SERVANT LEADERSHIP

SERVANT LEADERSHIP

The influence of servant leadership on organizational citizenship behavior and the mediating role of organizational justice

Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Business and Economics

August 19, 2010

RENSKE VELTMAN Student number: 1540742

Siriusstraat 26 7622 VZ Borne tel: +316 41078376

e-mail : r.veltman.2@student.rug.nl

Supervisor/ university N. Manheim

Second supervisor/ university

O. Janssen

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and the mediating role of organizational justice. The overall expectation at forehand was that employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’

servant leadership behavior will be positively related to employee-reported OCB. Further, employees’ perception of organizational justice was expected to mediate this relationship.

High perceptions of employees’ immediate supervisors’ servant leadership behavior will increase perceptions of organizational justice, what will increase employees’ OCB. Also low perceptions of employees’ immediate supervisors’ servant leadership behavior will decrease perceptions of organizational justice, what will decrease employees’ OCB. Data were collected by means of a questionnaire among 105 employees of a Dutch bank. Results reveal that servant leadership indeed positively affects OCB, and that this relationship is mediated by organizational justice, although the relationships are less strong than expected. Explanations for not finding strong relationships are discussed.

Keywords: servant leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational

justice

1. INTRODUCTION

The topic of leadership has received substantial attention by researchers over the past twenty years (Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004). A subject of growing interest in the leadership literature is servant leadership, which is a leadership paradigm first introduced by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1977. Servant leadership is a leadership style that focus on followers, whereby followers are leaders’ primary concern and organizational concerns are peripheral (Patterson, 2003). Characteristics ascribed to this emerging approach to leadership are listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears, 1998). Since its conceptual inception, servant leadership has been espoused by a growing number of researchers as a ‘valid theory’ of organizational leadership (Russell & Stone, 2002).

There are three reasons for a surge of interest in servant leadership. First, servant leadership is part of the larger movement away from command-and-control leadership toward an economy based on participation. These new organizational forms require a new leadership style. Second, servant leadership appears to hold the promise of being an antidote to the corrupt-ridden corporate scandals of recent memory (e.g., Enron and Barings Bank) (Page &

Wong, 2003). In an era of massive institutional failure, the ethical and socially responsible management and leadership ideas of servant leadership point toward a possible path forward, and will continue to do so (Page & Wong, 2003; Senge, 2002). Third, the past 50 years of research have steered us down the road of ineffective measures of leadership effectiveness.

Instead of using short-term determinants such as market share growth, and financial improvement, real leadership success is determined largely through the building of a sustainable long-term asset, the building of follower capacity (Higgs, 2003). This assessment of leadership effectiveness is the basis of servant leadership theory (Nwogu, 2004).

The few empirical articles that exist on servant leadership focus mainly on the relation of servant leadership to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Washington, 2007;

Hebert 2004; Drury 2004; Mayer, Barders, & Piccolo, 2008). Researches show that servant leadership has a positive influence on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. While Washington’s (2007) study broke new ground in that it was one of the first studies to empirically examine the relationship between servant leadership and organizational members’

job satisfaction and organizational commitment, this study also calls for the exploration of

other desirable work outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). While

theory has described servant leaders in terms of inspirational and moral (Graham, 1991),

empirical research has yet to explore whether servant leaders do in fact have the potential of enhancing the moral development of followers (Graham, 1995) which should be translated into OCB. The purpose of this research is to fill this void by empirically examining the relationship between servant leadership and OCB.

I will further investigate to what extent organizational justice can explain the relationship between servant leadership and OCB. Organizational justice refers to employees’

perception of fairness in the workplace (Greenberg, 1987). Given that justice perceptions are positively associated with OCB and that the leader plays some role in the levels of organizational justice experienced by subordinates (Ehrhart, 2004), it is likely that the effects of servant leadership on OCB are at least partially mediated by organizational justice perceptions.

