bnone
Post on 02-Jun-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
1/22
O R I G I N A L P A P E R
The Influence of Leaders Spiritual Values of Servant
Leadership on Employee Motivational Autonomyand Eudaemonic Well-Being
Chin-Yi Chen Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen Chun-I Li
Published online: 22 March 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract This research examined the role of leaders spiritual values in terms of the
servant leadership in the process of promoting employees autonomous motivation and
eudaemonic well-being. Sample consists of 265 Chinese supervisor-subordinate dyads
recruited from a variety of industries in Taiwan. Spiritual values perceived by the sub-
ordinates, as well as the discrepancy between leader-subordinate perceptions, but not the
leaders self-perceptions of spiritual values, were found to contribute significantly beyond
transactional leadership in predicting subordinate motivational autonomy and eudaemonicwell-being, and subordinate autonomous motivations fully mediates the relationship
between spiritual values and eudaemonic well-being.
Keywords Spiritual values Servant leadership Eudaemonic well-being
Self-determination theory (SDT) Dyadic discrepancy
Introduction
The global financial crisis revealed that spiritual/religious values are as important to the
profitable organizations in the business world as they are to the religious institutes. The
issue of workplace spirituality began to be noticed by the academia in the 1990s (Conger
1994). Spiritual or spirit-centered leadership is a topic of inquiry frequently associ-
ated with the workplace spirituality in the literature (Benefiel 2005; Biberman2000; Fry
2005; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz2003; Jue2006).
Unlike the traditional leadership models mostly based on the economic cost-benefit
assumptions (Bass1985, p. 5) that described leader behavior in terms of leaderfollower
C.-Y. Chen (&)Department of Business Administration, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology,
123 University Road, Section 3, Touliu City, Yunlin County 640, Taiwan
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
DOI 10.1007/s10943-011-9479-3
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
2/22
exchange relationships, setting goals, providing direction and support, and reinforcement
behaviors, the value-based/spirit-centered leadership models are the transformational
leadership schools which emphasized symbolic leader behavior; visionary, inspirational
messages; emotional feelings; ideological and moral values; individualized attention; and
intellectual stimulation (Avolio et al. 2009).Among various addresses of religious/spirit-centered leadership, the servant leader-
ship has recently attracted the attention of leadership scholars and practitioners (Bass
et al. 1999; Bowman 1997). Substantial empirical research for the construct of servant
leadership in terms of its philosophical foundation, spiritual values, and influences has
been burgeoning.
Over the past few years, in the measurement of leadership effectiveness, short-term
indicators such as market share and financial enhancement were the most frequently
reported indicators of leadership effectiveness (Higgs 2003). However, truly successful
leaders maintain subordinate loyalty and promote organizational effectiveness through
establishing sustainable long-term assets (Higgs 2003), such as building the capacity of
followers (Nwogu2004), increasing psychological capitals, and enhancing psychological
well-being. In addition, most of the current management research perspectives place
emphasis on leadership, while focusing less on followership. The servant leader-
ship enactment, however, challenges the traditional concept about leadership by
emphasizing supervisors to practice leadership in the way of a servant, who thoroughly
serve his/her followers.
Greenleaf (1977) posited that the first choice of a leader is choosing to serve others. A
leader will accomplish little if lacks this servanthood cognition. The choice to serve is an
expression of the nature of life (Jaworski and Flowers 1998). The leaders role is like stewardof the resources (human, financial, and otherwise) provided by the organization. The power
to motivate leadership is not self-interest of the leader, but the need of his/her followers
(Russell and Stone2002). While the management and leadership styles in most non-profit/
religious organizations are directed to pursuit the values of meaningfulness and spiri-
tuality at work, many employees in the profitable organizations actually suffered from
performance-resulted pressure and accumulated physical and mental fatigue. The concept of
servant leadership inspires subordinates to generate better awareness, trust, learning, and
spiritual fulfillment at work. And due to the servant leadership of their supervisors,
employees become tolerant, open-minded, patient, optimistic, proactive, and willing to
learn. This study therefore views servant leadership as a spiritual, guiding, helping others togrow, and humanistic-based leadership style that leading by values and beliefs.
To proceed further in understanding the process of servant leadership, there are still
questions to be answered. To what extent does servant leadership influence subordinates
outcomes such as employee motivation and well-being? What are the mechanisms for
servant leadership to affect these employee outcomes? How is it compared with non-
servant leadership styles (such as the transactional leadership style) in the impact on the
leadership effectiveness? To enquire into these questions, we consider the internal and
external autonomous motivations, based on the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), as the
mediating variables between servant leadership and employee psychological well-being.In addition, there is belief that research gap exists in the relationship between leadership
and employees behavior since most research is based on individualistic cultural samples,
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 419
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
3/22
economy, and managing Chinese human resources effectively becomes a critical issue for
many multi-national companies. While spiritual values are presumably conceived as uni-
versal human capitals, it is important to empirically examine how the servant leadership
conceptualization applies to the Chinese organizations (Luthans et al. 2008).
Literature Review
Spiritual Values of Servant Leadership
The servant leadership theory is an approach to leadership development which holds that
the leaders are first a servant to serve others before they are guided. When people receive
services and guidance from others, they will in turn serve and lead more people, to the
extent that a wider number of employees, consumers, and even the whole society perceive
this service (Greenlaef 1977). Service is the core of servant leadership and is the most
important function of servant leaders, to place others interests above their own. Servant
supervisors serve the front-line subordinates by finding their individual uniqueness
(Aggarwal and Simkins2001; Liden et al. 2008; Lyerly and Maxey2001).
