The Role of Servant Leadership in Developing an EthicalClimate in Sport Organizations

Laura J. BurtonUniversity of Connecticut

Jon Welty PeacheyUniversity of Illinois

Janelle E. WellsUniversity of South Florida

Evaluation of leadership as a necessary component to reform sport could be critical to fostering a more ethicalclimate and reducing the frequency and severity of ethical improprieties within this context. However, limitedresearch has examined the relationship between leadership and ethical climate. Servant leadership, due to itsethical component and people-centered focus, is a leadership approach that may best support development ofan ethical climate. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of servant leadership on perceptionsof an ethical climate in intercollegiate athletic departments, with an examination of how trust and perceptionsof organizational justice indirectly influence the relationship between servant leadership and perceptions of anethical climate. Findings indicated that servant leadership was directly related to trust in leadership andperceptions of an ethical climate. Further, both trust in the leader and procedural justice indirectly influencedthe relationship between servant leadership and ethical climate.

Keywords: ethics, intercollegiate athletics, leadership, trust

The sport landscape has been plagued with ethicalimproprieties and scandals in recent years. There arerecent examples in U.S. intercollegiate sport (e.g., PennState/Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal,academic scandals) and U.S. professional sport (e.g.,National Football League alleged minimization of thelinks between concussions and long-term brain injury),and ethical scandals have also plagued internationalsport at the highest level of sport leadership (e.g.,Federation International de Football Associationbribery scandals, International Association of Athleticsdoping scandals). Organizational climates that fosterunethical behavior among leaders, administrators, andcoaches seem to be more the norm than the exception insport organizations. In light of these recent ethicalscandals and many others, educators, scholars, and

officials both within and outside of sport managementhave called for reform of sport organizations andthose that lead them (Lapchick, 2013; Lopiano &Gurney, 2014). In essence, scholars are beginning tocall attention to the need for evaluation of leadership as anecessary component for reform in sport organizationsand in intercollegiate athletics in particular (Burton &Welty Peachey, 2013; DeSensi, 2014; Sagas & Wigley,2014). More specifically, leadership is considered criti-cal to fostering a more ethical climate within sportorganizations (Welty Peachey, Damon, Zhou, &Burton, 2015).

Current leadership research is moving away fromthe more traditional studies of transformational andtransactional leadership toward a stronger emphasis ona shared and relational perspective, with a focus on theinteraction between a leader and a follower (see Wang,Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). In addition, work by WeltyPeachey and colleagues (2015) has highlighted the needto examine different types of leadership within thecontext of sport organizations, beyond transformationaland transactional. Servant leadership has gained appealas a result of the myriad positive outcomes associatedwith this style of leadership, most importantly the unique

Laura J. Burton is with the Department of Educational Leadership,University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Jon Welty Peachey is with theDepartment of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois,Champaign, IL. Janelle E. Well is with the Department of Sport andEntertainment Management, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.Address author correspondence to Laura J. Burton at [email protected].

229

Journal of Sport Management, 2017, 31, 229-240https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0047© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE

focus on other-centered service (Neubert, Hunter, &Tolentino, 2016). Servant leadership is different thanother approaches to leadership as it explicitly empha-sizes the needs of followers, and also because thisapproach emphasizes the ideal of service in the relation-ship between leader and follower (van Dierendonck,2011). Servant leaders focus on follower care and de-velopment (van Dierendonck, 2011) and place the inter-ests, needs, and aspirations of others before their own(Greenleaf, 1977). Barbuto, Gottfredson, and Searle(2014) define servant leadership as an “altruistic-basedform of leadership in which leaders emphasize theneeds and development of others, primarily theirfollowers” (p. 2).

Servant leadership is an alternative approach toleadership, one without a primary focus on organiza-tional outcomes. Organizational outcomes are stillimportant, but the emphasis is on developing andempowering followers, and through this development,organizational outcomes will be realized (Stone,Russell, & Patterson, 2004; van Dierendonck, Stam,Boersma, de Windt, & Alkema, 2014). Scholars haveadvanced that this type of leadership should be exploredin sport organizations, including intercollegiate sport,due to its ethical component and people-centered ap-proach (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013; DeSensi,2014). In fact, ethics is at the core of servant leadership,with its emphasis on integrity and trustworthiness (vanDierendonck, 2011). Further, within sport organiza-tions, developing an ethical climate, defined as employ-ees’ shared perceptions of the ethical practices andprocedures of the organization (Victor & Cullen,1988), is needed (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013).Limited scholarship, however, has examined the rela-tionship between leadership and ethical climate in sportorganizations, which as noted earlier are in need ofreform.

There is also a developing body of research exam-ining organizational outcomes associated with servantleadership that have an ethical component to them,all of which constitutes the ethical climate of an organi-zation. For instance, servant leadership fosters trust inthe leader and the organization (Joseph & Winston,2005; Sendjaya & Pekerti, 2010). In addition, organiza-tions led by a servant leader are positively associatedwith procedural organizational justice (Chung, Jung,Kyle, & Petrick, 2010; Ehrhart, 2004; Walumbwa,Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). Servant leadership couldthus be vital in establishing an ethical climate in sportorganizations, with trust and procedural justice asfactors indirectly influencing the ability of servant lea-ders to do so. Therefore, the purpose of our study was toexplore the influence of servant leadership on percep-tions of an ethical climate in one type of sport organiza-tion, intercollegiate athletic departments, with anexamination of how trust and perceptions of organiza-tional justice indirectly influence the relationship be-tween servant leadership and perceptions of an ethicalclimate.

