servant leadership as a model that puts serving others–-including employees,
customers, and community–-as the number one priority. Servant leadership
emphasizes increased service to others, a holistic approach to work, the
promotion of a sense of community, and a deepening understanding of the spirit
in the workplace. Further, servant leaders are known to deeply commit
themselves to the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of those in their
sphere of influence (Spears, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). In other words, servant

23
leaders serve out of compassion and concern for people, and out of a desire to
promote and celebrate every individual within their circle of influence. And better
than other leadership models, servant leadership promotes opportunities for
corporate success because people work and live best in a community where they
genuinely serve each other’s needs (Melrose, 1995).
While talking about his new book, Leadership by the Book: Tools to
Transform your Workplace, Blanchard (2000) pointed us to two kinds of leaders:
those who are leaders first and those who are servants first. While those who are
leaders first tend to be controlling in terms of decision making and giving of
orders, those who are servants first only assume leadership if they see it as an
opportunity to serve. Instead of being driven, servant leaders are called to lead
because they naturally want to be helpful. Perhaps, the notion of a deep desire in
our society today for leaders, who humbly serve without expectation to be served
by those who follow (Sarkus, 1996) and who can be trusted to serve the needs of
the many rather than the few (Spears, 1998), makes great sense. Moreover,
leaders who become aware of servant leadership know they serve more than the
company, more than markets or products, and more than even vision or values.
Such leaders turn business around by putting emphasis on serving others (Lubin,
2001). Thus, Tatum (1995) is somewhat right in saying that servant leadership is
not the special domain of any one religious group or any one profit or nonprofit
group but rather the domain of those caught up in the spirit of service.
Servant leadership is other-centered. According to Greenleaf (1977),
servant leaders are concerned with the less privileged in society and strive to

24
help others grow as persons. They want to help those they serve become
“healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become
leaders” (Greenleaf, p. 27). Laub (1999) viewed servant leadership in the context
of promoting, valuing, and developing others, which calls for the building of
community and sharing of power and status for the common good of each
individual, the total organization, and those served by the organization. While
developing an instrument for assessing organizational leadership, Laub
advocated the use of workgroups or teams that are small enough to allow group
members to become a community, with strong collaborative relationships. This is
in line with servant leadership, which is inclusive rather than exclusive.
According to Joseph (1997), servant leadership is about “careacting”–-that
is devoting serious attention to doing things in the service of others. Joseph
further observed that at the core of servant leadership are collectivist
assumptions: one must submit one’s individualistic will to the collective good in
order to be a servant leader. Pollard (1997) saw the need for love and care for
the led if a sense of community is to be built. Servant leadership promotes a
more open and cooperative working environment (Melrose, 1995), where the
task is to serve the team needs as well as organizational needs. When talking
about the basis of servant leadership, Fairholm (1997) saw our task as to serve
self, the team needs, and our fellow workers with all our heart and our mind and
to do so unreservedly. Serving the team and organizational needs calls for
leaders who recognize the importance of the metaphor of community. Fortune
500 executive, Jim Autry (1991), observed that the workplace is becoming

25
today’s neighborhood or community. Leaders who recognize the importance of
the metaphor of community energize people to take actions that support higher
organizational purposes rather than self-interests. Such leaders also emphasize
consensus in decision making (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Stone et al. (2003)
show in their study that servant leadership differs from transformational
leadership (perhaps the most popular concept in the leadership field today)
primarily because of a leader focus on others. The servant leader’s focus is on
the followers, and achievement of organizational objectives is a subordinate
outcome. Thus, the focus on others is the distinguishing feature of servant
leadership.
According to Saunders (1993), servant leadership is also about supporting
others in their growth and development. A supporting system for others demands
that we have the courage to brush our egos aside in order to care enough about
them so as to facilitate their success. As part of supporting others, Blanchard
(1997) posited that servant leaders listen to their people, praise them, and
redirect them when they deviate from goals. In other words, servant leaders are
constantly trying to find out what their followers’ needs are in order to help them
succeed. This is due to the fact that they have genuine interests in making a
difference in their lives. Similarly, in echoing the work of Greenleaf, Yukl (2002)
said servant leaders must attend to the needs of their followers and help them
become healthier, wiser, and more willing to accept their responsibilities. It is only
by understanding followers that the servant leader can determine best how to
serve their needs. Thus, listening to followers, learning about their needs and

