Several validated measures have been adapted for use in evaluating the effects of the CViL program on participants. They can be broadly divided into two categories: 1) Core Assessments, which center around Van Dierendonck & Nuijten’s (2011) Servant Leadership Scale; and 2) Supplemental Assessments, which can provide additional depth and breadth to the research program. Several assessments have both self- and other-report versions. Other report versions can be useful if it is possible to survey the coworkers of participants concerning the participants’ use of servant leadership virtues.
The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SOCQ; George, et al., 2013), is comprised of thirty-five items, assessing seven dimensions – or types – of concerns that practitioners experience when implementing a new program: Unconcern, Informational, Personal, Management, Consequences, Collaborative, and Refocusing. For CViL, we have adapted the SOCQ to address the implementation of servant leadership. In addition to tracking participants’ concerns about implementing SL, the changing response patterns between pretest and posttest can provide some evidence of program fidelity, as the CViL addresses the ‘unconcern’ and ‘informational’ concerns of participants.
The Servant Leadership Scale (SLS; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), is comprised of thirty items, assessing eight dimensions of servant leadership: Empowerment, Standing Back, Accountability, Forgiveness, Courage, Authenticity, Humility, and Stewardship. Two versions of the SLS have been adapted for use in the CViL program: 1) A self-report version given to participants; and 2) A variant of the original, other-report version adapted to the CViL program, to be given to the participant’s coworkers when possible.
The Sense of Purpose Scale Revised (SOPS2; Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2019) is comprised of fourteen items, assessing three dimensions of purpose: Awareness of purpose, awakening to purpose, and altruistic purpose. The final dimension – altruistic purpose – is most relevant to CVIL as it helps to capture the motivating virtue of Noble Purpose, while the other two dimensions capture the degree to which an individual is consciously aware/has a clear understanding of their life’s purpose and whether an individual is becoming aware of/gaining clarity on their life’s purpose, respectively.
The Servant Leadership Assessment (SL-A; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005) is comprised of forty-two items measuring five dimensions of servant leadership: Agapao Love, Empowers Followers, Visionary, Humility, and Trust. While the SLS provides a better match to the CVIL framework of virtues, the Agapao Love dimension of the SL-A also targets the motivating virtue of Noble Purpose.
The Multicomponent Gratitude Measure (MCGM; Morgan, Gulliford, & Kristjansson, 2017) is comprised of twenty-nine items that addresses six dimensions of gratitude: Feelings of Gratitude; Attitudes of Appropriateness (of Gratitude); Behavioral Shortcomings; Rituals/Noticing Benefits; Expressions of Gratitude; and Attitudes to Gratitude. We selected the three behavioral dimensions of the MCGM – Behavioral Shortcomings, Rituals/Noticing Benefits, and Expressions of Gratitude – to measure the virtue of Gratitude in CVIL participants.
The Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ, Wisdom and Organizational Stewardship; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006) is comprised of twenty-three items measuring five dimensions of servant leadership: Altruistic Calling, Emotional Healing, Wisdom, Persuasive Mapping, and Organizational Stewardship. Here again, while Van Dierendonck and Nuijten’s SLS is better suited to be the CVIL framework’s core assessment, both the Wisdom and Organizational Stewardship dimensions of the SLQ can be utilized to help measure the CVIL virtues of Foresight and Stewardship, respectively.
The Adult Dispositional Hope Scale (ADHS; Snyder et al.,1991) is comprised of twelve items measuring two dimensions of Hope: Pathways and Agency. While not part of the eight original virtues identified in the CVIL framework, Hope represents an important virtue that reflects an individual’s sense of aspiration and what is possible. As measured by the ADHS, Hope is intertwined with a belief in one’s agency, and may be a key supportive virtue in individuals and organizations attempts to develop virtue.
Snyder, C., Harris, C., Anderson, J., Holleran, S., Irving, L., Sigmon, S., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.
The Workplace Social Courage Scale (WSCS; Howard et al., 2017) is comprised of eleven items measuring a single dimension of Courage: an individual’s ability to display social (as distinguished from physical or moral) courage in their work context. While the SLS includes a two-item scale for the virtue of Courage, the WSCS can supplement the measurement of this critical virtue.
Howard, M., Farr, J., Grandey, A., & Gutworth, M. (2017). The creation of the Workplace Social Courage Scale (WSCS3-690.): An investigation of internal consistency, psychometric properties, validity, and utility. Journal of Business Psychology, 32, 67.
The Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS; Thompson et al., 2005) is comprised of eighteen items measuring three dimensions of Forgiveness: Forgiveness of Self, Forgiveness of Others, and Forgiveness of Situations. Similar to Hope, Forgiveness was not part of the original eight virtues of CVIL. Nevertheless, it is an important virtue that creates the capacity to be gentle and forgiving of both the self and others as the inevitable challenges to becoming a more virtuous person emerge.
Thompson, L., Snyder, C., Hoffman, L., Michael, S., Rasmussen, H., Billings, L., Heinze, L., Neufeld, J. Shorey, H., Roberts, J., & Roberts, D. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73, 313-360.