I begin by reviewing extant research and theory relevant to the effects of servant leadership on OCB, and the mediating role of organizational justice in this relationship to develop my hypotheses. I will then present and discuss the results of my study testing these hypotheses among 105 employees from a Dutch bank.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Servant leadership

For an organization to achieve effectiveness, it is imperative that the unique talents of its employees be recognized, utilized, and developed. Leaders can play a critical role in helping employees to realize their potential (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000). An approach to leadership called servant leadership focuses on developing employees to their fullest potential in the areas of task effectiveness, community stewardship, self-motivation, and future leadership capabilities. Servant leadership begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first (Greenleaf, 1977). Their motivation in accomplishing these tasks is not self-interest; rather, servant leaders want their subordinates improve for their own good, and view the development of followers as an end, in and of itself, not merely a means to reach the leader’s or organization goals (Ehrhart, 2004).

Servant leadership differs from traditional leadership approaches in that it stresses

personal integrity and focuses on forming strong long-term relationships with employees

(Graham, 1991), which is central to servant leadership theory (Manz & Sims, 1987). It is also

unique in that it extends outside the organization: servant leaders serve multiple stakeholders,

including their communities and society as a whole (Graham, 1991). Servant leadership

shows promise as a way to build trust with employees, customers, and communities (Liden et al., 2008).

The construct of servant leadership consist of seven dimensions. The first dimension is emotional healing, the act of showing sensitivity to others' personal concerns. Creating value for the community is the second dimension and means that a servant leader has a conscious genuine concern for helping the community for example by volunteering. The third one is conceptual skills, possessing the knowledge of the organization and tasks at hand so as to be in a position to effectively support and assist others, especially immediate followers.

Empowering is the fourth dimension and means that a servant leader encourage and facilitate others, especially immediate followers, in identifying and solving problems, as well as determining when and how to complete work tasks. Helping subordinates grow and succeed is the fifth dimension and consists of demonstrating a genuine concern for others’ career growth and development (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008). With knowledge of each subordinate’s unique characteristics and interests, leaders than assist subordinates in achieving their potential. This encouragement is done through building self-confidence, serving as a role model, inspiring trust, and providing information, feedback, and resources (Lord, Brown, &

Freiberg, 1999). The sixth dimensions is putting subordinates first, using actions and words to make clear to others, especially immediate followers, that satisfying their work needs is a priority. Servant leaders who practice this principle will often break from their own work to assist subordinates with problems they are facing with their assigned duties. The last dimension is behaving ethically, interacting openly, fairly, and honestly with others (Liden et al., 2008).

2.2 Servant leadership and OCB

Organizational citizenship behaviors are individual behaviors that are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promote the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988a). Discretionary means that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable.

There are five types of citizenship behavior. The first one is altruism that refers to

discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an

organizationally relevant task or problem. Conscientiousness is the second type, referring to

discretionary behaviors on the part of the employee that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization in the areas of attendance, obeying rules and regulations, taking breaks, and so forth. The third type of OCB is sportsmanship, or employees’

willingness to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining. Courtesy is the fourth type, discretionary behavior on the part of an individual aimed at preventing work- related problems with others from occurring. The last one is civic virtue, behavior on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company. OCB improves organizational efficiency and effectiveness by contributing to resource transformations, innovativeness, and adaptability (Organ, 1988a).

I propose that there is a positive relationship between servant leadership and OCB.

First of all, much of supervisor consideration is, in itself, citizenship behavior (i.e., discretionary acts aimed at helping others) (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Thus, the supervisor serves to some extent as a model, and social psychological studies strongly suggest that many forms of prosocial behavior are influenced by models (see Berkowitz, 1970; Krebs, 1970). Models provide cues for what behavior is appropriate and make salient the social needs for prosocial gestures (Smith et al., 1983). The behaviors that a servant leader models are emotional healing, creating value for the community, helping his/her subordinates grow and succeed, putting his/her subordinates first, and behaving ethically. Thus, employees with a servant leader will emulate this behavior in their interactions with each other and, thus, display higher levels of OCB (Ehrhart, 2004).

