1
Impact of Servant Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Knowledge
Sharing Behavior: Mediating Role of Work Engagement and Moderating Role of Self
Efficacy
Abstract
Purpose – Servant leadership is an increasingly popular concept in the repertoire of leadership
styles (Russell, 2001). This study examines the impact of servant leader behavior on
organizational citizenship and knowledge sharing behaviors and the potential mediating role
played by subordinates’ work engagement and moderating role of self-efficacy in that process.
Design/methodology/approach – The data on the research variables were collected from 134
employees and 130 department managers from Banking Sector and defence organizations in
Pakistan.
Findings – The results indicate that the effects of the servant leader behaviors on citizenship and
knowledge sharing behaviors are indirect, rather than direct, in that they are mediated by work
engagement and moderated by followers’ self-efficacy.
Research limitations/implications – Overall, the study supports that the act of follower first
leadership style in a team may contribute to increased citizenship and knowledge sharing
behaviors. In addition, the study provides an understanding of work engagement as mediator for
pragmatic and synergetic outcomes of servant leadership.
Originality/value – The research has been focused to evaluate effectiveness of servant
leadership with various outcomes. Consequently, we possess a better understanding of just how
much servant leadership improves upon our ability to predict follower outcomes beyond the
effects of a juxtaposed theory of leadership. Despite the need for many more empirical studies
involving servant leadership, the movement toward providing a more measureable structure to
the servant leadership philosophy is a valuable contribution to our understanding of
organizational leadership.
Keywords: Servant Leadership, Self-efficacy, Work Engagement, Knowledge Sharing Behavior
and Organization Citizenship Behavior.
INTRODUCTION
2
According to Greenleaf (1970) the servant-leader is servant first, then conscious choice brings
one to aspire to lead (p.6). A servant-leader focuses primarily on people's growth and well-being
and the communities they belong to. Keith (2008) described servant leadership as ethical,
practical, and meaningful. On the basis of Greenleaf’s writings, Spears (2010) identified 10
characteristics of servant leaders, including listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion,
conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of others, and building
community. Servant leadership posits that by first facilitating the development and well-being of
followers, long-term organizational goals will be achieved.
While traditional leadership usually involves one at the "top of the pyramid"
accumulation and exercise of power, servant leadership is different. The servant-leader shares
power ; puts others ' needs first and helps people as highly as possible to develop and perform.
Furthermore, servant leaders recognize their moral responsibility for the organization's success
as well as its success. (Ehrhart, 2004). Consequently, such leaders imbue both within and outside
the organization with the importance of service. Thus, the omnipresent focus of servant leaders
on developing others is a cogent domain for investigating the association of leadership with
employee Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) & Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB).
OCB is defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and
effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Employees
who feel treated fairly are likely to engage in OCB to maintain a balance between them and the
organization ; those who feel unfairly treated will withhold OCB behavior. This perspective
views OCB as a controlled and deliberate behavior primarily influenced by factors that are
cognitive, not affective.
Effective management of knowledge in organizations results in desired results for
employees, organizational results and competitive advantages (Andreeva & Kianto, 2016 &
Giampaoli, Ciambotti, & Bontis, 2017). However, knowledge sharing is recognized as the most
vital among all the components of knowledge management (Trivellas, Akrivouli, Tsifora, &
Tsoutsa, 2015). Sharing knowledge enables the organization to exchange and apply scattered
information, practices, unusual understandings, insights, and experiences (Wang et al., 2016).
3
Effective knowledge sharing facilitates learning, creativity, innovation, knowledge creation,
problem solving, decision-making and, ultimately, individual, group and organizational
performance (Akhavan, Ghojavand & Abdali, 2012). In addition, sharing knowledge transforms
individual knowledge into a valuable asset of organization (Islam, Ikeda, & Islam, 2013).
Because of this, the sharing of knowledge in the field of business management has gained
considerable attention (Wang, Lin, Li, & Lin, 2014).
The studies on the subject variables carried out so far were based on short survey designs.
