REGENT UNIVERSITY

A Model for Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy

and Mentorship

Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – August 2006

Randy Poon
Regent University

Mentoring plays an important role in the personal and professional development process. As such, it
is critical to assess those aspects which may increase mentoring effectiveness. Using qualitative
research and a review of the literature, we examine the purpose behind mentoring and the operation
of servant leadership and some of its traits. In addition, we propose a model for servant leadership,
self-efficacy and mentorship. The model suggests that the exercising of servant leadership traits may
positively impact mentor and mentee self-efficacy. This, in turn, may improve the effectiveness of the
mentoring relationship, facilitate the transformation process in both the mentor and mentee, and
result in the personal and professional development of the mentor and in particular, the mentee.

INTRODUCTION
For individuals seeking personal and professional development or for organizations seeking to facilitate
knowledge and skills transfer, mentoring has emerged as an important means to achieve these ends.
Mentoring can be defined in a variety of ways. A general definition is: “An experienced person who goes out of
his/her way to help a mentee set important life goals and develop the skills to reach them” (Phillips-Jones,
2003).

Various academics and practioners have provided additional descriptions of mentoring. Wright (2004) states
that mentoring is an “intentional, exclusive, intensive, voluntary relationship between two persons—a
teaching/learning connection…in which both persons work to nurture the relationship and contribute to the
connection” (p. 55). Studies of this relationship show that mentoring provides two distinct functions for the
mentee: one, a psychological function; and two, a career-facilitation function (Levinson et al., 1978; Kram,
1985).

These definitions underscore a number of key facets about mentoring. One, mentoring involves a relationship.
Two, mentoring entails learning. And three, mentoring is a mechanism to achieve significant leadership
development.

Mentoring Involves A Relationship: In order to fulfill these functions (psycho-social, career facilitation), the
interaction between the mentor and the mentee depends upon a particularly relational experience (Stanley

http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2006/pdf/poon.pdf
 2 A Model for Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy and Mentorship - Poon

and Clinton, 1992) that may continue over an extended period of time. This relationship exists beyond the
expectation of fulfilling a task and involves the development of the mentor-mentee relationship (Wright, 2004).
There is an element of partnership and community (Kujawa-Holbrook, 2001).

Mentoring Entails Learning: The relational nature of mentoring is particularly relevant given the emphasis on
learning within the context of the mentor-mentee interaction. To a large degree, the mentor’s commitment to
learning is more important than his or her commitment to the relationship (Bell, 2002; Clutterbuck, 2004).
Wright (2004) adds that the bond between the two persons is one of mutual interest in the learning and
growing process. The mentoring relationship also builds upon this learning and growth to facilitate the personal
and professional development necessary to develop leaders.

Mentoring and Leadership Development: Many would argue that mentoring has been shown to be one of the
key components to a successful career (Zachary, 2005). Mullen (1999) notes that mentoring can be used in
the contemporary organizational context to generate synergy, to inspire, to empower, with a view to fostering
greater innovation and productivity. Mentoring also facilitates increased individual performance, productivity
and achievement (Shea, 1999).

WHAT IS SERVANT LEADERSHIP?

From our discussion of mentoring, we move to a review of the servant leadership process. With respect to
servant leaders, Fisher (2004) writes,

Leaders must be complete followers. They must have the best interests of those they serve in mind, and know
them as they know themselves-how they think, feel, believe and behave; what they value, why they value it,
and what are their greatest hopes and fears. Otherwise, their ability to serve is a charade. (p. 16)

Magoni (2002/03) posits that servant leadership inverts the pyramid-shaped paradigm of traditional,
hierarchical leadership where power and influence flows top-down. Rather, the leader focuses on serving the
organization and providing all of the necessary resources to complete organizational objectives. Turner (2004)
adds that servant leaders are to discover the gifts that each person is uniquely capable of contributing to the
common good and to help them give it. This fosters individual responsibility and the creative use of each
member’s abilities.

