American International Journal of Available online at http://www.iasir.

net
Research in Humanities, Arts
and Social Sciences
ISSN (Print): 2328-3734, ISSN (Online): 2328-3696, ISSN (CD-ROM): 2328-3688
AIJRHASS is a refereed, indexed, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary and open access journal published by
International Association of Scientific Innovation and Research (IASIR), USA
(An Association Unifying the Sciences, Engineering, and Applied Research)

Servant Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Among

Employees of Service Sector
Dr. Garima Mathur
Prestige Institute of Management,
Airport Road, Opposite Deendayal Nagar,Gwalior - 474 020, MP, India

Dr. Pushpa Negi

Symbiosis Law School (SLS), Symbiosis International University (SIU),
Block A 47/48, Sector-62, Noida 201 301, UP, India

Abstract: This study is aimed at testing different parameters like servant leadership and organizational
Citizenship Behavior (OCB) which will help employees of service organizations like banking to work more
efficiently and effectively towards achieving individual and organizational goal. Many studies have been
conducted on these parameters to gain improved understanding of the forces and analyzing the factors
present servant leadership and organizational Citizenship Behavior and the role of these in boosting or
jeopardizing business but the present study evaluated the impact of servant leadership on organizational
citizenship behaviors. The study included the employees working in insurance, telecom and banking sector
of Gwalior region. The measures for both variables were standardized again in the Indian context through
consistency tools like Item to total correlation, Cronbach Alpha. The results showed that servant leadership
has significant positive impact on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).

Keywords: Servant Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness,

Civic virtue, Interpersonal Harmony

I. styling;
Keywords: WWW; component; formatting; style; Introduction
insert (Minimum 5 to 8 key words)
The whole world is facing tough competition to cope with the changing scenario. The organizations require
team working and hence understood the concept of working in coordination with each other. But this is not the
sole criteria for success. To meet out the challenges employees need to work willingly in the right direction.
Willingness among the employees can be generated by right kind of leadership. Researchers discussed many
types of leaderships suitable for different situations and kinds of people. Among these much debated is servant
leadership. Servant leadership is one of the approaches to leadership which contributed to the way that people
lead today. It is a realistic philosophy which supports people who choose to serve first, and then lead as a way of
expanding service to individuals and institutions. The theory of servant leadership emerged when Greenleaf
(1977) defined the role of the leader as servant. It encourages collaboration, trust, foresight, listening, and the
ethical use of power and empowerment. Drury (2004, p.8) defined servant leadership as: An understanding and
practice of leadership that places the good of those lead over the self interest of the leader. Servant leadership
promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the
providing of leadership for the good of those led, and the sharing of power and status for the common good of
each individual, the total organization, and those serve by the organization. Although interest in servant
leadership is increasing, researchers are still lacking in empirical researches to the construct servant leadership
(Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999 and Drury, 2004). Drury (2004) also states that servant leadership has been
called as a movement by (Bass, 2000). Few others also quoted servant leadership should be considered in future
references of leadership styles (Covey, 2002; DePree, 1995 and Senge, 1997). Servant-leadership focuses on
service to followers. It is an approach to work that emphasizes the healthy relations between the components of
our humanity and our occupational objectives, and a sharing of power in decision making. Servant leaders
believe that serving the needs of their followers is the leaders top priority (Ehrhart, 2004 and Greenleaf, 2002).
It is the moral obligation on the servant leaders that they have to look after the needs of their followers, and
prefer to think about them over their own well-being and over the interests of the organization (Greenleaf 1977;
1998). A servant leader views leadership not as position or status, but as an opportunity to serve others, to
develop them to their full potential. Greenleaf believed the final goal of servant hood was to help others become

AIJRHASS 14-595; 2014, AIJRHASS All Rights Reserved Page 191

 Garima Mathur et al., American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 7(2), June-August, 2014, pp.
191-196

servants themselves so that society would benefit as well. The theory behind servant leadership is that such
leadership helps create a positive work environment in which salespeople develop feelings of attachment and
loyalty to the organization (Liden, Sandy, Hao Zhao, and David, 2008). In fact the traits of leaders were
compared and researches evident that servant leaders possess different personal values than non-servant leaders
(Russell, 2001). There are at least ten characteristics of servant leaders as identified by Spear (1998). For
example, Listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, committed to the
growth of people and building community. In the present study these characteristics were used to form a
questionnaire of 11 items. The Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) are a special type of work
behavior that are defined as individual behaviors beneficial to the organization and are discretionary, not
directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system. The interest in the topic of OCB is due to its
contribution to business performance. Empirical research in management has shown that employees
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization
(Podsakoff et al. 1997). According to Organ's (1988) definition, it represents 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.