It was not possible to make definitive inferences about causality. This study focuses on the use of
experimental designs in which data were collected through repeated observations to demonstrate
causality between servant leadership and extra role behavior of employees. In addition,
previously only followers were evaluated for self-reported climate evaluations. We included in
this study a more comprehensive climate assessment from the perspective of both followers and
their supervisors. Second, the employees provided servant leadership, self-efficacy attitudes of
employees, and work engagement, suggesting potential common-method bias. P. M. Podsakoff
et al. (2003) suggested several strategies, such as collecting data at different times. In this study,
we attempted to mitigate common-method bias by collecting data in temporal separation, servant
leadership, and the two outcomes including cross-level moderation and mediation suggest that
common method bias was not entirely responsible for our findings — pointing to the
methodological strength of the present study. Third, the study has been conducted in high power
distant society settings i.e. Pakistani context but is equally applicable in other high power distant
cultures. Such context-rich studies will be valuable for understanding how servant leadership
influences specific climates and employee attitudes and behaviors in distinct cultures.
Fourth, research is needed to clarify servant leadership's unique nature and function. For
example, the conditions under which servant leadership is more or less effective should be
considered by research. Values such as those identified in the Global Leadership and
Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Project by Hofstede (1980) and House and his colleagues
(e.g., House, Hanges, Javidan Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), or individual differences, such as
personality traits, may be powerful moderators of the reactions of followers to the leadership of
servants. Focusing on such individual values or personality traits will help researchers better
understand how the relationship between servant leadership and important work-related
behaviors and environment is affected by individual differences.
4
Literature Review
Servant Leadership and Organization Citizenship Behavior
Various studies have shown that leadership styles have influenced the level of workplace OCB
involvement of employees. Omar, Zainal, Omar, and Khairuddin (2009) found that leadership
behavior influenced the existence of OCB in a working environment. These researchers
concluded that the level of OCB engagement among employees in a workplace with sample data
collected from a population derived from multinational manufacturing firms in Malaysia was
significantly positive in transformation leadership. Similar findings by Wang, Law, Hackett,
Wang, and Chen (2005), and Mackenzie, Podsakoff, and Rich (2001) have strengthened the
validity of Omar et al. (2009) results.
Hu and Liden (2011) found a significant positive correlation between SL and OCB in
their empirical study with a China sample. Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko, and Roberts (2009b)
with their U.S. sales force sample reported that SL had a positive correlation with OCB at a
value of 0.24, while Neuber, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, and Roberts (2008) had a positive
correlation with the participants from various industries in US, found that SL was correlated with
OCB elements of helping, and creative behavior with a value of .24. These findings
demonstrated empirically that SL is a potential cause of OCB. In a more recent development,
Bakar and McCann (2016) concluded that SL had increased the level of OCB in the workplace as
their finding showed that SL had a positive relationship with OCB mediated by the dyadic
communication style of the leader-member. With these findings, this researcher expects that:
H1:
There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and OCB
Servant Leadership and Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Servant leaders are characterized by altruistic behavior towards their followers as they
first emphasize the interests of their followers (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Greenleaf, 1977).
Such leaders also encourage their followers to engage in knowledge sharing among subordinates
as it has been found that a climate of knowledge sharing is associated with enhanced
organizational performance. The dissemination of relevant information within an organization
refers to knowledge sharing (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Stasser and Titus (2003) demonstrated
positive relationships between sharing knowledge, using existing knowledge, and decision-
5
making quality. Yang (2004) also found a positive link between knowledge-sharing climate and
organizational efficacy in a qualitative study. Building a climate of knowledge sharing is not an
easy task, however. Individuals may withhold knowledge from their organization to secure
opportunities for promotion and to avoid time and energy output for little to no compensation
(Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). Yang (2007) showed a positive relationship between
knowledge sharing and collaborative culture. Researchers have emphasized the value of
knowledge sharing in the cited literature and suggested that in this regard a number of factors
influence behavior. Thus, we argue that servant leadership facilitates the development of an
organization's knowledge-sharing climate, thereby influencing organizational performance.