FACTORS OUTLINED BY SERVANT LEADERSHIP MODELS

In addition to these definitions, there are numerous servant leadership models which identify common traits of
servant leaders. Winston and Hartsfield (2004), in their analysis of servant leadership and emotional
intelligence, identify five of these models. Table 1 provides a comparative analysis of the servant leadership
factors noted by Winston and Hartsfield.

Page & Wong (2000)1 Patterson (2003)2 Russell & Stone (2002)3 Sendjaya (2002)4 Winston (2003)5
Authentic Agapao Appreciation of others Authentic self Agapao
Caring for others Altruism Credibility Empowerment Altruism
Decision-making Empowerment Empowerment Equality Commitment to the leader
Goal-setting Humility Influence Mentoring Service
Integrity Service Integrity Role modeling Service to the leader
Leading Service to the follower
Internal self-change Self-awareness Trust
Leading Trust Modeling Self-perception
Modeling Vision Persuasion Trust
Team-building Pioneering Vision
Visioning Service
Trust
Source: Winston, B. & Hartsfield, M. (2004, August). Similarities between emotional intelligence and servant leadership.
Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Available at:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2004ServantLeadershipRoundtable/
Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Servant Leadership Traits
 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – August 2006 3

As outlined at the outset, complementing our literature review is a qualitative assessment of servant
leadership and mentoring. In interviews with mentors, candidates were asked to describe the role or
importance of selected servant leadership traits with respect to the mentoring process. The traits selected
were based on common elements found within the various servant leadership models. They include: moral
love, humility, altruism, self-awareness, authenticity, integrity, trust, empowerment, and service.

Moral Love: At the core of servant leadership is a moral love or deep caring for one’s employees or followers.
Winston (2002) states that moral love compels the leader to consider his or her employees in a holistic
manner, taking into account their needs, wants and desires.

Humility: Traditionally viewed as the denial of one’s self and any associated narcissistic tendencies, humility
could also be defined in terms of the degree of modesty in which one views one’s self (Hare, 1996).

Altruism: Altruism can be described as helping and being concerned for others (Patterson, 2003). Others such
as Kaplan (2000) add that this focus on helping others takes place without thought of one’s own well-being
and even involves personal sacrifice.

Self-Awareness: In Baron’s (2004) Emotional Quotient Inventory, he portrays emotional self-awareness as,
“the ability to recognize one’s feelings. It is not only the ability to be aware of one’s feelings and emotions, but
also to differentiate between them, to know what one is feeling and why, and to know what caused the
feelings” (p. 15).

Authenticity: The trait of authenticity entails knowing and understanding one’s values (Kouzes & Posner,
2002). In Sendjaya and Sarros’ (2003) servant leadership model, being authentic is cited as a broad
dimension which includes the sub-dimensions of humility, security, integrity, vulnerability, and accountability.

Integrity: Wright (2004) states that, “Integrity is the alignment of our voice [what we say] and touch [i.e. our
behavior], the consistent living out of our character intentionally and openly, seeking to become the person we
purpose to be” (p. 22).

Trust: Trust emerges when the leader demonstrates honesty, openness, and behaves in a manner consistent
with values (Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Yukl, 2002). Leaders must also communicate clearly and take their
promises seriously (Kouzes & Posner, 2003).

Empowerment: A critical element of servant leadership is whether the followers grow and become servant
leaders themselves (Greenleaf, 1977). Stanley and Clinton (1992) speak to the responsibility that leaders have
to empower their followers and help them reach their potential.

Service: One of the key underlying factors to servant leadership is service. Greenleaf (1977) states, “The
servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (p.
13).

LINKING MENTORING AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP

Given this list of servant leaders’ traits, our question turns to the relationship between mentoring and servant
leadership. In this section, we examine both a servant leadership model and a mentoring model, before
proposing a model of mentoring that takes into account servant leadership traits.

