Content uploaded by Md. Sahidur Rahman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Md. Sahidur Rahman on May 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mohammad Harisur Rahman Howladar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammad Harisur Rahman Howladar on May 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
70
Mohammad Harisur Rahman Howladar, Md Sahidur Rahman
Abstract
The main aim of the study to nd out whether organizational commitment has any mediation eect on the
relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Data was collected from
432 managers and sta of private commercial banks in Bangladesh. The respondents were selected using the
convenience sampling technique. Structural equation modeling was used for analyzing the collected data.
The study reveals that servant leadership has a direct inuence on organizational commitment and organi-
zational citizenship behavior, as well as organizational commitment has a direct impact on organizational
citizenship behavior. It is also revealed that the relationship between servant leadership and organizational
commitment is partially mediated by organizational commitment. The main implication of the study is that
employees’ organizational citizenship behavior can be improved by servant leadership of managers through
the indirect eect of organizational commitment of employees. The study also pinpoints some limitations as
well as future research directions.
Keywords: Organizational commitment, Servant Leadership, Organizational citizenship behavior,
Mediation.
JEL Classication: C31, C88, L29, M10
1. INTRODUCTION
Servant leadership (SL) instigated for change in tradi-
tional ideas of leadership and prepares the organiza-
tions for facing the ambiguous future (McGee-Cooper
and Looper 2001). SL emphasizes the more democratic
and learning-based style of leadership rather than hi-
erarchical and power-oriented leadership (Lloyd 1996).
It is an acceptable theory of leadership for individual
and organizational levels, which increases the perfor-
mance of teams and individuals (Lee et al. 2019; Parris
and Peachey 2013).
In today’s competitive business world managers
need to apply those leadership approaches that can
ensure the committed workforce (Bučiūnienė and
Mohammad Harisur Rahman Howladar, PhD
(corresponding author)
Professor
Department of Management
University of Chittagong, Bangladesh
Email: harisur@cu.ac.bd
Address: University of Chittagong, Chottogram,
Bangladesh
ORCID: https://orcid:org/0000-0003-2302-5561
Md Sahidur Rahman, PhD
Professor
Department of Management
University of Chittagong, Bangladesh
Email: sahidur_cu@yahoo.com
South East European Journal of Economics and Business
Volume 16 (1) 2021, 70-83
DOI: 10.2478/jeb-2021-0006
Copyright © 2021 by the School of Economics and Business Sarajevo
THE INFLUENCE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP
ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR:
THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
71South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
Škudienė 2008) and employees who work not only
within their boundary but also proactively out of their
boxes for up-bringing organizations. Committed and
proactive employees can ensure the competitiveness
of the organizations (Yen and Teng 2013). The devel-
opment of favorable working environments is essen-
tial for creating committed teams and their perfor-
mance (Haque, et al. 2019). SL has a positive inuence
on both organizational commitment (OC) (Bobbio,
Dierendonck, and Manganelli 2012; Van Dierendonck
and Nuijten 2011; Zhou and Miao 2014) and organi-
zational citizenship behavior (OCB)(Abid, Gulzar, and
Hussain 2015; Bobbio et al. 2012; Yang and Min 2013).
It was also found that when the employees are com-
mitted they show their intention to do extra for the or-
ganizations (Lawrence, Ott, and Bell 2012; Naja el al.
2011; Ng and Feldman 2011).
Most of the studies on SL, OC, and OCB were con-
ducted in the Western context. Only a few studies
(Abid et al. 2015; GÜÇEL and Begec 2012; Mathur
and Negi 2014; Newman et al. 2017) were found in
Asian countries. There were no studies found in India
(Carroll and Patterson 2016; Kashyap and Rangnekar
2014), Turkey (Cerit 2009; Koyuncu et al. 2014), China
(CH Chan and Mak 2014; Liu, Hu, and Cheng 2015),
Malaysia (Le Ng, Choi, and Soehod 2016; Ramli and
Desa 2014) and Singapore (Zhang, Lin, and Fong
Foo 2012) that focused on SL, OC and OCB together.
Additionally, so far as our knowledge goes such stud-
ies are not found in Bangladesh.
Banking is one of the larger service sectors in
Bangladesh, where most of the sta are highly educat-
ed. Dealing with highly educated and technical peo-
ple is very crucial for the success of organizations. SL
can be the best option for managers of dierent banks
to deal with competent banking sta. SL studies in
any South Asian country did not include the banking
sector as their context. Most of the studies focused on
IT employees (Carroll and Patterson 2016), teaching
sta (Cerit 2009; Zhang et al. 2012) private employees
(CH Chan and Mak 2014), and public employees (Liu
et al. 2015).
Moreover, some studies revealed the direct inu-
ence of SL on OC and OCB, while other studies found
a direct inuence of OC on OCB. The question arises,
whether the relationship between SL and OCB can be
mediated by OC. Surprisingly, the impact of OC on the
association between SL and OCB is not adequately
examined. Hence, this research gap motivates the re-
searchers to expose whether the impact of SL on OCB
can be mediated by OC.
The present study can contribute by advancing
the existing knowledge in numerous ways. First, this
study will unearth the impact of SL on OC and OCB in
the developing countries’ context more specically
in Bangladesh. Second, the present study examines
the suitability of SL for the managers in the banking
sector in developing countries like Bangladesh to in-
crease commitment and extra-role behavior. Third, the
existing literature is loaded with a discussion on the
role of SL on OC and OCB. This study tends to reveal
whether the inuence of SL on OCB can be mediated
by OC, which is not tested elsewhere by the research-
ers according to our knowledge.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Servant leadership (SL)
Going beyond one’s self-interest is the main charac-
teristic of SL (Greenleaf 1970). Servant leaders are not
looking for power rather they are inspired by serving
others (Luthans and Favolio 2003). Servant leaders
outstrip self-interest.