Servant leadership demonstrates the principles of the leaders. As values and beliefs are
the core motivators of leadership, servant supervisors actively endeavor to meet the
demand of employees, regarding serving their subordinates as the highest responsibility
(Yukl2002). Their motivation to accomplish these tasks is not self-interest; rather, servant
leaders want their subordinates to improve for their own good, and view the development
of followers as an end, in and of itself, not merely a means to reach the leaders ororganizations goals (Ehrhart 2004, p. 69). Servant leaders lead with love, humility,
altruism, trust, vision, empowerment, and servant hood (Patterson 2003). From the ethical
point of view, a leader that recognizes the values of ethics is worthy of the trust of
employees, customers, and business stakeholders (Fry2003; Fry et al. 2005; Reave2005).
In measuring servant leadership, researchers have developed a variety of scales (e.g.,
Laub 2003; Page and Wong 2000; Russell and Stone 2002), among which, the
12-dimension scale developed by Page and Wong (2000), including integrity, humility,
servant hood, caring for others, empowering others, developing others, vision, goal-setting,
leading, modeling, team-building, and shared decision-making, comprehensively encom-
passes the aspect of spiritual values of servant leadership, therefore is adopted as theresearch instrument in this study.
Spiritual Values of Servant Leadership Compared with Other Leadership Values
The transformational leadership theory emphasizes leaders influence on employees, as the
leaders act through vision, intellectual stimulation, inspiring motivations, and paying
individual care to motivate employees to achieve work performance. As a matter of fact,
spirit-centered leaderships such as ethical leadership, spiritual leadership, servant leader-
ship, and charismatic leadership have common characteristics in many aspects, thus, can beclassified as the transformational leadership schools; however, servant leadership does
have unique characteristics in definitions compared with other leadership styles.
420 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
4/22
similaritiesanddifferencesbetweenserv
antleadershipandtransactional,transformational,paternalistic,integral,spiritual,charismaticleadershipstyles
rshipstyle
Characteristicanduniqueness
Caringfor
others
Calling
Ethicaldecisio
ns
Integrity
Modeling
Auth
enticity
Vision/mission
Empoweringothers,
supporting
personaldecisions
Emphasizingthedevelopmentandaccomplishmentofemployees
Emphasizin
gthenatureof
serviceH
umility
Self-sacrifice
Altruism
hipSty
les
Similarityw
ithServantLeadership
DifferencewithServa
ntLeadership
Fulfillingthepsychologicaldemandsofemployees
relations
Emphasizingtheno
n-ethicalexchange
Emphasizingutilizationofthereward-and-punishmentmanagement
Emphasizingthepo
sitionofleadersaspowercenters
nalleadershipstyle
Leadersin
fluenceemployees
Vision,Motivating,Caring,Calling
Emphasizingleadingthroughmissions,values,andin
tellectual
inspiration.
eadershipstyle
Father-like
kindness
Moralinte
grity
Authority
dership
style
Caringfor
others
Ethicaldecision
Integrity
Modeling
Authentici
ty
Emphasizingself-aw
areness
ershipstyle
Caringfor
others
Integrity
Modeling
Emphasizingvision,hope/faith,andloveaspersonal
pursue
eadershipstyleadership
Modeling,
Vision,Caring,Calling,Inspiring
Emphasizingself-aw
arenessofleadership:values,cognitions,and
emotions
Emphasizingperson
alandsocialidentity
Emphasizingself-ad
justmentofemployees-internaliz
ation
Emphasizingtheun
certainorganizationalenvironmen
t
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 421
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
5/22
at a status of extreme power imbalance, which leads to conflicts and employee physical and
psychological pressure (Cheng et al. 2004). As the world becomes more globalized, the
concept of decentralization and shared decision-making being the trends of modern
leadership styles, servant leadership has its importance in meeting the demands of
employees, serving them wholeheartedly, trusting and empowering them, and thus being
completely different in the power relations between supervisors and employees compared
to the paternalistic leadership style (Fig. 1).
Employee Motivation Based on Motivational Autonomy
Porter and Lawler (1968) categorized work motivations into intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic motivation. The intrinsic motivation refers to motivators from the work itself.
The extrinsic motivation refers to the intention to work resulting from external rewards,
rather than the work itself. They suggested that a work environment for improved work
performance is one that subordinates can be satisfied with both their intrinsic motivation
and extrinsic motivation (Deci 1971). Research supported that challenging tasks would
provide higher intrinsic motivation, as the accomplishment of these tasks serves as a
positive feedback which enhances intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, negative feedback
would decrease the sense of achievement, provoking extrinsic motivation, or amotivation
(Gagne and Deci2005). In 1985, Ryan, Connell, and Deci proposed the self-determination
theory (SDT). The SDT suggests that autonomous motivation comprises the intrinsic
motivation and two fully internalized extrinsic motivations, the integrated regulation
and regulation through identification, while controlled motivation involves two
other extrinsic motivations: the introjected regulation of behaviour and external
regulated behaviour (Gagne and Deci2005). Gagne and Deci (2005) assumed that these
five types of motivation mentioned above are displayed (in that order) along the autonomycontinuum in terms of their magnitude of self-determination.
The definitions of these five types of motivation are as follows. Intrinsic motivation is
the natural, inherent drive to seek out challenges and new possibilities that has the highest
autonomy by SDT, while extrinsic motivation comes from external sources. Externally
regulated behaviour is performed because of external demand or possible reward. Such
actions can be seen to have an externally perceived locus of control. Introjected Regu-
lation of behaviour describes taking on regulations to behavior but not fully accepting the
regulations as ones own. Regulation through identification is a more autonomous form
of extrinsic motivation. It involves consciously valuing a goal or regulation so that the
action to be taken is accepted as personally important. Integrated regulation is the most
autonomous kind of extrinsic motivation, occurring when regulations are fully assimilated
Leaders with low power posture Equal power Leader swith high power posture
Servant Leadership Participatory Leadership Paternalistic Leadership
Fig. 1 The power profile of servant leadership, participatory leadership, and paternalistic leadership
422 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
6/22
Motivational autonomy is closely related to improved psychological functioning (Deci
1980; Deci and Ryan 1985, 2000; Ryan 1993). As one becomes more self-determined,
more positive outcomes will be produced, for example, more excellent problem solving
skills, greater cognitive flexibility, and higher level of interest and perseverance.