26
aspirations, and being willing to share in their plan and frustration is mandatory
for servant leaders.
According to Covey (2002), service is the reason why servant leaders
naturally seek to listen and understand others. The characteristics (including
service) that both Blanchard (1997) and Yukl (2002) highlighted fall in the list of
the characteristics that appear to be central to the development of servant
leaders: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,
foresight, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears,
1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). All these have been drawn from Greenleaf’s writing.
Thus, the emergence of service and servant leadership is likely to meet the deep
desire in our society for a world where people are believed to have an intrinsic
value beyond their tangible contributions as workers (Spears & Lawrence, 2002).
Also, where people truly care for one another, where workers and customers are
treated fairly, and where leaders can be trusted to serve the needs of their
followers rather than their own (Spears, 1998). If this is true, then this study will
find that Kenyan leaders and managers care and serve the needs of their
followers rather than their own needs.
Patterson’s (2003) Definition of Servant Leadership Theory
To help create a platform for more specific research on servant
leadership, Patterson (2003) developed a working theory of servant leadership.
According to Patterson:
Servant leaders signify those who lead an organization by focusing on
their followers, such that the followers are the primary concern and the

27
organizational concerns are peripheral. Servant leaders lead and serve
with (a) altruism, (b) empower followers, (c) act with humility, (d) exhibit
love, (e) lead with service, (f) are trusting, and (g) are visionary to their
followers. (p. 5)
According to Patterson (2003), servant leadership theory provides a
marked contrast with that of transformational leadership theory. While
transformational leaders strive to align their personal interests (i.e.,
organizational interests and the interests of the followers) with the interests of the
group, organization, or society, the primary focus of the leaders in servant
leadership theory is on serving their followers individually. Once again, this very
idea of service is at the heart of servant leadership theory and it occurs as the
leader serves others, mainly his or her followers (Arjoon, 2000).
Based on a paper presented at Indiana State University on servant
leadership, Spears (1996) argued that servant leadership crosses all boundaries
and is being applied by a wide variety of people working for a myriad of
organizations (i.e., both non-profit and for-profit). Individuals within such
organizations have adopted servant leadership as a guiding corporate philosophy
and as a foundation for their mission. While this assertion is true, the theory is
mainly concentrated in North American organizations.
For instance, TDI Industries, a Dallas-based mechanical contractor, has
one of the industry’s most intensive leadership programs. While searching for the
traits that make a good manager-leader, Rubin et al. (2002) pointed to servant
leadership. For over 30 years, TD Industries has advocated and executed the

28
“servant as leader” philosophy developed by management consultant, Robert
Greenleaf. Galvin’s (2001) list of the top 50 training corporations has TD
Industries among others. In conducting the research and interviews that went into
their 2001 top 50 training organizations, TD Industries came across individuals
and companies (e.g., SAS Institute and Synovus Financial) that piqued their
interest though admittedly happy in their current jobs. According to McLaughlin
(2001), servant leadership is practiced at TD Industries through the cultivation of
employees by serving the employees and meeting their needs. To keep servant
leadership central to TD Industries’ corporate culture, new employees go through
servant leadership training. And though many companies profess, “people are
our most important asset” TD Industries (ranked number 27) backs up the
statement with an employee retention track record that would make any company
envious. No wonder Ben Houston, TD Industries managing director, said, “To be
a leader, you need to be a servant leader and get business results” and that “part
of being a servant leader is getting people to improve” (as cited in Rubin et al., p.
3). Houston further stated that the mission is so serious at TD Industries that “if
you just get business results without the servant relationship, you cannot stay
here” (Rubin et al., p. 4). Perhaps that is the reason behind TD Industries being
consistently rated among the best companies to work for in America by Fortune
Magazine (Spears, 1996).
Along with TD Industries, Synovus Financial, SAS Institute, and
Southwest Airlines are also included in the list of the top 100 organizations to

29
work for in America. For instance, Galvin (2001) observed Genie Mize, director of
the Center for People Development (CPD) at Synovus Financial, saying that:
Regardless of the program, the concept of servant leadership–-or leading
by serving the needs of others–-lies at the heart of each initiative. We
make sure we look at the whole person and in doing so we truly believe
that they are going to be producing at a level that benefits not only
themselves, but also the business. We say it, we write it, and we really
practice it. (p. 81)
While commending on the list of the best 100 companies to work for in
America, Bradley (1999) said that though swimming pools and surging pay may
give employees a lift, continual training and humane treatment is really what gets
the best ones to stick around. On the basis of the Fortune survey, Levering and
Moskowitz (2000) contended that servant leadership has been practiced and
advocated in some best companies to work for in America, namely Southwest
Airlines (#2 in 2000, #4 in 1999, and #1 in 1998), TD Industries (#4 in 2000, #2 in
1999, and #5 in 1998), and Synovus Financial (#5 in 2000 and #1 in 1999).
Fortune 2001 annual survey of top employees ranked Southwest Airlines, TD
Industries, and Synovus Financial number four, six, and eight respectively
(Levering & Moskowitz, 2001). All these organizations are servant-led and they
espouse that servant leadership contributes to their success.
As per Jack Lowe (1998), CEO and chairman of TD Industries, servant
leadership provides a means for companies to value their people and be
successful. Lowe further asserted that when people become grounded in servant