Servant leaders are developing people, sharing
leadership, displaying authenticity, valuing people,
providing leadership, and building community (Laub
1999). Similarly, Wong and Page (2003) mentioned
that SL is visionary leadership, servanthood, respon-
sible leadership, courageous leadership, as well as
they are emphasizing honesty, authenticity, power,
and pride ( vulnerability and humidity) and develop-
ing and empowering others. To lead a team eectively
SL provides accountability, gives support, emphasizes
true self-evaluation, fosters collaboration, provides
clear information, and values the people (Irving and
Longbotham 2007).
Moreover, empowerment, standing back, account-
ability, forgiveness, courage, authenticity, humility,
and stewardship are the constructs of SL which are
conrmed by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011). The
operational denition of SL given by Van Dierendonck
and Nuijten is adopted in this study.
2.2 Organizational commitment (OC)
Organizational commitment is the relative strength
of a person’s identication with and participation in a
certain organization (Porter et al. 1974).
From the relationship point of view, OC refers to
the condition in which an employee identies him-
self/herself with the organization and its goals and
desires to continue the aliation in the organization
(Miller 2003). There is another approach to dening
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
72 South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
OC is behavior (Morrow 1993). According to the be-
havioral approach, OC is the visible behavior of an
individual when he/she is committed to the existing
group within the organization (Reichers 1985).
OC has three dimensions (Mayer and Allen 1991).
These dimensions (Aective, continuance, and norma-
tive commitment) are distinguishable and can feel by
the employee with varying degrees (Meyer and Allen
1991). Multidimensionality of OC and its measure-
ment was held up by a Meta-analysis (Allen and Meyer
1996). This study adapted Meyer and Allen’s concept
of OC.
2.3 Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is not the
portion of the ocial job behavior but useful for the
organization (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983). Besides,
D. Organ (1988) mentioned that this is an optional be-
havior of a person, not rewarded formally, but in total,
this upholds the organizational eectiveness.
The ve dimensions of OCB suggested by D. Organ
(1988) are altruism, sportsmanship, conscientious-
ness, courtesy, and civic virtue. The scale of OCB devel-
oped by Podsako et al. (1990) has ve subscales for
each dimension given by Organ. This ve-dimensional
scale was adopted by the current study.
OCB-I and OCB-O are two dierent dimensions of
OCB (Williams and Anderson 1991). OCB-I is citizen-
ship behavior focused on individuals. Helping oth-
ers when people are in a heavy workload, helping
new people to understand their jobs, are examples
of OCB –I. On the other hand, OCB-O is the extra-role
behavior focused on the organization. When employ-
ees not complaining to others at work, protecting
the organizational resources for the organizational
wellbeing, then these activities of the employees are
under OCB–O. In other cases, behavior-based OCB tax-
onomies are proposed and operationalized by many
researchers (Borman and Motowidlo 1993; Morrison
1994; Vandyne, Cummings, and Parks 1995). But the
behavior-based OCB taxonomies are overlapping with
each other and with Organ’s (1988) OCB dimensions
(Coleman and Borman 2000).
2.4 Servant leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior
A good number of studies revealed that SL has a sig-
nicant positive relationship with OCB (Abid et al.
2015; Bobbio et al. 2012; Yang and Min 2013). Liden
et al. (2008) developed 28 items of SL instrument and
ensured validity by showing that SL caused more vari-
ance in OCB than other leadership styles. Some other
empirical studies in India (Mathur and Negi 2014),
Kenia (Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke 2010), China
(Newman et al. 2017), and Turkey (GÜÇEL and Begec
2012) revealed a signicant direct inuence of SL on
OCB. From the above discussions and the summary of
the ndings, it is postulated that SL has a direct inu-
ence on OCB. Therefore, we can develop the hypoth-
esis as follows:
H1: There is a direct inuence of SL on OCB.
2.5 Servant leadership and organizational
commitment
In the western countries’ context, some empirical stud-
ies (Bobbio et al. 2012; Lapointe and Vandenberghe
2018; Newman et al. 2018) revealed that there is a
positive inuence of SL on OC. Conversely, Drury
(2004) found that there is an inverse inuence of SL
on OC. Miao et al. (2014) revealed that aective and
normative commitment is positively aected by SL,
but SL has no inuence on continuance commitment.
Awee et al. (2014) and Ramli and Desa (2014) studied
in Malaysia and revealed that SL has a positive inu-
ence on OC. Though there are some controversies in
dierent ndings, many studies showed a positive
inuence of SL on OC. From the above discussions,
it can be perceived that there is a direct inuence of
SL on OC. Hence, the hypothesis can be developed as
follows:
H2: There is a direct inuence of SL on OC.
2.6 Organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior
Moorman, Nieho, and Organ (1993) revealed that
OC has a signicant positive impact on OCB. Meyer
et al. (2002) demonstrated that one of the outcomes
of OC is OCB. Another study in a university environ-
ment found that OC inuences OCB (Mirabizadeh and
Gheitasi 2012). Chen and Francesco (2003) revealed
that aective commitment (AC) is positively related
to OCB, but continuance commitment (CC) and OCB
are negatively correlated. In a study, Zeinabadi (2010)
revealed that commitment mediates the association
between job satisfaction and OCB. Some studies in
Bangladesh also found that OC has a positive impact
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
73South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
on OCB (Ferdus and Kabir 2018; Jahangir, Akbar, and
Begum 2006). Some recent studies (Obedgiu, Bagire,
and Mafabi 2017; op den Buijs et al. 2019; Pooja, De
Clercq, and Belausteguigoitia 2016) found the similar
results. Thus, it can be perceived that OC can positive-
ly inuence OCB. Therefore, we can suggest the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H3: There is a direct inuence of OC on OCB.