Winston’s (2003) extension of Patterson’s Servant Leadership Model (which also serves to outline the ‘how’ of
servant leadership) provides a full-circle depiction (Figure 1) of the servant-leader/follower interaction that
eventually results in the increased mutual commitment between the servant leader and follower. One of the
key aspects of Winston’s extension is the impact of the leader’s moral love on the manner in which he or she
leads and the ensuing generation of moral love within the follower.

Published by the School of Leadership Studies, Regent University

 4 A Model for Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy and Mentorship - Poon

Humility Vision

Leader’s
Agapao Empowerment Service

Altruism Trust

Commitment
to Leader
Altruism
Follower’s Intrinsic Towards the
Agapao Motivation leader’s Service
interest
Self
Efficacy

Figure 1: Winston’s Extension of Patterson’s Servant Leadership Model

Pittenger and Heimann’s (2000) Mentorship and Self-Efficacy Model, posits that increased self-efficacy on the
part of the mentor and mentee has a direct impact on the effectiveness of the relationship. They maintain that
individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to have a greater assurance in their capabilities and as such,
possess the greater tendency to undertake tasks, work more diligently at them, and persevere in the midst of
trials compared to those with low self-efficacy (Sherer et al., 1982). Self-efficacious employees look to their
role as mentor or mentee with a greater receptivity than less efficacious individuals to engage in demanding
activities or learn new skills. They suggest that these factors will increase the likelihood that their mentoring
relationship will succeed. Kram (1985) adds that other variables such as mutual liking, identification, and
attraction also enhance the viability of an ongoing relationship.

Self-Efficacy of
Mentor and Mentee

Effectiveness of Mentoring Reinforcement

Job Satisfaction of
Mentor and Mentee

Figure 2: Pittenger and Heimann’s Mentorship and Self-Efficacy Model

As stated earlier, the purpose of mentoring is often two-fold: the first, psycho-social and the second, career
development. Pittenger and Heimann’s (2000) model emphasizes the career development function and
highlights job satisfaction as the result of an effective mentoring relationship focused on career progression.
They note, “Building effective mentoring relationships is important because they have been shown to affect
significant organizational outcomes [such as] job satisfaction” (p. 40).

A MODEL FOR SERVANT LEADERSHIP, SELF-EFFICACY AND MENTORSHIP

In consideration of existing research, it would seem that the relationship between servant leadership and
mentoring has not been adequately explored. The proposed model suggests there is a positive correlation
between certain servant leader traits, self-efficacy and mentoring effectiveness. Allen et al. (2006) observe
that a key element to mentoring success is the extent to which the mentor and mentee’s relationship is
directed toward meeting one another’s developmental needs. This raises the question whether the mutual
demonstration of a moral or agapao love might satisfy that condition. Additionally, are the psycho-social and
career development goals better attained through mentors/leaders demonstrating servant leadership
 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – August 2006 5

characteristics? While the proposed model will require additional research, we also examine the experiences of
the mentors as our basis for discussion purposes.

In our earlier discussion of servant leadership traits and Winston’s extension of Patterson’s model, we outlined
the top half of the proposed model. In addition, many of the elements in Pittenger and Heimann’s model have
been briefly raised. In linking the two models, we suggest that the demonstration of servant leadership in the
mentoring process and the subsequent enhancement of the follower’s moral love positively impacts mentor
and mentee self-efficacy. As Hartsfield (2003) points out in his examination of the internal dynamics of
transformational leadership, the relationship between cognitive constructs such as self-efficacy and matters of
the heart such as moral love may pose certain challenges when considering the relationship between moral
love and self-efficacy. However, he also notes,

If the deeply personal connection between transformational leader and followers cannot be explained by
something as ethereal as spirituality, can it then be explained through the somewhat less abstract concept of
human emotions? Results of this study would say “yes.” (p. 75).