30
leadership, trust grows and the foundation for organizational excellence is
established. Similarly, in a study, which attempted to determine whether or not
service quality programs are implemented successfully in South African market,
Fletcher (1999) observed effective internal communication, leadership, and
employee issues as of cardinal importance to any organization.
A number of other organizations, not necessarily in the list of top 100
organizations to work for, also practice servant leadership. William Pollard
(1997), former CEO of ServiceMaster had this to say in his keynote address at
the Strategic Leadership Forum’s International Conference, “Regardless of the
situation, the real leader is not the person with the most distinguishable title, the
highest pay, or the longest tenure–-but rather the real leader is the servant, who
promotes others as opposed to promoting himself” (p. 2). Pollard further
observed that:
The measure of his success as a leader at ServiceMaster is not only in the
value of shares or the profit they produce, but more importantly, it relates
to the people with whom he works with. His job at ServiceMaster is to train
and motivate people to serve so they will do more effective job, be more
productive in their work, and become better people. (p. 3)
Servant leaders, according to Pollard (1997), believe in the people they
lead, make themselves available, have the commitment, and love and care for
the people they lead. Similarly, James Autry (2001), former CEO of Meredith
Corporation, said in his recent book, The Servant Leader: How to Build a
Creative Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-line Performance,

31
that “service to others” is the most efficient and effective way to lead. His focal
point of success is on developing an engaging community of followers, who
periodically assume leadership roles by serving others. Douglas (2003) saw this
as a deviation from the teaching philosophy of traditional leadership, which
emphasizes individualism and unilateral decision making. While arguing for the
characteristics of a good leader-manager, Rubin et al. (2002) observed Ralph
Peterson, CEO of CH2M Hills Cos., saying that: “I have found that real
leadership is about others and not about the individual” (p. 5). “The bottom line is
that every person in the industry has tremendous potential just waiting to be
developed” (p. 5).
Likewise, Lance Secretan, CEO and founder of the Secretan Center, a
worldwide consulting organization in Ontario (Canada), said that servant leaders
must treat followers as customers and inspire them. Secretan, who encouraged
anyone and everyone to believe in a world in which love can conquer all, was
honored in 1999 with the International Care Award from the Caring Institute,
joining the company of Jane Goodall and Mother Teresa as recipients (Taninecz,
2002). Perhaps Spears and Lawrence (2002) are somewhat right in their
insistence that servant leadership is one model that can turn traditional notions of
leadership and organizational structure upside-down. Business leaders who
become aware of the servant leadership model know that they serve more than
the company, more than markets or products, and more than even vision and
values. They turn business around by putting emphasis on serving others. If this

32
is true, then this proposed study would find that Kenyan leaders and managers
value and serve their followers more than their organizations.
Leadership and Service in the African Context
A study by Nelson (2003), which explored Patterson’s (2003) servant
leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism, empowerment, humility, love,
service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in South African organizations
found service to be the primary function of leadership. Service was not based on
the leaders’ own interests but rather on the interests and welfare of their
employees. In other words, participants expressed a desire to put others first—
that is a willingness to look after others’ welfare. Their perception of service was
expressed as “serving and supporting the people who serve the customers”
(Nelson, p. 72). This is not a strange outcome, given that Nelson capitalized on
the prevalent African values like the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the
person not living for himself or herself, but rather living for others. Ubuntu serves
as metaphor embodying group solidarity in many traditional African societies
(Mibigi & Maree, 1995). In other words, it focuses on the person and stresses
communal support, group significance, and cooperation. It acts like a public
philosophy that ties people together as a strong, united community (“An affro-
centric,” 2001).
While discussing development and cultural values in sub-saharan Africa,
Mamadou (1991) observed that the main concern for every leader or grouping
was to maintain social balance and equity within the groups, rather than
individual economic achievements. In such a case, the interest of the local