2.7 Servant leadership, Organizational citizen-
ship behavior, and organizational commitment
Empirical studies in the area of OCB, SL, and OC gave
attention to nd out the association between SL and
OC (Bobbio et al. 2012; Lapointe and Vandenberghe
2018; Newman et al. 2018) and the inuence of SL on
OCB (Abid et al. 2015; Bobbio et al. 2012; Newman et
al. 2017). Many studies revealed that SL has a positive
inuence on OCB and OC. No study revealed the me-
diating inuence of OC on the association between
SL and OCB. Walumbwa et al. (2010) showed that em-
ployees’ commitment to their supervisor mediates the
association between SL and OCB. Since SL can posi-
tively inuence both OC and OCB, and OC is one of the
antecedents of OCB (Lawrence et al. 2012; Naja et al.
2011; Ng and Feldman 2011; D. W. Organ, Podsako,
and MacKenzie 2005), then it can be perceived that
OC can mediate the relationship between SL and OCB.
Hence, we can develop the following hypothesis:
H4: OC can mediate the relationship between SL
and OCB.
Based on the previous hypotheses, the following
research model can be developed(Cheung and Lau
2008; Hopwood 2007):
Figure 1. Research model
3. RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Sample and data collection
All the managers and sta working in private com-
mercial banks (PCBs) of Bangladesh are involved in
the population of this study. The total number of
managers and sta serving the PCBs is more than
one hundred thousand (Ahmed and Rahman 2020).
For collecting primary data from the sample of man-
agers and sta, the convenience sampling method is
supposed to be the best t. To save time and money
convenience sampling is commonly used in social re-
search and organizational studies (Bryman 2016).
Accordingly, PCBs are selected using the quota
sampling technique. Quota sampling is used for con-
rming the presence of respondents from diverse
categories of PCBs (traditional interest-based banks,
Islami sharia-based banks, etc.). Selected banks and
branches are chosen using quota sampling and then
respondents from dierent banks and branches are
reached using a convenient sampling method.
Sample size 321 is appropriate for the population
of 100.000 at 95% condence level and error +/- 5%
is allowed (Zikmund et al. 2013). On the other hand,
Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009) mentioned that
the sample size should be 384 in the same situation.
Methods used for data analysis also inuence the
choice of sample size. A large sample size is expected
for the use of Structural equation modeling (SEM). The
sample size should be 150 – 400 for better results of
SEM (Hair et al. 2012). The sample size 400 was con-
sidered most appropriate for this study on the ground
that population size is more than 100,000 and collect-
ed data was analyzed using SEM.
Data was collected from the respondents with
a time gap to avoid the common method variance
(CMV). In the rst stage, personal data and data re-
lated to SL were collected. After three weeks, the re-
spondents were supplied the second part of the sur-
vey instrument to measure OC and OCB.
A team of ten graduate students was used for col-
lecting data from dierent PCBs situated at dierent
geographical areas after giving appropriate training.
The authors of the current study provided all sorts of
nancial assistance to all the team members. Despite
this, the authors personally distributed some ques-
tionnaires among the respondents of some selected
PCBs where no team members got access.
432 respondents were returned the questionnaire
out of 500 distributed questionnaires. Among them,
387 were usable. Some completed questionnaires
were rejected due to problems of severe outliers, un-
engaged responses, and missing data. The response
rate is 77.4%. This response rate is adequate (Baruch
SL
OC
OCB
H₂ H₃
H₄
H₁
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
74 South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
and Holtom 2008; Saunders et al. 2009; Zikmund et al.
2013).
82.7% of respondents of this study are male (320
in numbers). Among the respondents 43.2 % belong
to the 30 -35 age, 34.1 % respondents were within
25 – 30 age, and only 14.0% were within 35-40 age.
Most of the respondents are highly educated (96.4%
of respondents were master holders). Among the re-
spondents 23.5% were assistant ocers, 23.8% were
ocers, 11.6% were principal ocers, and 37.2% were
senior ocers. Most of the respondents (42.4%) had 3
-6 years of work experience. 1-3 years work experience
had 28.7% of respondents, 16.8% had 6-9 years work
experience, and 12.1% had above 9 years work expe-
rience. 143 respondents (37%) had work experience
with their present manager for 1-2 years. Moreover,
12.7%, had 1-year work experience with their present
manager, 27.1% had 2-3 years, and 28.2% had above
3 years work experience with their present manager.
Out of 387 respondents, 257 respondents (66.4%)
were married.
3.2 Measurement tools
The 30-item SL scale of Van Dierendonck and Nuijten
(2011) was used to measure SL since this scale showed
high reliability and validity. This scale has eight dimen-
sions such as accountability, forgiveness, courage,
empowerment, humidity, standing back, authentic-
ity, and stewardship. Three items (14, 15, and 16) were
negatively keyed. The seven points Likert scale was
used for getting the responses on items. In the pre-
sent context, it was found good reliability ranged from
.772 to .893.
The OC scale given by Allen and Meyer (1990) was
used for measuring OC. This scale contains 18 items
divided into three subscales according to the dimen-
sions of OC. The seven points Likert scale was used for
getting the responses on items. Reliability scores of
this scale in the current context were found from .875
to .884 which indicates very good reliability.
To measure the OCB the scale given by Podsako
et al. (1990) was used which generated one global
measure of OCB. There are ve dimensions of this
scale such as conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic
virtue, altruism, and courtesy. Only ve items were
negatively keyed (2, 4, 7, 16, and 19). The seven points
Likert scale was used for getting the responses on
items. The reliability scores of this scale ranged from
.825 to .885 which also indicates very good reliability
of this scale in the current context.