Second, leader supportiveness initiates a pattern of exchange that is social and noncontractual in character (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). This pattern of exchange is especially likely when there is a long term relationship build between the supervisor and the employee, which is central to servant leadership theory. The long term relationship implies that this exchange becomes subject to broader norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960).

Subordinates choose citizenship behavior as a means of reciprocity to superiors. Moreover, servant leadership is more likely to influence OCB instead of performance, because variation in the latter is more constrained by factors beyond the control of the employee such as ability, work scheduling, or task design (Smith et al., 1983).

To summarize I hypothesize that high perceptions of employees’ supervisors’ servant leadership behavior will increase employees’ OCB. Also low perceptions of employees’

supervisor servant leadership behavior will decrease employees’ OCB. The first hypothesis is

stated as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’ servant leadership will be positively related to employee-reported organizational citizenship behavior.

2.3 The mediating role of organizational justice

I argue that servant leadership influences OCB through the mediating effect of organizational justice. I develop this hypothesis in two parts, first discussing that servant leadership may foster organizational justice and then discussing reasons that organizational justice may contribute to OCB. But first of all, I will discuss what organizational justice is.

Organizational justice refers to employees’ perception of fairness in the workplace (Greenberg, 1987). There are two components of organizational justice, distributive justice and procedural justice (Greenberg, 1990). Distributive justice is the perceived fairness of decision outcomes (Adams, 1965), for example a fair work schedule and a fair level of pay (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Procedural justice is the perceived fairness of the procedures used to arrive at outcomes (Leventhal, 1976). That perceived fairness may refer to formal procedures that exist at one’s workplace (formal procedures), as well as to the way how these formal procedures are applied (interactional justice) (Greenberg, 1990; Leventhal, 1980; Bies

& Shapiro, 1987). Organizational justice has been the subject of much research (e.g., Folger

& Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990) and has been suggested as an organizational variable that is related to many positive work outcomes (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993) such as trust in supervision and pay satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).

The mechanism through which servant leadership may increase organizational justice

is based on justice rules. For example, given that servant leaders are sensitive to the needs and

desires of followers (Graham, 1991), it is likely that they will treat employees in an

interpersonally sensitive manner and thus improving followers’ sense of justice. Further,

servant leaders’ moral orientation is likely to help them to engage in ethical behaviors and to

reduce bias from decision making processes, making employees feel that they are treated

equally and thus improving their sense of justice. Moreover, because servant leaders provide

an opportunity for followers to voice their concerns, it is likely that justice perceptions will be

more favorable when one has a servant leader (Mayer et al., 2008). Finally, servant leaders

want their followers to improve for their own good, and view the development of the follower

as an end in and of itself, not merely means to reach the leader’s or organization goals

(Ehrhart, 2004). Leaders will make sure that followers are appropriately rewarded and

encouraged thus improving justice perceptions. In sum, servant leaders are expected to satisfy

many of the rules used to govern justice perceptions and ultimately followers’ overall perceptions of justice are expected to be more favorable (Mayer et al., 2008).

Work in the area of organizational justice has suggested that employee perceptions of both distributive and procedural justice could predict OCB for two reasons (Farh, Podsakoff,

& Organ, 1990; Moorman, 1991; Organ, 1988b). First, if employees perceive the outcomes of their evaluations to be fair or perceive the process by which outcome allocation decisions are made to be fair, they will be likely to reciprocate by performing behaviors to benefit their organization that go beyond the in-role performance of their job. An employee would provide OCB because doing so would be consistent with the positive quality of the employment relationship, not because a contract specified it (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993).

The second reason why perceptions of organizational justice are related to OCB originates from Adams’ (1965) equity theory (Organ, 1988b). The essence of this theory is that employees strive for a fair balance between what they invest in their work and what they get in return. They compare their efforts and rewards with those of other employees in similar situations. It is expected that employees will reduce their efforts when they perceived the relationship as unfair. If employees feel that they are well rewarded for the effort they make, they are happier with their work. They will also be motivated to continue to make efforts for the same (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987). OCB could be considered as an input for one’s equity ratio and lowering one’s level of OCB could be a response to inequity. Changing the level of OCB could be the strategy of choice because OCB is discretionary and lies outside of formal role requirements and its omission is not punishable (Organ, 1988b). Therefore, a change in OCB in response to inequity would be very likely be safer than trying to change behavior in line with formal role requirements because that could result in negative side effects. If not safer, it would at least be directly under personal control (Moorman, 1991).