33
communities takes precedence over whatever the government, organizations, or
leaders may declare as national interests. While Mazrui (1986), for instance,
goes ahead to mention other African concepts in his book, The Africans: A Triple
Heritage, that are similar to ubuntu (e.g., muntu, ungamtu, mgamtu, and abantu),
all meaning “You do not live for yourself, you live for others” (p. 295), Mbiti’s
(1969) often quoted line—“I am because we are: and since we are, therefore I
am” (p.10)—from his widely read book, African Religions and Philosophy, comes
into mind. It is perhaps worth quoting the fuller text of Mbiti’s remark:
The individual owes his existence to other people. He is simply part of the
whole. Whatever happens to the individual happens to the whole group
and whatever happens to the whole group happens to the individual. The
individual can only say: “I am, because we are; and since we are therefore
I am.” (p. 10)
This is the cardinal point in the understanding of the African view of man.
Most of the values and philosophies propagated by Mazrui (1986) and
Mbiti (1969) are widely shared across African communities. According to Wright
(1984), the African view of man denies that persons can be defined by focusing
on the physical or psychological characteristics of the lone individual. Rather,
man is defined by the preference to the envisioning community. Mazrui talked of
muntu, which is an indigenous word meaning person. The word is at times
applied in the generic sense of humankind. It is the theme of humanism in
Africa’s philosophical and political experience, involving a major transition in
perception across the centuries. Thus, the notion by Mbiti that, “I am because we

34
are, and since we are, therefore I am” (p. 10) stands strongly emulated
throughout most African societies.
Tradition places social achievement above personal achievement in most
African communities. Common phrases usually exist that signal social
disapproval of the individual who places himself or herself above fellow human
being (“An affro-centric,” 2001). Dia (1994) said that individual achievements are
much less valued than are interpersonal relations. In agreement is Mamadou
(1991), who said that a higher value is placed on interpersonal relations and the
timely execution of certain social and religious activities than on individual
achievements. The value of economic acts, for instance, is measured in terms of
their capacity to reinforce the bonds of the group. Thus, efficient indigenous
management practices, where shareholding is democratized and cultural values
and traditions serve as a means of stimulating productivity, can be used in
today’s organizations.
According to Ayittey (1992), the traditional African leadership from time
immemorial has always placed the community’s interest (service) ahead of its
own. For instance, the chief did not rule, but rather served and only led by
consensus. In situations where the council (governing body) failed to reach a
consensus, the chief would call a village assembly (representatives) to put the
issues before the people for debate. This signifies the importance of service to
the people. Similarly, Mamadou (1991) observed that the traditional judge in
black Africa is more intent on reaching a consensus than litigating by the book. In
legal as well as in political matters, African leaders tend to seek unanimity and

35
are generally prepared to engage in seemingly interminable discussions.
Perhaps this explains why self-reliance and self-interest tend to take a back seat
to group or community loyalty. According to Mersha (2000), studies based on
African organizations indicate that decisions based on a consensus still have
greater acceptability in African societies. Specifically, a study based on Kenyan
industries showed that both workers and managers preferred a modern
democratic style of leadership to build consensus and trust.
According to Gakuru (1998), service has come to be identified with the
African concept of interdependence, which was most famously articulated by
Nigerian novelist, Chinua Achebe, who wrote: “Whereas an animal scratches
itself against a tree, a human being has a kinsman to scratch it for him” (Gakuru,
para. 11). There is a very strong belief in the African communities that the
welfare of an individual means the welfare of the entire community. Many local
dialects have a word for the concept of mutual responsibility and joint effort.
According to Bell (2002), Africans do not think of themselves as “discrete
individuals” but rather understand themselves as part of a “community”
(sometimes referred to as “African communalism”—or “communitarianism”).
Whereas life’s means are relatively minimal and natural resources are scarce,
the individual person must depend on his or her community. One obvious
conclusion to be drawn from this dictum is that, as far as Africans are concern,
people regard each other as brothers and sisters, and the interest of the local
communities takes precedence over those in government, organizations or
leadership in general (Wright, 1984).

36
The strong and ancient value of mutual assistance has always been
brought to life in African societies through network and associations. The
voluntary spirit in Africa predates modern governments and western influence.
Before the advent of colonialism, African people had structures that catered to
the needy among them (Gakuru, 1998). The idea and practice of giving a hand to
others, whether one acts individually or through organization, is as old as Africa.
Voluntary individual and communal activities retain deep roots among Africans.
One helps and works with neighbors and fellow villagers as the need arises and
dictates (Waiguchu et al., 1999). The main concern for every leader or grouping
was to maintain social balance and equity within the groups, rather than
individual economic achievements. In other words, the interest of the local and
ethnic communities takes precedence over whatever the leadership or
government may declare as national interests (Mamadou, 1991). If this is true,
then the proposed study will find that Kenyan leaders and managers practice
decisions based on consensus, and with a sense of community and collective
good in mind.
The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee
According to Chieni (1997), harambee, which is a Bantu (a major grouping
in Africa) word, has its origins in the word halambee, which literary means, “let us
all pull together” (para. 3). While tracing the origins of harambee, Yassin (2004)
noted the alternative linguistic interpretation of harambee is derived from the twin
words halahala and mbee. While halahala is a Swahili word for doing things
quickly and collectively, mbee is Swahili for forward. Halahala/mbee would thus