3.3 Evaluation of model
Both the measurement model and the structural mod-
el were examined by using SEM (Hair et al. 2012). SEM
takes a conrmatory approach, can include both man-
ifest and latent variables, and estimate measurement
error (Hair et al. 2012; Hoe 2008).
3.3.1 Measurement model
The exactness of the model was examined by reli-
ability and validity checks including convergent valid-
ity and discriminant validity. From Table 1, it is found
that the factor loadings have a satisfactory value that
is above the minimum level of 0.50 for each item of
the constructs (Hair et al. 2012). Moreover, the internal
consistency measurement through Cronbach’s alpha
(From .772 to .893) and composite reliability (From
.773 to .889) indicates the reliability of the scales (Hair
et al. 2012).
To evaluate the validity of the measurement mod-
els, both the convergent and discriminant validities
were advocated (Hair et al. 2012). From Table 1, it is
found that the minimum average variance extract-
ed (AVE = .539) and composite reliability (CR=.773)
are above the threshold value of .0500 and 0.700 re-
spectively (Hair et al. 2012; Saunders et al. 2009) that
conrmed the convergent validity of the measure-
ment models. From table 2, it is found that the inter-
construct correlation is smaller than the square root
of AVE. This nding demonstrates the existence of the
discriminant validity of the scales. Moreover, from ta-
ble 1, it is found that the factor loading is more than
0.70 for each construct that also conrms the discri-
minant validity of the scales (Haque et al. 2019; Kline
2005).
According to the Harman’s single factor test, the
current study has a concern for common method bias
since this model has a very poor t (X2/df = 9.479, GFI
= .692, NFI = .627, CFI= .650, TLI = .596, and RMSEA=
.148) (Podsako, et al. 2003). After applying the un-
measured latent method factor (Podsako, MacKenzie,
and Podsako 2012), it is found that the model has
satisfactory t for the data (X2/df = 1.558, GFI = .960,
NFI = .950, CFI= .981, TLI = .973, and RMSEA= .038)
with the common method factor. Moreover, the com-
mon methods factor causes variance extraction only
by 23.35% which is less than the minimum level of
50%. Thus, the present study has no serious concern
for common method bias (Kashyap and Rangnekar
2014; Podsako et al. 2012).
Furthermore, Table 1 shows that the overall meas-
urement model bestowed a good t to the data (X2/df
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
75South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
= 1.588, RMR = 0.051, GFI = .952, NFI = .940, CFI= .977,
TLI = .972, and RMSEA= .039) since all the t indices
are within their standard value (Hair et al. 2012).
3.3.2 Structural model
After examining the reliability and validity, now move
to test the structural model tness. The structural
model delivered a good t to the data (X2/df = 1.588,
RMR = .051, GFI = .952, NFI = .940,CFI= .977, TLI = .972,
and RMSEA= .039) (Hair et al. 2012). Though the NFI
value is less than the standard value .95 but it is with
acceptable level .90 (Hair et al. 2012).
The constructs of structure models are associated
to each other. To nd out the nature of these asso-
ciations the path coecient analysis is also used. The
results from Table 3 revealed that SL and OC explain
21% variance in OCB (R2 = 0.21) and SL explains 13%
variance in OC (R2 = 0.13). Additionally, the results
shown in Table 3 demonstrated a signicant inuence
of SL on OCB (β = .294, t = 4.609, p = .000), and OC (β=
.363, t = 5.660, p = .000). Moreover, OC signicantly in-
uence the OCB (β = .259, t = 3.866, p = .000). Thus H1,
H2 and H3 are supported.
Table 1. Constructs reliability and validity
Exogenous
constructs
Latent constructs Standard Factor
loading
Cronbach’s alpha Composite
reliability
AVE
SL Empowerment .81 .883 0.889 0.667
Standing Back .78 .884 0.885 0.719
Accountability .74 .831 0.833 0.624
Forgiveness .76 .772 0.773 0.630
Courage .75 .785 0.792 0.658
Authenticity .75 .865 0.866 0.617
Humility .78 .893 0.885 0.608
Stewardship .82 .843 0.845 0.645
OC Continuous .68 .875 0.877 0.544
Aective .86 .883 0.876 0.540
Normative .77 .884 0.886 0.565
OCB Altruism .84 .884 0.832 0.554
Conscientiousness .78 .836 0.885 0.607
Courtesy .79 .829 0.841 0.572
Sportsmanship .72 .853 0.853 0.539
Civic Virtue .79 .825 0.825 0.541
(X2/df = 1.588, RMR = .051, TLI = .972, GFI = .952, NFI = .940, CFI= .977, and RMSEA= .039).
Note: * xed parameter, AVE = Average variance extracted
Source: Authors’ calculation, 2020
Table 2. Inter-construct correlations and the Square root of AVE
CR AVE OC SL OCB
OC 0.761 0.517 0.719
SL 0.892 0.510 0.363 0.714
OCB 0.843 0.518 0.366 0.388 0.720
Diagonal bold gures are the square root of AVE; sub diagonal gures are the inter-construct correlations.
Source: Authors’ calculation, 2020
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
76 South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
Figure 2. OC partially mediating the relationship between SL and OCB
Source: Authors’ development, 2020
4. RESULTS
4.1 Mediation testing
The nested models’ approach was used for testing me-
diation. In this approach, the partially mediated mod-
el is compared with the most likely competing models
nested within it (Brown et al. 2002; Cantarello, Filippini,
and Nosella 2012; Ju Rebecca Yen and Gwinner 2003).
The outcomes of three dierent models are shown
in table 4. The rst model is the partial mediating
model shows both the direct and indirect impact of
SL on OCB (Figure 2). The second model is a full me-
diating model where it is shown that the association
between SL and OCB is mediated by OC (Figure 3).