Theoretical Framework andHypotheses

In this section, we detail servant leadership, highlightresearch linking servant leadership in support of ethicalorganizations and outcomes, frame the concept of ethicalclimate, and propose potential factors (i.e., trust andorganizational justice) through which servant leadershipmay operate in order to develop an ethical climate inintercollegiate athletic departments. We also advanceseveral hypotheses.

Servant Leadership

The increasing number of sport management scholarswho have focused on leadership over the past decade hashighlighted the importance of this topic in sport (seeWelty Peachey et al., 2015). Leaders can shape thenorms and values of an organization and can thereforecreate ethical norms that are able to guide the moral orimmoral behavior of the individuals or groups of in-dividuals that they lead (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum,Bardes, & Salvador, 2009; Schaubroeck et al., 2012).Since its introduction by Greenleaf (1977), servantleadership has re-emerged over the past 15 years ofleadership research as a theory of leadership that followsan ethical or moral basis (Dinh et al., 2014). Workconducted by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) to developa conceptual framework for servant leadership supporteddevelopment of five constructs. First, servant leadershave a desire to make a positive difference in the lives oftheir followers and are therefore driven by an altruisticcalling. Servant leaders also practice emotional healingby making a commitment to followers and demonstrat-ing skill in fostering spiritual recovery in support offollowers suffering from hardship. Further, servant lea-ders demonstrate wisdom as they are aware of surround-ings and anticipate consequences, which allows them tonote cues from the environment and understand theimplications of these cues on their followers. By usingpersuasive mapping, servant leaders have the ability touse sound reasoning and mental frameworks to createshared and compelling reasons for action. Finally, ser-vant leaders demonstrate organizational stewardship asthey aspire for their organizations to make positivecontributions to society through community develop-ment, programs, and outreach and by utilizing ethicalbusiness practices (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).

van Dierendonck (2011) and colleagues (vanDierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; van Dierendonck &Patterson, 2015) have worked to more fully developand clarify the conceptual framework of servant leader-ship. Through this work, six areas of servant leadershipwere conceptualized, which include empowerment,stewardship, authenticity, providing direction, humility,and interpersonal acceptance.

Empowerment: Servant leaders foster an empoweringattitude in followers that in turn generates follower self-confidence and provides followers with a sense of personal

230 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3

power. This type of leadership behavior encourages infor-mation sharing with followers as well as self-directeddecision making, and it provides support and coachingfor innovative performance. Servant leaders fundamentallybelieve in the intrinsic value possessed by each follower,recognizing and acknowledging each person’s abilities andwhat the person can learn (Greenleaf, 1998).

Stewardship: Servant leaders act as stewards as theyare willing to take responsibility for the entire organiza-tion and put the interests of followers and the organiza-tion over and above their own self-interests. Servantleaders also act as role models and care takers, setting anexample for followers and inspiring others to act in thecommon interests of all. The characteristics of steward-ship are closely linked to the concepts of teamwork,social responsibility, and loyalty.

Authenticity: Servant leaders demonstrate authentici-ty, being true to oneself, both in public and in private.Authenticity is about expressing oneself in ways that areconsistent with inner feelings and thoughts. A servantleader’s authenticity is demonstrated by doing what ispromised, being visible within the organization, and lead-ing with honesty (Russell & Gregory Stone, 2002) andvulnerability (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). As noted by vanDierendonck (2011), authenticity within the context of anorganization indicates a leader behaves in such a way thatthe professional role of the leader remains secondary to theprimary role of the individual as a person.

Providing direction: Servant leaders provide direc-tion by clearly demonstrating to followers what is ex-pected of them. Within the context of servant leadership,leaders provide an appropriate amount of accountabilityfor followers. Also, leaders customize directions basedon followers’ abilities, needs, and input. This type ofleading allows for new ways of getting things accom-plished and creates alternative ways to meet oldproblems, with consistent reliance on values and con-victions when accomplishing tasks.

Humility: Servant leaders put their own accomplish-ments and talents in perspective. Further, servant leadersacknowledge that they can benefit from the expertise ofothers and therefore actively seek out contributions offollowers. By demonstrating humility, a servant leaderputs followers’ interests first, provides followers withsupport, and facilitates their followers’ performance. Aservant leader also demonstrates humility by retreatinginto the background and not taking sole credit when atask has been successfully accomplished.

Interpersonal acceptance: Servant leaders are ableto create an environment in which followers feel safe.This includes creating a trusting relationship, so thatfollowers are able to make mistakes and still feel theywill be accepted. Servant leaders take and understandanother person’s perspective and are able to “walk inanother’s shoes.” They demonstrate compassion andshow empathy and forgiveness even when confrontedwith arguments, personal offences, or mistakes.

Within the sport context, servant leadership re-search has only recently drawn attention as scholars

have been primarily focused on transformational lead-ership and the influence of those leadership behaviors onorganizational outcomes (Welty Peachey et al., 2015).However, given that transformational leaders’ primaryallegiance is to their organizations, transformationalleaders view the personal growth of followers withinthe context of what is best for their organizations(Graham, 1991). Within transformational leadership,there is the risk of manipulation of followers in orderto achieve organizational goals or to meet the leader’spersonal goals (van Dierendonck, 2011). In contrast, themoral grounding of servant leadership, one that is notincluded in understandings of transformational leader-ship (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008) could help tofoster an ethical climate within intercollegiate athleticdepartments and sport organizations more generally(Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013).