According to the theory of social exchange (Blau, 1964), when he / she feels someone has acted
in his / her interest, an individual tries to reciprocate favors. A servant leader's followers are
likely to experience a supportive organizational climate and tend to share more of what they
know with others than leadership followers do on the basis of reciprocity rule. Researchers (e.g.,
Ehrhart, 2004; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010) demonstrated that servant leadership is
associated with the behavior of organizational citizenship (OCB) and explained this through the
theory of social exchange. Under servant leaders, subordinates are likely to be satisfied with their
leaders and willing to give something back in exchange for the support of their leader (Ehrhart,
2004). According to the theory of social learning (Bandura, 1977), a servant leader can function
as a standard or role model for his / her subordinates and help foster the sharing of knowledge
among followers. Model behavior that is both right and important in the work environment is
expected to be a leader (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko & Roberts, 2008). In summary, by
establishing a climate of knowledge sharing, a servant leader can positively influence the
performance of his / her organization. Establishing an organizational climate in which the
sharing of knowledge is promoted and encouraged results in members being more likely to
communicate their knowledge within the organization to and learn from others. We therefore
formulated the following hypotheses about servant leadership's influence on the climate of
knowledge sharing:
H2:
Servant leadership has a significant positive effect on the knowledge-sharing behavior.
The Mediating Role of Work Engagement
6
Kahn(1990) initially introduced work engagement to indicate a holistic self dedicated to
physical, cognitive and emotional labors (Rich et al., 2010). Schaufeli et al. (2002), drawing on
Kahn's (1990, 1992) seminal work, defined work commitment as' a positive, fulfilling, workrelated state of mind characterized by vigor (physical strength and good health), dedication
(commitment), and absorption (the extent to which the person is absorbed in his or her work)’
(p.74). Work commitment is thus a holistic construct, in which strongly committed employees
score high on all three dimensions (Kahn, 1990). It involves investing physical, emotional and
cognitive energy in work at the same time (Rich et al., 2010).
Previous research shows that employees exhibit higher levels of commitment to work
when their leaders take better care of their needs and interests (Harter et al., 2002). We argue that
this care exists in a follower-oriented leadership style, such as servant leadership (Greenleaf,
1977), due to its increased psychological safety and meaningfulness (Kahn, 1990). Servant
leaders in particular go out of their way to understand and empathize with their followers,
acknowledging their unique and special qualities (Liden et al., 2008 ; Spears, 1998 ; van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), which should fuel positive energy among followers (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004). The expectation that their leader will act carefully and altruistically makes
followers more likely to experience a positive emotional state towards their daily work (Page &
Wong, 2000). Servant leaders create a psychologically safe environment by selflessly serving
employees, so that followers feel protected and can express their concerns (Greenleaf, 1977;
Schaubroeck et al., 2011); this psychological safety contributes to followers’ work engagement
(Brown & Leigh, 1996; Kahn, 1990). Servant leaders provide their followers with strong
empowerment in a similar vein, enabling them to experience high levels of responsibility and
work performance (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Followers receiving such support are more likely to
engage in their work and exhibit additional role behavior (Spears & Lawrence, 2002). The
importance of personal integrity and ethical behaviors stimulates work engagement (Liden et al.,
2008), By which servant leaders bring their followers to the best and encourage them to channel
high levels of personal energy into their work. Therefore, when employees are more absorbed
and dedicated to their work, they are more likely to engage in altruistic, conscientious, and
virtuous behaviors.
7
In particular, servant leader can spark employee engagement in work, which can lead to
participation in positive behaviors promoting extra role behaviors. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following on the basis of previous research and logic:
H3: Work engagement mediates the relationship between servant leadership and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior.
H4: Work engagement mediates the relationship between servant leadership and Knowledge
Sharing Behavior.
Self-efficacy Moderates Servant Leadership - Work Engagement Relationship
Self-efficacy refers to the beliefs of individuals in their ability to exercise control over
challenging demands according to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is
usually defined and measured as a domain-specific structure, but it can be conceptualized and
measured more generally (or globally) as one's belief in the ability to cope with a wider range of
stressful or challenging demands (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). A general
approach to self-efficacy provides an opportunity when researchers investigate work engagement
to assess self-efficacy in a parsimonious manner (Luszczynska et al., 2005).
Low self-efficacy employees are likely to be pessimistic about their future achievements
and personal development (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2005). These hypotheses form the
theoretical background for the link between self-efficacy and work commitment. It has been
found that self-efficacy beliefs facilitate the adaptation of employees to organizational changes
(Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan, 2004). Experimental studies have shown that an intervention that
improves self-efficacy reduces the strain of employees (Unsworth & Mason, 2012).