Table 3. Test of Hypotheses for the structured model
Hypothesis Hypothesized
relationship
Standardized
coecient
T – value P-value Result
H1 SL ¦ OCB .294 4.609 .000 Supported
H2 SL ¦ OC .363 5.660 .000 Supported
H3 OC ¦ OCB .259 3.866 .000 Supported
Source: Authors’ calculation, 2020
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
77South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
The third model is the direct eect model where the
direct impact of SL and OC on OCB is shown (Figure
4). The partial mediating model is needed to compare
with both the full mediating model and the direct ef-
fect model to examine the nature of mediating eect
of OC on the association between SL and OCB. Table 4
shows the comparison of three models based on the
t indices.
According to the t indices, table 4 revealed that
all three structural models are well t. But the partial
mediation model shows better t indices than the
other two models. The X2 dierence test is conduct-
ed. The result shows that the X2 dierence between
the rst model (partially mediating) and the second
model (fully mediating) (X2 dierence = 23.237, df =
1, p = 0.000) is signicant as well as the X2 dierence
between the rst model (partially mediating) and the
second model (direct eect) (X2 dierence = 36.950, df
= 1, p = 0.000) is also signicant. Thus it is found that
the partially mediated model is best tted. The results
recommend that OC has a partial mediation impact
on the association between SL and OCB. Therefore,
Figure 3. OC fully mediating the relationship between SL and OCB
Source: Authors’ Development, 2020
Table 4. Fit indices of the models
Model X2/df CFI GFI NFI TLI RMSEA
First (Partial mediating) 1.588 .977 .952 .940 .972 .039
Second (Full mediating) 1.802 .968 .946 .931 .962 .046
Third (Direct relations) 1.938 .962 .942 .926 .955 .049
Source: Authors’ calculation, 2020
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
78 South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
hypothesis H4 is supported. Thus, it could be stated
that SL has both direct and indirect eects on OCB.
The proportion of mediation of OC on the SL and OCB
relationship is found 24.40 percent [(.36 x .26)/(.36 x
.26) + .29] (Iacobucci, Saldanha, and Deng 2007). The
result indicates that 24.40% variance on OCB is ex-
plained by both SL and OC which is for the indirect
path via OC, whereas the remaining OCB variance is
explained by both SL and OC which is for the direct
path. Hence, there is a partial mediation because the
direct path is preponderated.
5. DISCUSSION
The result of this study revealed that there is a direct
inuence of SL on OCB. This result is also reinforced by
other ndings in the Western context (Neubert et al.
2008; Reed 2016; Van Dierendonck et al. 2017) as well
as in the Asian context (Abid et al. 2015; GÜÇEL and
Begec 2012; Newman et al. 2017). Some studies (Abid
et al. 2015; Hu and Liden 2011) in the banking sector
also support the direct inuences of SL on OCB.
Additionally, the outcome of the current study
revealed that there is a direct impact of SL on OC.
Figure 4. The direct relationship of SL and OC with OCB
Source: Authors’ development, 2020
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
79South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
This result is also supported by other outcomes in
the Western context (Bobbio et al. 2012; Drury 2004;
Lapointe and Vandenberghe 2018). In developing
countries, some studies (Awee et al. 2014; Miao et al.
2014; Ramli and Desa 2014) also support that SL has a
direct inuence on OC.
Moreover, it was perceived that there is a direct
impact of OC on OCB, and the nding of the present
study supported this perception. This nding is also
supported by Western studies (Cetin, Gürbüz, and Sert
2015; op den Buijs et al. 2019; Pooja et al. 2016) along
with the developing countries (Obedgiu et al. 2017;
Prasetio, Yuniarsih, and Ahman 2017). In Bangladesh,
a study on bankers (Ferdus and Kabir 2018) also sup-
ports the direct inuence of OC on OCB.
The relationship between SL and OCB is partially
mediated by OC. This nding of the study is supported
indirectly by the ndings of Walumbwa et al. (2010)
who studied employees’ commitment to their super-
visor. The mediation inuence of OC on the SL and
OCB relationship is partial due to a signicant direct
relationship of SL and OC with OCB. However, some
other factors may inuence the relationship between
SL and OCB that is still a matter of discovery.
6. THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
The theoretical contribution of the study is that OC
indirectly aects the relationship between SL and OCB
that was not identied by any other ndings earlier.
Moreover, the dimensions of SL are perfectly suited
in developing countries’ contexts like Western coun-
tries. SL style is similarly applicable in the developing
countries like Bangladesh which is supported by other
few ndings in Asian and African countries like India
(Carroll and Patterson 2016), Malaysia (Le Ng et al.
2016), China (Liu et al. 2015), Turkey (Cerit 2010), and
Kenia (Walumbwa et al. 2010).
This study adds new knowledge by exploring the
eect of SL on employees’ OC and OCB in organiza-
tions. Based on the outcomes of the study it can be
proposed that SL should be recognized as a signicant
antecedent to foster OC and OCB among employees.
It is found that the SL scale of van Dierendonck
and Nuijten, (2011) is approachable and easily appli-
cable in developing countries. These ndings create
opportunities for selecting and developing SL in the
organizations of developing countries through proper
assessment, training, and performance evaluation of
the executives.
Managers and executives can apply SL that ulti-
mately will improve the employees’ OC and OCB. The
employee-orientated managers and executives are
empowering the employees, developing them, and
increasing loyalty. Hence, this leadership can improve
the performance of both employees and organiza-
tions in today’s technology-based extremely competi-
tive business situation.