Further, as transformational leadership highlightsonly objectives of the organization as the primary motivefor leading, with an emphasis on “getting followers toengage in and support organizational objectives” (Stoneet al., 2004, p. 354), this type of leadership is not ideal fordeveloping an ethical climate. With a focus only onorganizational outcomes, leaders can and do lose sight ofthe needs of those they are leading. In addition, thevalues held by transformational leaders influence wheth-er they are moral or immoral leaders (Bass, 1985), and atransformational leader can act in violation of ethicalnorms by focusing on overriding individual interests tofulfill organizational objectives (Parolini, Patterson, &Winston, 2009; Stephens, D’Intino, & Victor, 1995).When there is only a focus on organizational objectives,decisions can be perceived to be in the best interest of theorganization but fail those individuals within the orga-nization or those that it serves, including student athleteswithin the intercollegiate sport context (Burton & WeltyPeachey, 2013).

Servant leaders’ values (e.g., acting ethically), in-tentions (e.g., sacrificing for others), and behaviors(e.g., support for followers) generate followers’ respectand loyalty (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008;Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008;Sendjaya et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011;Walumbwa et al., 2010). This influence is unique in therelationship between servant leaders and followers whencompared with other leader–follower relationships as aresult of the “attention, support, and care given by theleader to encourage followers to view themselves ac-cording to the tight-knit relationship they have with theirleaders” (Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014,p. 1396). Thus, such morally grounded relationshipscould help foster an ethical climate within sport orga-nizations, including intercollegiate athletic departments(Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013).

Ethical Climate

Scholars have advanced that ethical climate is a typeof organizational climate that captures employees’

Servant Leadership Ethical Climate 231

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3

perceptions of the ethical policies, practices, and proce-dures of the organization (Martin & Cullen, 2006).Previous scholarship has demonstrated that an organiza-tion’s ethical climate is associated with organizationalvalues and ethical behavior of its employees (Brown,Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Deshpande & Joseph, 2009).In addition, prior research has found that an organiza-tion’s ethical climate is related to a number of otherorganizational outcomes, such as organizational com-mitment (Tsai & Huang, 2008), voluntary turnoverintentions (Mulki, Jaramillo, & Locander, 2008), andjob satisfaction (Elçi & Alpkan, 2009).

Leadership behavior can be a critical determinant inestablishing an ethical climate within organizations(Mulki et al., 2008). Leaders establish an ethical climateby setting clear standards for employees and holdingthem accountable to those standards (Mulki et al., 2008).Further, and importantly, an ethical climate within anorganization can serve to mediate the relationship be-tween leadership behavior and positive ethical organi-zational outcomes (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, &Fahrbach, 2015). Ethical leaders are characterized as“honest, caring, and principled individuals who makefair and balanced decisions” (Brown & Treviño, 2006,p. 597). In providing more detail, Treviño, Brown, andPincus Hartman (2003) described ethical leaders alongtwo dimensions—moral person and moral manager. Themoral person component of ethical leadership representsan individual who demonstrates concern for others and isapproachable, which maintains strong similarity to thedescription of a servant leader. The followers of ethicalleaders “can come to these individuals with problemsand concerns, knowing that they will be heard” (Brown& Mitchell, 2010, p. 584). Further, the stewardshipdemonstrated by servant leaders also matches theconcept of being a moral manager, “patterning theirbehavior and organizational processes to meet moralstandards” (p. 584).

By acting ethically, servant leaders can establish anorganizational climate where acting the right way anddoing the right thing are valued, encouraged, and ex-pected (Brown et al., 2005). Researchers are beginningto examine how servant leadership is linked to ethicalleadership and how servant leaders can develop andsupport ethical organizational climates. Within the con-text of professional sales organizations, leaders demon-strating servant leadership contributed to the creationof an ethical work climate that fostered an environ-ment of individual ethical selling behaviors by theiremployees (Jaramillo, Bande, & Varela, 2015). In addi-tion, Schwepker and Schultz (2015) found that servantleadership improves employee performance, as medi-ated through ethical climate. Finally, servant leadershipmay be the most appropriate form of leadership tofacilitate the development of an ethical climate inintercollegiate athletics due to its moral grounding andemphasis on employee (follower) well-being (Burton &Welty Peachey, 2013). Therefore, we hypothesize thefollowing:

H1: Servant leadership behavior as demonstrated bythe athletic director will be positively related tofollowers’ (athletic department personnel) percep-tions of an ethical climate in intercollegiate athleticdepartments.

Trust in Leaders

Perceptions of servant leadership are positively correlat-ed to leadership trust (Joseph & Winston, 2005). Addi-tionally, a conceptual framework for servant leadershiphas indicated that trust in the leader indirectly impactsthe relationship between servant leadership and organi-zational outcomes (van Dierendonck, 2011). Trust de-veloped by servant leaders had an indirect impact on therelationship between leadership and development oforganizational commitment (Goh & Zhen-Jie, 2014),and trust created by a servant leader facilitated an openclimate, built a helping culture, and was associatedwith organizational citizenship behaviors (Ebener &O’Connell, 2010; Hu & Liden, 2011). At the grouplevel, trust developed by servant leaders has demonstrat-ed a positive influence on a work team’s support forworkplace innovation, regardless of the individual’slevel of support for innovation (Panaccio, Henderson,Liden, Wayne, & Cao, 2014). This finding is noteworthyand worth exploring in the context of sport organiza-tions, as all employees may not agree on the necessity ofan ethical climate in their organizations (see the ethicalscandals detailed in the introduction). However, sportleaders using servant leadership behaviors in support ofan ethical climate may have an influence on the beliefs oftheir employees as a result of the trust in the leader.