To summarize I hypothesize that high perceptions of employees’ immediate supervisors’ servant leadership behavior will increase perceptions of organizational justice, what will increase employees’ OCB. Also low perceptions of employees’ immediate supervisors’ servant leadership behavior will decrease perceptions of organizational justice, what will decrease employees’ OCB. The second hypothesis is stated as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ perceptions of organizational justice mediate the relation

between the employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’ servant

leadership and the employee’s organizational citizenship behavior.

The above mentioned relationships are graphical represented in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Conceptual Model of the Relationships between Servant Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Organizational Justice

3. METHODS

3.1 Respondents and procedure

In order to test the hypotheses, I conducted an online questionnaire among the members of a Dutch bank. In total, 265 individuals received a questionnaire, of which 105 returned their completed questionnaire, which comes down to a response rate of 39.6%. Of the 105 respondents, 45 were male (42.5%), and 52 were female (49.1%), sex was not indicated on 8 of the questionnaires (7.6%). The age of the respondents varied between 28 and 60 years (M = 43.12, SD = 8.36). The respondents had on average been working for 16 years in the organization (SD = 11.28 years).

All data is collected by means of a self-report. Due to the small amount of supervisors (23) in the sample and their already heavy workload, I decided to not make use of supervisor ratings of their employees’ OCB. Confidentiality and anonymity was guaranteed and it was made clear that the answers of individuals could not be traced back.

3.2 Measures

Servant leadership. Servant leadership was measured using the scale of Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson’s (2005) 28-item servant leadership instrument. The scale measures employee perceptions of seven dimensions (emotional healing, creating value for the community, conceptual skills, empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, behaving ethically) of their immediate supervisors’ servant leadership behaviors. Respondents rated agreement with each of the 28 items on a 5- point Likert scale, with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree.”

Sample items are “My immediate supervisor cares about my personal well-being”, “My immediate supervisor gives me the freedom to handle difficult situations in the way that I feel

Servant leadership Organizational justice Organizational

citizenship behavior

is best”, and “My immediate supervisor puts my best interests ahead of his/her own”.

Cronbach’s alpha for the servant leadership measure in the current study was .98.

Organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using the scale of Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1989). The scale measures employee perceptions of five dimensions (altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue) of their OCB. Respondents rate agreement with each of the 19 items on a 5- point Likert scale, with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree.” The items were altered slightly to fit the specific context of the study. Sample items are, “I help others who have heavy workloads”, “I inform my manager before taking any important action”, and “I attend functions that are not required, but that help the company image”.

Cronbach’s alpha for the OCB measure in the current study was .74.

Organizational justice. Organizational justice was measured using the scale of Niehoff and Moorman (1993). The justice scale consisted of one dimension measuring perceptions of distributive justice and two dimensions measuring perceptions of procedural justice (formal procedures and interactional justice). Respondents rate agreement with distributive justice (5 items) on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing “strongly disagree”

and 5 representing “strongly agree”. A sample item is, “My work schedule is fair”.

Respondents rate agreement with formal procedures (6 items) and interactional justice (9 items) on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing “never” and 5 representing “always”.

Sample items are respectively, “My general manager clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by employees.”, and “When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern for my rights as an employee”. Cronbach’s alpha for the organizational justice measure was .95.

Control variables. Past research has demonstrated that gender, organizational tenure, and age can influence employee work attitudes (Hui & Tan, 1996). Because of the potential effects of these demographic variables, I included those as controls in my analysis.

Gender might have an influence on OCB because OCB is associated with an understanding of the needs of others and therefore typically linked with the female gender role (Kidder, 2002). Female employees are also more likely to report their leaders as servant leaders because they work with a more personable disposition than males in the workplace (Washington, 2007). Gender was coded: 1 = male, 2 = female.