37
signify “doing things quickly and collectively with a forward connotation” (Yassin,
para. 7). However, the phrase has since been simplified, given official
recognition, and coined as harambee. Mbithi and Rasmusson (1977) perceived
harambee as the collective and cooperative participation of a community in an
attempt to fill perceived needs through utilization of its own resources. The notion
of self-help that the term harambee seems to refer to is solidly grounded in the
indigenous cultures of most Kenyan communities, where different names for joint
efforts (e.g., clearing the bushes and building structures) can be found. Every
tribe in Kenya has a name for it. For instance, the Luo call it konyir kende, the
Luhya call it obwasio, the Kikuyu call it ngwatio, and the Maasai call it
ematonyok. Perhaps that is the reason why Chieni says harambee is variously
described as a way of life in Kenya and a traditional custom of Kenyans. Each
tribe had self-help or cooperative work groups by which groups of women on the
one hand and men on the other organized common work parties (to cultivate or
build houses for each other, clear bushes, or do harvesting). The security and
prosperity of the group was dependent upon the persons being mindful of each
other’s welfare.
According to Hill (1991), the harambee philosophy is based on African
traditions of community cooperation and mutual aid. This may refer to the
institutions of work parties, which embrace a variety of forms of cooperative labor
assistance. It is often the major institutional form through which heavy and
onerous tasks or a series of such tasks are regularly carried out–-including work
at certain stages of the agricultural cycle, and building and construction tasks.

38
While commending on the glamour for banning of harambee because of political
abuses, Kenya’s vice-president was recently quoted saying that the harambee
spirit is deeply entrenched in the Kenyan culture. In other words, it is the
backbone of most development efforts and thus, may not be simply brushed
aside (Yassin, 2004). Harambee encourages Kenyans along with their leaders to
give in order to complete any task at hand for community development and
advancement. Thus, for the most part, the term embodies mutual assistance,
joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community self-reliance (Chieni,
1997).
Though harambee was adopted as a political slogan (after independence)
to symbolize the unity of man to help achieve a worthy end (Chieni, 1997), it is a
traditional principle that has always existed in every society in Kenya. Harambee
has been a marked feature of both rural and national society. Its equivalent in
other Kenyan languages is the term for “community cooperation,” meaning,
“helping each other.” To some people, harambee may appropriately be called a
movement since it developed rapidly throughout Kenya after independence
(1963) in response to people’s actions and inspirations rather than simply as a
creation of the government (Hill, 1991). Chieni consented to the fact that the
harambee philosophy gained prominence at independence when the founding
president, Jomo Kenyatta, placed the destiny of Kenyans in the hands of other
Kenyans, especially their leaders. To achieve this noble task, Kenyatta rallied
black, white, and brown Kenyans (both people and their leaders) to launch the
country into the 20th century by adopting the philosophy of harambee. In the next

39
decade, Kenyans of all races got a fair share of the economic pie even though a
contained corruption still existed (Versely, 1997). Thus, Kenyatta popularized the
harambee philosophy as a unity call that brings people together for communal
services (Shikuku, 2000).
To Kenyatta, it was only out of everybody’s efforts and toil that a new and
better Kenya could be built. He stressed a continued close collaboration between
the people throughout their self-help efforts, the government and the leaders
when he said: “But you must know that Kenyatta alone cannot give you
everything. All things we must do together to develop our country, to get
education for our children, to have doctors, to build roads, to improve or provide
all day-to-day essentials” (Chieni, 1997, para. 5). Hill (1991) said that it is
important to note that the harambee philosophy developed rapidly throughout
Kenya in response to people’s actions and aspirations rather than simply as a
creation of the government and its leadership. Thus, the spirit of harambee (i.e.,
we must all pull together) symbolizes the Kenyan peoples’ attitude and effort in
working together to build and strengthen themselves and their nation as a whole
(Wilson, 1992).
According to Ngau (1987), harambee projects are broadly classified into
social development and economic development types. The former include
education, health, social welfare and recreation, and domestic projects, while the
letter includes water supply, transport and communication facilities, and
agricultural ventures. Chieni (1997) noted that when Kenyatta realized that social
development–-the process by which the standards and conditions of living of the