Hypotheses and Research Framework
The literatures inferring servant leadership to enhance autonomous motivation are abun-
dant. Winston (2003) extended Pattersons interactive leaderfollower servant leadership
model, presenting how the service of supervisors affects the Agapao love of followers in
Pattersons model, and in turn affects the followers commitment to their supervisors as
well as their self-efficacy, even further influences their intrinsic motivation, which recip-
rocally promotes the leaders altruistic attitude, and thus causing the followers to serve
leaders; these services in turn influence the Agapao love of supervisors to the followers and
create a positive loop. Cover (1998) pointed out that under servant leadership, subordinates
are driven by intrinsic motivation of shared purpose. The servant leadership is based on
mutual trust and empowering others (e.g., Hunt 2000; Russell and Stone 2002), which
contribute to promoting employees internal locus of causality, and to enhancing the
autonomous intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 1985, 1991). While servant leadership
enhances autonomous motivation, however, it does not mean it necessarily decreases
externally motivated behavior. Theoretically, servant leadership promotes employees from
lower (e.g., amotivation) to certain higher (internal or external) motivations behaviors,
depending on the prior status of the employees motivational autonomy. Based on the
above rationale, this study proposes the following hypothesis:H1: Servant leadership is positively related to the intrinsic motivation of subordinates
(?).
H2: Servant leadership is positively related to the autonomous extrinsic motivation of
subordinates (?).
H3: Servant leadership is positively related to the controlled extrinsic motivation of
subordinates (?).
H4: Servant leadership is negatively related to the amotivation of subordinates (-).
Ryan and Deci (2001) integrated the field of well-being research into two traditions: one
dealing with happiness (the hedonic well-being) and another dealing with humanpotential (the eudaemonic well-being). The former encompasses emotional functioning
and subjective evaluation of their life, usually operationalized as high positive affect, low
negative affect, and high satisfaction with life (Diener 1984). The latter involves more
existential concerns and the way how individuals interact with the world, for example,
personal growth, purpose in life, etc. (Keyes et al. 2002). Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991)
pointed out that self-determination is closely related to mental functioning and can be
predictable of positive outcomes. The autonomous loci of control, i.e., the intrinsic and
higher-level extrinsic motivation have been proved to have more positive influences,
whereas the lower autonomous loci of control, i.e., the extrinsic motivation and amoti-
vation, resulted in negative influences. Deci (2000) pointed out that the well-being related
to autonomous motivation is the eudaemonic well-being. Servant leadership emphasizes
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 423
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
7/22
H5: Intrinsic motivation enhances eudaemonic well-being (?).
H6: Intrinsic motivation mediates servant leadership and employee eudaemonic well-
being.
H7: Autonomous extrinsic motivation enhances eudaemonic well-being (?).
H8: Autonomous extrinsic motivation mediates servant leadership and employeeeudaemonic well-being.
According to the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci 1975), external rewards, con-
straints, monitoring, and evaluations tend to reduce the sense of autonomy, lower down-
wards the locus of control from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation. External desire, such
as accumulation of wealth and fame, hardly produce eudaemonic well-being. As indi-
viduals satisfy their intrinsic needs, they also internalize their extrinsic motivations. The
more satisfied they are the higher extrinsic motivations are internalized, thus improving
their autonomous motivations and eudaemonic well-being. Accordingly, this study pro-
poses the following hypothesis:H9: Controlled extrinsic motivation does not enhance eudaemonic well-being (-/0).
H10: Amotivation does not enhance eudaemonic well-being (-/0).
To test for the incremental validity of servant leadership, one approach, according to
LeBreton et al. (2007), is to test for its additional explanatory power generated toward the
criterion variables in addition to some known existing predictors in multiple regressions.
Taking this approach, Liden et al. (2008) have validated that servant leadership provided
prominent additional explanatory power other than those of the transformational leadership
and the leader-member exchange, in contributing to organizational citizenship behavior,
subordinate work performance, and organizational commitment. This study examines toverify whether servant leadership provides additional explanatory power toward autono-
mous work motivation, other than transactional leadership (LMX; the traditional concept
of leadership). Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H11: Servant leadership contributes beyond transactional leadership to employee
autonomous intrinsic motivation.
H12: Servant leadership contributes beyond transactional leadership to employee
autonomous extrinsic motivation.
Following is to integrate the hypotheses stated above into a research framework
(Fig.2).
H1(+)
H2(+)
H3(+)
H4(-)
H5(+)
H7(+)
H9(-/0)
Eudaemonicwell-being
Transactionalleadership
Servantleadership
Intrinsicmotivation
Autonomousextrinsicmotivation
Controlledextrinsicmotivation
424 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
8/22
Methods
Sample and Procedure
To increase the representativeness of samples, the researchers conveniently recruitedleaderfollower dyads from profitable organizations as our research samples. A total of 400
supervisor-subordinate dyads from a variety of industries (manufacturing, finance, and
service industries) were delivered questionnaires, in which 265 dyads (66.25%) gave valid
responses. We did not limit double identities during the process of the sampling. That is, a
middle-level manager is on one hand the manager of lower-level employees, while on the
other hand, the subordinate of a higher-level manager. The collected questionnaires were
valid only if they were paired dyads. Background information about the samples is pre-
sented as follows. The percentage for finance industry is 7.2%, and manufacturing 82.3%;
large enterprises accounts for 57.4%, while small and medium enterprises 37.4%; men are
about 68.3% and women 27.9%. Those with less than 10-year work experience are
approximately 59.6%, and 1120 years 22.7%. Respondents below the age of 30 account
for 17.4%, between 31 and 40 for 41.9%, and those between 41 and 50 for 28.7%. General
staff constitutes a large percentage of the samples, which is approximately 32.5%, lower-
level managers 24.5%, and front-line employees 22.6%. Those with a college degree or
above are about 58.1%, and those with a high school or lower degree are 35.1%.