Organizational tenure might have an influence on OCB because employees come to

perform more OCB over time as they try to achieve more variety in their work (Morrisson,

1994). Organizational tenure was reported in years and months of service in the organization.

Finally, age might influence OCB as well. Older workers tend to demonstrate more citizenship behavior than younger workers, earlier research suggest a pattern of findings that older employees are good citizens, are more likely to control their emotions at work, and are less likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors (Ng & Feldman, 2008). Age was measured as a continuous variable (years).

3.3 Data analysis

To test the effects of servant leadership, organizational justice and OCB, I conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The hierarchical regression analysis consisted of three steps. In the first step the control variables were entered. In the second step the independent variable, servant leadership, was entered to measure the main effect. In the final step organizational justice is added to determine the mediation effect.

To demonstrate the mediation, the four steps of Baron and Kenny (1986) are used.

First, there has to be a relation between servant leadership and OCB. Second, there has to be a relation between servant leadership and organizational justice. Third, there has to be a relation between organizational justice and OCB, controlled for servant leadership. Finally, to establish that organizational justice completely mediates the relation between servant leadership and OCB, the effect of servant leadership on OCB should be zero controlled for organizational justice.

4. RESULTS

4.1 Correlations and descriptive statistics

The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations among all variables in this study are presented in Table 1 below. The relation between servant leadership and OCB is positive but not significant (r = .18, p = n.s). As expected, there is a positive and significant relationship between servant leadership and organizational justice (r = .87, p < .01). The relationship between organizational justice and OCB is positive and significant (r = .27, p <

.01), which is also in line with the expectations.

The effects of gender, organizational tenure and age were investigated as these

demographic variables might have an influence on the variables under study. As shown in

Table 1 gender, organizational tenure and age were not significantly correlated to any of the

study variables.

TABLE 1

Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Pearson Correlations of the Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Servant leadership 3.32 .81

2. OCB 4.09 .32 .18

3. Organizational justice 3.71 .68 .87** .27*

4. Gender 1.54 .50 .14 .11 .06

5. Organizational tenure 16.04 11.28 .01 .08 .01 -.08

6. Age 43.12 8.36 -.09 .04 -.08 -.34* .67**

Note. * p < .01

** p < .001

N varied between 93 and 105

4.2 Hypothesis testing

In Table 2 and 3 the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis for the mediating role of organizational justice in the relation between servant leadership and OCB are displayed. After controlling for gender, organizational tenure, and age, it appears that servant leadership does not explain a significant amount of variance in OCB (Δ R² = .02, n.s).

But as expected, there is still a positive and significant relationship between servant leadership and OCB (b = .06, p < .05). Therefore hypothesis 1: Employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’ servant leadership will be positively related to employee- reported organizational citizenship behavior, is confirmed.

The first requirement for mediation, that there has to be a relation between servant leadership and OCB, is met. The second requirement is a relation between servant leadership and organizational justice. This is supported by the results of Table 3. Servant leadership is a significant predictor of organizational justice (b = .61, p < .001). There is a positive and almost significant relationship between organizational justice and OCB, controlled for servant leadership (b = .13, p = .06). This means that the third requirement is confirmed. The effect of servant leadership on OCB, controlled for organizational justice, becomes highly insignificant (b = -.06, n.s). Taken together, hypothesis 2: Employees’ perceptions of organizational justice mediate the relation between the employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’

servant leadership and the employee’s organizational citizenship behavior, is partly

confirmed.