As such, we posit the following:

H2a: Servant leadership as demonstrated by theathletic director will be positively related to fol-lowers’ (athletic department personnel) level of trustin the athletic director.

H2b: Followers’ (athletic department personnel) lev-el of trust in an athletic director will have an indirectand positive influence on the relationship betweenservant leadership as demonstrated by the athleticdirector and perceptions of an ethical climate.

Servant Leadership and OrganizationalJustice

There has been no research to date examining how thedecision-making process within sport organizations isinfluenced by servant leadership behaviors and on howthe decision-making process impacts the ethical climatein sport organizations. Scholars examining the decision-making processes of organizations often focus on per-ceptions of organizational justice (Mahony, Hums,Andrew, & Dittmore, 2010). Organizational justice isdefined “as the fairness of the procedures used by leadersto determine outcome distributions or allocations, andthe fairness of outcome distributions or allocations”

232 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3

(Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012, p. 424). The constructof organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001) includes fourfactors: distributive justice with a focus on the fairness ofthe distribution of resources; procedural justice thatfocuses on the fairness of the procedures used to distrib-ute resources; and interaction justice, which includes twofactors—interpersonal justice and informational justice—and focuses on “how decisions are enacted by authorityfigures” (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Greenberg, 2003,p. 166). The behaviors of servant leaders attend to theneeds of followers and provide a sense of interpersonalsensitivity to followers, which supports followers’ senseof justice (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008).

Within the context of intercollegiate athletics, scho-lars have examined perceptions of organizational justicein the context of administrations’ resource allocations,coach satisfaction, and athlete perceptions of coaches(Jordan, Turner, Fink, & Pastore, 2007; Kim & Andrew,2013; Mahony, Hums, & Riemer, 2002). However, thereis a dearth of research regarding how leadership beha-viors in sport organizations (and in intercollegiate ath-letics specifically) are understood within the context offairness and justice procedures. Further, there is noresearch that has examined how leaders in sport orga-nizations who demonstrate servant leadership utilizeprocesses of organizational justice to support an ethicalclimate.

In the general leadership literature, servant leader-ship is positively linked to both components of interac-tional justice as servant leaders enhance employees’empowerment by supporting more honest explanationsof decisions and respecting employees’ contributionsto the organization (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012). Asa component of interactional justice, informational jus-tice addresses the fairness of procedures and the honestexplanation of decisions (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,Porter, & Ng, 2001). In addition, the second componentof interactional justice—interpersonal justice—addresses whether leaders treat followers with respectand dignity.

Further, servant leadership is positively linked toprocedural justice in organizations, as this aspect oforganizational justice is focused on the extent to whichorganizational processes and procedures are perceived asfair and consistent with adequate input from followers(Chung et al., 2010; Ehrhart, 2004). As noted byWalumbwa and colleagues (2010), servant leaders arebest suited to positively influence procedural justice as“they maintain consistently high ethical standards acrossgroup members and seek input from and attempt to reachconsensus among employees on important decisions”(p. 520). Further, procedural justice also contributes todevelopment of an ethical climate (Luria & Yagil, 2008).If employees believe that decision-making processes arefair and that various procedures in the sport organizationhave integrity, are applied equally to all employees, andare perceived as fair, then it stands to reason thatprocedural justice should lead to an ethical climate andimproved ethical behavior on the part of employees.

Thus, procedural justice is a mechanism through whichservant leaders, who are adept at enhancing perceptionsof procedural justice, influence the ethical climate in theorganization. Given findings demonstrating that theinfluence of servant leadership on fostering interactionaljustice and procedural justice is critical to establishing anethical climate as described previously, we focused onthose aspects of organizational justice in the currentstudy. Further, due to a lack of empirical evidencesupporting the link between servant leadership anddistributive justice, distributive justice was omitted asa variable of interest in our study.

Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H3a: Servant leadership as demonstrated by theathletic director will positively influence percep-tions of procedural, interpersonal, and informationaljustice by followers (athletic department personnel).

H3b: Procedural justice as perceived by followers(athletic department personnel) will have a positiveindirect effect on the relationship between servantleadership and perceptions of an ethical climate.

Method

Participants

A random selection of 285 athletic department personnelfrom 151 National Collegiate Athletic AssociationDivision I athletic departments was contacted via e-mailnotification to complete an online survey. A total of 168(N = 168) participants completed the survey for a re-sponse rate of 59%. Of the 151 departments, there were12 that included more than one participant in our sample.Ninety-eight women and 67 men participated (threeparticipants did not indicate sex on the survey) andrepresented the following positions: associate athleticdirector (65), assistant athletic director (30), director(19), assistant director (17), staff (32), graduate assistant(3), and two participants who did not list a position. Themajority of the sample had between 1 and 10 years(74%) of experience working in athletic administration,with 40% having between 1 and 5 years of experience.

Measures

All scales were measured using a 5-point Likert-typescale with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to 5 (strongly agree). Servant leadership was measuredusing van Dierendonck and Nuijten’s (2011) 30-itemservant leadership scale. After conducting a confirmato-ry factor analysis (CFA), 21 items measured servantleadership (α = .93). Ethical climate (13 items, α = .87)was measured based on the scale developed by Cullen,Victor, and Bronson (1993). Trust (7 items, α = .92) inthe athletic director was measured based on items devel-oped by Robinson (1996). Finally, organizational justicewas measured based on the scale developed by Colquitt(2001), which included 16 total items. Seven items

Servant Leadership Ethical Climate 233

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3

measured procedural justice (α = .91), four items mea-sured interpersonal justice (α = .91), and five itemsmeasured informational justice (α = .90).