Measures
Supervisor Questionnaire
Servant Leadership Questionnaire (for Supervisor)
This questionnaire was originally developed by Page and Wong (2000). The researchers
extracted 48 out of its original 60 items based on the results of a pre-test on a sample of 106
business managers. This questionnaire measures 12 dimensions of servant leaders
behavior, including integrity, humility, servant hood, caring for others, empowering others,
developing others, vision, goal-setting, leading, modeling, team-building, and shared
decision-making. Factor analysis revealed good convergence on each of the 12 dimensions.The reliability indicators were also high. Cronbachs as for the 12 dimensions in this study
were: integrity .848, humility .886, servant hood .885, caring for others .927, empowering
others .852, developing others .905, vision .921, goal-setting .896, leading .930, modeling
.880, team-building .930, and shared decision-making .920.
Transactional Leadership Questionnaire
The Chinese version of the transactional leadership questionnaire was developed by Wu
and Lin (1998), revised from Bass and Avolios (1990) original scale. The questionnairecontains 30 items, including management by passive exception (7 items), management
by active exception (8 items), and contigent reward (15 items). The contigent
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 425
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
9/22
Lin (1998), with the overall internal consistency reliability of .848, and subscale reli-
abilities ranging from .783 to .885. In this study, the reliability coefficients are even higher,
with Cronbachsa of .936 for the overall scale, .935 for subscale management by passive
exception, .900 for management by active exception, .929 for promised contigent
reward, .926 for Substantial contigent reward- reciprocal, and .923 for Substantialcontigent reward-recognition of courtesy.
Subordinate Questionnaire
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
This study adopted the Situational Motivation scale (SIMS) developed by Guay et al.
(2000). This 16-item SIMS consists of four dimensions with four questions each designed
to assess intrinsic motivation, autonomous extrinsic motivation (identified regulation),
controlled extrinsic motivation (external regulation), and amotivation. The reliability
Cronbachsas of the four dimensions were as follows: .95 for intrinsic motivation, .85 for
autonomous extrinsic motivation, .62 for controlled extrinsic motivation, and .83 for
amotivation in this study.
Eudaemonic Well-Being
Ryffs (1989) Eudaemonic Well-being Scale was reduced from 55 to 24 items after a pre-
test on 106 business managers. This measure contains six dimensions of eudaemonic well-
being, namely, autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations withothers, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. The internal consistency reliability Cronbachs
a of this questionnaire are as follows: autonomous motivation .819, environment control
.899, personal growth .902, positive relations .904, purpose of life .872, and self-accep-
tance .739.
Servant Leadership Questionnaire
The same servant leadership questionnaire as for supervisors is utilized to assess the
subordinates responses, except the wordings have been revised so that it is appropriate for
the subordinates.
Transactional Leadership
The same transactional leadership questionnaire for supervisors is accordingly revised for
the employees.
Control Variables
This study includes subordinates age, gender, educational level, and years of work ascontrol variables, which were previously demonstrated to have relations with the intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation (Diener et al. 1999).
426 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
10/22
Results
Within-Construct Validity
The correlations among the various dimensions of servant leadership ranged from .676 to.877, showing very high positive relationships (P\ .01), which, after exploratory factor
analysis, can be extracted to form a single factor that effectively explained 82.03% of the
variance that is similar to the research results by Page and Wong (2000). To simplify
subsequent analyses, the researchers utilized the major component after extraction as the
single one indicator of the servant leadership for the following analyses.
The overall explained variance of the servant leadership construct reached 82.03%, with
each of the factor loadings higher than .85. The results presented a one-factor structure
with very high validity. As to the transactional leadership, the overall explained variance
was 62.09%, with factor loadings ranging from .84 to .91. The work motivation (SIMS)
presented a four-factor structure with a cumulative explained variance of 72.63%, and
factor loadings ranging from .54 to .90. The eudaemonic well-being revealed a one-factor
structure with explained variance of 44.67%, and factor loadings ranging from .41 to .81.
The above results showed good construct validity for the measured variables.
Subordinates Correlational Analysis
Table2 shows that the servant leadership is positively related to intrinsic motivation,
autonomous extrinsic motivation, and controlled extrinsic motivation, with correlations
ranging from .180 to .441 (P\
.01), which is consistent with the research findings ofPatterson (2003). The hypotheses, H1, H2, and H3, are verified. Servant leadership is
negatively correlated with amotivation (-.132, P\ .05), and H4 is validated. Intrinsic
motivation and autonomous extrinsic motivation are in positive relation with eudaemonic
well-being, thus H5 and H7 are supported. Controlled extrinsic motivation has no
Table 2 Correlations and descriptives of the research variables (N= 265)
Mean S.D. Servantleadership
Intrinsicmotivation
Autonomousextrinsic
motivation
Controlledextrinsic
motivation
Amotivation Eudaemonicwell-being
Servant leadership 4.965 1.250 (.980)
Intrinsic
motivation
4.775 1.247 .441** (.929)
Autonomous
extrinsic
motivation
5.459 1.026 .361** .605** (.754)
Controlled
extrinsic
motivation
5.107 1.118 .180** .238** .428** (.801)
Amotivation 4.147 1.331 -.132* -.147* -.125* .272** (.861)
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 427
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
11/22
significant influence on well-being, while amotivation is in negative relation with well-
being, and therefore H9 and H10 are supported.
