EFL students’ empowerment using servant leadership: a look through the lens of students in Afghanistan

Abstract

In recent years, many studies have paid attention to servant leadership in different fields and occasions, yet few studies have paid attention to higher education in Afghanistan. The current explanatory study examined to what extent university teachers use the four principles of servant leadership (empathy, awareness, conceptualization and foresight) in EFL classrooms and investigated the effects of each principle on EFL students’ development and learning. This study used a mixed-method technique, collecting data from 116 students through a questionnaire and 9 students via semi-structured interviews. Both sets of findings indicated that all EFL teachers mostly have used the four principles of servant leadership in their instructions and classrooms. Also, inferential statistics unveiled that no robust difference exists between students’ reported experiences of their teachers’ use of servant leadership principles and various genders and years of schooling. Besides, qualitative findings revealed that the implementation of those principles has had some impacts and effects on students’ empowerment and learning development. The positive points were motivation, encouragement, a sense of care, a sense of belonging and engagement in learning. However, the limitations observed were that some teachers consistently differentiated between less engaged and more capable students during class activities, and they provided limited support for students to overcome challenges. Furthermore, the study offered some pedagogical implications such as promoting servant leadership principles through conducting short capacity-building workshops and establishing leadership centers at campuses.

Keywords:

• Empathy
• awareness
• conceptualization
• foresight
• servant leadership
• student empowerment

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• John Lee, Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

SUBJECTS:

• Leadership
• Education & Development
• Teaching & Learning - Education

Introduction

In today’s world, servant leadership is regarded as one of the most prominent kinds of leadership (Golzar & Miri, 2020). It prioritizes the goals, requirements, and development of its followers over those of the leaders (Noland & Richards, 2015). Because of its emphasis on serving others first, a plethora of leadership studies have focused on this type of leadership over the last few decades (Saleem et al., 2020). Spears (1995), on the other hand, characterized servant leadership as a leadership style built on cooperation, community building, participatory making-decision, strong moral and compassionate conduct, and a commitment toward people’s progress. According to van Dierendonck (2011) and Parris and Peachey (2013), servant leaders seek a higher level of production, and their primary motive in leadership is a desire to serve their followers. Also, Ragnarsson et al. (2018) asserted that both components of servant leadership, ‘to serve’ and ‘to lead,’ are critical for an organization’s growth.

According to Greenleaf (1970), the major objective of a servant leader is to serve others, while other kinds of leaders’ major purposes may be to exercise authority over others or to attain material goods. Greenleaf (1970) went on to say that servant leaders’ followers are influenced in three ways. First, they grow as people. Second, their mental and emotional well-being grows. third, they are more inclined to become servants. Moreover, Greenleaf (1970) remarked that servant leaders do not have any contributions to marginalize society’s least fortunate. In other words, as a matter of fact, some servant leaders work to reverse this marginalization.

Servant leadership is a great leadership style for university professors to employ; It is an all-encompassing leadership technique that engages followers in a number of ways to help them reach their maximum potential (Eva et al., 2019). To date, some studies have been taken to examine servant leadership in higher education (Golzar & Miri, 2020; Joseph Jeyaraj & Gandolfi, 2020; Noland & Richards, 2015). Joseph Jeyaraj and Gandolfi (2020) measured the empowerment of students through critical pedagogy inspired by servant leadership for social justice in higher education. Noland and Richards (2015) investigated the impacts of servant leadership on students’ outcomes. Likewise, Golzar and Miri (2020) explored students’ perceptions toward teachers’ use of servant leadership principles in Afghan higher education. All of these studies have been conducted to measure what principles and dimensions of servant leadership had been utilized by the teachers.

Golzar and Miri (2020) looked into how university professors used the four servant leadership principles of listening, persuasion, commitment to the growth of others, and community building at Herat University, whereas six more principles still remained uncharted. In addition, they recommended that researchers might look at other servant leadership principles apart from the four qualities they previously looked at in order to comprehend true servant leadership, and they demanded that studies be conducted to determine whether servant leadership and other variables like student learning, performance, and satisfaction are related. As a result, this study is being done to assess how well four of those six remaining principles—empathy, awareness, conceptualization, and foresight—are being used in the Afghan collegial setting, and looks at how each principle affects the learning and development of EFL students. These principles have been chosen because they have demonstrated their applicability and potential to enhance educational settings globally, and they are recognized for their capacity to strengthen teacher-student relationships, enhance understanding of student needs, inform curriculum development, and support effective teaching methods. Also, their selection was informed by a preliminary review of pertinent literature and the unique educational challenges prevalent in the Afghan context. Lastly, the decision to focus on these four principles was made to allow for a more thorough and targeted examination, ensuring comprehensive insight into their influence on the learning and development of EFL students in Afghanistan. Upon completion of this study, the findings could enhance pedagogical practices by emphasizing servant leadership’s importance in education. Policymakers may consider promoting these principles, benefiting educators present and future. Building on prior research, this study broadens our grasp of servant leadership in Afghan education, highlighting its implementation. Additionally, it offers insights into how these principles impact student learning, potentially guiding educators in fostering positive classroom environments. The current study attempts to answer the following inquiries:

1. To what extent do university teachers employ the four principles of servant leadership according to EFL students’ reported experiences?

2. What are the effects of each principle on EFL students’ development and learning?

It also seeks to test the following null hypotheses:

H0: Students’ reported experiences on teachers’ use of servant leadership principles do not differ by gender.

H0: Students’ reported experiences on teachers’ use of servant leadership principles do not differ by years of schooling.

Review of literature

Teachers in the role of servant leaders

Not only does the concept of servant leadership compel us to reconsider how we conceive of leadership, but it also necessitates a distinct type of leadership: one built on community, teamwork, and incorporating others in decision-making rather than the old, hierarchical approach (Greenleaf, 2003). Similarly, teacher leadership is frequently portrayed as a process and behavior, instead of a form of dominance. This type of leadership originates from one’s behavior instead of their title or position (Supovitz, 2018). Similarly, Nichols (2011) stated that an instructor in the role of a servant leader is not simply a specialist or a classroom administrator, but also a leader in their own classes, institutions, and society.

It can be difficult to define teacher leadership since there are contradictions and opposing opinions about what it entails (Muijs & Harris, 2003). A teacher leader, in our opinion, is someone who inspires, encourages, and empowers coworkers (Crippen & Willows, 2019). This might be done by sharing fascinating and creative learning experiences from their classrooms, joining in a mentorship initiative with a partner, or providing seminars on topics in which they are interested. These instructors provide insightful thoughts and proposals to district and school concerns, they make their concerns addressed in many circumstances, and they collaborate with colleagues to establish new and creative courses or structures (Crippen & Willows, 2019).