Servant leadership style fosters commitment to work as shown in H4 ante. It can therefore be
concluded on the basis of the above argument that self-efficacy reinforces the positive
relationship between servant leadership and work commitment.
H5: Self-efficacy moderates the relationship between servant leadership and work engagement
in such a way that this relationship is strong when self-efficacy is high.
8
Conceptual Framework
SelfEfficacy
OCB
Servant
Leadership
Work
Engagement
KSB
Methodology
Participants
Using a convenience sampling technique, the data was collected from the banking and defence
sectors of Pakistan. A total number of 400 questionnaires were distributed. Whereas 264 were
usable, while 39 were not usable making the response rate 75%. As part of the request for
voluntary participation, all participants were guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity in order
to assure the rationality of their responses. The majority of the participants were males (82.6%)
with average age of 40.88 years (min age 25 years while max age being 59 years). 130
Respondents (49.2%) were holding managerial posts while 134 were employees (50.88% nonmanagerial). Most of the respondents (47.3%) were experienced people having 21 to 30 years of
service, 25.4% had 11 to 20 years service while 27.3% had 1-10 years experience.
Scales/ Measures Used
All study variables were measured using a 5 point Likert scale where 1 represented Strongly
Disagree and 5 represented Strongly Agree.
Servant Leadership
Ehrhart’s (2004) 14-item Servant Leadership Scale was used to assess this construct. Sample
items included “My supervisor spends the time to form quality relationships with subordinates?”
The Cronbach alpha for this scale was found to be 0.792.
9
Work Engagement
Work Engagement was measured using a 17 item scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2003).
Sample items included “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”. The alpha reliability of this
scale was 0.993.
Self-Efficacy
An 8 item scale of Chen G. et al. (2001) was used to measure the self-efficacy of the participants.
Sample items included “Change usually reduces my ability to control what goes on at work.”
The cronbach alpha reliability was found to be 0.931.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Podsakoff et al. (1982) 24 items scale was used to measure the citizenship behavior of
participants. Sample items included “Attendance at work is above the norm”. Cronbach alpha of
this scale was 0.853.
Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Knowledge Sharing Behavior was measured using a 5 items scale developed by Bock et al.
(2005). Sample items included “My knowledge sharing would help other members in the
organization solve problems”. The alpha reliability of this scale was 0.934.
Control Variables
A one-way ANOVA was performed to control the variation in organizational citizenship and
knowledge sharing behaviors on the basis of demographic variables used in the study. Result
obtained from the one way ANOVA (see Table 1) indicated significant differences in the
OCB(1st dependent variable) across age (F= 14.02, p < .01) and post (F= 7.01, p < .01). While
no significant difference was found in mean values of OCB among groups on the bases of gender
and experience.
Similarly, results of the one-way ANOVA indicated that there were significant
differences in KSB (2nd dependent variable) across age (F= 18.48, p < .01), while no significant
difference was found in mean values of KSB among groups on the bases of gender, post and
experience.
In case of work engagement (mediator) significant difference was found across age (F=
16.14, p < .01) and experience (F= 4.98, p < .01) while no significant difference was found in
mean values on the basis of gender and post.
10
Subsequently, factors identified as significant were entered as control variables in step 1 of
regression analysis for both variables.