Like other service organizations (Abid et al. 2015;
GÜÇEL and Begec 2012) SL is applicable in banking
sectors in developing countries (Mathur and Negi
2014). Moreover, managers and executives in the
banking sector can apply SL to improve the OC of the
employees which will, in turn, motivate the employ-
ees to do extra for organizations.
Organizations can inspire managers to follow the
SL behavior to deal with their employees. Training
and mentoring programs can develop the SL behav-
ior among the managers (Liden et al. 2014; Peterson,
Galvin, and Lange 2012). Managers can be trained in
such a way that to deal with the employees they can
exhibit personal attention, keep them knowledgeable
about the development chances, establish a fair and
open relationship with them, empower them, show
sympathy to them for their faults, and provide credit
to them for their achievements.
Employee-oriented leadership (SL) is the best op-
tion to deal with the highly educated and meritorious
employees in the organization. Academicians must
give more attention to the area of SL for more study.
The course curriculum on leadership should also con-
tain the model of SL.
7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS
Data collection using convenience sampling is the
main limitation of the study that fails to generalize the
results. All data were collected from only local PCBs of
Bangladesh for ensuring data consistency. The sample
consisted of only PCBs of Bangladesh, which seem to
be more homogenous; thus, future researchers can
cover other areas such as public banks, foreign banks
to ensure heterogeneous demographics.
Among the respondents, ninety-nine percent hold
a master’s degree. The results of the study point out
how to deal with highly educated people eectively.
Thus, the results cannot be generalized how to deal
with less-educated or working-class people eec-
tively. Future researchers can cover the working-class
people for exploring the inuence of SL on the job
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
80 South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
attitude of working-class people.
The objective perception of the employees rather
than independent and subject measurement was
used to measure the variables. The future researcher
can use both subjective and objective measurements
for generating undisputable results.
The present study did not reveal the impact of SL
on the dierent dimensions of OC and OCB. Future
studies can explore the relationship of SL with dier-
ent dimensions of OC and OCB.
8. CONCLUSION
SL creates a positive attitude among employees
since they are given importance by the leaders. In
exchange for this leadership behavior, subordinates
show their steady commitment to organizations and
performing extra pro-social activities. Additionally,
servant leaders can create a positive organizational
context and culture that fosters OC and OCB. Business
organizations are facing more challenges from tech-
nological progress and worldwide competition. In this
situation, every business organization needs to adapt
to the new technologies and increase competitive-
ness. Managers are now worried about how to devel-
op and retain talented employees. SL is an excellent
approach to lead employees with high potential and
skills. SL can foster the armative postures and per-
formance of the employees. Moreover, the organiza-
tional eort for increasing OC will foster OCB through
SL. Organizations can develop the SL through proper
assessment, training, and mentoring programs ac-
cording to the SL model. More specically, SL develop-
ment programs develop the managers to demonstrate
personal consideration to their employees, keep them
well informed about the development opportuni-
ties, establish a fair and open relationship with them,
empower them, show empathy to them, and provide
credit to the employees for their achievements.
REFERENCES
Abid, H. R., Gulzar, A., and Hussain, W. 2015. The impact of
servant leadership on organizational citizenship behav-
iors with the mediating role of trust and moderating
role of group cohesiveness; A Study of public Sector of
Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 5(3): 234.
Ahmed, O. and Rahman, B. 2020. Employees of Commercial
Banks Learning to Unlearn: A Case Study on the Impact
of Electronimic Banking in the Commercial Banks of
Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and
Technopreneurship, 10(1): 31-50.
Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and an-
tecedents of aective, continuance and normative com-
mitment to the organization. Journal of occupational
psychology, 63(1): 1-18.
Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P. 1996. Aective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: An
examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 49(3): 252-276.
Awee, A., Cheah, W. Y., Cheng, C. N., Hong, K. S., Ling, L. B.,
and Tan, M. C. 2014. Eect of servant leadership on aec-
tive commitment among hotel employees. International
Journal of Scientic and Research Publications, 4(11):
1-7.
Baruch, Y., and Holtom, B. C. 2008. Survey response rate lev-
els and trends in organizational research. Human rela-
tions, 61(8): 1139-1160.
Bobbio, A., Dierendonck, D. V., and Manganelli, A. M. 2012.
Servant leadership in Italy and its relation to organiza-
tional variables. Leadership, 8(3): 229-243.
Borman, W. C., and Motowidlo, S. 1993. Expanding the
criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance.
Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., and Licata, J. W. 2002.
The customer orientation of service workers: Personality
trait eects on self-and supervisor performance ratings.
Journal of marketing research, 39(1): 110-119.
Bryman, A. 2016. Social research methods: Oxford university
press.
Bučiūnienė, I., and Škudienė, V. 2008. Impact of Leadership
Styles on Employees’ Organizational Commitment in
Lithuanian Manufacturing Companies. 3(2): 57. doi: htt-
ps://doi.org/10.2478/v10033-008-0015-7
Cantarello, S., Filippini, R., and Nosella, A. 2012. Linking hu-
man resource management practices and customer sat-
isfaction on product quality. The international journal of
human resource management, 23(18): 3906-3924.
Carroll, B. C., and Patterson, K. 2016. Servant leadership: A
cross cultural study between India and the United States.
Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 1(1): 3.
Cerit, Y. 2009. The Eects of Servant Leadership Behaviours
of School Principals on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
37(5): 600-623. doi: 10.1177/1741143209339650
Cerit, Y. 2010. The eects of servant leadership on teach-
ers’ organizational commitment in primary schools in
Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education,
13(3): 301-317.
Cetin, S., Gürbüz, S., and Sert, M. 2015. A meta-analysis of
the relationship between organizational commitment
and organizational citizenship behavior: Test of poten-
tial moderator variables. Employee responsibilities and
rights journal, 27(4): 281-303.