TABLE 2

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients

Organizational citizenship behavior

Step Variable 1 2 3

1 Gender .05 .05 .06

Organizational tenure .01 .01 >.01

Age .02 .03 .04

2 Servant leadership .06* -.06

3 Organizational justice .13**

R² .03 .06 .10

Δ R² >-.01 .02 .05

Note. * p < .05

** p > .05

N varied between 93 and 105

TABLE 3

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients

Organizational justice

Step Variable 1 2

1 Gender -.02 -.05

Organizational tenure .05 .02

Age -.09 -.03

2 Servant leadership .61*

R² .01 .76*

Δ R² -.02 .75*

Note. * p < .001

N varied between 93 and 105

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Findings

The purpose of this study was to empirically examine the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior and the mediating role of organizational justice. It was expected that employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’ servant leadership would increase employee-reported organizational citizenship behavior. The results did confirm this hypothesis. The expectation that organizational justice mediates the relationship between employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’

servant leadership and the employee’s organizational citizenship behavior, is partly confirmed. The most clearly significant relationship found in this study is the relationship between servant leadership and organizational justice.

In line with the expectations, servant leadership does predict OCB. This means that individuals with a servant leader display higher levels of OCB. Although the effect is not very strong. A possible explanation for not finding a strong main effect could be related to the fact that I treated OCB as an one-dimensional construct while empirical and conceptual work in this area suggest two broad categories, OCBI and OCBO. OCBI is behavior that immediately benefits specific individuals and indirectly through this means contribute to the organization.

OCBO is behavior that benefits the organization in general. The distinction between OCBI and OCBO is important because other research (see Vigoda-Gadot & Angert, 2007; Organ &

Lingl, 1995) suggests that these two forms of OCB activities can have different antecedents

(Williams & Anderson, 1991). So it might be the case that servant leadership is only related to

OCBI or OCBO. This would mean that I had found a stronger relationship between servant

leadership and OCB if I had treated OCB as a multidimensional construct. I expect that

servant leadership is stronger related to OCBO than to OCBI. This expectation is based on the

study of Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006). They found that counterproductive work behavior

aimed at the organization (CWBO) was predicted by conflict with the supervisor and

counterproductive work behavior aimed at other individuals (CWBI) was predicted by

conflict with coworkers. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is any behaviors that harm

an organization by either directly disturbing its property or operation or upsetting employees

to the extent that their job efficacy decreases (Fox, Spector, Miles, 2001). CWB could

therefore be considered as the opposite of OCB because it is also behavior that lies outside the

formal task performance but instead of promoting the effective functioning of the

organization (Organ, 1988a) it is decreasing the effective functioning of the organization (Fox

et al., 2001). So I assume that the predictors of OCBO and OCBI will work in the same way as those of CWBO and CWBI. This will mean that OCBO is predicted by behavior of the leader and OCBI by behaviors of co-workers, thus servant leadership should predict OCBO stronger than OCBI. Further research is necessary to determine if servant leadership has indeed a stronger influence on OCBO that on OCBI.

The most clearly and significant relationship found in this study is the relationship between servant leadership and organizational justice. This means that individuals with a servant leader perceive higher levels of organizational justice. This finding is in line with former theory. The mechanism through which servant leadership increases organizational justice is based on justice rules (Mayer et al., 2008). Subordinates perceptions of organizational justice are based on the leader’s direct behavior with regard to fair treatment and his/her integrity, and the leader’s overall interest in and prioritization of subordinates goals and concerns (McGregor, 1960). Because servant leadership encompasses both ethical behavior and the prioritization of subordinates’ concern (Ehrhart, 2004), servant leaders satisfy the rules to govern justice perceptions and ultimately subordinates’ overall perceptions of justice are more favorable (Mayer et al., 2008).

Partial support was found for the mediating role of organizational justice perceptions in the relationship between servant leadership and OCB. Thus one mechanism by which servant leaders are able to increase the level of OCB by their subordinates is by improving their justice perceptions. Although the mediating effect is found, there are two reasons why it is less strong than expected. First, because the found relationship between servant leadership and OCB is less strong than thought at forehand. Second, while justice helps explain the relationship between servant leadership and OCB, there might be other processes that likely help explain this relationship. For example, the role of trust in the supervisor. Joseph and Winston (2005) found that employee perceptions of servant leadership are strongly related to trust in the supervisor. And Konovsky and Pugh (1994) found that trust in the supervisor is a predictor of OCB. Thus trust in the supervisor might be another explanatory mechanism by which servant leaders influence the level of OCB by their followers. In expanding the mediating variable examined, future research should also examine other psychological processes besides just organizational justice.

