Page 1
MEDIATIONAL ROLE OF JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEES’ LOYALTY AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN UNIVERSITIES OF
PESHAWAR
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(MANAGEMENT SCIENCES)
By
MUHAMMAD HASHIM
REGISTRATION NO: 1094-113030
SUPERVISOR
DR. MUHAMMAD AZIZULLAH KHAN
CO-SUPERVISOR
DR. MUHAMMAD ARIF KHATTAK
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
PRESTON UNIVERSITY, KOHAT, ISLAMABAD CAMPUS,
PAKISTAN
2017
Page 2
Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and
Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational Performance in Universities of
Peshawar
Doctor of Philosophy
(Management Sciences)
By
Muhammad Hashim
Registration No: 1094-113030
Faculty of Business Administration
Preston University, Kohat, Islamabad Campus,
Pakistan
2017
Page 3
Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and
Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational Performance in Universities of
Peshawar
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Management Sciences)
By
Muhammad Hashim
Registration No: 1094-113030
Supervisor
Dr. Muhammad Azizullah Khan
Co-Supervisor
Dr. Muhammad Arif Khattak
Faculty of Business Administration
Preston University, Kohat, Islamabad Campus,
Pakistan
2017
Page 4
ii
Supervisor Certificate
This is to certify that PhD (Management Sciences) thesis titled “Mediational Role of
Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and
Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar”, is submitted by Mr.
Muhammad Hashim, Registration No. 1094-113030 in fractional satisfaction for the
honor of PhD degree is a record of the candidate's own particular work completed under
my supervision and has been affirmed for Submission.
1. Supervisor
Dr. Muhammad Azizullah Khan (Assistant Professor)
Department of Management Sciences,
Preston University, Islamabad, Campus.
2. Co-Supervisor
Dr. Muhammad Arif Khattak (Professor)
Department of Management Sciences
Bahria University, Islamabad.
Page 5
iii
Candidate Declaration Form
I, Muhammad Hashim
S/O Hameedullah
Registration No: 1094-113030
Discipline Management Sciences
Candidate of Doctor of Philosophy at Preston University Kohat, Islamabad Campus,
do hereby declare that the dissertation titled, “Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction
between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational
Performance in Universities of Peshawar” is submitted by me in partial fulfillment of
PhD degree in the discipline of Management Sciences, is my original work, and has
not been submitted or published earlier. I also solemnly declare that it shall not, in
future, be submitted by me for obtaining any other degree from this or any other
university or institution.
I also understand that if evidence of plagiarism is found in my dissertation at any stage,
even after the award of the degree, the work may be canceled and the degree revoked.
Dated:
(Muhammad Hashim)
Registration No: 1094- 113030
Scholar PhD (Management Sciences)
Page 6
iv
Plagiarism Undertaking
I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled “Mediational
Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and
Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar” is solely my research
work with no significant contribution from any other person. Small contribution/help
wherever taken, has been duly acknowledged and that, complete thesis has been written
by me.
I comprehend the zero resilience approach of the HEC and Preston University
Kohat, Islamabad Campus towards copyright infringement. In this way, I as an Author
of the above titled thesis proclaim that no part of my thesis has been copied and any
material utilized as reference is appropriately referred to.
I attempt that on the off chance that I am discovered liable of any formal written
falsification in the above titled thesis even after honor of PhD degree, the University
holds the rights to pull back/deny my PhD degree and that HEC and the University has
the privilege to publish my name on the HEC/University website on which names of
scholars are put who submitted counterfeited thesis.
(Muhammad Hashim)
Page 7
v
Copyrights
All rights are reserved. Material of this manuscript is protected by copyright laws. Any
part of the document may not be reproduced or utilized in any form or means, electronic
or mechanical, photocopy, recording, information storage and retrieval system, without
the permission of the University authority.
Page 8
vi
Acknowledgement
First of all, I am very grateful to ALLAH (SW) who is the Most Gracious and
the Most Merciful. All praises and thanks to Him. He is the Creator and Sustainer of
mankind and all that exists.
I would like to acknowledge the guidance of my supervisor, Dr. Muhammad
Azizullah Khan, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, Preston
University Islamabad for his continuous and valuable support. I would also like to
express my gratitude to Dr. Tahir Saeed, HOD, Faculty of Business Administration,
Preston University Islamabad, who helped me openhandedly for making and choosing
this area of research, and gave me useful pieces of advice. I am also grateful to my co-
supervisor, Dr. Muhammad Arif, Professor, Faculty of Management Sciences, Bahria
University Islamabad, for his support.