The literature indicates that Servant Leadership is not a position or status, but is an opportunity to serve others,
to develop them to their full potential. Servant-leadership emphasizes increased service to others; an approach to
work that emphasizes the healthy organic and functional relations between the components of our humanity and
our vocational and occupational objectives, and a sharing of power in decision making. On the other hand
Organizational Citizenship Behavior is individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by formal reward system.Although the relationship between both the variables was established by
few researchers, it still lacks to be tested in various areas where leadership is inevitable and getting work done
through followers is mandatory. Thus the present study aimed at finding out the ways which help an individual
to better understand the role of being a servant leader in creating good citizens for the organizations like banks
where the team leaders and their team members were considered as sample. The research was conducted on
these parameters to gain improved understanding of the forces and analyzing the factors present servant
leadership and organizational Citizenship Behavior and the role of these in boosting or jeopardizing business.

II. Literature Review

Servant leaders are different from their counterparts and the traditional concept of what a leader is or does. It
gained an increased attention among different leadership styles. Benut-Gomez (2004, p.143) states that "to
succeed, leaders must teach their followers not only how to lead: leadership, but more importantly, how to be a
good follower: followership". Similarly, Stone, Robert & Patterson (2004) also suggested that the servant
leader's focus is on the followers, and the achievement of organizational objectives is a subordinate outcome.
The extent to which the leader is able to shift the primary focus of leadership from the organization to the
follower is the distinguishing factor in classifying leaders as either transformational or servant leaders.
Therefore, a good follower is someone who can take direction without challenging their leader. It is the servant
leaders ability to be both a great follower and a great leader that is results in their ability to inspire and motivate
others. One more important aspect of servant leadership is its ability to see more clearly than anyone else as a
result of their continual openness to inspiration and revelation (Covey 2006; Rowe 2003 and Wheatley 2004)
proposes servant leaders bring inspiration, reflection, empathy, foresight and intuition, perceptivity, and
relational aptitude to their service which involves emotional intelligence within the leaders. Researchers have
found support for three variables in servant leadership including service, empowerment and visioning (Dennis &
Winston 2003 and Page & Wong 2000). In addition, the servant leader actively recruits exemplary followers and
is open to input from them which enhances leader-follower trust (Benut-Gomez 2004 and Pepper 2003). Russell
(2001) identified issues relating to both personal values and organizational values. Fundamentally, leader values
may be the underlying factors that separate servant leaders from all other leadership types. Moreover, the
servant leader is willing to sacrifice themselves out of love for others and in the face of difficulty openly willing
to accept fault for negative outcomes (Rowe 2003 and Wheatley 2004). Lab (1991) proposes servant leaders
perform several functions in order to develop a culture of servant leadership such as value people, develop
people, build community, display authenticity, shared leadership through shared vision.

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has for many years been identified as a core construct in
understanding the relationship between the employee and the employer (Mathieu & Zajac 1990 and Meyer et. al
2002). With regard to the former, analyses consistently indicate significant correlations between OCB and
turnover intention (Hackett, Bycio & Hausdorf 1994 and Randall 1990). With regard to the latter, further
relationships have been identified between components of OCB and a range of discretionary and extra-role
behaviors (Meyer & Herscovitch 2001). Many researchers explored the structure of, and relationships between,
organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Somers 1995; Cropanzano, James &

AIJRHASS 14-595; 2014, AIJRHASS All Rights Reserved Page 192

 Garima Mathur et al., American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 7(2), June-August, 2014, pp.
191-196

Konovsky 1993 and Organ & Ryan 1995). Smith, Organ & Near (1983) examined the structure of
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its relation to organizational commitment in Nepal. The factor
analyses in the study (Organ & Near 1983) revealed two factors of OCB, altruism and compliance, replicating
western models of extra-role behavior Structural equation analysis which showed a positive relation between
affective and normative commitment on the one hand and both citizenship factors on the other. Continuance
commitment was found to be negatively related to compliance and unrelated to altruism. Nielsen et al (2003)
explained relationships among different variables such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), task
interdependence, and performance in work teams. As predicted, measures of team OCB collected from both
team members and customers correlated positively with concurrent team performance and subsequent
performance using criterion data from both team leaders and team customers. Task interdependence moderated
the positive relationship of team OCB with subsequent team performance. The results, based on multi-source
measures of both team OCB and team performance, collected on two occasions, extended the researches on
OCB from the individual to the team level. Ehrhart (2004) tried to build theory on the relationship of servant
leadership and organisational citizenship behavior (OCB). Similarly, the findings of Smith, Organ and Near's
(1983) supports the work of Ehrhart (2004) which lead to formulate following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There is significant relationship between servant leadership and OCB.