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
81South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
CH Chan, S., and Mak, W. M. 2014. The impact of servant
leadership and subordinates’ organizational tenure on
trust in leader and attitudes. Personnel Review, 43(2):
272-287.
Chen, Z. X., and Francesco, A. M. 2003. The relationship
between the three components of commitment and
employee performance in China. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 62(3): 490-510.
Cheung, G. W., and Lau, R. S. 2008. Testing mediation and
suppression eects of latent variables: Bootstrapping
with structural equation models. Organizational re-
search methods, 11(2): 296-325.
Coleman, V. I., and Borman, W. C. 2000. Investigating the
underlying structure of the citizenship performance
domain. Human resource management review, 10(1):
25-44.
Drury, S. L. 2004. Servant leadership and organizational
commitment. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership
Research Roundtable.
Ferdus, Z., and Kabir, T. 2018. Eect of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment on OCB: study on private
banks in Bangladesh. World Journal of Social Sciences,
8(2): 57-69.
Greenleaf, R. 1970. The servant as leader (an essay). Greenleaf
Organization.
GÜÇEL, C., and Begec, S. 2012. The eect of the servant
leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: Case
study of a university. International Journal of Social
Sciences and Humanity Studies, 4(1): 107-116.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham,
R. L. 2012. Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6): Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haque, A. K. M. T., Uddin, M. A., Easmin, R., and Sohel, S.
M. 2019. Job Satisfaction and Citizenship Behavior: A
Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment. 52(3):
236. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2019-0015
Hoe, S. L. 2008. Issues and procedures in adopting structural
equation modeling technique. Journal of applied quan-
titative methods, 3(1): 76-83.
Hopwood, C. J. 2007. Moderation and mediation in structur-
al equation modeling: Applications for early intervention
research. Journal of early intervention, 29(3): 262-272.
Hu, J., and Liden, R. C. 2011. Antecedents of team potency
and team eectiveness: An examination of goal and pro-
cess clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(4): 851.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., and Deng, X. 2007. A meditation
on mediation: Evidence that structural equations mod-
els perform better than regressions. Journal of consumer
psychology, 17(2): 139-153.
Irving, J. A., and Longbotham, G. J. 2007. Team eectiveness
and six essential servant leadership themes: A regression
model based on items in the organizational leadership
assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies,
2(2): 98-113.
Jahangir, N., Akbar, M., and Begum, N. B. 2006. The role of
social power, procedural justice, organizational commit-
ment, and job satisfaction to engender organizational
citizenship behavior. ABAC Journal, 26(3): 21-36.
Ju Rebecca Yen, H., and Gwinner, K. P. 2003. Internet re-
tail customer loyalty: the mediating role of relational
benets. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 14(5): 483-500.
Kashyap, V., and Rangnekar, S. 2014. The moderating role
of servant leadership: Investigating the relationships
among employer brand perception and perceived em-
ployee retention. Review of HRM, 3: 105-118.
Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equa-
tion modeling 2nd edition guilford press. New York.
Koyuncu, M., J. Burke, R., Astakhova, M., Eren, D., and Cetin,
H. 2014. Servant leadership and perceptions of service
quality provided by front-line service workers in hotels in
Turkey: achieving competitive advantage. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
26(7): 1083-1099.
Lapointe, É., and Vandenberghe, C. 2018. Examination of
the relationships between servant leadership, organiza-
tional commitment, and voice and antisocial behaviors.
Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1): 99-115.
Laub, J. A. 1999. Assessing the servant organization:
Development of the servant organizational leadership
(SOLA) instrument, Florida Atlantic University.
Lawrence, J., Ott, M., and Bell, A. 2012. Faculty organiza-
tional commitment and citizenship. Research in Higher
Education, 53(3): 325-352.
Le Ng, X., Choi, S. L., and Soehod, K. 2016. The Eects of
Servant Leadership on Employee’s Job Withdrawal
Intention. Asian Social Science, 12(2): 99.
Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., and Knight, C. 2019.
Servant leadership: A meta‐analytic examination of in-
cremental contribution, moderation, and mediation.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., and Meuser, J. D. 2014.
Servant leadership and serving culture: Inuence on
individual and unit performance. Academy of manage-
ment Journal, 57(5): 1434-1452.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., and Henderson, D. 2008.
Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional
measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19(2): 161-177.
Liu, B., Hu, W., and Cheng, Y. C. 2015. From the west to the
east: Validating servant leadership in the Chinese public
sector. Public Personnel Management, 44(1): 25-45.
Lloyd, B. 1996. A new approach to leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 17(7): 29-32.
Luthans, F., and Favolio, B. 2003. Authentic leadership de-
velopment. KS cameron, JE Dutton & RE Quinn (Eds.),
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
82 South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a
new discipline, 241-258.
Mathur, G., and Negi, P. 2014. Servant Leadership and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Among Employees
of Service Sector. American International Journal of
Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 7(2):
191-196.
McGee-Cooper, A., and Looper, G. 2001. The essentials
of servant-leadership: Principles in practice: Pegasus
Communications Dallas.
Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J. 1991. A three-component con-
ceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
resource management review, 1(1): 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky,
L. 2002. Aective, continuance, and normative commit-
ment to the organization: A meta-analysis of anteced-
ents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 61(1): 20-52.
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., and Xu, L. 2014. Servant
leadership, trust, and the organizational commitment of
public sector employees in China. Public Administration,
92(3): 727-743.
Miller, K. 2003. Values, attitudes and job satisfaction.
Organisational Behaviour: Global and Southern African
Perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson Education South
Africa.
Mirabizadeh, M., and Gheitasi, S. 2012. Examining the or-
ganizational citizenship behavior as the outcome of or-
ganizational commitment: Case study of universities in
Ilam. Management Science Letters, 2(3): 951-960.