There have been many studies conducted to investigate teachers’ roles with servant leadership principles, resulting in stating teachers as servant leaders. According to research on teachers as servant leaders conducted by Bowman (2005), servant leadership is an interpersonal decision that entails accountability for the service provided to others. Servant leadership in the classroom is considered to develop from inside the teacher and can have an outward effect on the organization (Bowman, 2005). A fundamental concept of servant leadership is the establishment and maintenance of faculty-student connections in order to achieve a comprehensive and joint goal and to ensure accountability (Bowman, 2005). Moreover, instructors are supposed to develop awareness in the community, engagement, interdependence, justice, and delegation of authority in the classroom in order to improve social interactions. It was also said that instructors, as servant leaders, must understand the influence of instructional methods and inclinations on student learning in order to help teachers and students develop a successful, true curriculum (Bowman, 2005).

Metzcar (2008) found a link between servant leadership and successful teaching in a study of 764 National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs) by using the Teacher Leadership Assessment (TLA). The findings revealed that NBCT’s strength is delivering leadership, whereas its shortcoming is community building. Additionally, student academic performance and teacher storage time have a substantial impact on the degree of servant leadership demonstrated. This seems to have consequences in higher education since professors with varying levels of expertise can strengthen their capacity to acquire or adhere to servant leadership as a method of efficiently educating their students.

Herman and Marlowe (2005) aimed to apply servant leadership management principles including both students and teachers with the goal of transforming the classroom atmosphere into such a supportive community. Teachers are frequently considered as being pushed to be servant leaders in this research due to the terrible working environment, although leading a team toward transformation is reported to be a difficult endeavor. As a result, it was suggested that instructors must comprehend their students’ sentiments, sympathize with them, and be educated in the abilities needed to be servant leaders.

Servant teaching and students’ empowerment

According to Eva et al. (2019), servant leadership is a useful leadership style that higher education teachers can employ because it is a comprehensive participative leadership that gets involved followers in various aspects (e.g. interactional, altruistic, sentimental, and spiritual) with the goal of empowering them to attain their full capabilities. According to research, instructor behaviors successfully boost the learning outcomes of students (Alshammari et al., 2019). Rapidity, structured, compelling presentation, the ardent pursuit of objectives, and positivism all have a substantial influence on student perceptions regarding instructors and course material, resulting in a substantial learning environment (Stone et al., 2004). If servant instructors teach students, Noland and Richards (2015) confirmed that servant leadership has a substantial beneficial association with student performance/learning. The findings also revealed a high degree of student involvement and motivation.

Students feel challenged to learn, encouraged, and cared for when servant teaching is used (Hunter et al., 2013). The essence of servant leadership, as well as its healing abilities, should have a good influence on students’ learning since they will feel that their participation and ideas are valued in the process of learning (Bowman, 2005). Teachers, on the other hand, become servant leaders when they listen to their students’ concerns and enable them to achieve, as Greenleaf (1996) points out. They are also concerned with promoting emotional healing and assisting pupils in overcoming learning difficulties and succeeding.

10 traits of servant leadership

The original writings of Greenleaf were simplified into ten traits of servant leaders by Spears (2010): listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community building. Listening entails paying close attention to what students and others say and reflecting on it. Empathy is the attempt to identify the sentiments of pupils. Healing is the pursuit of reconciliation in order to resolve disputes. Awareness is defined as self-mindfulness. Persuasion is the use of persuasion instead of authority. Conceptualization is the process of enhancing learners’ ability to imagine achievement. Foresight is foreseeing future events. Stewardship is the process of keeping schools and organizations accountable for the greater good. Community Building fosters a sense of belonging among students and beyond. Lastly, Commitment to Others’ Growth is strengthening students’ knowledge and abilities as servant leaders.

Theoretical framework

The scope of this study is confined to investigating only the four defined attributes proposed by Spears (2010) (See Figure 1): empathy, awareness, conceptualization, and foresight.

Figure 1. Four principles of servant leadership with their traits.

Empathy

The servant leader tries to understand others’ situations and conditions, makes a concerted effort to accept others’ points of view and helps followers achieve their goals (Neill & Saunders, 2008). Servant leaders endeavor hard to understand and communicate with their people. The first step toward empathy is to recognize that a leader is responsible for managing a group, but that the group is made up of individuals (Spears, 2004). Empathy is the ability to grasp how someone feels at any given time, rather than merely feeling sympathetic (Powers & Moore, 2004). Also, being empathetic allows you to see the worth and uniqueness in everyone (DeGraaf et al., 2001).

Empathy in the position of instructors, on the other hand, refers to a deep knowledge of students or coworkers by engaging acceptance and respect of their individuality; in this case, pupils or colleagues can share their opinions and thoughts (Bufalino, 2017). According to Fitzgerald (2015), teachers who demonstrate empathy in the classroom are aiming to be aware of their students’ needs. Empathy is also vital in developing a school atmosphere that enables children to share their emotions (Mattingly, 2014). In addition, when communicating with special education students, a teacher leader may use empathy. Furthermore, the teacher leader will be better equipped to support the special education student pedagogies if they comprehend the student’s point of view (Smith, 2015).

Spears (1995) went a step further, arguing that a servant leader should not dismiss any person, even if they consider the student’s behavior or effort undesirable. This is evident when a teacher copes with a student’s behavioral difficulties. The instructor never dismisses a student but instead strives to know why the kid is having behavioral issues via empathy (Smith, 2015). Empathy may be practiced with all school members, not only trainees. Therefore, when mentoring educators, engaging with parents during parent-teacher meetings and interacting with school officials who look for teacher leaders’ experience, a teacher leader can employ empathy.

Awareness

Awareness encompasses not just a sense of one’s surroundings but also a sense of one’s own self (Spears, 1995). Servant leaders have to be open to evaluating both the good and bad elements of leadership (Keith, 2008). Similarly, a servant leader who is aware is well able to consider and grasp notions such as values, abilities, and aptitudes (Powers & Moore, 2004). Also, when evaluating the performance of their mentorship and teaching, teacher leaders will employ awareness (Powers & Moore, 2004). Besides, changes in instructional approaches would be implemented as needed to improve student achievement (Mattingly, 2014). Importantly, teacher leaders must be aware of their surroundings at all times since they never know when a student may have a medical issue, be bullied, be subjected to abuse, or be having academic difficulties. In the end, teachers will gain awareness by actively monitoring and listening to their students, according to Crippen (2010), which will result in a caring atmosphere for the children/trainees.