Supervisors Self-ratings on Servant Leadership: Low Correlations with Subordinate
Outcomes
The analysis of leaders self-ratings on servant leadership showed that leaders self-ratings
had non-relevant relationships with almost all variables of subordinates work motivation
and eudaemonic well-being, except for one marginal positive relationship (r= . 154,
P\ .05) with the self-acceptance dimension of eudaemonic well-being (Table3).
Supervisors tend to perceive higher-, while subordinates tend to perceive lower-, servant
leadership in the dydic relationship. The pairedttests showed that the dyadic discrepancies
reached very significant level (P\ .000) for all of the 12 dimensions of servant leadership,
with mean differences ranging from 1.051 to 1.532 on the 12 spiritual values.
Leaders self-ratings of their leadership behaviors often showed low relationships with
the assessment from their subordinates (Harris and Schaubroeck1988; Hogan et al. 1994).
Hogan et al. (1994) pointed out that the most justified performance appraisal was provided
by bosses in evaluating the overall performance of their managers and by subordinates in
assessing their direct supervisors. It is almost impossible for supervisors to offer valid and
unbiased self-assessment on their own ethical behaviors and leadership (Brown and
Trevino2006). Similar results were found in this study. The correlation coefficients of the
supervisors self-ratings on servant leadership with the employee work motivation and
eudaemonic well-being variables were low (Table3), which was consistent to the findings
from previous studies. This study therefore utilized only the employee (subordinate) scoresin the subsequent analyses.
The Full Mediating Effect of Subordinates Motivation Between Spiritual Values
(Subordinate Ratings) and Eudaemonic Well-Being
Table4 presents the results of SEM tests for hypothetical models of servant leadership,
through the mediation of various sources of motivation, to impact on employee eudae-
monic well-being. The results reflect an acceptable fit for these mediation models.
According to the subordinate-rating results, the path coefficients (Table 5) that link the
independent variables, mediating variables and dependent variables were all significant inTable5, paths b and c in Model 13 were all significant except for model 4 (paths b and c
were not significant). The results validated the motivation mediation hypothesis of this
study that three of the work motivations, including the two autonomous motivations
(intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) and the one controlled extrinsic motivation
(external regulation), had significant mediating effects between servant leadership and
well-being. H6 and H8 are thus validated. The supervisor ratings did not show any pre-
dictive power on work motivation and well-being.
Servant Leadership Transcends Transactional Leadership to Influence EmployeeAutonomous Motivations
428 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
12/22
elationsbetweensupervisorsself-rating
onservantleadershipandemploy
eesmotivationandwell-beingvariables(N=
265)
Intrinsic
motivati
on
Autonomous
extrinsic
motivation
Controlled
extrinsic
motivation
Amotivation
Autonomy
Environm
ental
mastery
Personal
growth
Positive
relations
Purpo
se
inlife
Self-
acceptance
elf-ratingofservantleadership
.029
.036
.092
-
.043
.009
.071
-.032
.055
.112
.154*
P\.01,***P\
.001
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 429
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
13/22
regression equation, it is shown that servant leadership had significant contributions
beyond transactional leadership on intrinsic motivation (DR2 = 9.9%) and on autonomous
extrinsic motivation (DR2= 5.2%). Therefore, H11 and H12 are supported by the findings.
Supervisor-Subordinate Dyadic Discrepancy in Predicting Automous Motivations
One interesting finding in this study was that the autonomous work motivations can be
predicted effectively from the supervisor-subordinate discrepancy scores of the 12 servant
leadership values. Table7 shows the regression results of the supervisor-subordinate
discrepancies on work motivations and well-being. The analysis revealed that the dis-crepancies yielded prominent contribution to the two autonomous types of work motivation
(DR2 = 25.4% and 18.0%). Based on this finding, the researchers suggest that future
research may consider adopting the dyadic discrepancies in leadership perceptions while
predicting criterion variables.
Control for CMV
This study was primarily based on the analyses of subjects self-assessments on servant
leadership, work-motivation, and eudaemonic well-being. The common method
variance (CMV) is likely to be raised as a methodological consideration. However,according to Spector (1987), in the study of individual psychological processes, where
Table 4 Impact of servant leadership on eudaemonic well-being through the mediation of various sources
of motivation: SEM model testing
Mediator (Source of motivation) v2 df NFI CFI NNFI RMR P value
Model 1 (Intrinsic motivation) 1,071.79 249 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.068 0.000Model 2 (Autonomous extrinsic motivation) 1,065.24 249 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.068 0.000
Model 3 (Controlled extrinsic motivation) 1,122.96 249 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.072 0.000
Model 4 (Amotivation) 1,093.12 249 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.078 0.000
Table 5 Path coefficient testing for each mediating structural models
Servant leadership (Subordinate ratings)
Mediator Path a
coefficient*
Path b
coefficient**
Path c
coefficient***
Model 1 (Intrinsic motivation) 0.10 0.45*** 0.39***
Model 2 (Autonomous extrinsic motivation) 0.12 0.43*** 0.36***
Model 3 (Controlled extrinsic motivation) 0.20* 0.26*** 0.29***
Model 4 (Amotivation) 0.28** -0.16* 0.06
* path a servant leadership ? eudaemonic well-being; ** path b servant leadership ? source of motiva-
tion; *** path c source of motivation ? eudaemonic well-being
430 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
14/22
In order to decrease possible CMV effect, the researchers further took the following two
actions: (1) Include the individual background as control variables and the third fac-
tor of transactional leadership at the previous stage of the regression before servant
leadership was entered (Wong, Hui and Law 1998). Theoretically, most common methodvariances would be controlled through this inclusion, so that the servant leadership can
reveal its pure effect on the outcome (well-being) variable. (2) Adopt simultaneously the
self- and other-ratings. In addition to the subordinate ratings, this study also analyzed
leaders self-ratings on their spiritual values, and found dissimilar correlation results
comparing to their subordinate results. Moreover, we analyzed the supervisor-subordinate
discrepancies. This will compensate for the employee-only measures and provide more
information as solution to the CMV considerations.