Humility Integrity

Self-
Leader’s Awareness
Moral Love Empowerment Service
Authenticity

Altruism Trust

Mentor’s
Self-Efficacy

Mentoring Personal &

Follower’s Relationship Transformation Professional
Moral Love Effectiveness Development

Mentee’s
Self-Efficacy

Figure 3: Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy and Mentorship Model

In turn, we offer that the increased effectiveness of the mentoring relationship facilitates transformation, as
well as personal (psycho-social) and professional (career) development, in the life of both the mentor and
mentee (Hicks, n.d.).

As we consider the personal accounts of mentors, we want to ascertain whether servant leadership traits have
a bearing upon self-efficacy, the mentoring relationship and transformation. We conducted interviews with
mentors whose experience ranged from 5 – 40 years. One had mentored only a handful of individuals; another
had mentored nearly a hundred. Their backgrounds varied in sectors such as banking, health care, the federal
public service, pastoring, and coaching. Each of the individuals had been mentored themselves and drew very
practical lessons from their personal experiences to assist them in their own mentoring. They were asked to
describe their mentoring experiences, key success factors in the mentoring process, truths they had learned
about themselves, as well as the role or importance of the servant leadership traits (previously identified) on
the mentoring relationship.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP TRAITS AND MENTORING

Love: The starting point for the model begins with the leader’s moral love. Winston (2002) states that the
purpose of this moral love is to, “go far beyond seeing people as ‘hired hands,’ to seeing them as ‘hired hearts”
(p. 9). One of the respondents made this remark about the role of love or deep caring in the mentoring
relationship,

Published by the School of Leadership Studies, Regent University

 6 A Model for Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy and Mentorship - Poon

Well, it’s the engine, isn’t it? It’s what drives it all….I have to care deeply about that person. I have to
care deeply and love them and have a desire to see their very best brought out. I have to have a deep
desire to see them develop and be, not only the leader they can be, but to see them develop and be
all that they can be….And if that doesn’t come from a position of love, I don’t know where else that can
come from.

Turner (2004) adds, “I have found that servant leadership organizations attract…people who are motivated by
the enduring power of love. In decision making, the first question any servant leader should make is, ‘what is
the loving thing to do?’” (p. 2) A mentor working with the federal public service remarked,

I think that if the mentee’s plan is to be able to discuss anything related to personal growth,
professional growth…with the mentor and wants to have a really well-rounded relationship whereby
they can discuss any topic with the mentor with a view to getting feedback, learning more...then the
deep caring and love can certainly come into play and enrich the relationship much more than it could
be enriched through just a purely professional mentor/mentee relationship.

Humility and Altruism: Stemming from the foundation of moral love and a concern for the employee’s needs,
wants, and desires come the traits of humility and altruism. Winston (2002) adds that humility involves
recognizing that one does not know everything and that there is considerable room for the input of others. Bell
(2002) reinforces this by stating that “humility is not an apology. To be humble means to be unassuming and
egoless, acting from the soul without adding anything” (p. 156). A respondent noted,

If I feel that I am superior to you, then I am not going to be of much benefit to you [the mentee]. That
doesn’t mean that I don’t realize that I may have more experience, more knowledge, and more skills. I
may have a position that is higher up in terms of hierarchy, but it doesn’t mean that I am superior to
you.

Also directly flowing from moral love is the trait of altruism. Earlier we had discussed how altruism in some
cases takes on the sense of personal sacrifice on behalf of another. Frankl states that personal meaning,
“always points, and is directed, to something, someone, other than oneself—be it a meaning to fulfill or another
human being to encounter” (as cited in Sosik, 2000, p. 65).

Self-Awareness and Authenticity: From humility and altruism comes an increased capacity for self-awareness
and authenticity. Stein (2000) remarks, “The goal of emotional self-awareness isn’t to analyze our emotions to
death….But we must strive to be conscious of what we feel and why we feel the way we do, so that we aren’t
driven blindly by internal forces…” (p. 60). Sosik & Lee (2002) suggest that self-awareness positively impacts
the mentoring process. They note that increased self-awareness increases the extent that individuals will
utilize feedback to constructively change their behaviors, take into account others’ perspectives, and bear in
mind the impact of their own behavior on others.