Procedures

Participants received an e-mail invitation explaining thepurpose of the study and requesting their participation inthe anonymous online survey. Two days following thee-mail invitation, participants were sent another e-mailexplaining the purpose of the study and a link to theonline survey. Two weeks following the initial e-mailinvitation, a follow-up reminder e-mail was sent toencourage responses.

Data Analysis

The efficiency of the self-completion questionnaireproperties, CFA, and proposed hypotheses were testedusing SPSS 22.0 and Mplus 7.31. Prior to analyzing thedata, inter-rater agreement was investigated. Data pro-viding evidence indicating independence (e.g., rWGvalues <.70) were the data represented in the sample of168 participants and were the data used in the analyses(see LeBreton & Senter, 2008). To examine the directand indirect hypothesized relationships, the Hayes(2012) PROCESS mediation modeling macro for SPSSwas utilized. Analyses of total effect, direct effect, boot-strapped bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals of theindirect effect, and 5,000 bootstrapped samples wereevaluated. In the Hayes (2012) PROCESS macro analy-sis, continuous predictors were mean-centered.

Results

Sample descriptive statistics and correlations are provid-ed in Table 1. To evaluate the measurement model andprovide evidence of reliability and validity, a CFA wasperformed (see Table 2). Some of the related yet distinctservant leadership factors fell below the .50 cutoff andcould not be discriminated from one another (Kline,

2005), resulting in nine items of van Dierendonck andNuijten’s (2011) 30-item servant leadership scale beingremoved. The remaining servant leadership item load-ings ranged from .54 to .91, and the construct reliabilitiesand average variance extracted values met or exceededthe standard recommendations of .70 and .50 (Hair,Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006; see Table 2).Item loadings for the other variables ranged from .66to .85 for procedural justice, .66 to .94 for interactionaljustice, .71 to .91 for informational justice, .69 to .77 forethical climate, and .59 to .80 for trust.

The measurement model had reasonable fit (Kline,2005) as indicated by values of χ²/df ratio (1.59 =1557.57/979), comparative fit index (.91), Tucker–Lewisindex (.90), root mean square error of approximation(.06), and standardized root mean square residual (.06).

Servant leadership behavior as demonstrated by anathletic director was positively associated with percep-tions of formation of an ethical climate in intercollegiateathletic departments, in support of Hypothesis 1 (β =0.62, p = .001). A positive relationship between servantleadership as demonstrated by the athletic director andtrust in the leader was found (β = 0.84, p = .001), sup-porting Hypothesis 2a. Additionally, trust was found tohave an indirect effect on the relationship between

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, andCorrelations Among Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Servant leadership 3.60 .63 –

2. Ethical climate 3.54 .56 .62* –3. Trust 3.79 .89 .80* .66* –

4. Procedural justice 3.42 .74 .76* .58* .73* –5. Interpersonal

justice4.11 .79 .67* .50* .76* .58* –

6. Informationaljustice

3.62 .82 .79* .60* .79* .73* .71* –

Note. N = 168.

*p < .05.

Table 2 Servant Leadership Factor Loading,Construct Reliability, and Average VarianceExtracted

Construct Item Factor Loading CR AVE

Accountability 6 .81 .85 .65

14 .83

22 .78

Standing back 12 .61 .87 .57

13 .91

20 .64

5 .80

21 .77

Courage 8 .54 .71 .56

16 .91

Authenticity 24 .59 .70 .59

17 .86

Empowerment 1 .71 .93 .59

2 .79

3 .82

4 .73

27 .75

19 .72

18 .75

29 .83

30 .83

Note. Standardized values. AVE = average variance extracted; CR =construct reliability.

234 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3

servant leadership as demonstrated by the athletic direc-tor and perceptions of an ethical climate. As such,Hypothesis 2b was supported. A bias-corrected boot-strap confidence interval for the indirect effect (b = 0.36)of trust was entirely above zero (.200 to .561; seeTable 3).

Perceptions of procedural justice (β = 0.76,p = .001), interpersonal justice (β = 0.68, p = .001), andinformational justice (β = 0.85, p = .001) by athletic de-partment personnel were positively related to servantleadership behaviors as demonstrated by athletic direc-tors, providing support for Hypothesis 3a. Further,procedural justice as perceived by athletic departmentpersonnel was found to indirectly affect the relationshipbetween servant leadership and perceptions of an ethicalclimate, supporting Hypothesis 3b. A bias-correctedbootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect(b = 0.17) of procedural justice was entirely above zero(.032–.260; see Table 3).

Discussion

This study provides important contributions to under-standing how leaders can support an ethical climate insport organizations. First, our findings indicate thatservant leadership has a direct influence on fosteringtrust for employees in sport organizations and thatthrough trust, servant leaders help support perceptionsof an ethical climate in that organization. Second, ser-vant leaders act to support an ethical climate through themechanisms of procedural justice. These findings

contribute to leadership research in the sport context bybeginning to examine the processes of how leadershipcan affect various organizational outcomes. In theirreview of 40 years of leadership research in sportmanagement, Welty Peachey et al. (2015) highlightedthat most leadership research in sport management hasfocused on the direct effect of leadership on variousorganizational outcomes and has not examined in anygreat depth the processes of leadership, includingthe underlying mechanisms (e.g., organizational proce-dures) and/or follower attributes and behaviors by whichleadership influences organizational outcomes. Thepresent study adds to the theoretical understanding ofleadership in sport by beginning to examine and unpackthis “black box.”