Hypothesis 2: There is significant relationship between Social and Personal characteristics and OCB.

III. Research Methodology

Study and Sample: The study was quantitative, explanatory co-relational in nature where survey method was
used to collect the data. The population included all the white collar employees of banking and insurance sector
in Gwalior region. The data were collected from 8 companies and 300 questionnaires were distributed out of
which 210 questionnaires were returned showing 70% response rate. After deleting incomplete responses data
for this study were obtained from 180 respondents of eight organizations of banking sector.

Instrumentation: A three part self reported survey including questionnaires published by NebGuide containing
11 items to measure servant leadership was used. These 11 items were 11 constructs proposed by (Spears, 1998)
servant leadership such as calling, listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,
foresight, stewardship, growth and building community. The measure was converted in to rating scale of 1 to 7.
Second part of the questionnaire contained questionnaire of Farh, Zhong and Organ (2004) for OCB including
27 items. The measure was prepared for Chinese population. The responses taken on the Likert type of 1 to 7
where 1 represent minimum importance and 7 represent the maximum importance. Total responses were elicited
on 38 items, which took 20 minutes to answer. The third part contained personal details of the respondents.

Tools Used for Data Analysis: Many methods were used to analyze the data to convert it in to useful
information. The measures were validated through different methods such as internal consistency was
established through item to total correlation and Cronbach alpha was applied to assess reliability. To ensure
construct validity exploratory factor analysis was employed. The relationship between both the variables was
established through Linear Regression.
IV. Analysis

The study data from the 180 Indian respondents were assessed using SPSS. Internal consistency was established
through item to total correlation. The co-relational value was high so all the items were considered for further
analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was employed using Principal component analysis and the Varimax
rotation with Kaiser Normalization. The exploratory factor analysis was employed to determine construct
validity, and Cronbachs alpha coefficient was used to examine construct reliability. The coefficient alpha was
used as an estimate of internal consistency reliability for each dimension and the reliability measures were
above 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Table 1 and 2 (annexure) presents the summary of this study's psychometric
evaluation. The alpha values were (=0.825) and (=0.918) for servant leadership and OCB respectively. In the
first step, factor analysis was initially conducted with the 11 items of Servant leadership and 27 items of OCB.
The exploratory factor analysis resulted in two dimensions for servant leadership and eight dimensions for OCB.
The value of the KMO measure of sampling adequacy is 0.716 and 0.849 for servant leadership and OCB,
hence, it was appropriate to go for factor analysis. Since, the sample was more than 150, indicating that carrying
out factor analysis on the data was feasible. In the first round of the principal factor analysis, two Eigen values >
1.00 (3.201 and 2.031) were obtained for servant leadership and for OCB eight Eigen values were above 1.00
(see table 1 and 2).

AIJRHASS 14-595; 2014, AIJRHASS All Rights Reserved Page 193

 Garima Mathur et al., American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 7(2), June-August, 2014, pp.
191-196

Table 1 Showing Results of Factor Analysis of Servant Leadership

Items of Servant Leadership Components
Personal Qualities Sociable Characteristics
Hear others ideas and value them .765
Willing to sacrifice your own self-interest for the good of the group .741
Come to you when emotionally disturbed .691
Understand others circumstances and problems .580
Strong awareness of surroundings .575 .329
Willing to follow your requests .556
Feel a strong sense of community .550
Commitment to growth and development of others .486
Preparing the organization for the betterment of society .739
Ability to conceptualize the world, events and possibilities .727
Others have confidence in your ability to anticipate the future and its consequences .623
Eigen Values 3.201 2.031
Percentage of variance explained 29.104 18.465
Cumulative percentage of variance explained 29.104 47.569