Conclusion and Discussion
Table 6 Hierarchical regressions of servant leadership and transactional leadership on motivations
(N= 265)
Dependent variable
Intrinsic
motivation
Autonomous
extrinsic
motivation
Controlled
extrinsic
motivation
Amotivation
b t b t b t b t
Control variable
Tenure .053 .407 -.057 -.422 -.086 -.611 -.321* -2.338
Age .011 .083 .072 .534 .184 1.319 .393* 2.877
Gender .065 1.045 .112 1.750 -.121 -1.843 .005 .081
Education -.058 -.957 -.040 -.637 -.126 -1.950 .023 .366
DR2
.019 .008 .058* .030F change 1.204 .529 3.874 1.880
Model 1
Independent variable
Transactional leadership .043 .587 .127 1.690 .100 1.286 .294*** 3.750
DR2 .085*** .092*** .011 .000
F change 23.389 25.031 2.770 .008
R2 .122*** .120*** .071 .030
Model 2
Independent variable
Servant leadership .408*** 5.527 .295*** 3.874 .078 .996 -.322*** -4.074
DR2 .099*** .052*** .021* .019*
F change 30.544 15.006 5.804 4.657
R2 .203*** .144*** .074* .049*
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 431
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
15/22
ressions
ofleaderfollowerdyadicdiscrepanciesinpredictingemployeemotivations(N=
265)
Dependentvariable
Intrinsicmotiv
ation
Aautonomousextrinsic
motivation
Controlledextrinsic
motivation
Amotivation
Eudaem
onicwell-
being
b
t
b
t
b
t
b
t
b
t
ble
0.037
0.253
-0.266
-1.889
-0.027
-0.198
-0.060
-0.426
0.382
2.642
0.007
0.049
0.268
1.906
0.243
1.806
0.095
0.670
-0.307
-2.143
-0.018
-
0.244
-0.039
-0.553
-0.037
-0.544
0.018
0.247
-0.061
-0.891
-0.030
-
0.411
-0.088
-1.213
-0.158*
-2.263
-0.075
-1.013
0.113
1.687
0.005
0.029
0.106***
0.009
0.035
.271
1.731
6.890
0.496
2.159
ariable
screpancy
-0.244*
-
2.395
-0.252*
-2.354
-0.025
-0.233
-0.075
-0.662
0.017
0.146
crepancy
-0.192
-
1.747
-0.097
-0.859
-0.224
-1.960
-0.027
-0.220
0.041
0.346
ddiscrepancy
0.144
1.468
0.118
1.162
0.118
1.153
-0.106
-0.956
0.031
0.285
othersd
iscrepancy
-0.068
-
0.548
0.105
0.815
-0.025
-0.190
0.214
1.463
-0.094
-0.688
others
discrepancy
-0.028
-
0.232
-0.043
-0.347
-0.013
-0.106
-0.218
-1.601
0.003
0.023
othersd
iscrepancy
-0.147
-
1.204
-0.072
-0.567
-0.088
-0.681
-0.146
-1.070
0.169
0.146
screpan
cy
-0.070
-
0.584
0.028
0.226
0.204
1.628
0.340*
2.450
-0.001
-0.004
discrep
ancy
0.171
1.344
0.009
0.067
-0.123
-0.914
-0.145
-0.999
0.030
0.213
crepancy
-0.134
-
1.027
-0.214
-1.576
0.043
0.310
0.194
1.293
-0.199
-1.413
screpan
cy
-0.361**
-
2.734
-0.177
-1.294
-0.039
-0.279
-0.052
-0.343
-0.126
-0.855
ngdiscrepancy
0.107
0.828
-0.127
-0.943
-0.254
-1.870
-0.042
-0.291
0.082
0.570
ion-makingdiscrepancy
0.366**
3.027
0.332**
2.652
0.290*
2.303
0.183
1.302
-0.080
-0.579
0.254***
0.180***
0.075
0.075
0.044
6.239
4.150
1.680
1.490
0.910
432 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
16/22
variables (autonomous motivations), servant leadership also demonstrated prominent
incremental validity beyond transactional leadership, in providing additional explanatory
power. Therefore, the servant leadership construct was verified to have generalizability to
employees in the Chinese organizations.
Convergence of the 12 Spiritual Values
The results showed that the 12 dimensions of servant leadership in fact converged on one
common factor with high proportion of variance explained (82.03%). Although there were
concerns about the discriminant validity among the dimensions of servant leadership
(Sendjaya et al. 2008), however, it is quite often seen in spirituality research that spiritual
values converged to form one higher-level factor. Similar results can be found in spiritual
leadership studies, for example, Fry et al. (2005), Liden et al. (2008), Page and Wong
(2000), and Sendjaya et al. (2008). This may be a common phenomenon for these value-
based, spirit-centered leadership studies, probably because that spirituality is the common
factor, or the God factor, termed by Fry (2003), of many human virtues. Therefore,
leaders with higher spirituality are more likely to manifest all virtues, and vice versa.