Conceptualization

When defining conceptualization, servant leaders look beyond existing temporal constraints to include broader-based cognition (Neill & Saunders, 2008). Servant leaders see beyond every day and envision great things for their institution. Leaders must be able to produce perspectives since visions serve as the institution’s transition plan for the future. The most effective servant leaders understand that far-reaching aspirations go beyond what a dreamer is capable of Spears (2004). Moreover, conceptualization is genuinely beneficial when it not only incorporates but also adds value to the workforce. Leaders frequently fail to recognize that if their vision does not benefit everyone else, it is clearly inadequate (Maxwell, 2003). Additionally, the servant leader is able to go beyond short-term objectives and grasp the big picture of the future (Spears, 1995). Too often in the sphere of education, instructors are preoccupied with the daily functions of the classroom and lose sight of the facts about conceptualization (Smith, 2015). Teacher leaders who exhibit servant leadership are more than ever forced to emphasize their instruction while still meeting the protracted objectives of requirements and assessment practices (Powles IV, 2016).

Foresight

Parallel to conceptualization, the servant leader’s capacity to predict consequences and incorporate this thinking into making decisions successfully is also important (Neill & Saunders, 2008). The capacity to learn from past mistakes and improve from setbacks is known as foresight (Spears, 2004). In further detail, foresight is a quality that enables servant leaders to see and use lessons learned in the past. Teachers learn from their errors and cultivate a modest demeanor (Bufalino, 2017). Also, Greenleaf (1991) defined foresight as the ability to make reasoned future predictions by comparing past and ongoing experiences. Understanding the past, forecasting, and cultivating fantasy are the three phases that include the application of foresight (DeGraaf et al., 2001). Teacher leaders will draw on their previous experiences to help them figure out what works and what does not whenever it comes to education. Teacher leaders are better equipped to consult coworkers and administrators on curricular modifications as a result of this. Teacher leaders in a position to provide advice to pupils on probable vocational or college options are able to understand issues and trends in the outside environment. Teacher leaders who encourage the use of vision will inspire their pupils to look further than the boundaries. Mattingly (2014) proposed that instructors use foresight to create a student-centered education. Keith (2008) expanded on the notion of foresight by claiming that foresight is essential in developing an image of the world that is noble for any and all people.

Research methods

This study uses an explanatory sequential mixed-method design to examine to what extent university teachers employ the four principles of servant leadership (empathy, awareness, conceptualization and foresight) in EFL classrooms based on students’ reported experiences. It also investigates the effects of each principle on EFL students’ development and learning in Afghanistan. In a sequential mixed-method approach, the researcher applies the two strands sequentially, with the quantitative techniques coming first and emphasizing the study’s goal more, and the qualitative approaches coming after to assist in interpreting the quantitative findings; It is also feasible to emphasize the second strand, qualitative strand (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The impetus behind employing this approach is that ‘the quantitative data and results provide a general picture of the research problem; more analysis, specifically through qualitative data collection, is needed to refine, extend, or explain the general quantitative picture’ (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021, p. 553). Therefore, in the first step, a questionnaire is sent to find out to what extent university teachers utilize the four qualities and then, interviews are taken to explore the effects of each quality on students’ empowerment in-depth.

Context and participants

The target population of this study was 163 students from the English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Herat University, Afghanistan. The questionnaire was distributed to the target participants via Telegram groups or accounts along with a formal invitation asking for their consent and requesting them to fill out the questionnaire. The participants who filled out the questionnaire were 116 students from different years of schooling, comprising sophomores, juniors and seniors. Then purposeful sampling was used to locate participants for the qualitative data collection, and it was gathered from 9 students, encompassing 4 seniors, 3 juniors and 2 sophomores (Table 1).

Table 1. Interviewed participants’ demographic information.

NO	Name (Pseudonym)	Age	Gender	Year of college	Collegial Major
1	Ahmad	24	Male	Senior	English Literature
2	Sara	23	Female	Senior	English Literature
3	Yaser	23	Male	Senior	English Literature
4	Pari	24	Female	Senior	English Literature
5	Mahsa	24	Female	Junior	English Literature
6	Frozan	20	Female	Junior	English Literature
7	Zamira	22	Female	Junior	English Literature
8	Zari	21	Female	Sophomore	English Literature
9	Shamsia	22	Female	Sophomore	English Literature

Data collection

The data gathered in this study was based on EFL students’ reported experiences with their teachers’ instructions depicting and employing four principles of servant leadership. The data set for this study was gathered through a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire included the four principles of servant leadership, empathy, awareness, conceptualization and foresight. The constructs were developed in accordance with other researchers describing and characterizing each construct/principle through a rigorous scrutiny of literature review, generating initial items. To refine and validate the questionnaire and its items, two university professors who had enough expertise in leadership inspected before finalizing and going to the next steps—inviting students and distributing the questionnaire. Upon reviewing by the experts, some revisions of relevance, clarity, formatting and considering the ethics of the items were carried out. Following that, the questionnaire was distributed to the students.

The questionnaire comprised demographic info and 16 statements measuring the four constructs on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The empathy construct contained 4 statements depicting teachers’ role toward students as empathizing with all the same, treating all the same, respecting everyone’s ideas and same contributing chances for everyone. The awareness construct encompassed 4 statements measuring traits like being aware of classroom issues, listening to students’ difficulties, being aware of students’ needs and abilities and adapting teaching methods to students’ needs. The conceptualization construct included 4 statements that comprised the descriptors such as having bigger aims for the institution, having a vision for students’ future, having a vision beyond the classroom activities and having better plans for learning development. Foresight construct included 4 statements indicating using the past to plan future curriculum or teaching methods, considering past challenges to better learning progress, bringing changes gradually as facing problems in instruction and predicting what will lie ahead.

The interview questions were divided into three stages: demographic information (name, gender, age, years of college, and educational background), main questions (8 inquiries displaying students’ experiences toward their teachers’ use of four principles of servant leadership and their impacts), and two ending questions asking participants to share anything they could not express during the interview but were willing to share. In addition to interview questions, the researcher followed up with the respondents utilizing follow-up questions. Previously, the intended participants were invited by a formal letter via Telegram outlining the purpose of the research and the expected timeline. The participants were also informed that their identity would be anonymous; the data would be kept in a password-secured file only accessible to the researchers and would not be shared with anyone else. Furthermore, it was underlined that there were no right or wrong answers in order to reduce the researcher’s potential influence on participants’ responses, and that their honest answers were valued so that they could show their true self openly—not feeling being judged—resulting in a transparent and friendly talk. To further ensure the participants’ identity and privacy, the study also used pseudonyms for their names. By taking these actions, an open and reliable research environment was promoted while upholding the primary ethical concerns related to confidentiality, anonymity and possible researcher influence.