Table 1: One-way ANOVA
WE
OCB
KSB
F Statistics P Value
F Statistics P Value
F Statistics P Value
Age
16.14
0.00s
14.02
0.00s
18.48
0.00s
Gender
0.33
0.57ns
0.06
0.80ns
0.00
0.98ns
Post
1.94
0.17ns
7.01
0.01s
0.00
0.99ns
Experience 4.98
0.01s
0.55
0.58ns
2.82
0.06ns
WE = ‘Work Engagement’, OCB = ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior’, KSB = ‘Knowledge
Sharing Behavior’
Results
Descriptives and Co-relations
TABLE 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities
Mean
SD
SL
SE
3.7
3.97
0.74
0.71
WE
3.74
0.64
OCB
3.74
0.43
1
(0.79)
0.44*
2
0.59*
0.55*
0.74*
0.56*
3
4
(0.93)
0.61*
(0.85)
5
(0.99)
KSB
0.61*
0.58*
0.78*
0.61*
(0.93)
3.98 0.77
N=264, P<0.05, Reliabilities in (), SL=Servant Leadership, SE=Self Efficacy, WE=Work
Engagement, OCB=Organizational Citizenship Behavior, KSB=Knowledge Sharing Behavior
The table indicates that servant leadership has a positive correlation with organizational
citizenship behavior (r=0.55, p< 0.01), which provides initial support for hypothesis 1. Similarly,
servant leadership has a positive correlation with knowledge citizenship behavior (r=0.61, p<
0.01), which provides initial support for hypothesis 2. On the other hand WE exhibited a strong
degree of association with organizational citizenship behavior (r=0.61, p<0.001) and knowledge
sharing behavior (r=0.78, p< 0.001), thus providing initial support for hypothesis 3 and 4,
respectively. Self-efficacy exhibited positive association with servant leadership (r=0.44, p<
0.01) and work engagement (r=0.74, p< 0.01) which renders initial support to hypothesis 5.
Regression Analysis
Linear regression analysis was used to test the main effects as well as the moderation and
mediation effects of the variables. The results obtained from regression analysis reveal that
11
Servant leadership has a positive significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior (β =
0.55, p<0.001), thus hypothesis 1 is accepted. The relationship of Servant leadership with
knowledge sharing behavior was found to be significant (β = 0.61, p<0.001), hence hypothesis 2
is accepted. Regression analysis further indicates that servant leadership has a strong positive
effect on work engagement (β = 0.59, p<0.001) and work engagement has positive significant
effect on organizational citizenship behavior (β = 0.61, p<0.001), therefore hypothesis 3 is
accepted. Similarly, servant leadership showed a strong positive relation with knowledge sharing
behavior (β = 0.78, p<0.001), leading to the acceptance of hypothesis 4.
Moderated Regression Analysis
Predictors
Step 1:
Age
Experience
Step 2:
SL
SE
Step 3:
Interaction (SL * SE)
Β
Work Engagement
R2
0.33
ΔR2
0.33
-0.023
-0.118
0.642
0.610
0.649
0.007
0.287
0.525
0.087
n = 264. SL = Servant Leadership; SE= Self Efficacy, p < .05
Hypotheses 5 was tested using linear moderated regression analysis technique, where
control variables were entered in step 1. In step 2 independent and moderator variables were
entered. Finally, in step 3 the interaction term (product of independent and moderator variables)
was entered, which if significant, verifies moderation.
The results of moderated regression analysis in Table 3 (step 3) show that self-efficacy
moderates the relationship of servant leadership and work engagement towards change (β =
0.087, p< 0.01; ΔR2 = 0.007, p< 0.01), and, as a result, hypothesis 5 was accepted.
12
Fig 1 Moderated Regression
10
Work engagement
8
6
Low SE
High SE
4
2
0
Low SL
High SL
Significant interactions for high and low values of the moderator (self-efficacy) are shown in
Figure 1. Figure 1 illustrates the positive servant leadership–work engagement relationship was
high when self-efficacy was high, which supports hypothesis 5.
Discussion
Empirical analysis supported all of the proposed hypotheses of this study. Servant leadership was
found to be positively associated with extra role behaviors. Once leader looks after his followers
or under command, it is human nature to respond back. Jaramilo et al. (2009a) stated that servant
leadership represented the highest level of commitment of management to the workers which
made this type of leadership one of the most employee-oriented leadership styles. Meanwhile,
Searle and Barbuto (2011) stated that SL emphasized that its leaders must consistently display
ethical and moral behavior both in the workplace and outside the workplace. Multiple academic
studies conducted have found that SL to be beneficial to an organization as their findings
concluded that SL influenced employees to engage in positive behavior such as organizational
citizenship behaviour (Hu & Liden, 2011), helped organizations to achieve high performance
(Melchar & Bosco, 2010), improved leadership integrity and organizational commitment
(Bobbio, van Dierendonck, &Manganell, 2012), and enhanced customer service (Chen, Zhu, &
Zhao, 2015).