5.2 Theoretical implications

The most important theoretical implication of this study is that it adds two new

outcome variables to the servant leadership theory, specifically organizational justice and

OCB. While prior research mainly focused on the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction or organizational commitment (Washington, 2007; Hebert 2004; Drury 2004;

Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008), this study broke new ground by investigating the relationship between servant leadership and OCB and the mediating role of organizational justice. The results show that servant leadership is positively related to OCB and that this relationship is mediated by organizational justice. This means that servant leaders are able to increase the level of OCB by their subordinates by improving their organizational justice perceptions.

Further, there is an interesting comment what should be made here about the strong and significant relationship between servant leadership and organizational justice. These variables have an extreme high correlation in this research (r = .87, p < .01). What could imply that the variables actually measure the same construct and that would mean that servant leadership is just a demonstration of organizational justice. The extreme high correlation may be because the items of the servant leadership measure and the items of the organizational justice measure overlap too much. More precise, I expect that this overlap lies in the servant leadership dimensions emotional healing, empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, and putting subordinates first, and in the organizational justice dimension interactional justice. Because in these dimensions all the items represent a statement whereby the needs and interests of the employees, regarding their personal well-being, job responsibility, career development, and success, are put above the needs and interests of the supervisor. Further, I also expect that this overlap lies in the servant leadership dimension behaving ethically and in the organizational justice dimensions distributive justice and formal procedures. Because in these dimensions all the items represent a statement whereby fair treatment of the employee and ethical behavior of the supervisor is a common factor. Only the servant leadership dimensions conceptual skills and creating value for the community does not show a close alignment with organizational justice. So it appears that servant leadership and organizational justice overlap, but not completely. Further research is necessary to investigate of the variables indeed measure the same construct. What thus should mean that servant leadership is just a demonstration of organizational justice.

5.3 Practical implications

Although the findings in the current study are not as strong as expected, they still offer

important implications for management practioners and organizations. Servant leaders have

the potential to increase the OCB intentions of their subordinates by improving their

organizational justice perceptions. Thus, if a servant leader wants to see an improvement in beneficial employee actions he/she should seek to develop fair reward systems, utilize fair procedures, and threat employees with appropriate interpersonal treatment. These aspects of employee interaction are mostly under the control of managers. OCB is associated with improved organizational efficiency and effectiveness by contributing to resource transformations, innovativeness, and adaptability. Thus the results of the present research suggest that servant leadership may be helpful to organizational leaders in their attempts to enhance the performance of organizational members by fostering members’ organizational justice perceptions and therefore their OCB intentions. Organizations can further benefit from servant leadership because organizational justice is also related to many other positive work outcomes such as trust in supervision and pay satisfaction.

5.4 Limitations

Even though the results of the current study contribute to the existing limited empirical support for the servant leadership theory, the research is not without limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. The first drawback of the present research is that all data were collected from the same source. While it makes the most sense that the focal individual is the best equipped to rate their leader, their own justice perceptions, and OCB (Mayer et al., 2008), common method bias due to self-reporting and respondent social desirability is still a concern. Self-report data are susceptible to systematic error variance related to methodology rather than the actual construct (Keeping & Levy, 2000). In addition, to minimize perceived socially desirable responses to questionnaire items, respondent confidentiality and anonymity was assured to participants. Respondents were also assured that there were no right or wrong answers to questionnaire items. These steps helped to make respondents less likely to edit responses to be more socially desirable or even consistent with how they think the researcher may have wanted them to respond (Washington, 2007). Future research should examine the relationship between servant leadership and OCB by using multiple sources (e.g. self-reports and supervisory ratings) for the data collection to determine if servant leadership has in that case a stronger influence on OCB.

The second limitation is that the data in this study were cross-sectional and therefore I

cannot draw any conclusions concerning causality and the strength of the relationship found

could not be tested across time. Further research with for example a longitudinal design is

necessary to understand the relations between servant leadership, OCB, and organizational

justice and how these relations develop over time.