How can I forget the love of my parents, their care and motivation towards
knowledge, and providing me all resources to complete my dissertation? Gratitude
should also go to my friends who helped me in questionnaire distribution and collection
of data of the survey (Dr. Wali-Ur-Rahman, Assistant Professor, Sarhad University,
Muhammad Ashfaq, Lecturer Government College of Peshawar, Saqib Hussain,
Institute of Management Sciences Peshawar, Furqan Ullah, Lecturer Government
College of Management Sciences Peshawar, and Mujeeb-Ur-Rahman, Lecturer
Government College of Management Sciences Peshawar).
I would also like to thank Dr. Jack McCann, Associate Professor of Marketing
and Management, Tusculum College, Tennessee, United States, for his cooperation and
guidance. I am also thankful to Dr. Wali-Ur-Rahman, Assistant Professor, Faculty of
Page 9
vii
Management Sciences, Sarhad University of Sciences and Technology, for his
continuous support and guidance through electronic mails and messages.
I would like to thank Dr. Daisy Mui Hung Kee, Associate Professor of
Organizational Behavior, School of Management, USM, Malaysia, who provided help
and guidance in the research process. I appreciate her patience. I am also thankful to my
close friends Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Afridi and Mr. Mehboob Ullah (my Ph.D. fellows) who
consistently guided me and enhanced my understanding of SPSS and AMOS and
provided me all the software needed. I am also thankful to all the esteemed teachers and
colleagues of Government College of Management Sciences Peshawar, KPK, and to my
dear friends whose affection, sincerity and guidance encouraged me to complete this
project.
Finally, I am very thankful to all family members, my wife, daughters and son
who have been with me during the completion of this thesis.
Muhammad Hashim
Page 10
viii
Abstract
This study examines the meditational role of job satisfaction in the effects of servant
leadership on employees’ loyalty and organizational performance at the universities of
Peshawar. Empirical support for such relationship was provided through a sample of
308 faculty members from 17 universities of Peshawar. Using Barbuto and Wheeler
(2006), questionnaire of servant leadership, job satisfaction questionnaire Minnesota
satisfaction survey (MSQ), Weiss et al. (1967), employees’ loyalty survey questionnaire
(Pandey & Khare, 2012), organizational performance questionnaire (Katou &
Budhwar, 2010) and a demographic survey, the data was collected through survey.
Evidence supported the reliability and validity of instruments. The results indicate that
there is an affirmative direct influence of servant leadership on organizational
performance and employees’ loyalty, but this relation becomes stronger when it
assesses the indirect influence through job satisfaction as a mediator. Path analysis was
used and found significant positive correlation between servant leadership, employees’
loyalty, and organizational performance; job satisfaction is found to play a partial
mediating role between them. Theoretically, it contributes to the verification of job
satisfaction as intervening variable between servant leadership, employees’ loyalty and
organizational performance. The findings provide a course of action and important
implication to assist management in understanding servant leadership and job
satisfaction better. Therefore, to enhance organizational performance and employees’
loyalty, the leader of the university ought not just adopt servant leadership behavior yet
in addition think about the satisfaction of the faculty. Further research on other
variables such as changing servant leadership and job satisfaction dimensions and
replication of the study in other setting is also recommended for further studies.
Keywords Job Satisfaction, Organizational Performance, Servant Leadership,
Universities, Employees’ Loyalty, Mediation
Page 11
ix
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ vi
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ viii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. ix
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xiii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xv
Chapter:1 Introduction……………………………………………………1
Background of the Study ................................................................................................... 2
Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 7
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 9
Objective of the Study ..................................................................................................... 10
Chapter:2 Literature Review .................................................................... 11
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11
Leadership in the Literature ............................................................................................ 13
Theoreis of Leadership .................................................................................................... 17
Traits Approach of Leadership ................................................................................... 18
Style Approach of Leadership .................................................................................... 18
Situational Approach to Leadership ........................................................................... 20
Contingency Approach ............................................................................................... 20
Path-Goal Approach of Leadership ............................................................................ 21
Leader Member Exchange Theory of Leadership (LMX) ......................................... 21
Transactional Approach of Leadership ..................................................................... 22
Transformational Leadership Approach .................................................................... 22
Spiritual Leadership Approach .................................................................................. 23
Authentic Leadership Approach................................................................................. 24
Charismatic Leadership Approach ............................................................................. 24
Integrated Psychological Leadership Theory ............................................................. 24
Servant Leadership in the Literature ............................................................................... 25
Servant Leadership Link with Leadership Theory ..................................................... 30
Page 12
x
Dimensions of Servant Leadership ............................................................................ 30
Altruistic Calling (AC) .......................................................................................... 37
Emotional Healing (EH)........................................................................................ 38
Wisdom (W) .......................................................................................................... 38
Persuasive Mapping (PM) ..................................................................................... 39
Organizational Stewardship (OS).......................................................................... 39
Servant Leadership Areas........................................................................................... 41
Education .............................................................................................................. 41
Business ................................................................................................................ 41
Higher Education system ........................................................................................... 42
Servant Leadership in Higher Education Institutions .......................................... 43
Employees‟ Loyalty ........................................................................................................ 44
Dimensions of Employees‟ Loyalty ...................................................................... 47
Commitment ...................................................................................................... 47
Motivation ......................................................................................................... 47