Telegram was chosen for convenience since many participants were already members of a Telegram group relating to their studies. The interviews were organized and collected from the participants after they gave their consent. WhatsApp was also utilized for online interviews to facilitate one-on-one interviews when in-person interviews were not possible. In addition, the interviews took place one-on-one and were recorded in MP3 format. This method allowed for in-depth, one-on-one interactions with participants. The length of the interviews ranged from 10 to 38 minutes, depending on the intensity of the discussion and the answers of the participants.

The questionnaire’s reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for four principles—empathy, awareness, conceptualization, and foresight—as well as the overall servant leadership construct. The empathy quality showed moderate internal consistency (α = .520), suggesting room for improvement. The awareness quality demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .785). The conceptualization and foresight qualities both exhibited favorable internal consistency (α = .744 and α = .748, respectively). The composite servant leadership score displayed strong internal consistency (α = 0.885), confirming its reliability.

A Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the construct validity of the questionnaire’s questions expressing servant leadership principles (empathy, awareness, conceptualization, foresight) (see Table 2). At a 0.01 significance level, the Pearson correlation coefficient exceeded the crucial value of 1.980, confirming statistical significance. The high positive correlation, with a very low p-value of 0.000, shows that this outcome is unlikely to be attributable to chance alone. This emphasizes the questionnaire’s construct validity, boosting confidence in its capacity to capture the key traits of servant leadership.

Table 2. Pearson correlations.

		Empathy	Awareness	Conceptualization	Foresight	Composite
Empathy	Pearson Correlation	1	.447**	.395**	.408**	.637**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.000	.000	.000	.000
	N	116	116	116	116	116
Awareness	Pearson Correlation	.447**	1	.735**	.637**	.881**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000		.000	.000	.000
	N	116	116	116	116	116
Conceptualization	Pearson Correlation	.395**	.735**	1	.684**	.879**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000		.000	.000
	N	116	116	116	116	116
Foresight	Pearson Correlation	.408**	.637**	.684**	1	.852**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000	.000		.000
	N	116	116	116	116	116
Composite	Pearson Correlation	.637**	.881**	.879**	.852**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000	.000	.000
	N	116	116	116	116	116

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

In this mixed-methods study, we employed triangulation to enhance the construct validity of the four principles, in particular, the empathy principle in our questionnaire. This approach integrates quantitative and qualitative data to gain a deeper understanding of empathy within the servant leadership framework. While the quantitative analysis showed lower internal consistency, qualitative insights offered a broader perspective on empathy. Triangulation highlights the importance of a comprehensive measurement of empathy in servant leadership.

Data analysis procedures

The quantitative data, the questionnaire, were analyzed by SPSS version 27 to obtain a descriptive analysis of the four principles of servant leadership. An independent sample t-test was used to test the null hypothesis regarding gender (male and female) and students’ reported experiences. Besides, one-way ANOVA was conducted to test the null hypothesis of different years of schooling (sophomore, junior and senior) and students’ reported experiences. Then, when the quantitative findings were interpreted, interview questions were developed. Afterward, the researcher continued the process of interpreting the qualitative data by transcribing and color-coding after the participants were interviewed. Due to having the themes prior to beginning the analysis, Thematic analysis, which is ‘a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data,’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79) has been used to analyze the data. The researchers transcribed all of the participant’s speech samples verbatim. Then, the theoretical framework and research questions led the process of analyzing, and color coding was employed to highlight key themes and arrange the primary findings. Meanwhile, the primary findings were discussed in several joint-discussion meetings to reach a consensus.

Results

Quantitative findings

This section provided a descriptive analysis of four principles of servant leadership. The empathy principle obtained the highest value among others (M = 4.03) with the highest values for respecting everyone’s ideas and same contributing chances for everyone variables (M = 4.29; M = 4.21), whereas treating all the same and empathizing with all the same variables gained the lowest values (M = 3.91; M = 3.75). However, the awareness principle obtained a lower value (M = 3.45) with the highest values for listening to students’ difficulties variable (M = 3.75) and lowest values for being aware of students’ needs and abilities, adapting teaching methods to students’ needs and being aware of classroom issues variables (M = 3.41; M = 3.34; M = 3.33). Similarly, the conceptualization principle gained an average value (M = 3.54) with the highest values for having bigger aims for the institution and having better plans of learning development variables the same (M = 3.66). Having vision beyond the classroom activities and having a vision for students’ future variables, however, obtained the lowest values (M = 3.49; M = 3.35). The foresight principle, on the other hand, gained the lowest value (M = 3.38) with the highest values for bringing changes gradually as facing problems in instruction and predicting what will lie ahead items (M = 3.57; M = 3.52) and the lowest values for using past to plan future curriculum or teaching method and considering past challenges to better learning progress items (M = 3.28; M = 3.18). The composite of the four principles (empathy, awareness, conceptualization and foresight) gained a pretty high mean value (M = 3.62), indicating that the teachers mostly implemented the four principles in their classrooms (see Table 3).

Table 3. Composite mean value of the four principles.

	N		Mean	Median	Std. Deviation	Range	Minimum	Maximum
	Valid	Missing
Empathy	116	0	4.0388	4.0000	.53120	2.25	2.75	5.00
Awareness	116	0	3.4547	3.5000	.78547	3.75	1.25	5.00
Conceptualization	116	0	3.5409	3.5000	.74158	3.25	1.75	5.00
Foresight	116	0	3.3858	3.5000	.76286	3.75	1.25	5.00
Composite	116	0	3.6051	3.6250	.58303	2.81	2.13	4.94

Inferential statistics also revealed that the two null hypotheses came to be true. To test the first null hypothesis if students reported experiences on teachers’ use of servant leadership principles differ by gender, an independent sample t-test was used. The composite value of the principles gained a significant score above 0.05 (p = 0.605), implying that students’ reported experiences on teachers’ use of servant leadership principles do not differ by gender (Table 4). In other words, there is no significant connection between students’ reported experiences of teachers’ use of servant leadership principles and different genders. Besides, to test the second null hypothesis whether students’ reported experiences on teachers’ use of servant leadership principles differ by years of schooling, a one-way ANOVA was run. Similarly, the composite value of the principles obtained a significant score above 0.05 (p = 0.199), indicating that no significant difference exists between students’ reported experiences of their teachers’ use of servant leadership principles and students’ years of schooling (Table 5).

Table 4. Independent samples test.