Other Research Variables, Including the Four Motivation Continuum Variables
and the Six Employee Eudaemonic Well-Being Dimensions, Also Showed Good
Reliability and Validity
Results showed that the four motivation continuum variables and the six employee
eudaemonic well-being dimensions revealed good reliability (a = .754.929) and validity(explained factor variance[.50), which can be used to measure the psychological char-
acteristics of employees in Chinese profitable organizations.
Servant Leadership Contributes Beyond Transactional Leadership to Influence
Subordinate Motivation
After controlling the background variables and the transactional leadership, servant lead-
ership contributed additional explanatory variance to autonomous intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation and amotivation (DR2= 5.29.9%), indicating that servant leadership can
satisfy the various psychological needs of employees, enhance both high and low auton-omous motivations, and inhibit amotivation beyond the traditional LMX relationship.
Autonomous Motivations Mediate Between Servant Leadership and Subordinate
Eudaemonic Well-Being
Servant leadership was demonstrated to influence subordinates eudaemonic well-being,
through the mediation of employees autonomy of motivation. By creating a positive work
environment, servant leaders enables employees to develop higher goals, promoting the
internalization of motivations, leading to more autonomous self-adjustments to work.When autonomy management is supported, employees are more satisfied at work, trust
their leaders, and present a positive work attitude. Company managers may consider
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 433
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
17/22
Research Findings from the Dyadic Analyses
Discrepancy Exists Between Supervisor and Subordinate Ratings
In measuring the perception of servant leadership, discrepancies between supervisor self-ratings and subordinate ratings was noticed by this study. Moreover, about 63.2% of the
supervisor-subordinate dyads had a difference score of1 or above, indicating the exis-
tence of a perception gap toward leaders spirituality between the two sides. A high
proportion of 73.3% of the supervisors rated themselves higher than their subordinates,
suggesting that supervisors easily overestimated themselves, or that employees did not
perceive the leadership values as much as the supervisors perceived with themselves,
which is a noticeable fact for leaders or human resource personnel when managing
employees.
Supervisors Self-Ratings have Very Limited or No Power in Predicting Subordinates
Intrinsic Motivation and Eudaemonic Well-Being
As Table3shows, supervisors self-ratings on their leadership were of little importance to
employee motivation and well-being variables. These findings echoed the studies by other
researchers, as reviewed by Brwown and Trevino (2006). After reviewing past studies of
leadership, Brwown and Trevino (2006) suggested that there is a significant difference
between self-ratings of supervisors and ratings given by subordinates. Therefore, it is
difficult to obtain unbiased self-assessment on ethical leadership from supervisors.
Supervisors self-ratings seem to be more related to employee performance variables, butless related to employees well-being.
Similar findings were observed in this study. The self-ratings of supervisors showed
almost none prediction on employees well-being variables, nor did they show any rela-
tionship with the employees internal psychological process (motivations). Future studies
of leadership style and organizational behavior regarding employees internal psycholog-
ical processes, therefore, are suggested to use the employee-assessment as the major
measurement of leadership quality.
Supervisor-Subordinate Dyadic Discrepancy Significantly Predicts of EmployeeAutonomous Motivations
An interesting finding in this study is that although the leaders self-ratings was less
important to the motivation and well-being of employees, the dyadic discrepancy of
ratings between supervisors and subordinates, however, predicted the employee auton-
omous intrinsic and extrinsic motivations rather effectively, with an explanation variance
of 25.4 and 18.0%, respectively (see Table7). After performed two other hierarchical
regression analyses, it is shown that the supervisor-subordinate dyadic discrepancy
contributed beyond the transactional leadership and background variables, providing
additional explanatory power toward intrinsic motivation and autonomous extrinsic
motivation (14.5%; 9.3%), indicating the lower the perception discrepancy on servant
434 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
18/22
Implications
Relevance Between the Supervisors Spiritual Values and Subordinates Sense
of Eudaemonic Well-Being
Leaders should understand that leadership styles affect the eudaemonic well-being of their
subordinates. Despite paternalistic leadership is prevalent among Chinese organizations
(Farh and Cheng 2000), the power imbalance between positions of supervisors and sub-
ordinates is likely to result in conflicts, as well as causing physical and psychological
pressure to employees. Leaders should be aware of the consequences of their leadership
and adjust themselves to create a positive working environment, guiding, and developing
employees. By being kind, caring, considerate, and serving as a behavior model that is
honest, humble, and selfless, leaders build the followership of subordinates, and further
enhance the well-being of subordinates.
Relevance Between Work Motivation and Eudaemonic Well-Being of Subordinates
Leaders should understand that autonomy of motivation is a necessity for eudaemonic
well-being. This study supported the hypothetical models in which it is through the
mediation of autonomous motivations that servant leadership or transactional leadership
bears influence on eudaemonic well-being. The results in this study are consistent to that of
the SDT aspect. Therefore, leaders should seek to create a work environment supportive of
autonomy, in order to encourage employees internalize their motivation to produce
eudaemonic well-being. The atmosphere of an organization created by reward managementhas great impact on outcomes. The reward therefore must be perceived as appropriate and
fair, for employees to avoid negative emotions and cognitions, which lead to amotivation
toward work.
Implications of the Supervisor-Subordinate Dyadic Discrepancy on Servant Leadership
One implication to the personnel training and development domain, in addition for the
organizations and human resource personnel to strive to develop a servant leadership style,
is that the supervisor-subordinate dyadic discrepancy in perceiving leadership values must
be minimized, as the discrepancy provides substantial prediction to employee autonomousmotivations beyond transactional leadership and background variables. Enabling super-
visors and subordinates to understand the different point of views of each other and
expectations from both sides will improve mutual harmony and reduce conflicts. It seems
that reducing the supervisor-subordinate dyadic discrepancy is as well important as
changing leadership styles, as the two approaches to promote motivational autonomy of
employees should both be weighted by practitioners.