Belongingness ................................................................................................... 47
Career development........................................................................................... 48
Servant Leadership and Employees‟ Loyalty................................................................. 48
Organizational Performance ............................................................................................ 49
Dimensions of Organizational Performance .......................................................... 50
Servant Leader and Organizational Performance........................................................... 51
Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 53
Determinants of Job Satisfaction............................................................................. 55
Dimensions of Job Satisfaction for this Study ........................................................ 57
Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction as Mediator .................................................... 59
Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction .............................................................................. 60
Job Satisfaction, Employees‟ Loyalty and Organizational Performance…………..... 61
Servant Leadership, Job Satisfaction, Employees‟ Loyalty & Organizational
Page 13
xi
Performance .................................................................................................................... 62
Conceptual Framework of the Study ............................................................................... 65
Research Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 67
Rationale of the Study ..................................................................................................... 68
Chapter:3 Methodology ................................................................................. 72
Philosophy of Research ................................................................................................... 72
Research Approach ......................................................................................................... 72
Survey Design ................................................................................................................. 73
Research Strategy ............................................................................................................ 73
The Target Population ..................................................................................................... 74
Sampling Technique and Sample Strategy...................................................................... 77
Measures and Instruments ............................................................................................... 78
Servant Leadership ................................................................................................... 79
Job Satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 79
Employees‟ Loyalty ................................................................................................ 80
Organizational Performance ..................................................................................... 80
Operational Definitions of Variables .............................................................................. 80
Pilot Study ....................................................................................................................... 81
Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................................. 83
Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................................... 84
Inferential Statistics ......................................................................................................... 84
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ............................................................................. 86
Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................... 86
Statistical Software .......................................................................................................... 87
Ethical Consideration ..................................................................................................... 87
Chapter:4 Results and Analysis ............................................................... 88
Response Rate ................................................................................................................. 88
Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Demographics ..................................................... 88
Descriptive Statistics of Variables ................................................................................. 95
Page 14
xii
Inferential Statistics ......................................................................................................... 95
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for Servant Leadership ....................................... 95
CFA for Job Satisfaction .............................................................................................. 105
CFA for Employees‟ Loyalty ....................................................................................... 107
CFA for Organizational Performance .......................................................................... 108
CFA for Overall Measurement Model .......................................................................... 110
Pearson Correlation of the Constructs ........................................................................... 113
Structural Model Testing ............................................................................................... 114
Overall Model Fit .......................................................................................................... 116
Testing of Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 117
Chapter:5 Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................... 125
Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 125
Discussion on Research Findings .................................................................................. 125
Contribution to Knowledge…………………………………………………………. 132
Research Implications .................................................................................................. 132
Theoretical Implications .................................................................................. 133
Practical Implications ...................................................................................... 133
Research Recommendations ......................................................................................... 135
Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................ 137
Conclusion of the Research ........................................................................................... 137
References ................................................................................................................... 139
Appendix A: Research Questionnaire ....................................................................... 164
Appendix B: Permission to use the Servant Leadership Questionnaire ...................... 171
Appendix C: Permission to use the Job Satisfaction Survey ...................................... 172
Appendix D: Permission to use the Employees‟ Loyalty Questionnaire .................... 173
Appendix E: Permission to use the Organizational Performance Questionnaire ....... 174
Appendix F: Path Analysis details for Direct and Indirect Effect .............................. 175
Appendix G: Universities Faculty List………………………………....................... 176
Page 15
xiii
List of Tables
Number Page
Table 1: Greenleaf & Spears Constucts of Servant Leadership ...................................... 31
Table 2: Laub Constructs of Servant Leadership ............................................................ 31
Table 3: Buchen Constructs of Servant Leadership ........................................................ 32
Table 4: Farling, Stone, & Winston Constructs of Servant Leadership .......................... 32
Table 5: Page & Wing Constructs of Servant Leadership .............................................. 32