Servant leadership was found to be significantly associated with knowledge-sharing
behavior. Oliveira and Ferreira (2012) also provided qualitative evidence that servant leadership
promotes knowledge sharing. However, in no previous empirical study have researchers
13
collected quantitative data of this relationship in Pakistani cultural context. In terms of practical
implications, our findings indicate that organizations may need to employ leaders who use a
servant leadership style in order to create a knowledge-sharing climate. Such leaders could be
hired from outside the organization or promoted from within. Greenleaf (2003) suggested that a
leader can become a servant leader when he/she tries to serve first as a way to encourage his/her
followers to “become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to
become servants” (Spears, 2003, p. 16). Organizations should consider incorporating a number
of human resources management tactics (e.g., hiring, promoting, and/or training) to position
servant leaders, and should remove barriers to knowledge sharing as a way to facilitate the
development of a knowledge-sharing climate within their organization.
The results also support the mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship
between servant leadership and extra role behaviors. Servant leadership was found to be
significantly associated with organizational citizenship and knowledge sharing behaviors
showing a direct relationship between the antecedent and outcome variables. Employees’
engagement with work in a protective environment will be imbued in response to positive
leadership style such as servant leadership and will urge the employees’ to do something extra in
response to being looked after. Work engagement is stimulated by the importance of personal
integrity and ethical behaviors (Liden et al., 2008), whereby servant leaders bring out the best in
their followers and encourage them to channel high levels of personal energy into their work.
Consequently, it is believed that when employees are more absorbed and dedicated to their work,
they will be more likely to engage in behaviors that are altruistic, conscientious and virtuous.
For followers to recognize the benefits of servant leadership, they must be convinced that
this person-focused leadership style improves their own work situation. Such understanding
emerges when followers perceive their goals to be in line with those of their leader and the two
parties maintain strong personal relationships. When leaders and followers share similar goals,
the quality of their association with work is also high, thus, the followers’ perceptions of servant
leadership and their work engagement is high when self-efficacy is high.
Managerial Implications
Positive attitude cultivates positivism. If the leader acts in a caring, altruistic way, it is more
likely that supporters will also experience a favorable emotional state towards their daily job.
Servant leaders generate a psychologically secure atmosphere by serving staff on their own so
14
that followers feel protected and can communicate their worries; this psychological security adds
to the work engagement of followers. When the managers display altruistic behavior and provide
conducive environment to the followers, the employees tend to adopt, reciprocate and display the
same. Besides providing a supportive environment, organizational managers should pay special
emphasis on the training and development of their employees through trainings, conferences and
workshops highlighting the benefits of constant improvement and positive change.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The data for this study was collected from banking sector and defence organizations of Pakistan.
Future researchers are recommended to carry out the same research in other sectors such as
hospitality sector, telecommunication companies and healthcare organizations in order to
enhance the generalizability of the findings. This research was based on a sample size of 264
respondents which were selected using convenience sampling techniques. To assure the
generalizability of the research, future researchers are recommended to use a larger and more
diverse sample size. To avoid common method bias, data was collected with temporal separation
to enhance data reliability. This research study has been focused on the combined effect of
servant leadership and work engagement on only two outcomes of extra role behaviors. It is
suggested that researchers may study the combined effect on other extra role behavior outcomes
such as team work and cohesiveness, positive and innovative climate, less absenteeism and turn
over, organizational effectiveness etc.
15
References
Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. (2016). Does strategic management of knowledge matter for
organizational performance?
An empirical test. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Akhavan, P., Ghojavand, S., &Abdali, R. (2012). Knowledge sharing and its impact on
knowledge creation. Journalof Information & Knowledge Management, 11(2), 101-113.
Akhavan, P., & Mahdi Hosseini, S. (2016). Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation
capability: an empiricalstudy of R&D teams in Iran. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 28(1), 96-113.
Bakar, H.A., & McCann, R.M. (2016). The mediating effect ofleader-member dyadic
communication style agreement on the relationship between servant leadership and group-level
organizational citizenship behaviour. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1),3258.https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915601162
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barbuto, J., & Wheeler, D. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant
leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–326. http://doi.org/fb3g7n
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 64–76.
http://doi.org/hbn
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–111
Bobbio, A., van Dierendonck, D., & Manganelli, A.M. (2012). Servant leadership in Italy and its
relation
to
organizational
variables.