Research Constraints and Future Study
Due to the sampling scope, research results of this study may have the following con-
straints. First, this study was subject to the limitation of a convenient sampling. Although
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 435
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
19/22
often dyadic samples cannot be selected randomly by the researchers, and volunteer dyads
must be used. This made difficult the dyads distribution to represent the population dis-
tribution. Second, the samples of this study did not cover industries such as retailing
services, government agencies, educational organizations, and non-profit organizations.
Third, the influence of superior supervisors (the supervisor of supervisors) on subordinatesand the overall organizational culture/climate factors cannot be ruled out from the sub-
ordinates outcomes. Future studies are encouraged to further examine these effects with
finer research designs.
Other suggestions for future study are as follows. First, since there is still a majority of
residual variance for the well-being variables, are there other mechanisms and factors
affecting the process of servant leadership and eudaemonic well-being? How do employee
personal factors, or other interpersonal/organizational mechanisms beyond motivation and
locus of control, for example, work meaning and membership (Fry et al. 2005), to enhance
employee well-being? Second, the organizational atmosphere in which the employees
work, including leadership styles, reward system, and peer relations also have impact on
the psychological well-being of employees. When investigating the dyadic relations
between leadership style and subordinates psychological process, clarifications must be
drawn about what are attributed to direct supervisors, and what are subject to the orga-
nizational atmosphere variables, or the interaction of both. Studies involving the multi-
level and cross-level analyses should be rigorously considered for future research.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by grant from the National Science Council, Taiwan
(NSC 97-2410-H-224-002). The authors thank Mr. Chin-Yuan Yang for assistance in data collection and
effort in earlier literature review.
References
Aggarwal, R., & Simkin, B. J. (2001). Open book, management-optimizing human capital. Business
Horizons, 44, 513.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future
directions.Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421449.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expections. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Paloato, AC: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Bass, B. M., Paul, & Steidlmeier, (1999). Ethic, character and authentic transformational leadershipbehavior.Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181217.
Benefiel, M. (2005). Soul at work: Spiritual leadership in organizations. New York: Seabury Books.
Biberman, J. (Ed.). (2000). Work and spirit: A reader of new spiritual paradigms for organizations.
Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press.
Bowman, M. A. (1997). Popular approaches to leadership. In P. G. Northouse (Ed.),Leadership: Theory and
practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 595616.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Farh, J. L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and
measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 364. (In Chinese).
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and
subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 7, 89117.
C J A (1994) S i it t k Di i th i it lit i l d hi S F i J B
436 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
20/22
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. D.C: Heath and company.
Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a
unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319338.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum Press.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R.
Dienstbier (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on motivation. Vol.38: Perspectives on motivation. (pp.
237288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The What and Why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11, 227269.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542575.
Diener, E., Such, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of
progress.Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276303.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship
behavior.Personnel Psychology, 57, 6194.
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In
J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese Context(pp.85127). London: Macmillan.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693727.
Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a paradigm of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 619722.
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory mea-
surement and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835862.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 331362.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational
performance. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Greenlaef, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A Journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness.
New York: Paulist Press.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J.,& Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175214.
Harris, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-superior
ratings.Personnel Psychology, 41, 4362.
Higgs, M. (2003). Leadership. Henley Manager, 11, 6.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and per-
sonality.American Psychology, 49, 493504.
Hunt, J. B. (2000). Travel experience in the formation of leadership: John Quincy Adams, Frederick
Douglass and Jane Addams. Journal of Leadership, 7, 92106.
Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (1998). Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Jue, A. L. (2006). Practicing spirit-centered leadership: Lessons from a corporate layoff. In C. Gerus (Ed.),
Leadership moments: Turning points that changed lives and organizations. Victoria, BC: Trafford.Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of
two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 10071022.
Laub, J. (2003). From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the organizational leadership
assessment (ola) model. Paper presented at the Regent University Servant leadership Roundtable.
Virginia: Virginia Beach.
LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. (2007). A multidimentional
approach for evaluation variables in organizational research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 60,
475498.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161177.
Luthans, F., Avey, J., Smith, C. R., & Li, X. (2008). More evidence on the value of Chinese workers
psychological capital: A potentially unlimited competitive resource? The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 19, 818827.
Lyerly B & Maxey C (2001) Learning partnerships T & D 55 24
J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 437
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
21/22
Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership.
In S. Adjibolosoo (Ed.),The human factor in shaping the course of history and development. Lanham,
M.D.: University/Press of America.
Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership theory: A theroetical model, digital dissertations. AAT3082719.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. I. I. I. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin-
Dorsey.Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quar-
terly, 16, 655687.
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical
model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 145157.
Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation autonomy and the self in psychological
development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Vol. 40: Developmental
perspectives on motivation(pp. 156). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 141166.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-
Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 10691081.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior inorganizations.Journal of Management Studies, 45, 402424.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or
significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438443.
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Yi Ou, A. (2007). Cross national, cross-cultural organizational behavior
research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 426478.
Winston, B. E. (2003). A holi definition of leadership. Puzzle Back Together. Unpublished manuscript.
Wong, C. S., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. (1998). A longitudinal study of the job perception-job satisfaction
relationships: A test of the three alternative specifications.Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 71, 127146.
Wu, C. C., &Lin, M. H. (1998). Transformational leadership and transactional leadership scale scale
establishment.The Chinese test Association annual test, 44, 5788. (In Chinese).
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organization.5th Ed. NJ: Upper Saddle River prentice Hall International,Inc.
438 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438
-
8/10/2019 bNONE
22/22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
top related