All of the respondents agreed that self-awareness and authenticity were critical in the mentoring process. One
individual highlighted the relationship between humility and self-awareness,

I believe it’s critical. If the mentor is not self-aware, they can end up being full of themselves. And to
the degree to which they are self-aware, they can say to their mentee, ‘Here’s the struggle going on
within me, here’s what I’m working with. And they can do that with candor, with honesty, and with
absolute integrity. That’s what self-awareness and honesty will give them.

Authenticity also speaks to genuineness on the part of the mentor. As they increase in self-awareness, they
also become comfortable with whom they are and are less inclined to react to the impressions that others have
of them (Bennis, 1989).

Integrity and Trust: Integrity and trust flow from who we say we are and how we actually behave. Sankar
(2003) submits that one’s behaviors and more noticeable than one’s personality and are largely determined by
one’s values. By changing values such as egoism and greed, one can also change problematic behaviors
swuch as malice and manipulation. Wright (2004) posits,
 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – August 2006 7

“Personal character is defined by our theology—the ‘gods’ we choose to follow—and therefore our
leadership actions flow from our incarnated theological commitments. Who we are matters. What we
believe matters. The actions of leadership will always flow from our character.” (p. 22)

In terms of trust, O’Keefe adds that followers must trust their leaders before they will follow their vision or act
on their initiatives (as cited in Kouzes & Posner, 2003). It is something that must be earned and not
demanded. If there is no integrity, then trust is either fragile or broken. Another respondent replied, “If I can’t
trust you with myself and my information, if I can’t trust that you will be confidential in how you use what I’ve
told you, then we don’t have much of a relationship at all.”

Empowerment and Service: The very nature of mentoring is to enable and empower others. Yukl (2002)
associates empowerment with encouraging and facilitating self-management by followers. The challenge for
mentors is providing that encouragement and support while avoiding the trap of over-coddling the mentee
(Bell, 2002). Growth in the mentee’s life occurs as the mentee encounters difficult circumstances and
observes a measure of risk taking in the life of the mentor. The mentor’s own authenticity and honest example
becomes a model for the mentee. A respondent noted,

It’s about the mentor giving the mentee the tools, the encouragement, the life to observe—everything
that will set them loose and set them on a course to be all they can be. It’s more than being just a
good cheerleader. It’s speaking deeply into their life and encouraging them deeply to be all that they
can be. That’s a very empowering thing.

As Greenleaf remarked earlier, the challenge for servant leaders is whether or not those they lead are
equipped to be themselves servant leaders. Servant leaders must, in effect, multiply themselves. One means
in which they can accomplish this is through the mentoring relationship.

A RETURN TO LOVE
As we move from the top half of our proposed model to the lower half, we begin to examine the impact of these
servant leadership traits on the follower and in particular, on the follower as mentee. A significant factor in the
follower/mentee’s growth and development is the presence of increased moral love (Blanchard & Waghorn,
1997; Winston, 2003). One of the striking elements we found in the interviews with mentors was the degree of
love and care that they expressed for their mentees. One respondent stated, “You have to truly care for them.
You have to truly care for their lives….You can’t fake caring.” When asked what had been their most fulfilling
experience as a coach, universally they spoke about the thrill of seeing the change and transformation in the
lives of their mentees. One respondent replied,

The thrill of seeing someone respond and seeing them make some major moves in their lives as a
result of us working together. That’s what the experience of mentoring someone is all about, when you
see them move forward.

The anecdotal accounts of the mentors and the stories of the changes in their mentees’ lives give cause for
further examination of the relationship between servant leadership and self-efficacy. Winston (2003) proposes
that a relationship does exist between the follower’s moral love and their own self-efficacy.