Leadership,8(3),
229-243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715012441176
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psycho-logical climate and its relationship
to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.
Chen G., Gully, S.M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational research methods. 4(1), 62-83
Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A
multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self-identity, group competition climate, and
customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 511521.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038036
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94. http://doi.org/c7xj9v
Giampaoli, D., Ciambotti, M., & Bontis, N. (2017). Knowledge management, problem solving
and performance in top Italian firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2). doi:
10.1108/JKM-03-2016-0113
16
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
Hu, J., & Liden, R.C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: an
examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology,96(4), 851-862. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022465
Islam, M. A., Ikeda, M., & Islam, M. M. (2013). Knowledge sharing behaviour influences A
study of InformationScience and Library Management faculties in Bangladesh. IFLA Journal,
39(3), 221-234.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D.B., Chonko, L.B., & Roberts, J.A. (2009a). Examining the impact of
servant leadership on salesperson’s turnover intention. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 29(4), 351-365.https://10.2753/PSS0885-3134290404
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D.B., Chonko, L.B., & Roberts, J.A. (2009b). Examining the impact of
servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 29(3), 257-275.https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134290304
Jimmieson, N. L., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (2004). A longitudinal study of employee
adaptation to organizational change: the role of change-related information and change related
self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 11-27.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.11
Kahn, W.A., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Acad. Manage. J. 33(4), 692–724
Keith, K. 2008. The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development
of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161−177
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U.,& Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale:
Multicultural validation studies. Journal of Psychology, 139, 439-–457.
Mackenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Rich, G.A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2),
115-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079459994506
Melchar, D.E., & Bosco, S.M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through servant
leadership. Journal of Business Inquiry: Research, Education & Application, 9(1), 7488.http://www.uvu.edu/woodbury/jbi/volume9
Neubert, M.J., Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., Chonko, L.B., & Roberts, J.A. (2008).Regulatory
focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee
behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012695
17
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008).
Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on
employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1220–1233. http://doi.org/b9s3s7
Oliveira, M. A.-Y., & Ferreira, J. J. P. (2012). How interoperability fosters innovation: The case
for servant leadership. African Journal of Business Management, 6, 8580–8608.
http://doi.org/7wv
Omar, Z., Zainal, A., Omar, F., & Khairudin, R. (2009). The influence of leadership behaviour
on organisational citizenship behaviour in self-managed work teams in Malaysia. South African
Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 196-206.https://10.4102/sajhrm.v7i1.209
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader performance contingent and
non-contingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 25, 812-821.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A., Crawford, E.R., 2010. Work engagement: antecedents and effects on
job performance. Acad. Manage. J. 53(3),617–635.
Robert K. Greenleaf (1970) Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power
and Greatness, IN: Paulist Press
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as
mediators of leader behavior infl uences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96, 863–871.
Searle, T.P., & Barbuto Jr, J.E. (2011). Servant leadership, hope, and organizational
virtuousness: a framework exploring positive micro and macro behaviors and performance
impact.
Journal
of
Leadership
&
Organizational
Studies,
18(1),
107117.https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810383863
Schaufeli,W. B., & Salanova, M. (in press).Work engagement: An emerging psychological
concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P.
Schaufeli,W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3,
71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003).Test manual for the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.
Unpublished manuscript, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Retrieved from
http://www.schaufeli.com
Skarlicki (Eds.), Research insocial issues in management: Vol. 5. Managing social and ethical
issues in organizations. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Spears, L. C. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant leadership.
New York, NY: Wiley.
18
Spears, L. (2003). Understanding the growing impact of servant-leadership. In R. Greenleaf
(Ed.), The servant-leader within: A transformative path (pp. 13–27). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Spears, L. C. 2010. Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring
leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1: 25-30.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–
313. http://doi.org/bj3bc8Tombul, F. (2011)
Trivellas, P., Akrivouli, Z., Tsifora, E., &Tsoutsa, P. (2015). The impact of knowledge sharing
culture on job satisfaction in accounting firms. The mediating effect of general competencies.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 19, 238-247.