Findings of the present study support that servantleadership behaviors as demonstrated by an athleticdirector do lead to perceptions of an ethical climate byathletic department personnel. This initial finding alignswith emerging work that recognizes the unique attri-butes of servant leadership as a style of leadership thatcan foster an ethical work climate (Jaramillo et al.,2015) and supports the proposition advanced by Burtonand Welty Peachey (2013) that servant leadership canfoster an ethical climate in intercollegiate sport and, wewould argue, in the broader sport context as well. Bydemonstrating servant leadership behaviors, includingacting as a steward for their organizations and bothempowering employees and holding them accountablefor their actions (van Dierendonck, 2011), leaders ofsport organizations can increase the perceptions of anethical climate in their organizations. We do not suggestthat unethical behavior will not take place under thewatch of a servant leader, only that servant leadershipmay help to mitigate this behavior through establishingan ethical climate. In addition, we do not suggest thatservant leadership is the only leadership style that willevince an ethical climate or other positive organization-al outcomes, as there are characteristics of servantleadership (e.g., authenticity and empowerment) thatare attributable to transformational and authentic lead-ership as well.

Fostering an ethical climate in sport organizationsis critical as organizations that support such a climateare negatively associated with employees making un-ethical choices (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Trevino,2010). Further, given that an organization’s ethicalclimate has been found to be associated with ethicalvalues and behaviors of employees (Deshpande &Joseph, 2009; Winbush & Shepard, 1994; Winbush,Shepard, & Markham, 1997), it stands to reason that aleader of a sport organization demonstrating servantleadership can develop an ethical climate to helpmitigate ethical improprieties, issues, and scandalsthat arise within their organizations. Our findingssupport emerging research that finds a positive influ-ence of servant leadership on formation of an ethicalclimate and introduces the possibility that ethicalclimates, as supported by servant leaders, can enhance

Table 3 Results for Mediation Hypotheses2b and 3b

Path/Effect β SE

95%ConfidenceInterval

Model 1

c (Servant lead → Ethicalclimate)

0.20* .10

a (Servant lead → trust) 1.20* .06

b (Trust → Ethical climate) 0.30* .07

c′ 0.56* .05

a × b (Mediation effect) 0.36* .09 .200, .561

Model 2

c (Servant lead → Ethicalclimate)

0.40* .08

a (Servant lead → ProJustice) 0.91* .06

b (ProJustice → Ethicalclimate)

0.18* .07

c′ 0.56* .06

a × b (Mediation effect) 0.17* .07 .036, .323

Note. Unstandardized coefficients. ProJustice = procedural justice.

*p < .001.

Servant Leadership Ethical Climate 235

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3

ethical behavior carried out by personnel in sportorganizations (Jaramillo et al., 2015; Schwepker &Schultz, 2015).

In an effort to better understand how servantleadership influences perceptions of an ethical climate,trust and organizational justice were examined. First,with regards to the role of trust in the relationshipbetween servant leadership and perceptions of anethical climate, it was found that there was a positiverelationship between servant leadership as demon-strated by an athletic director and trust in the athleticdirector, and that trust indirectly influenced the rela-tionship between servant leadership and ethicalclimate. This finding supports previous work demon-strating a positive relationship between servant lead-ership behaviors and the development of trust in theleader (Joseph & Winston, 2005). Trust in organiza-tional leadership is important in many aspects ofemployee and organizational outcomes. The abilityof servant leaders in the sport context to foster em-ployee trust in leadership could lead to higher levels oforganizational commitment (Goh & Zhen-Jie, 2014),aid in building a helping culture, and facilitate orga-nizational citizenship behaviors among employees(Ebener & O’Connell, 2010; Hu & Liden, 2011). Trustis critical in fostering an ethical climate (Mulki et al.,2008), and as the present study findings indicate,servant leaders establish trust, which then leads tosupport for an ethical climate. When considering theprocesses that facilitate ethical climates in sport orga-nizations, our findings note that servant leaders,through their actions as leaders, both establish trustwith their employees and support perceptions of anethical climate.

All the previously mentioned constructs (organiza-tional commitment, helping culture, and organizationalcitizenship behaviors), which help constitute the ethicalclimate of an organization, could indicate that employeesare behaving more ethically and that trust in the leaderpositively influences this ethical behavior. It must benoted that developing trust in the leader does not happenovernight. Likely, it will take some time for a servantleader to cultivate the level of trust necessary to facilitatean ethical climate and subsequent organizational- andindividual-level outcomes. The length of time needed todevelop this trust is not known and presents an excellentopportunity for future research.

Finally, our findings indicate that perceptions ofprocedural, interpersonal, and informational justice werepositively related to servant leadership behaviors dem-onstrated by the athletic director, in support of previouswork in business management identifying a positiverelationship between servant leadership and interactionaljustice (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012) and proceduraljustice (Chung et al., 2010; Ehrhart, 2004; Walumbwaet al., 2010). These findings contribute to our under-standing of the mechanisms used by servant leaders tohelp foster an ethical climate. Acting as a servant leaderis important, but it is also vital to establish procedures by

which employees recognize that the leader is providingfair and equitable treatment (e.g., how resources aredistributed among employees) and that the leader isdemonstrating respect, is sensitive to follower needs,and is fair in how employees are treated (Mahony et al.,2010). In the context of sport, servant leadership thenappears to be critical in facilitating perceptions of orga-nizational justice among employees, which could beimportant in enhancing employee morale and motivationand in mitigating voluntary turnover (Burton & WeltyPeachey, 2013).