SELF-EFFICACY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE MENTORING RELATIONSHIP

According to Bandura (1986), beliefs in our capabilities to successfully perform a given behavior or task
impacts our ability to successfully perform those given behaviors or tasks. Pajares (2002) adds that one’s self-
efficacy determines, “how much effort people will expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when
confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will be in the face of adverse situations. The higher the…efficacy,
the greater the effort, persistence, and resilience” (par. 22).

While no formal research has been conducted to date regarding the impact of servant leadership on mentee
self-efficacy, one study was conducted on the effect of transformational leadership on group members. Pillai
and Williams’ (2004) study of some 270 firefighters found that transformational leadership influenced
perceptions of unit performance and commitment through self-efficacy. They acknowledge that
transformational leadership positively influenced group members in the initial stages of group formation and

Published by the School of Leadership Studies, Regent University

 8 A Model for Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy and Mentorship - Poon

that further research would need to be conducted to assess the correlation between transformational
leadership and task-specific self-efficacy. They note,

House and Shamir (1993) have suggested that the primary motivational mechanism through which
transformational and charismatic (or outstanding) leaders influence their followers is by enhancing
followers' self-efficacy and self-worth. Transformational leadership behaviors and its effects, especially
role modeling, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal appear to parallel the determinants of self-
efficacy. (p.146)

Adding insight to the relationship between emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and transformational
leadership, Hartsfield (2003) found that both emotional intelligence and self-efficacy predicted
transformational leadership. Sosik and Megerian (1999) observed in their study on emotional intelligence and
performance that leaders categorized as self aware also demonstrate self-efficacy, interpersonal control, and
social self-confidence. Hartsfield also suggests that transformational leaders are able to motivate followers to
go beyond short-term personal interests and to look toward longer-term organizational interests.

Anecdotally, the servant leader/mentors who were interviewed have sought to inspire, empower and motivate
their mentees to be all that they can be. In response to the question as to why he agrees to be a mentor, one
respondent replied, “I think I agree because I love them, because I want to see them do well.” To the same
question, another respondent remarked,

Because I really care about getting good young people into our department. I care about transferring
my knowledge and experience to others. If what I can share with these young people can inspire them
and keep them in the public service, then I’m ready to do it. I think it’s a great place to work. I think
there is a tremendous opportunity for varied types of experience and jobs. I just love to talk to other
people about how great it is.

Again in every situation, the candidates emphasized the benefit which they were receiving from the mentoring
experience. Each one of them would wholeheartedly agree to mentor again should the opportunity arise. Wright
(2004) notes that there is a compelling rationale why mentors continue to pour their lives into their protégés.
He writes,

Mentoring fuels personal growth and renewal in the mentor. The opportunity to reflect critically on our
own life and leadership teaches us new truths about ourselves….Mentors grow through the
vulnerability of self-disclosure and acknowledged learning. …The choice to become a mentor is a
decision to grow.

It would seem apparent that increased self-efficacy on the part of the mentor and mentee would positively
impact the mentoring relationship. However studies to date are not conclusive. Ragins, Cotton and Miller
(2000) post that positive work outcomes do not automatically occur through the presence of a mentor-mentee
relationship. The nature or quality of this relationship is likely a better determinant of work performance. They
add that in some cases it is preferable to have no mentor rather than a bad mentor. This could certainly be
explored further through additional research. The research of Pillai and William’s (2004), Ragins et al. (2000),
and Allen et al. (2006) moves forward this nascent area of study. While the scope of our interviews focused
primarily on the mentors, additional qualitative research could also be gathered based on mentees’ attitudes
toward and experiences of servant leader mentors.