Table 2 Showing Results of Factor Analysis of OCB

Items Component

Conscientiousn
Interpersonal

Cooperation
Sportsman-

Helping co-
Companys
Resources
Company

Harmony
Altruism

Promote

workers
Saving

Image
ship

ess
Prohibit behavior harmful to
.761
organization
Keep workplace clean and neat .752
Refer others to work for company .737 .325
Indoctrinate others with correct political
.725
thought
Participate in company-organized group
.669
activities
Save company resources .660
Defend company against disasters .623 .314
Make constructive
.610 .322
Suggestions
Patriotic .564
Obey company rules .508
Participate in union activities .789
Participate in activities organized by
.741
groups
Maintain harmonious relationships .657
Take extra responsibilities .618
Comply with social norms .882
Communicate within the firm .882
Physically fit .584
Engage in self training .554
Volunteer for overtime work .837
Serve community .821
Promote company image and products
.707
to outsiders
Use personal resources to Aid Company .689
Share useful work-related information .364
Help colleagues in work-related matters .895
Help coworkers in non work matters .862
Cooperate at work .888
Contribute to public welfare .861
Eigen Values 3.321 2.876 2.645 2.584 2.282 2.039 1.998 1.973
Percentage of variance explained 12.299 10.653 9.795 9.570 8.454 7.553 7.366 7.308
Cumulative percentage of variance
12.299 22.952 32.747 42.318 50.771 58.324 65.691 72.998
explained

The EFA values ranged from 0.486 to 0.765 for the both the factors. The items were clubbed in the headings
Personal Characteristics and Sociable Characteristics. As the items were representing either the personal
qualities such as Commitment to growth and development of others and Willing to sacrifice your own self-

AIJRHASS 14-595; 2014, AIJRHASS All Rights Reserved Page 194

 Garima Mathur et al., American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 7(2), June-August, 2014, pp.
191-196

interest for the good of the group or sociological aspect such as Preparing the organization for the betterment of
society. For OCB the EFA values were ranged from 0.364 to 0.895. The percentage variance was 47.569 for
servant leadership and 72.998 for OCB. There were few factors having cross loadings but all of them were
retained as Ford, MacCallum, and Tail's (1986) suggested minimum factor loading of 0.40 and the cross
loadings were below 0.40. Moreover, the difference between cross loadings was less than 0.25 in all three cases.
Eight factors were converged after varimax rotation. The factors were Altruism, Saving Company Resources,
Interpersonal Harmony, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue, Helping Coworkers, Cooperation.
Most of the factors were found to be consistent with the research of Farh, Zhong and Organ (2004). Only few
such as Sportsmanship (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000), Conscientiousness (Farh, Earley
and Lin 1997), Civic virtue (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) were consistent with findings of
others.

Result of Hypothesis Testing

Regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. To test the direct effect hypotheses the dependent variable
(OCB) was regressed to independent variable (Servant Leadership). The results supported the hypothesis. The
model used for regression has good fit as indicated by F-value 896.667 which is significant at 0% level of
significance indicating a high predictability of model. The regression model presents (R 2= 0.834, = 0.913,
p=0.000) which represents that servant leadership shows 83.4 percent variance in OCB. The result supports the
hypothesis and indicates the statically significant relationship between both the variables.
Multiple regression was then applied to test second hypothesis which states that both the personal and sociable
characteristics are positively related to organizational citizenship behavior. The data reported that both personal
characteristics (Standardized = 0.686, p=0.000) and Sociable characteristics (Standardized = 0.354, p=0.000)
has significant positive relationship with OCB where,m adjusted R2 showed 83.5 percent variance in the
criterion variable.
V. Discussion
The study resulted in to number of inferences. The study focused on examining the impact of servant leadership
as independent variable on OCB as dependent variable. Servant leadership and its dimensions were regressed
with over all OCB inclusive of all the dimensions. The data provide general support to the hypothesis that
servant leadership is related to OCB. The results of multiple regression also support the hypothesis that both
dimensions of servant leadership are positively related with OCB. The results replicated the findings of
Ehrharts (2004). He found a significant positive relationship of servant-leadership with OCB indicating that the
employees getting benefits from their leaders are more likely to exhibit helping and careful behaviors. The
theoretical framework was suggested by Greenleaf (1977) who believed that a leader who serves his followers
get a more caring and supportive workforce. Smith, Organ and Near's (1983) also supported the view that
leadership should be related to OCB. They argued that leaders positing as role models in serving followers make
followers to show pro-social behaviours. Different aspects of personal characteristics such as listening, empathy,
persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship showing trust in a person makes him adorable among his
subordinates. Listening on the part of leader sends a signal of being heard among followers. Similarly, other
attributes such as conceptualization; the ability to dream or think beyond day to day realities helps leader to
think beyond as well to foresee future. Such characteristics create an environment where each employee likes to
work willingly. These things communicate a feeling of belongingness in the part of individuals which leads to
get a good citizen for the organization.
VI. Conclusion
Organizational Citizenship Behavior has been considered as better criteria for measuring employees behaviour
in the organization. The extra role behaviours can better be demonstrated by qualities on the part of leaders. The
research studied the impact of servant leadership on OCB. The factors underlying servant leadership and OCB
were also identified and the impact of both personal and sociable characteristics of servant leadership on OCB
was measured. The results indicated that the servant leadership behaviours predict OCB significantly in service
industries such as banks, insurance etc. Similarly, both characteristics of servant leadership were found
positively related to OCB. The study is useful in enhancing OCB by focusing on the specific style of leadership
i.e. servant leadership. Personal characteristics of leaders play more dominant role in exhibiting followers
OCB.