		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
									Lower	Upper
Empathy	Equal variances assumed	.579	.448	−.313	114	.755	−.03407	.10878	−.24957	.18142
	Equal variances not assumed			−.332	70.587	.741	−.03407	.10259	−.23865	.17050
Awareness	Equal variances assumed	.614	.435	−1.961	114	.052	−.31044	.15827	−.62397	.00309
	Equal variances not assumed			−1.849	54.623	.070	−.31044	.16792	−.64701	.02614
Conceptualization	Equal variances assumed	2.351	.128	−1.775	114	.079	−.26596	.14987	−.56286	.03093
	Equal variances not assumed			−1.614	51.109	.113	−.26596	.16476	−.59672	.06479
Foresight	Equal variances assumed	1.469	.228	−2.492	114	.014	−.37930	.15220	−.68080	−.07781
	Equal variances not assumed			−2.286	51.876	.026	−.37930	.16595	−.71233	−.04628
Composite	Equal variances assumed	.269	.605	−2.112	114	.037	−.24744	.11717	−.47957	−.01532
	Equal variances not assumed			−1.979	54.024	.053	−.24744	.12503	−.49812	.00323

Table 5. One-way ANOVA.

		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig
Empathy	Between Groups	.314	2	.157	.552	.577
	Within Groups	32.137	113	.284
	Total	32.450	115
Awareness	Between Groups	2.679	2	1.339	2.217	.114
	Within Groups	68.271	113	.604
	Total	70.950	115
Conceptualization	Between Groups	.412	2	.206	.371	.691
	Within Groups	62.831	113	.556
	Total	63.243	115
Foresight	Between Groups	2.264	2	1.132	1.979	.143
	Within Groups	64.660	113	.572
	Total	66.924	115
Composite	Between Groups	1.100	2	.550	1.636	.199
	Within Groups	37.991	113	.336
	Total	39.091	115

In conclusion, the descriptive analysis showed that teachers mostly applied servant leadership traits, with empathy receiving the highest score (M = 4.03) and foresight receiving the lowest score (M = 3.38). Null hypotheses were supported by inferential statistics, which showed that there were no significant differences in students’ reported experiences with these concepts by gender or year of schooling (p > 0.05).

Qualitative findings

The qualitative findings present students’ reported experiences regarding their teachers’ use of servant leadership principles in their classrooms. Also, the impacts of each quality on students’ learning development are scrutinized in this section (see Table 6).

Table 6. Summary of students’ reported experiences on teachers’ adoption of four servant leadership traits.

Topics	Effects	Barriers
Teachers’ Empathic Status	Secure educational environment Sense of belonging to the classroom Having no psychological barriers Motivating to be dynamic	Differentiating between clever and lazy students
Teachers’ Awareness Status	Motivating students Having a variety of ways to transfer their needs and problems	Not enough facility and budget. Not feeling comfortable sharing her/ his problems Teachers’ motivation and time.
Teachers’ Conceptualizing Status	Developing their learning Enhancing research writing capacity	None
Teachers’ Foresight Status	Bringing changes involving students to learn better Motivating students Developing students’ learning process Solving problems beforehand	None

Teachers’ empathic status

Most of the participants declared that teachers exposed the empathy principle of servant leadership in their classroom as Shamsia asserted that ‘teachers behaved with all students the same way in the class without any discrimination’, and ‘the teachers always respected the students’ opinion and thoughts’ (Sara). Furthermore, Pari added that ‘all the teachers considered all these students the same, they treated all students the same,’ and ‘all the professors saw all the students in one eye and which did not differentiate between the students. For example, if the professors did an activity inside the class, they tried to share all the students’ (Ahmad). However, some of them mentioned that in some cases, ‘there was a difference between smart and lazy students. The teacher tried to give more chances to the students who knew more or had more awareness’ (Ahmad). Furthermore, they pointed out some of the reasons that might lead teachers to differentiate among students. One of the participants said that students’ laziness forms an embodiment for teachers, causing them to avoid calling them on.

The first is the fault of the students themselves. Students who are relatively weak or lazy for whatever reasons they do not prepare the lessons, this causes an embodiment and way of thinking to be formed in the mind of the teachers. The teacher has the same mentality from this person that if I ask him this, he may not know or have not read, so it is possible that the teacher gives more chances to the clever students. The second reason may be the fault of the teacher himself. There are so few teachers who may not like lazy students or any other personal reason. (Ahmad)

The impact of teachers’ empathy on students’ learning development is another contradiction. Some of the participants stated that teachers’ empathic status affected their learning and gave them the courage and motivation to share their thoughts and ideas as conveniently as possible, providing them with a secure educational environment.

It caused me to feel comfortable asking many questions from instructors and [made] the learning process fun and enjoyable for all students. It also gave us the confidence to share our personal beliefs and ideas with other students in class, and also it made a secure environment for all students in the classroom. (Mahsa)

Moreover, Pari added to previous impacts, claiming that ‘I had a sense of belonging to the classroom. I felt the classroom as one community. I felt open to ask for more explanation [and] for more examples.’ Likewise, Ahmad believed that teachers’ empathy influenced students to have no psychological barriers in classrooms and be motivated to be dynamic in their classes.

He tries to get all of them active in the classroom, he motivates the students one hundred percent, and this motivation makes the students [be] active in the classroom and read their lessons, and there is no psychological barrier for them. So this has a 100% positive effect on students’ learning.

To conclude, the participants claimed that their teachers utilized the empathy quality of servant leadership in their instructions and classroom. However, there were a few teachers who differentiated students into classroom participation based on some reasons like students’ laziness and cleverness. The participants disclosed positive perceptions toward teachers’ empathy utilization in their classrooms. They mentioned some of the impacts of this quality on their learning development. Namely, motivation, encouraging and giving the confidence to share their thoughts, sense of belonging to the classroom, having no psychological barriers, and activating students in the classroom participation.

Teachers’ awareness status

Most of the participants claimed that their teachers were aware of their problems and needs, as well as their talents and abilities. Sara asserted that ‘when teachers realized that I can learn better by watching video content, they mostly used videos to simplify challenging topics.’ Also, Ahmad maintained that they had contact with teachers and higher authorities in 21 order to make them aware of their needs and problems in a variety of ways, like directly talking to the teachers, sending a representative and having a representative from the department.

We had meetings with the administration occasionally and we also had a representative who conveyed our ideas and problems to the professors every day. And sometimes when the class representative did not want to carry the students’ opinions alone, we wanted the teacher in the class and all the students shared their ideas with the teacher.

Also, Pari added that ‘the teachers were aware of our problems. We just shared the problems with the teachers. The teachers listened to us and they knew what the problems were, and some of the problems were solved by the teachers and department.’ Likewise, the teachers considered students’ talents coupled with their problems and needs in their instructions, as Ahmad said, ‘The teachers took into account the problems and talents of the students and adjusted their teaching methods.’ To illustrate, ‘some students who did not have enough technology skills were grouped with students who had enough skills to learn from each other and still do not have problems while doing group work’ (Ahmad). Furthermore, Pari asserted that ‘I think most of the teachers know the students’ level the students’ abilities.’ Pari also added to the aforementioned criteria, specifying that ‘some of their activities were very effective for us because activities were according to our level and they were very efficient for our development and learning.’