TRANSFORMATION AND PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

As it has been noted through the literature review and the interviews thus far, the interaction between mentor
and mentee brings about a transformative process in the lives of each individual. De Pree and Wright (2003)
remark, “What we do in life will always be a consequence of who we are. The mentor and the mentoree have
joined together in a process of becoming” (par. 2). This process of becoming involves a lifelong mastering of
skills and of learning (Bell, 2002; Senge, 1990). Addressing the collective impact of a learning culture which
permeates an organization, Senge adds that learning facilitates the evolution of these enterprises and the
intelligence within them. This evolutionary or transformative effect of the mentoring and learning process
possesses numerous facets:
 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – August 2006 9

The transformation is deeply personal and interpersonal. The interaction between servant leader mentors and
mentees who practically live out this deep caring for one another also results in a transformation of their
relationship. Nouwen (1974) notes,

To care means first of all to be present to each other. From experience you know that those who care
for you become present to you. When they listen, they listen to you. When they speak, they speak to
you. Their presence is a healing presence because they accept you on your terms, and they encourage
you to take your own life seriously. (p. 36)

Depree (1992) suggests that transformation requires a re-connection or re-alignment between voice (our
values) and touch (our behaviors). Wright (2004) offers that one’s character and values impact behavior,
actions, and the relationships that we share with others. In the same vein, this transformation also requires an
ongoing openness to learning and change not only on the part of the mentee but also on the part of the mentor
(Murray, 2001). With respect to the mentor’s openness to learning, one respondent replied, “The reality is that
life changes, stuff comes down the pipe toward the mentor as well, and until we draw our dying breath, we’re in
the process of learning, we’re in the process of growing and changing.”

The transformation is both individual and corporate. Transformation takes place not only on an individual level,
but it also has the potential to transform larger groups. When a servant leadership culture affects an
organization, Father Bennet Sims notes,

There is an astonishing zest, creativity, and productivity that occurs—whether in the home, or in a
class, or in a business. It just keeps on affecting things around it like a leaven, and the final result is
far greater than any sort of monetary reward—a bonding among persons grows and a whole
community may begin to show the fruit of diverse gifts brought forth to bless the whole. (As cited in
Turner, 2004, p. 2)

Our understanding of transformation as it relates to servant leadership and mentorship requires additional
study. Future research both quantitative and qualitative needs to be conducted to more fully explore what is
meant by transformation, particularly as it relates to the joint journey traveled by both the mentor and mentee
through moral love, humility, altruism, authenticity, self-awareness, integrity, trust, empowerment, and service.

As we better understand transformation, we will be able to determine its correlation to the two distinct
functions of mentoring identified earlier in this paper, personal (psycho-social) and professional (career)
development.

NEED FOR EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

The model presented in this paper attempts to identify those factors which have a bearing on mentoring
effectiveness. In particular, the model suggests that servant leader traits (moral love, humility, altruism, self-
awareness, authenticity, integrity, trust, empowerment, and service) may positively impact mentor and mentee
self-efficacy. This, in turn, may improve the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship, facilitate the
transformation process in both the mentor and mentee, and result in the personal and professional
development of the mentor and in particular, the mentee.

Research conducted on both Patterson’s servant leadership model and Winston’s extension will assist in the
assessment of the paper’s proposed model. Dennis and Bocarnea’s (2005) development of an instrument
which measures five of the seven constructs of Patterson’s model provides an initial tool which will help
determine the extent to which servant leadership impacts mentoring effectiveness and ultimately, personal
and professional development. The author will further develop the model and obtain additional quantitative
and qualitative research on the role of emotional intelligence on the model’s variables and in particular, on the
transformation process.

NOTES
1 Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000) ‘A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership’, in S. Adjibolosoo
(ed.) The human factor in shaping the course of history and development, Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.

Published by the School of Leadership Studies, Regent University

 10 A Model for Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy and Mentorship - Poon

2 Patterson,
K. A. (2003) Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No.
AAT 3082719)

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

4 Sendjaya,S. (2003, October 16) Development and validation of servant leadership behavior scale. Servant
Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Available at:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/

5 Winston, B. (2003, October 16) Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: coming full circle. Servant

Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Available at:

http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/
 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – August 2006 11

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). The relationship between formal mentoring program characteristics
and perceived program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), pp. 125-153.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

BarOn, R. (2004). BarOn emotional quotient inventory: Technical manual. Toronto: MHS Systems.