Further, the present study demonstrates that servantleadership also had an indirect effect on facilitating anethical climate through perceptions of procedural justice.This finding makes intuitive sense, as procedural justicehas been linked with facilitating ethical climates inorganizations (Luria & Yagil, 2008), and servant leadersappear to be adept at enhancing perceptions of proce-dural justice. Our findings contribute to the understand-ing of how servant leaders in sport organizations areestablishing an ethical climate in their organization byattending to the needs of followers and providing a senseof interpersonal sensitivity to followers, which facilitatesfollowers’ sense of justice (Mayer et al., 2008) throughthe mechanisms of organizational justice. Further, ourfindings support the proposition that when employeesbelieve that decision-making processes are fair and thatvarious procedures used in their sport organizations areapplied equally to all employees, then procedural justicedoes lead to an ethical climate. This finding undergirdsthe understanding of how servant leaders can support anethical climate by focusing on integrity and care forfollowers, where the servant leader sees it as his or hercalling to serve others fairly and ethically first (Sendjayaet al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011). The moral ground-ing of servant leaders could be key for developingpositive perceptions of procedural justice (Sendjayaet al., 2008). For sport organizations, then, servantleadership can be important in facilitating both percep-tions of procedural justice and an ethical climate, all ofwhich could help mitigate the ethical improprietiesprevalent in sport.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

From a theoretical standpoint, the present study hascontributed to our understanding of the importance ofservant leadership both in the sport context for develop-ing an ethical climate and in how servant leadershipinfluences development of an ethical climate. Servantleaders focusing on a call to serve employees fairly andethically must demonstrate these leadership behaviorsthrough organizational procedures that foster percep-tions of fairness and equity. It is through these processesof procedural justice and through trust in the leader thatemployees come to perceive an ethical climate in theirorganizations. The principal theoretical contributionhere, as mentioned earlier, is that this study providesinsight into the processes through which leadership

236 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3

influences outcome variables, a neglected area of lead-ership research in sport management (Welty Peacheyet al., 2015). Indeed, the business management literaturehas also advanced the critical need for scholars to engagein further work investigating leadership processes(Yammarino, 2013). The present study makes an impor-tant and significant conceptual contribution from aleadership processes standpoint, given that scholars,sport managers, and others have been wrestling withthe best way to address the unethical behavior in sportfor years. Perhaps servant leadership is one way forwardto help restore the ethical imbalance by cultivating anethical climate through the processes of trust and proce-dural justice.

Practically, these findings suggest several avenuesfor consideration by leaders in sport. First and foremost,as mentioned earlier, it would be beneficial for servantleadership to be highlighted and supported as an impor-tant form of leadership for sport organizations and a formof leadership to facilitate ethical climates in sport orga-nizations. This could include providing training to futureleaders (e.g., students in sport management programs)through exposure to the tenants of servant leadership incourses and in leadership development programs. Fur-ther, highlighting those leaders who use servant leader-ship as a model of fostering an ethical climate in sportorganizations could help expose current leaders in sportto alternative approaches to leadership (i.e., more thantransactional, transformational). Based on our currentfindings, leaders of sport organizations should also focuson ways to enhance procedural justice within theirorganizations. Care should be given to how decisionsare made, the process through which decision makingtakes place, who is involved in this decision making, andthe transparency, consistency, frequency, and integrityof communications from organizational leadership tostaff. If personnel believe that decisions and organiza-tional procedures are fair, they will be more likely toperceive an ethical climate, which could then translateinto positive organizational outcomes, such as in-creased ethical behavior, organizational citizenshipbehavior, and organizational commitment, though thishas not been empirically examined in sport organiza-tions to date.

Limitations and Future ResearchDirections

As all studies have limitations, we must outline severalhere, which may have impacted our results and whichalso provide a stimulus for future research and scholar-ship. First, though we examined perceptions of an ethicalclimate, we did not examine actual ethical conduct byathletic personnel. An ethical climate has been linked toethical behavior in other organizational contexts (e.g.,professional selling), so this may also extend to ethicalbehavior in sport organizations; however, it was notdirectly examined in this study. Future work shouldexplore the links among servant leadership, perceptions

of an ethical climate, and the ethical behavior of sportorganization personnel. Another limitation of the presentstudy is that we only focused on National CollegiateAthletic Association Division I schools with this inves-tigation, which limits the generalizability of the findingsto other National Collegiate Athletic Association divi-sions or sectors of the sport industry. Thus, futureresearch must explore the relationships between servantleadership, ethical climate, trust, and organizationaljustice in other college sport contexts and in other sectorsof the sport industry such as professional sport, commu-nity-based sport, and organizations working in the sportfor development sphere. Perhaps in some of these sec-tors, such as sport for development, servant leadershipmay be practiced more routinely and already havegood traction with fostering trust, organizational justice,and ethical climates within the organizations (WeltyPeachey & Burton, 2016). Expanding this line of inquiryin these directions will help provide a more robustunderstanding of how these constructs operate in thesport context.