However, one of the participants carried a negative response to teachers’ awareness status in the classroom. She claimed that she could not share her problems and challenges with teachers ‘because sometimes students do not feel comfortable sharing her/his problems with instructors. I believed if I share a problem with the instructors, he or she may think I bring excuses for studying or doing an assignment’ (Yaser). Ahmad maintained this side, stating that sometimes the teachers were aware of our needs and problems; however, they could not put them into action. To support his claim, he mentioned some reasons that might cause teachers not to take any action toward students’ needs and problems.

There are several reasons why professors do not take action. The first reason goes back to the Ministry of Higher Education; it does not have/provide enough facilities and budgets. When students share their needs and problems with teachers, they cannot use their personal money to take care of students’ needs. The other is that it is possible that there is a lack of work from the professors in conveying the needs and problems of the students to higher authorities and to the Ministry of Higher Education, of which I am not exactly aware and it is only my personal opinion.

There were some other rationales that would cause teachers not to take action. Teachers’ motivation and time were the other reasons, resulting in no cooperation from teachers. This was supported by one of the participants, noting that ‘some teachers are not motivated/have lack of time to help students. It is true that they help and cooperate inside the classroom, but students not only need help and cooperation inside the classroom but also outside the classroom’ (Ahmad). Thus, the participants had some recommendations in this case, suggesting that:

As students share their needs and problems with teachers every day, teachers should address these problems and needs of students to higher authorities every day. In this case, the heads of departments can have consecutive meetings with other heads or write letters to the relevant authorities. (Ahmad)

The participants felt positive about teachers’ awareness status, reporting that ‘when I saw that teacher[s] cared about me and changed their method based on my interest, this motivated me to study more and I became eager to study a lot’ (Yaser). Similarly, Ahmad stated ‘when a teacher is motivated, he also motivates me, and it had a very positive effect on my learning.’ However, one of the participants beside positive effects declared a negative point as a result of being aware of students’ problems and needs, yet not taking any actions or solving them.

but in the short term, as I said, it did. It should be It did not have a long-term effect, noted that this awareness can also have a negative point. When teachers are aware of the problems and needs of a student or a class, but for whatever reason do not take any action, it makes the student or students bored I have seen such examples. These reasons may be due to the Afghan government, which has few facilities, or the lack of work of the professors themselves. (Ahmad)

In conclusion, the participants declared that their teachers utilized the awareness principle of servant leadership in their teaching and classroom, being aware of students’ needs, problems and talents to adapt their teaching methods accordingly. To do so, students tried different ways of transferring their needs and problems to the teachers and higher authorities by talking directly to teachers, students’ representatives and departments’ representatives. Some negative perceptions were also presented concerning teachers’ awareness of students’ needs and problems and taking actions to step further. The negative points were having inadequate budget/facility, not comfortability with students sharing their needs and problems, and teachers’ motivation and time. They also reported positivity to teachers’ use of awareness in their classrooms. All mentioned that it caused them to be motivated, whereas one negative effect was reported as well, pointing out teachers’ awareness toward students’ needs and problems but not taking any actions and solving the problems. The recommendation was to have consecutive meetings with higher authorities by the teachers and heads of departments.

Teachers’ conceptualizing status

All participants claimed that their teachers have utilized conceptualization quality of servant leadership in their classrooms and institutions, as Sara insisted ‘of course, teachers had big aims for my institution. It had useful sequences that I could enhance my learning and knowledge and also had significant achievements in my learning journey.’ To be more specific, despite many inadequacies in the department, they have tried to well train and teach students in order to give them a hand as experienced teachers in the future.

Although the English department of Herat University has had a lack of professors, they have tried to teach the students well so that the students could be presented to the community with high quality, so they could use them as professors in the department or in other departments. (Ahmad)

Ahmad also maintained teachers’ visions for their institution, saying that ‘in addition to strengthening students, English literature professors have recently created a research journal. Teachers help senior students publish their monographs in the journal.

The teachers have had visions beyond the programs and activities within the classroom, as the participants asserted. To illustrate, ‘in writing a monograph I learned all the rules of writing about the different parts of it, like the review of the literature, data analysis and results. Therefore, it helps me to write a research paper and publish it in one of the international journals’ (Yaser). Likewise, as Ahmad aforementioned his professors have cooperated with senior students to publish their monographs in the journal, he continued that ‘this is beyond teaching [that] professors help us to turn the monograph we have written into a research paper and publish it, which goes beyond their in-class learning and can also be very helpful in the student’s master’s field.’ To have more specific examples, ‘in novel and literature courses, the instructor provided related videos and shared many sites about the target lessons to assist us in having extensive background knowledge about the lessons. They also did role play in class, for having a better outcome’ (Yaser).

To sum up, the teachers had the conceptualization principle of servant leadership in their institution and classroom. More distinctively, they had visions beyond their daily activities and programs in the classrooms. The participants were all positive toward teachers’ conceptualizing status and asserted some of the impacts and effects of their visions. Namely, developing their learning and research writing capacity.

Teachers’ foresight status

Similar to previous principles of servant leadership, the teachers have used foresight quality in their teaching and classrooms, as the participants contended. ‘Some instructors change[d] their method of teaching according to students’ needs’ (Yaser). For example, ‘in grammar courses, instructors tried to teach the element[s] which we did not know in the previous semester. It helped to increase students’ learning about all things they really needed’ (Yaser). Also, Ahmad stated that the teachers ‘did more group work even when no one was prepared. They would immediately divide the lesson into several groups to prepare and explain the lesson.’ Similarly, Sara said that ‘when the teachers noticed that students become bored of long lectures and do not listen to teacher’s speeches, they brought some changes like group discussion or group working into their teachings to engage students.’Furthermore, Pari explained what really happened when they had problems with their teachers’ teaching methods.

For example, in one of our courses, I remember that once we had problems with the teacher’s lecture because the teacher was always lecturing the lesson and we had a problem with that teaching method. We talked with the teacher … then The next session … Actually, we were involved in the class activity because the teacher had group work, different activities for other students and all the students were involved in their activities and we worked together and we learned the lesson better.