Bell, C. R. (2002). Managers as mentors: Building partnerships for learning. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Blanchard, K., & Waghorn, T. (1997). Mission Possible. New York: McGraw Hill.

Clutterbuck, D. (2004). Mentors and mentees – the competency conundrum. Retrieved November 30, 2005,
from
http://www.clutterbuckassociates.com/files/COMPETENCE%20OF%20MENTORS%20AND%20MENTE
ES.pdf

DePree, M. (1992) Leadership jazz. New York: Doubleday.

DePree, M., & Wright, W. C. (2003). Mentoring: Two voices. Retrieved October 4, 2005, from
http://www.depree.org/pressreleases/2voices-august2003.html

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

Fisher, J. R., Jr. (2004). Servant leadership. Executive Excellence, 21(5), pp. 15-16.

Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness.
Ramsay, NJ: Paulist Press.

Hare, S. (1996). The paradox of moral humility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 33(2), pp. 235-241.

Hartsfield, M. (2003). The internal dynamics of transformational leadership:

Effects of spirituality, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International
(UMI No. 3090425)

Hicks, A. (n.d.). A definition of mentoring. Retrieved October 29, 2005, from

http://www.mentors.net/03library/mentoring_defined.html

Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),
pp. 491-508.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kram, K. E. (1985.) Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glensview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.

Kujawa-Holbrook, S. A. (2001). Courage and resistance: Spiritual formation and mentoring girls for religious
leadership. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 6(3), pp. 299-310.

Published by the School of Leadership Studies, Regent University

 12 A Model for Servant Leadership, Self-Efficacy and Mentorship - Poon

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man's life.
New York: Knopf.

Magoni, F. (2002/03). Pyramids and paradigms. Pastoral Forum 20(1), p. 14.

Mullen, C. A. (1999). New directions in mentoring. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer

Murray, M. (2001). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: how to facilitate an effective mentoring
process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nouwen, H. J. M. (1974). Out of solitude. Notre Dame, IN: Ava Maria Press.

Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved October 30, 2005, from
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No.
AAT 3082719)

Phillips-Jones, L. (2003). Mentoring FAQs. Retrieved October 26, 2005, from

http://www.mentoringgroup.com/html/faqs.html

Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment,
and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), pp. 144-159.

Pittenger, K., & Heimann, B. A. (2000). Building effective mentoring relationships.

Review of Business, 21(1/2), pp. 38-42.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of
relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal,
43(6), pp. 1177-1194.

Sankar, Y. (2003). Character not charisma is the critical measures of leadership excellence. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), pp. 45-55.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Shea, G.F. (1999). Making the most of being mentored. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-
efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, pp. 663-671.

Sosik, J. J. (2000). The role of personal meaning in charismatic leadership. The

Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), pp. 60-74.

Sosik, J. J., & Lee, D. L. (2002). Mentoring in organizations: A social judgment perspective for developing
tomorrow's leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8(4), pp. 17-32.

Stanley, P. D., & Clinton, J. R. (1992). Connecting: The mentoring relationships you need to succeed in life.
Colorado Springs: Navpress.

Stein, S. J., & Book, H. E. (2000). The EQ edge: Emotional intelligence and your success. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.

Turner, B. (2004). Servant leadership. Pastoral Forum. Retrieved October 26, 2005, from
http://www.pilink.org/downloads/billturner.pdf
 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – August 2006 13

Winston, B. (2002). Be a leader for God's sake. Virginia Beach: Regent University.

Winston, B. (2003, October 16). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Coming full circle. Servant
Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Available at:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/

Winston, B., & Hartsfield, M. (2004, August). Similarities between emotional intelligence and servant
leadership. Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Available at:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2004ServantLeadershipRoundtable/

Wright, W. C. (2004). Mentoring: The promise of relational leadership. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press.

Yukl, B. (2003). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Zachary, L. J. (2005). Raising the bar in a mentoring culture. T + D, 59(6), pp. 26-27.

Published by the School of Leadership Studies, Regent University