40
majority of the people in a community are improved–-cannot be accomplished
without a firm cultural foundation plus the involvement of the majority of the
people themselves. He stressed a continued close collaboration between the
people through their self-help efforts and the government through the provision of
necessary services. According to Wilson (1992), the harambee philosophy has
come to mean the provision of goods–-usually social infrastructure through the
voluntary cooperation of members of the community, including their leaders. The
philosophy is utilized in community self-help programs to build roads, schools,
medical facilities, and daycares. The shift of harambee to social amenity
development emanates from the fact that the basic means of production (e.g.,
farming, industry, and mining) have come under private, family, and company or
organization ownership. To most people, collective effort is aimed at above all,
schools, health facilities, roads, and churches rather than development of farms
or business (Ngau). Through harambee, the efforts of the people, Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and the government have come together
in a cooperative endeavor to speed up development (Chieni). In his book, The
Two Faces of Civil Society: NGOs and Politics in Africa, Ndegwa (1996)
observed that besides relative political stability and a well developed
communication network, the harambee philosophy has contributed to the highest
number of both international and local NGOs in Kenya in the whole of sub-
saharan Africa. In areas where the state has been unable to fully provide
adequate services such as healthcare, education, and agricultural and credit

41
extension, the NGOs have entered these fields and become indispensable
partners in service provision through the harambee philosophy.
According to Bailey (1993), harambee is not just a theoretical fancy
concept—it has achieved tangible results. Harambee has specifically brought
about near miracles in the entire nation of Kenya. Aided by the government and
its leaders, harambee self-help projects have been responsible for the building of
over 200 schools, 40 health centers, 60 dispensaries, 260 nursery centers, 42
bridges, and 500 kilometers of rural access roads throughout the country.
Leaders with the help of their communities usually spearhead projects of this
nature. Shikuku (2000) said that though harambee never had immediate
monetary implications, it has come to have a new meaning: fundraising. It is now
used everywhere to raise funds for churches, weddings, students’ fees, hospitals
bills, and generally in programs aimed at supporting the needy in society.
According to Ngau (1987), a typical harambee today consists of fundraising,
where the invited guests, government officers, and the general public make
contributions on a voluntary basis, ranging from cash and materials to pledges
for labor. The key participants are the local people, but government officials,
elected politicians, and church leaders also participate. Further, local and foreign
business firms, foreign agencies and governments, foundations, and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) also get involved and make contributions to
harambee projects. According to Chieni (1997), the whole undertaking of
harambee is usually guided by certain fundamental principles: (a) active
participation of the people at every level of development, (b) participation guided

42
by the principles of collective good rather than individual gain (the end product
benefits the public as opposed to an individual), and (c) the choice of the project
is usually guided by the felt needs of the majority. The impact harambee has in
one way or another improved the quality of life for different people and
communities in Kenya. If this is true, then this proposed study will find Kenyan
leaders and managers being guided by the principles of service to others and
collective good rather than individual or organizational gains.
Summary and Hypotheses
One of the primary motivations of leadership should be serving others.
Much of the current literature that supports serving and valuing of people has
been presaged by Greenleaf (1977), where emphasis is placed on leaders being
servant leaders who humbly serve their followers without expectation to be
served by them. According to Patterson (2003), servant leaders signify those
who lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers
are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. Thus,
the primary focus of the leaders in servant leadership theory is on serving their
followers individually.
The African traditional leadership appears to focus on service as
espoused in Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory. African tradition
places the community’s interest ahead of that of the leader, where social
achievement is placed above personal achievement, and where leaders
generally did not rule but rather serve and lead by consensus. Most of these
values and traditions are widely shared across the African communities.

43
Similarly, the Kenyan harambee philosophy, which is based on African traditions
of community cooperation, joint effort, community reliance, and mutual aid,
appears to focus on service as well. The late president, Kenyatta, capitalized on
harambee as a unity call to bring people together along with their leaders for
communal services. The philosophy has continued to stress close collaboration
between the people, the government, and the leaders in working together to
strengthen each other and the country as a whole in terms of development
initiatives. If the African traditions and the Kenyan harambee philosophy promote
and embed service, then this proposed study should find that the Kenyan leaders
and managers accept and apply the construct of service in their cultural
organizational settings. The null hypothesis states that Kenyan leaders and
managers will neither accept nor apply the construct of service in Patterson’s
servant leadership theory. If this is true, then this proposed study should find that
the construct of service has a cultural constraint.