Yaser maintained the concept and provided an example stating that ‘in some semesters instructors asked students for presentation. However, there was a time limitation and all students did not have enough time to present. Therefore, in the next semesters, they tried to use a different way of accomplishing an assignment.’ Besides, the teachers not only considered previous students’ problems and needs but also their needs for the future while planning and implementing their teaching methods. One of the participants mentioned a long-term effect of teachers’ foresight, exemplifying the use of an online exam over paper-based exams to overcome one of the challenges beforehand.

One of the examples could be that our exams were on paper before, but one of the professors taught us the online exam and we gave some online exams. This had a very good and fruitful effect. There we understood our scores, we also understood our This happened before the coronavirus problems. And it had a good long-term effect. was released. After the coronavirus spread and the lessons went online, we could easily take the exams online because we were already familiar with it. So it was very effective to continue our lessons during the coronavirus. (Ahmad)

The participants disclosed their agreement on teachers’ foresight effects on their development and learning empowerment. One of the participants asserted that ‘when I see that they care about me, I get more motivated and read my lessons well to be a useful person for the community’ (Ahmad). In the same way, Sara stated that ‘when instructors faced some challenges during the teaching process, they learned and changed their teaching process [and method]. … Thus, by changing his/her teaching method we saw students’ learning process developed and learned the topic.’ They also mentioned that the teachers added a variety of group activities into their boring lecturing method and affirmed their positive impacts on their learning empowerment.

When students are not ready for the lesson, they are not motivated, but when the teacher did this [group activity], the students had to prepare for the lesson and work in groups and learn the lesson. This really had a big impact on them. (Ahmad)

To conclude, the teachers had the foresight, one of the servant leadership principles, for their students, instructions and classrooms. The teachers considered students’ problems and needs to anticipate their upcoming challenges and needs. They brought some changes according to students’ needs and problems, and those changes were reported quite beneficial for students’ learning development. The changes involved students learning better, motivating them in the learning process and even solving a problem beforehand—taking online exams.

Discussion

The descriptive analysis revealed that the teachers mostly implemented the four principles of empathy, awareness, conceptualization and foresight in their classrooms as obtained a pretty high mean value (M = 3.62), indicating a favorable trend in instructors’ adoption of these ideas. Besides, inferential statistics uncovered that there is no robust difference between different genders in relation to reporting their experiences on teachers’ use of the four servant leadership principles as the p-value obtained 0.605. This finding challenges the assumption that gender might influence perceptions in this context. Along the same line, on the basis of respondents’ gender, no significant difference was discovered by Thakur and Verma, (2022). In addition, hypothesis testing showed that students with different years of schooling had the same reported experiences regarding their teachers’ use of servant leadership qualities, gaining a higher significant value of 0.199. This suggests that these principles may have a consistent impact across various educational stages. On the contrary, according to McCann and Sparks (2018) study of servant leadership and its connection to teaching quality, graduate students believed their professors had considerably higher values in servant leadership principles than undergraduate students. This disparity underlines the need for more study on differences in student perceptions across different educational contexts.

The participants stated that their teachers incorporated the empathy quality of servant leadership into their lessons and classrooms. However, a few teachers distinguished students’ classroom involvement depending on factors such as students’ laziness and brilliance. Similarly, Reyna and Weiner (2001) and Sutton (2007) discovered that teachers became angry and frustrated when the students performed poorly in academia due to their laziness or carelessness. Furthermore, Gultom et al. (2022) stated that teachers behave differently with different students in the class; they give rewards and plus points to active and clever students, whereas they give penalties or even ask students who disrupted or did not pay attention to the teachers to go out of the class. However, Santihastuti et al. (2022) suggested that demotivation and laziness among students must be addressed with various strategies by teachers and through building a positive relationship between students and teachers, they can manage the classroom and create a more positive environment. Moreover, Spears (1995) contended that a servant leader should not dismiss any student, regardless of their undesirable behavior or effort.

The participants of this study also expressed positive attitudes toward teachers’ use of empathy in the classroom. Teachers who display empathy in the classroom, according to Fitzgerald (2015), are attempting to be aware of their students’ needs. The participants also discussed the effects of this quality on their learning development. Motivation, encouraging and providing students the confidence to share their opinions, a sense of belonging in the classroom, no psychological obstacles, and energizing students in classroom engagement are all the effects of empathy quality utilization in the classrooms. Respectively, Noland and Richards (2015) measured teachers as servant leaders—servant teachers—and revealed that due to implementing servant leadership principles, students were highly motivated and involved in their learning process. In addition, empathy is also essential in creating a school environment in which students can express their feelings (Mattingly, 2014). Besides, Bouchard and Berg (2017) asserted that a sense of belonging has a positive relationship with students’ outcomes psychologically, socially and academically. Likewise, a sense of belonging can help students succeed by lowering psychological discomfort and the likelihood of developing mental health disorders (Kirby & Thomas, 2021). Besides, for removing psychological obstacles, Stotland (1969) asserted that as a result of empathizing, psychological barriers would be broken down. Overall, In the case of teachers, empathy refers to a thorough knowledge of students via acceptance and respect for their individuality by which students can express themselves freely (Bufalino, 2017).

The participants stated that their teachers incorporated the servant leadership awareness concept into their teaching and classroom, being aware of their students’ needs, difficulties, and skills in order to modify their teaching techniques accordingly. As Santihastuti et al. (2022) asserted, teachers must be intelligent enough to cope with each student’s difficulty and find a path to a win-win solution since they educate diverse sorts of students. In this study, students tried several methods of communicating their wants and difficulties to instructors and higher authorities, including speaking directly with teachers, student representatives, and department representatives. It elaborates on a key principle of servant leadership as Bowman (2005) discussed, the formation and maintenance of faculty-student relationships in order to accomplish a comprehensive and unified purpose and to assure responsibility is a key principle of servant leadership. Some unfavorable impressions were also expressed about instructors’ understanding of students’ needs and issues. The drawbacks were an insufficient budget/facility, students’ unwillingness to communicate their wants and issues, and teachers’ motivation and time. They were also pleased with the instructors’ use of awareness in the classroom. All stated that it motivated them, and they felt being cared for, although one negative consequence was also acknowledged, pointing out instructors’ awareness of students’ wants and issues but failed to take action and solve the problems. Similarly, Hunter et al. (2013) claimed that as a result of servant teaching utilization in classrooms, students feel encouraged and cared for. Likewise, according to Crippen (2010), instructors will increase awareness by actively observing and listening to their students, resulting in a caring environment for the students. By the way, the recommendation of the participants for instructors and department leaders was to meet with higher-ups on a regular basis. To conclude, Greenleaf (1996) declared that teachers become servant leaders when they listen to their students’ problems and help them overcome their problems.