VII. References
[1] Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004), Great Leaders Teach Exemplary Followership and Serve as Servant Leaders, Journal of
American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 4(1/2), 143-151.
[2] Bass, B. M. (2000), The future of leadership in learning organizations, Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18.
[3] Covey, S. R. (2002), Servant-leadership and community leadership in the twenty-first century. In L. C. Spears and M.
Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[4] Covey, S. R. (2006), Servant leadership, Leadership Excellence, 5-6.

AIJRHASS 14-595; 2014, AIJRHASS All Rights Reserved Page 195

 Garima Mathur et al., American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 7(2), June-August, 2014, pp.
191-196

[5] Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993), Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job
performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595-606.
[6] Dennis, R. S., & Winston, B. E. (2003), A factor analysis of Page and Wongs servant leadership instrument, The Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 24(8), 455-459.
[7] DePree, M. (1995), Forward. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servant-
leadership influenced today's top management thinkers, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[8] Drury, S. L. (2004), Servant Leadership and Organizational Commitment: Empirical Findings and Workplace Implications,
Servant Leadership Research Round table Proceedings, Regent University, School of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA, 2-
3, (1-17).
[9] Ehrhart, Mark G. (2004), Leadership and Procedural Justice Climate as Antecedents of Unit-Level Organizational Citizenship
Behavior, Personnel Psychology, 57, 6194.
[10] Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B. & Organ, D. W. (2004), Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the People's Republic of China,
Organization Science, 15(2), 241-253.
[11] Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999), Servant leadership: Setting the Stage for Empirical Research, Journal of
Leadership Studies, 6, 49-72.
[12] Farh, J., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. (1997), Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship
behavior in Chinese society, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444.
[13] Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tail, M. (1986), The Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology: A
Critical Review and Analysis, Personnel Psychology, 39, 291- 314.
[14] Greenleaf (1977), The role of values in servant leadership, Journal of Leadership & Organization Development, 22(2), 76 84.
[15] Greenleaf (1998), The Power of Servant Leadership, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
[16] Greenleaf (2002), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, 25th anniversary ed.,
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
[17] Hackett, Bycio & Hausdorf (1994), Further Assessments of Meyer and Allens (1991) three component model of organizational
commitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 15-23.
[18] Spears Larry (1996), Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and Servant-Leadership, Journal of Motivation & Organization
Development, 17(7), 33 35.
[19] Laub, J. (1999), Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership (SOLA) instrument,
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(2), 308. (UMI No. 9921922)
[20] Liden, Robert C., Sandy J. Wayne, Hao Zhao, and David Henderson (2008), Servant Leadership: Development of a
Multidimensional Measure and Multi-Level Assessment, The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 2 (April), 161177.
[21] Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990), A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of
organizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
[22] Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001), Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model, Human Resource
Management Review, 11, 299326.
[23] Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. (1993), Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-
component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538551.
[24] Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002), Mayer SaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) users
manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MHS Publishers.
[25] Organ, D. W. (1988), Organizational citizenship behavior, The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
[26] Nielsen Tjai M., Eric Sundstrom, Sarah K. Soulen, Terry Halfhill, Joseph W. Huff. (2003), Corporate citizenship in team-based
organizations: An essential ingredient for sustained success, 9, 169 187.
[27] Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995), A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship
behaviour, Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-800.
[28] Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000), A conceptual framework for measuring servant- leadership, In S. Abjibolosoo (Ed.), The
human factor in shaping the course of history and development. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
[29] Pepper, A. (2003), Leading Professionals: A Science, A Philosophy and A Way of Working, Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 349.
[30] Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Quantity and Quality of
Work Group Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262270.
[31] Randall, D. M. (1990), The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological investigation, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 11, 361-378.
[32] Rowe, R. (2003), Leaders as Servants, New Zealand Management, 50 (1), 24.
[33] Russell Robert F. (2001), The Role of Values in Servant Leadership, Journal of Leadership & Organization Development,
22(2), 7684.
[34] Russell, Robert F., A. Gregory Stone (2002), A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model, Journal
of Motivation & Organization Development, 23(3), 145 157.
[35] Senge, P. M. (1997), Creating learning communities, Executive Excellence, 14(3).

AIJRHASS 14-595; 2014, AIJRHASS All Rights Reserved Page 196