The third limitation is the response rate of this study. Although it is acceptable (105 respondents), it could have been improved. Maybe with a little higher response rate I might have found significant relationships for the relations who are now almost significant.

The final limitation is the generalizability of this study. Although the participants form a heterogeneous group consisting of men and women with a different educational background, they are all from the same Dutch banking organization. Thus to further enhance generalizability across branches and countries, future samples should consist of more organizational and cultural diversity.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology . New York: Academic Press.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 1173-1182.

Berkowitz, L. 1970. The self, selfishness, and altruism. In Macauley, J., & Berkowitz, L.

(Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro. D. L. 1987. Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1 (2): 199-218.

Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. 2006. The social stressors–counterproductive work behaviors link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,11 (2): 145–156.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dansereau, F. D., Jr, Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making

process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13 (1): 46-78.

Drury, S. L. 2004. Servant leadership and organizational commitment: Empirical findings and workplace implications. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach.

Ehrhart, M. G. 2004. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57 (1): 61-94.

Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1990. Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16 (4):

705-721.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (1): 115-130.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. 2001. Counterproductive work behavior in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy of emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 (3): 291–301.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25 (2): 161- 178.

Graham, J. 1991. Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2 (2): 105-119.

Graham, J. 1995. Leadership, moral development and citizenship behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5 (1): 43-54.

Greenberg, J. 1987. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12 (1): 9-22.

Greenberg, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 16 (2): 399-432.

Greenleaf, R. K. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Hebert, S. C. 2004. The relationship of perceived servant leadership and job satisfaction from the follower’s perspective. Proceedings of the American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 685-697.

Higgs, M. 2003. Leadership. Henly Manager, (11): 6.

Hui, C. H., & Tan, C. K. 1996. Employee motivation and attitudes in the Chinese workforce.

In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Handbook of Chinese psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D. & Miles, E. W. 1987. A new perspective on equity theory:

The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12 (2): 222.

Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. 2005. A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26 (1): 6-22.

Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. 2000. Performance appraisal reactions: Measuring, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (5): 708-723.

Kidder, D. L. 2002. The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 28 (5): 629-648.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management journal, 37 (3): 656-669.

Krebs, D. L. 1970. Altruism: An examination of the concept and a review of the literature.

Psychological Bulletin, 73 (4): 258-302.

Leventhal, G. S. 1976. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations.

In Berkowitz, L., & Walster, E. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New

York: Academic Press.

Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Gergen, K. S., Greenberg, M. S., & Willis, H. R. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research, New York: Plenum.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2000. An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 407−416.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, W., & Henderson, D. 2008. Servant leadership:

Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 (2): 161-177.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. 1999. Understanding the dynamics of leadership:

The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78 (3):167−203.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (1): 106−128.

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. 2008. Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17 (2): 180-197.

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.

Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (6): 845-855.

Morrison. E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The

importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (6):1543-

1567.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 2008. The relationship between age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (2): 392-423.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (3): 527–556.

Nwogu, O. G. 2004. Servant leadership model: The role of follower self-esteem, emotional intelligence, and attributions on organizational effectiveness. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virgina Beach.

Organ, D. W. 1988a. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. 1988b. A restatement of the performance-satisfaction hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14 (4): 547-557.

Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. 1995. Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135 (3): 339-350.

Page, D., & Wong, T. P. 2003. Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and the revised servant leadership profile. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach.

Patterson, K. A. 2003. Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1989. A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Working paper, Indiana University.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. 2002. A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23 (3): 145-157.

Senge, P. M. 2002. Servant leadership: Afterword. In Spears, L. C. (Ed.), Servant leadership [25 Anniversary Ed], Essays by Robert K. Greenleaf, New York: Paulist Press.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. 2004. Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10 (4): 80-91.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (4): 653-683.

Spears, L. C. 1998. Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Angert, L. 2007. Goal setting theory, job feedback and OCB: Lessons from a longitudinal study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29 (2): 119-128.

Washington, R. R. 2007. Empirical relationships among servant, transformational, and transactional leadership: Similarities, differences, and correlations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17

(3): 601-617.