The instructors incorporated the conceptualization principle of servant leadership into their institution and classroom. They were distinguished for having visions that extended beyond their regular activities and programs in the classrooms. Neill and Saunders (2008) also declared that servant leaders see beyond every day and envision great things for their institution. The participants were all positive about instructors’ conceptualizing standing and affirmed some of their visions’ consequences and effects. Specifically, their learning and research writing abilities were developed as a result of their teachers’ conceptualization quality.

One of the servant leadership principles was foresight, which the instructors demonstrated for their students, instructions, and classrooms. Teachers considered their students’ difficulties and needs in order to foresee their future challenges and needs. They implemented several improvements in response to students’ wants and issues, and such changes have been regarded to be highly useful to students’ learning growth. In the same way, Mattingly (2014) said that to enhance students’ learning, teaching techniques would be modified as needed. Also, it is critical to employ a teaching and learning technique that is most suited to students’ needs (Saville et al., 2006). Hopefully, the adjustments, from the participants’ point of view, involved students in learning better, motivating them in the learning process, and even eliminated a difficulty beforehand—taking online tests. To certify, Greenleaf (1991) defined foresight as the ability to make reasonable future predictions based on past and current experiences. Furthermore, learning teachers from their mistakes and building a humble approach are called foresight (Bufalino, 2017).

Concluding remarks

The descriptive analysis showed that the four principles of empathy, awareness, conceptualization, and foresight were mainly used in the classrooms by the instructors. Additionally, inferential statistics revealed that there is no discernible difference in how genders report their experiences with instructors’ use of the four servant leadership principles. Additionally, inferential statistics also revealed that students with varying years of schooling reported having the same experiences with their professors’ application of servant leadership traits. Likewise, all students reported that their teachers have used the four principles of servant leadership (empathy, awareness, conceptualization and foresight) in their instructions and classrooms. Also, the utilization of those four principles was quite useful in the classrooms and in students’ learning development so that it can be acknowledged as a suitable leadership style in education.

The findings of this study offer some pedagogical implications for policymakers, teachers, students and other researchers. As the findings revealed that most of the teachers used the qualities in their instructions, and their impacts of each principle were reported impactful on students’ empowerment, it is highly recommended policymakers that promote them through conducting short capacity-building workshops and establishing leadership centers at campuses for teachers (Golzar & Miri, 2020). Those workshops and leadership centers can also be accessible for students who are interested in becoming teachers—servant teachers. In addition, the findings of this study add the implementations of teachers’ use of the four principles of servant leadership in instructions and language classrooms to the findings of Golzar and Miri (2020) that measured four other principles of servant leadership; both studies would depict a better understanding of teachers’ servant leadership utilizations in Afghanistan. Furthermore, it also highlights the effects of those four principles on students’ learning development, resulting in realizing the positivity and negativity of each principle in EFL classrooms.

Many positive points were mentioned by the participants that were very helpful in developing students’ learning, like a sense of belonging to the classroom, a sense of caring, motivation and encouragement. Thus, this study offers the utilization of servant leadership principles as a suitable leadership style in instructions and classrooms to those teachers who are struggling with their students’ demotivation, discouragement, stress and anxiety. Moreover, Teachers are significant role models for students, modeling behavioral and cultural standards or norms (Sampson, 2016). Hence, this study expects that as a result of implementing the principles of servant leadership by the teachers in classrooms, students unconsciously acquire the qualities to become future servant leaders so that it recommends all teachers cultivate those principles in their instructions and classrooms. Last but not least, it offers a slight insight into servant leadership traits utilization in higher education in Afghanistan, so other researchers can have some information to do deeper studies in terms of using servant leadership in teaching and instruction in developing countries.

However, some negativities were reported, one of which was teachers’ act of distinguishing among students in classroom activities, this study recommends using those principles, specifically empathy quality of servant leadership, to those teachers to eliminate those negativities as well as possible because servant leaders do not dismiss any students even when they have undesirable behaviors or efforts. Besides, not paying attention to solving students’ challenges was another negativity reported by the teachers; this study recommends to those teachers who cannot do anything to resolve students’ problems themselves to transfer students’ problems to the head of the department. Then going forward, the head of the department should have meetings in this regard with higher authorities because as Greenleaf (1996) asserted teachers become servant leaders when they listen to students’ problems and help them to solve them. Besides, it is recommended future researchers take a deep look at teachers’, heads of departments’ and the Ministry of Higher Education’s points of view in this regard. It may bring some new insight into the negativities mentioned by the participants of this study.

This study provides valuable insights into how EFL students experienced the principles of servant leadership. However, it is worth mentioning that certain limitations should be acknowledged. First, the pilot testing of the questionnaire was not conducted owing to the time restrictions, yet thorough evaluations of validity and reliability were carried out utilizing Pearson correlation analysis and Cronbach’s alpha values, exhibiting favorable internal consistency of three principles and moderate internal consistency of another one (empathy), coupled with the strong correlations supporting the construct validity of the questionnaire. In order to make up for the constraints of this mixed-methods study, triangulation—the combination of quantitative and qualitative insights—served as a methodological tool that improved comprehension of the empathy principle within servant leadership in particular. Second, the study admits that cultural factors may have an influence on servant leadership, but it does not go into great detail about this, which might limit the findings’ applicability to other contexts. This is an important restriction, motivating future studies to investigate the complex interplay between cultural factors and servant leadership in order to gain a more thorough understanding.

Future study should look at the benefits of servant leadership workshops on instructors and students, as well as how those effects vary over time. Long-term implications for servant leadership should be investigated in terms of academic achievement, motivation, and personal development. It is also critical to evaluate teacher training programs aimed to instill servant leadership principles and to understand how cultural influences impact the application of these ideas. Furthermore, research on the influence of servant leadership on conflict resolution, leadership center effectiveness, teacher-student interactions, cooperation processes, and qualitative insights into difficulties will help to a more complete knowledge of the significance of servant leadership in education. Moreover, the other remaining principles are recommended to be investigated by other researchers to add more insights regarding the servant leadership application in the same context.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their heartfelt gratitude to the editor and reviewers for their invaluable constructive feedback, as well as to the students who cooperated in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes on contributors

Rohullah Yousofi

Rohullah Yousofi is a former lecturer in the English Department, Faculty of Languages and Literature at Herat University, Afghanistan. He holds a bachelor’s degree in English Literature and has participated in a variety of professional development programs. Also, he has taught a variety of English courses at public and private universities for the past seven years. His research interests include identity, technology integration, and L2 writing.

Fatemeh Rahimzad

Fatemeh Rahimzad holds a bachelor’s degree in English Literature and has taught English language since 2019 at private institutions. She has also participated in different capacity-building programs. Her research interests are servant teaching, language development and pedagogy.