Moorman, R. H., Nieho, B. P., and Organ, D. W. 1993. Treating
employees fairly and organizational citizenship behav-
ior: Sorting the eects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and procedural justice. Employee respon-
sibilities and rights journal, 6(3): 209-225.
Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role denitions and organizational
citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s
perspective. Academy of management Journal, 37(6):
1543-1567.
Morrow, P. C. 1993. The theory and measurement of work
commitment: Jai Press.
Naja, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H. K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., and
Dalv, M. R. 2011. Investigating the relationship between
organizational justice, psychological empowerment, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: An empirical model. African
Journal of Business Management, 5(13): 5241-5248.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., and
Roberts, J. A. 2008. Regulatory focus as a mediator of the
inuence of initiating structure and servant leadership
on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(6): 1220.
Newman, A., Neesham, C., Manville, G., and Tse, H. H. 2018.
Examining the inuence of servant and entrepreneurial
leadership on the work outcomes of employees in social
enterprises. The international journal of human resource
management, 29(20): 2905-2926.
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., and Sendjaya, S. 2017.
How servant leadership inuences organizational citi-
zenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and
proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1):
49-62.
Ng, T. W., and Feldman, D. C. 2011. Aective organization-
al commitment and citizenship behavior: Linear and
non-linear moderating eects of organizational tenure.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2): 528-537.
Obedgiu, V., Bagire, V., and Mafabi, S. 2017. Examination of
organizational commitment and organizational citizen-
ship behaviour among local government civil servants in
Uganda. Journal of Management Development.
op den Buijs, T., Broesder, W., Goldenberg, I., Resteigne,
D., and Kivirähk, J. 2019. Warrior and peacekeeper role
identities: associations with self-esteem, organizational
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Military Studies, 8: 3-15.
Organ, D. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome Lexington Books Lexington.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsako, P. M., and MacKenzie, S. B. 2005.
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, anteced-
ents, and consequences: Sage Publications.
Parris, D. L., and Peachey, J. W. 2013. A systematic literature
review of servant leadership theory in organizational
contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3): 377-393.
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., and Lange, D. 2012. CEO servant
leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and rm
performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3): 565-596.
Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsako, N.
P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended rem-
edies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., and Fetter,
R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their
eects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership
Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142.
Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsako, N. P. 2012.
Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of
psychology, 63: 539-569.
Pooja, A. A., De Clercq, D., and Belausteguigoitia, I. 2016. Job
stressors and organizational citizenship behavior: The
roles of organizational commitment and social interac-
tion. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27(3):
373-405.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., and Boulian, P. V.
1974. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
The Inuence of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Eect of Organizational Commitment
83South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Volume 16 (1) 2021
and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59(5): 603-609.
Prasetio, A. P., Yuniarsih, T., and Ahman, E. 2017. Job satis-
faction, organizational commitment, and organizational
citizenship behaviour in state-owned banking. Universal
Journal of Management, 5(1): 32-38.
Ramli, A., and Desa, N. M. 2014. The relationship between
servant leadership and organizational commitment:
The Malaysian perspectives. International Journal of
Management and Sustainability, 3(2): 111-123.
Reed, L. 2016. Servant leadership, followership, and organi-
zational citizenship behaviors in 9-1-1 emergency com-
munications centers: Implications of a national study.
Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 2(1): 5.
Reichers, A. E. 1985. A review and reconceptualization of
organizational commitment. Academy of management
review, 10(3): 465-476.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. 2009. Research
methods for business students: Pearson education.
Smith, C., Organ, D. W., and Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68(4): 653-663.
Van Dierendonck, D., and Nuijten, I. 2011. The servant lead-
ership survey: Development and validation of a multidi-
mensional measure. Journal of business and psychology,
26(3): 249-267.
Van Dierendonck, D., Sousa, M., Gunnarsdóttir, S., Bobbio, A.,
Hakanen, J., Pircher Verdorfer, A., . . . Rodriguez-Carvajal,
R. 2017. The cross-cultural invariance of the servant lead-
ership survey: A comparative study across eight coun-
tries. Administrative Sciences, 7(2): 8.
Vandyne, L., Cummings, L. L., and Parks, J. M. 1995. Extra-
role behaviors-in pursuit of construct and denitional
clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). RESEARCH
IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: AN ANNUAL SERIES
OF ANALYTICAL ESSAYS AND CRITICAL REVIEWS, 17:
215-285.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., and Oke, A. 2010. Servant
leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate,
employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship be-
havior: a cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(3): 517.
Wong, P. T., and Page, D. 2003. Servant leadership: An op-
ponent-process model and the revised servant leader-
ship prole. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.
Yang, H. J., and Min, H. Y. 2013. The Relationship be-
tween Directors’ Servant Leadership and Teachers’
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation
Eect of Teachers’ Psychological Empowerment in
Childcare Centers. Korean Journal of Human Ecology,
22(6): 547-557.
Yen, C. H., and Teng, H. Y. 2013. The eect of centralization
on organizational citizenship behavior and deviant
workplace behavior in the hospitality industry. Tourism
Management, 36: 401-410.
Zeinabadi, H. 2010. Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as antecedents of organizational citizen-
ship behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 5: 998-1003.
Zhang, Y., Lin, T. B., and Fong Foo, S. 2012. Servant leader-
ship: A preferred style of school leadership in Singapore.
Chinese Management Studies, 6(2): 369-383.
Zhou, Y., and Miao, Q. 2014. Servant leadership and aective
commitment in the Chinese public sector: The mediating
role of perceived organizational support. Psychological
reports, 115(2): 381-395.
Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., and Grin, M. 2013.
Research Business Methods. Boston: South-Western
Cengage Learning.