44
Chapter Three: Method and Procedure
The fundamental objective of this study was to examine Patterson’s
(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan
leaders and managers. According to Patterson, servant leaders signify those who
lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers are
the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. In other
words, the primary focus of the leaders in servant leadership theory is on serving
their followers individually. The African traditional leadership as well as the
Kenyan harambee philosophy appears to focus on service as espoused in
Patterson’s servant leadership theory. The hypothesis for this study states that
Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational settings will accept and
apply Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service. The null
hypothesis states that Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational
settings will neither accept nor apply Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s
construct of service.
The following sections of the chapter provide a description of research
design, reliability and validity, research participants, instrumentation, data
collection, discussion regarding data analysis and interpretation, data limitation,
and summary.
Description of Research Design
This research is a qualitative study. Because qualitative research is
concerned with process rather than outcomes and is more descriptive in nature

45
than other approaches (Creswell, 1994), the paradigm best fits the research
problem as this study attempts to enhance existing literature on servant
leadership through revelation of details not captured in quantitative inquiry.
Further, although the theory of servant leadership and the construct of service is
perceived to have been in existence for many years (Greenleaf, 1977; Nyabadza,
2003), not much research has been done, especially in varied cultural settings
(Patterson, 2003). According to Creswell, nascent phenomena of this type may
be appropriately addressed through qualitative methods. This is in line with
Merriam’s (1998) assertion that “the interest in a qualitative study is in process
rather than outcome” (p. 20). This, however, does not mean that qualitative
research is unconcerned with outcomes, but rather it does emphasize that
qualitative research is concerned in getting the processes that led to these
outcomes–-processes that experimental and survey research are often poor at
identifying. Qualitative studies are usually associated with certain strengths as
observed by Miles and Huberman (1996):
1. They focus on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings,
so that there is a strong handle on what “real life” is like.
2. Another feature of qualitative studies is their richness and holism, with
strong potential for revealing complexity. Such data provide “thick
descriptions” that are vivid, nested in a real context, and have a ring of
truth that has strong impact on the reader.
3. Qualitative studies have often been advocated as the best strategy for
discovery, exploring a new area, and developing hypotheses.

46
4. Qualitative studies are useful when one needs to supplement, validate,
explain, illuminate, or reinterpret quantitative data gathered from the
same setting. (p. 10)
From an ontological perspective, this research lends itself to qualitative
inquiry because the researcher seeks reality (through interviews) as seen by the
participants in the study. In others words, this research seeks to understand the
meaning of events, situations, and actions for the participants in the study (i.e.,
getting the participants’ perspective on the construct of service), plus their
particular context within which they act and the influence that this context has on
their actions (Maxwell, 1996). This is essential as questions involved relate to
self-perceptions that can only be evinced through the voices of the participants.
Merriam (1998) posited that qualitative inquiry assumes that the people
individually interpret the world around them. That is to say that the world is a
function of personal perception–-“a highly subjective phenomenon in need of
interpreting rather than measuring” (p. 17). From this perspective, the method
selected provides for the collection of descriptive narratives that carry details that
might otherwise be winnowed away in quantitative research. Such pearls of
wisdom tell a story richer than mere statistical analysis allows. This is particularly
meaningful in the context of this study as qualitative exposition can complement
the existing research around servant leadership theory and the construct of
service. Together they can provide insight that contemporary findings have not
reported.

47
Specifically, this research study employed a qualitative in-depth
interviewing technique. An in-depth interviewing method (also called qualitative
interviewing) is a type of interview which researchers use to elicit information in
order to achieve a holistic understanding of the participant’s point of view. It
involves asking participants standardized open-ended questions and probing
wherever necessary to obtain data deemed useful by the researcher (Huberman
& Miles, 2002). According to Mason (2002), in-depth interviewing operates from
the perspective that knowledge is situated and contextual, and the job of the
interviewer is to ensure that the relevant contexts are brought into focus so that
situated knowledge can be produced. This suggests that knowledge is
constructed rather than straightforwardly excavated. Thus, in-depth interviewing
provides depth, complexity, and roundedness in the data. According to Rubin
and Rubin (1995), in-depth interviewing is both an academic and a practical tool
that allows us to share the world of others in order to find out what is going on
(e.g., why people do what they do and how they understand their worlds).
Researchers using in-depth interviewing are able to put together the information
to form explanations and theories that are grounded in details, evidence, and
examples of the interviews. Thus, the results from in-depth interviewing are deep,
detailed, vivid, and nuanced.
Reliability and Validity
According to Mason (2002), reliability involves the accuracy of research
methods and techniques—in other words, how reliably and accurately they
produce data. Yin (1994) posited that the goal of reliability is to ensure that the