Another limitation of the present study is thepossibility of same source bias. To address such bias,the CFA results suggested our data were better suitedfor our proposed measurement model in comparisonwith a single-factor model. Further, Spector (2006)concluded issues caused by common method variancecan be overstated and are seldom serious enough toinvalidate findings. Just the same, future researchshould involve a wider method and sample of employ-ees within an intercollegiate athletic department (andin other sport sectors as well), from support staff toequipment managers to coaches. It may be that per-ceptions of the role of servant leadership in fosteringtrust, organizational justice, ethical climate, and theperceived associations between these variables mightvary with employees more distal from the leaders ofthe organization, who perhaps interact more routinelywith another supervisor in terms of direct reporting.These other individuals may actually have a strongerinfluence on an employee’s ethical behavior than thetop administrator, given the pronounced and identifiedinfluence of subcultures in organizational life (Schein,2010). Further, links between the distributive justicecomponent of organizational justice and servant lead-ership, though not empirically supported in workoutside of sport management, should be evaluated inthe context of sport organizations. Given that distrib-utive justice focuses on fairness of the distribution ofresources, it would be of interest to better understandhow servant leadership, through its emphasis on stew-ardship, supports an ethical climate by examining howresources are allocated in sport organizations. Futurework should also evaluate how servant leadershipinfluences perceptions of ethical climate at the groupor organizational level, in order to examine howethical climate is perceived at the organizational leveland how this may influence ethical behavior by em-ployees in those organizations. In a related vein,

Servant Leadership Ethical Climate 237

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3

additional research should identify other outcomes ofan ethical climate that are fostered by servant leaders,such as organizational citizenship behavior and orga-nizational commitment.

Future research should also employ qualitativemethodology to help understand the “why” and the“how” of the relationships among servant leadership,trust, organizational justice, and ethical climate(Creswell, 2012). Recent scholarship has also calledfor the examination of antecedents to servant leader-ship in the sport context (see Welty Peachey et al.,2015), such as moral identity, compassionate love, andlived experiences of leaders (van Dierendonck &Patterson, 2015). Ascertaining how and why servantleadership manifests in leaders would be an importantline of inquiry, as this would contribute to a morerobust theoretical understanding of how servant lead-ership develops and operates in the sport context.Finally, it may be illuminating to compare servantleadership and transformation leadership with regardto supporting an ethical climate. Previous work hasnoted that both types of leadership contribute topositive organizational outcomes (i.e., organizationalcommitment and work engagement), though via dif-fering mechanisms. Servant leaders contributed topositive work outcomes through meeting followers’needs, whereas transformational leaders did so byleader effectiveness as perceived by their followers(van Dierendonck et al., 2014). Athletic directors orother sport leaders could be surveyed on their percep-tions of how they exhibit servant and transformationalleadership behaviors, and then subordinates could besurveyed to see how their perceptions correlate or varyfrom their leaders’ perceptions.

Sport organizations continually face ethical deci-sions, yet recently numerous improprieties and scandalsseem to have become more the norm than the exception.The findings of this research are timely and offer astarting point for investigating how unique attributes ofa servant leader can foster an ethical work climate. Weinvite and encourage other scholars to extend the presentwork along the lines of the future directions we suggestor follow other related avenues of inquiry stimulated bythe current study.

References

Barbuto, J.E., Gottfredson, R.K., & Searle, T.P. (2014). Anexamination of emotional intelligence as an antecedent ofservant leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organiza-tional Studies, 21(3), 315–323. doi:10.1177/1548051814531826

Barbuto, J.E., Jr., & Wheeler, D.W. (2006). Scale developmentand construct clarification of servant leadership. Groupand Organization Management, 31, 300–326. doi:10.1177/1059601106287091

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond ex-pectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Brown, M.E., & Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Ethical and unethicalleadership: Exploring new avenues for future research.Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616. doi:10.5840/beq201020439

Brown, M.E., & Treviño, L.K. (2006). Ethical leadership: Areview and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly,17(6), 595–616. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K., & Harrison, D.A. (2005). Ethicalleadership: A social learning perspective for constructdevelopment and testing. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

Burton, L., & Welty Peachey, J. (2013). The call for servantleadership in intercollegiate athletics. Quest, 65(3), 354–371. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.791870

Chung, J.Y., Jung, C.S., Kyle, G.T., & Petrick, J.F. (2010).Justice in the US National Park Service: The antecedentsof job satisfaction. Journal of Park and Recreation Ad-ministration, 28(3), 1–15.

Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizationaljustice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. PubMed doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O., & Ng,K.Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analyticreview of 25 years of organizational justice research.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.PubMed doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organi-zational justice: A fair assessment of the state of theliterature. In J. Greenburg (Ed.), Organizational behavior:The state of the science (pp. 159–200). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design:Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Cullen, J.B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J.W. (1993). The ethicalclimate questionnaire: An assessment of its developmentand validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667–674. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.667

DeSensi, J.T. (2014). Sport: An ethos based on values andservant leadership. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7(1),58–63. doi:10.1123/jis.2014-0097

Deshpande, S.P., & Joseph, J. (2009). Impact of emotionalintelligence, ethical climate, and behavior of peers onethical behavior of nurses. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 403–410. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9779-z

Dinh, J.E., Lord, R.G., Gardner, W.L., Meuser, J.D., Liden,R.C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research inthe new millennium: Current theoretical trends and chang-ing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1),36–62. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005

Ebener, D.R., & O’Connell, D.J. (2010). How might servantleadership work? Nonprofit Management and Leadership,20(3), 315–335. doi:10.1002/nml.256

Ehrhart, M.G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice cli-mate as antecedents of unit level organizational citizen-ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x

238 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

bsco

Pub

lish

ing

aell

swor

th@

ebsc

o.co

m o

n 06

/23/

17, V

olum

e 31

, Art

icle

Num

ber

3