Unsworth, K. L., & Mason, C. M. (2012). Help yourself: the mechanisms through which a self
leadership intervention influences strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17,
235–245. doi:10.1037/a0026857
van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and
validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249–267.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice
climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A crosslevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517–529. http://doi.org/cq8hh6
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Psychological
processes linking authentic leadership to follower behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 901–914.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X.(2005). Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’
performance and organizational citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3),
420-432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407908
Wang, Y.-S., Lin, H.-H., Li, C.-R., & Lin, S.-J. (2014). What drives students' knowledgewithholding intention inmanagement education? An empirical study in Taiwan. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 13(4), 547-568.
Yang, J. T. (2004). Job-related knowledge sharing: Comparative case studies. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 8, 118–126. http://doi.org/dxpz5m
Yang, J. T. (2007). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and
collaborative culture. Tourism Management, 28, 530–543. http://doi.org/btpx7s
19
Appendix: The Measurement Items
Servant Leadership
1.
My supervisor spends the time to form quality relationships with subordinates.
2.
My supervisor creates a sense of community among subordinates.
3.
My supervisor’s decisions are influenced by subordinates’ input.
4.
My supervisor tries to reach consensus among subordinates on important decisions.
5.
My supervisor is sensitive to subordinates’ responsibilities outside the workplace.
6.
My supervisor makes the personal development of subordinates a priority.
7.
My supervisor holds subordinates to high ethical standards.
8.
My supervisor does what she or he promises to do.
9.
My department manager balances concern for day-to-day details with projections for the
future.
10.
My supervisor displays wide-ranging knowledge and interests in finding solutions to
work problems.
11.
My supervisor makes me feel like I work with him/her, not for him/her.
12.
My supervisor works hard at finding ways to help others be the best they can be.
13.
My supervisor encourages department employees to be involved in community service
and volunteer activities outside of work.
14.
My supervisor emphasizes the importance of giving back to the community.
Source: Ehrhart’s (2004)
Self-Efficacy Scale
1.
I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself.
2.
When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them.
3.
In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me.
4.
I beilive I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set my mind.
5.
I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges.
6.
I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.
7.
Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well.
8.
Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.
Source: Chen G. et al. (2001)
20
Work Engagement
1.
At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
2.
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.
3.
Time flies when I am working.
4.
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
5.
I am enthusiastic about my job.
6.
When I am working, I forget everything else around me.
7.
My job inspires me.
8.
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
9.
I feel happy when I am working intensely.
10.
I am proud of the work that I do.
11.
I am immersed in my work.
12.
I can continue working for very long periods at a time.
13.
To me, my job is challenging.
14.
I get carried away when I am working.
15.
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally.
16.
It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
17.
At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well.
Source: Schaufeli et al. (2003)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
1.
Attendance at work is above the norm.
2.
Does not take extra breaks.
3.
Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching.
4.
Is one of my most conscientious employees.
5.
Believes in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.
6.
Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. (R)
7.
Always focuses on what’s wrong, rather than the positive side. (R)
8.
Tends to make “mountains out of molehills.” (R)
9.
Always finds fault with what the organization is doing. (R)
10.
Is the classic “squeaky wheel” that always needs greasing. (R)
21
11.
Attends meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered important.
12.
Attends functions that are not required, but help the company image.
13.
Keeps abreast of changes in the organization.
14.
Reads and keeps up with organization announcements, memos, and so on.
15.
Takes steps to try to prevent problems with other workers.
16.
Is mindful of how his/her behavior affects other people’s jobs.
17.
Does not abuse the rights of others.
18.
Tries to avoid creating problems for coworkers.
19.
Considers the impact of his/her actions on coworkers.
20.
Helps others who have been absent.
21.
Helps others who have heavy work loads.
22.
Helps orient new people even though it is not required.
23.
Willingly helps others who have work related problems.
24.
Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her.
Source: Podsakoff et al. (1982)
Knowledge Sharing Behavior
1.
My knowledge sharing would help other members in the organization solve problems.
2.
My knowledge sharing would create new business opportunities for the organization.
3.
My knowledge sharing would improve work processes in the organization.
4.
My knowledge sharing would increase productivity in the organization.
5.
My knowledge sharing would help the organization achieve its performance objectives.
Source: Bock et al. (2005)