48
same study can be replicated and achieve the same results. Reliability in this
study is addressed through Merriam’s (1998) recommendation that all data be
documented and an audit trail maintained. That way, verification strategies can
be implemented. Thus, detailed records and organization remains a high priority.
According to Creswell (1996), validity refers to the correctness or
credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, or interpretation of account.
Creswell, as well as Huberman and Miles (2002), offered four types of validity
applicable to qualitative study (e.g., in-depth interviewing):
1. Theoretical validity. It has to do with not collecting or paying attention
to discrepant data, not considering alternative explanations, or
understandings of phenomenon being studied. By using probes and
follow-up questions, the researcher went beyond concrete description
and interpretation, and explicitly addressed the theoretical
constructions that may develop during the study.
2. Internal validity. Refers to generalizing within the community, group, or
institution studied to persons, events, and settings that were not
directly observed or interviewed. Generalization in qualitative research
usually takes place through the development of a theory that not only
makes sense of the particular persons or situations studied, but also
shows how the same process, in different situations, can lead to
different results. So that the findings may be generalized, the
researcher (through his expert judgment) attempted to establish the
typicality of the participants in the study.

49
3. Descriptive validity. Refers to the factual accuracy of the researcher’s
account. In other words, researchers are not making up or distorting
the things they saw and heard. The main threat to valid description, in
the sense of describing what was seen and heard, is the inaccuracy or
incompleteness of the data. The audio recording and verbatim
transcription of the interviews largely solved this problem.
4. Interpretive validity. Refers to what the objects, events, and behaviors
in the setting studied mean (i.e., to the participants). The main threat to
valid interpretation is imposing one’s own framework or meaning,
rather than understanding the perspective of the people studied and
the meanings they attach to their words and actions. To solve this
problem, the researcher seriously and systematically attempted to
learn how the participants in the study made sense of what was going
on (by being objective), rather than pigeonholing their words and
actions in his framework.
According to Walsh (2003), an important goal of qualitative research is to
demonstrate the trustworthiness of the findings. To build credibility for this study,
the researcher addressed the four types of validity (i.e., theoretical, internal,
descriptive, and interpretive) previously mentioned. In so doing, he made the
data collection methods and analyses detailed and explicit. Further, because
cross-participants analysis was used and because predetermined procedures for
interviewing and coding data were implemented, validity and reliability was
generally protected (Merriam, 1998).

50
Research Participants
Many qualitative researchers utilize theoretical or purposive sampling.
Theoretical sampling means selecting groups or categories to study on the basis
of their relevance to the research questions, theoretical position, and analytical
framework (Bryman & Burgess, 1999; Mason, 2002). Because qualitative inquiry
typically focuses in-depth on relatively small samples selected purposefully, the
logic lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in-depth (Patton, 2002).
The selection of interview participants was the result of theory-based
sampling, one of the strategies for purposefully (or theoretically) selecting
information-rich cases. Theory-based strategy allows the researcher to sample
people on the basis of their potential manifestation or representation of important
theoretical constructs (Patton, 2002). The sample population was selected based
on the theory-derived criteria for being a servant leader—in other words, leaders
and managers who seemed to espouse Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership
theory’s construct of service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy.
The individual leaders and managers (or participants) were drawn from
the executive and upper management units that are charged with instituting and
directing organizational vision/mission and policies. Such individual leaders and
managers represent corporate organizations, governmental organizations, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and institutions of higher learning (e.g.,
universities and colleges) all of which were perceived to practice servant
leadership as stipulated in their mission/vision statements. For instance, while
the institutions of higher learning strive to provide training opportunities for

51
exemplary leaders (who will be of service to their communities), corporate,
governmental and non-governmental organizations, on the other hand, strive for
excellence and good customer service. Such organizing principles and values
are analogous to those espoused in Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s
construct of service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy.
Determining the exact number of interview participants is a difficult issue
that qualitative researchers have to deal with. According to Seidman (1998),
saturation of information (i.e., verification or replication of data) plays a significant
determining factor in the exact number of organizational members interviewed.
Writers in the field of qualitative research discuss a point until they begin to hear
the same information repeated. In other words, they stop learning anything new.
To provide the breadth that Seidman discussed (i.e., saturation of information),
the researcher interviewed a total of 25 leaders and managers from Kenyan
organizations. This number was considered significant to identify themes and
patterns that are meaningful theoretically and empirically (Bryman & Burgess,
1999; Mason, 2002), even though they may not be generalizable to a larger
universe (Yin, 1994). With the figure of 25 leaders and managers from the
executive and upper management, the researcher looked for indicators of
saturation in order to stop interviewing (Morse & Richards, 2002). In other words,
the sample provided access to enough data and with the right focus for it to be
sufficient (Mason). Such sample illustrated differences and/or comparisons (as
per the research question) between the different backgrounds.