Table 6: Russell and Stone Constructs of Servant Leadership ....................................... 33
Table 7: Patterson Constructs of Servant Leadership ..................................................... 33
Table 8: Wang, Paul & Page Constructs of Servant Leadership ..................................... 34
Table 9: Barbuto & Wheeler Constructs of Servant Leadership ..................................... 35
Table 10: Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora Constructs of Servant Leadership ...................... 35
Table 11: Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson Constructs of Servant Leadership ........... 35
Table 12: Northouse Consturcts of Servant Leadership ................................................ 36
Table 13: Dierendonck & Nuijten Constructs of Servant Leadership ........................... 36
Table 14: List of Universities in Peshawar .................................................................... 75
Table 15: Questionnaires Detail, Sent and Feedback ..................................................... 78
Table 16: Pilot Study Descriptive Statistics ................................................................... 82
Table 17: Correlation Matrix of Constructs (N=64, Pilot Study) .................................. 83
Table 18: Faculty Position/Ttitle .................................................................................... 89
Table 19: Respondents Education .................................................................................. 89
Table 20: Respondents Langauge .................................................................................. 90
Table 21: Respondents Marital Status............................................................................. 90
Table 22: Respondents Gender ...................................................................................... 91
Table 23: Respondents Organization ............................................................................. 91
Table 24: Respondetns Age ........................................................................................... 92
Table 25: Respondents Nationality ................................................................................ 92
Table 26: Respondents Length of Service ..................................................................... 93
Table 27: Descriptive Statistics of Main Variables (N=308) .......................................... 94
Table 28: Model Fit Statistics & CFA for Altruistic Calling ......................................... 96
Page 16
xiv
Table 29: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Emotional Healing ..................................... 98
Table 30: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Wisdom ..................................................... 99
Table 31: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Persuasive Mapping ................................ 101
Table 32: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Organizational Stewardship ................... 102
Table 33: Model Fit Statistics of Servant Leadership ................................................... 104
Table 34: Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Job Satisfaction ......................................... 106
Table 35: Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Employees‟ Loyalty…………………… 108
Table 36: Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Organizational Performance .................... 109
Table 37: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Overall Measurement Model .................. 111
Table 38: Measurement Scale Properties and Fit Statistics .......................................... 112
Table 39: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation of the Constructs ................... 113
Table 40: Model Fit Statistics for Structural Model .................................................... 115
Table 41: Structural Model Goodness –of-Fit Comparison .......................................... 117
Table 42: Hypotheses Results ....................................................................................... 123
Table 43: Hypotheses Testing Summary ..................................................................... 124
Page 17
xv
List of Figures
Number Page
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Job Satisfaction of the Study ....................................... 58
Figure 2: Explaining Mediation Role (Baron & Kenny, 1986) ..................................... 61
Figure 3: Conceptual Model of the Study ...................................................................... 66
Figure 4: CFA for Altruistic Calling .............................................................................. 96
Figure 5: CFA for Emotional Healing ........................................................................... 98
Figure 6: CFA for Wisdom ............................................................................................ 99
Figure 7: CFA for Persuasive Mapping. ...................................................................... 100
Figure 8: CFA for Organizational Stewardship .......................................................... 102
Figure 9: CFA for Servant Leadership ......................................................................... 103
Figure 10: CFA for Job Satisfaction ............................................................................. 105
Figure 11: CFA for Employees‟ Loyalty ..................................................................... 107
Figure 12: CFA for Organizational Performance .......................................................... 109
Figure 13: CFA for Measurement Model...................................................................... 110
Figure 14: Path Diagram for Theoretical Structural Model ........................................ 115
Figure 15: Path Analysis of SL,JS,EL and OP.............................................................. 122
Page 18
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
In the modern age, where the world has become a global village, and its impact can
be seen in every turf of life, the educational organizations assume a predominant part in
globalization. The vitality of the educational institutions is common, and in the
organizations of higher education in specific, it is openly about the capability and skill of
their workforce (Chugtai, 2016). The achievement of the academia depends upon
performance, functioning, authenticity and the concerned academicians with regard to
high intensity of teaching and study (Ali & Hussain, 2012). Thus the educational sector is
considered a backbone for growth and development of society (Cerit, 2009), where, three
major areas play a dominant role in the uplift of a country, namely: technology, industry,
and education which are the major pillars of economic and society development. The
contributions of all these elements are crucial in the economic development and growth of
the country. However, all the three pillars of the economy in Pakistan are very weak which
is perhaps due to lack of appropriate leadership styles that the Pakistan is experiencing
ever since its independence (Ali & Hussain, 2012).
The role of leader has been critical from a long time, if it was the minister-ship of
Joseph (Hazrat Yousaf) in Egypt; the prehistoric time of China in Sun Tzu‟s period; if it
was the Jinnah and Gandhi era in the Sub-continent (India); leaders played a dominant role
in the development of the society (Ali & Hussain, 2012). To promote leadership education
sector is considered as backbone and such are the objectives of the universities in
Peshawar. However, the performance of the education institutions is very weak due to the
lack of proper leadership style (Khan, Farhatulla, Khan, Nawaz & Yar, 2013).
Page 19
2
Background of the Study
Universities are academic organizations. They provide education and nurture
students for their future research and development and other innovative activities whether
academic or of social awareness, and can distinguish one university from another. The
vice chancellors, rectors, director academics, deans, coordinators of universities or schools
and college principals are the pioneers one might say who make scholarly strategies,
standards, and directions as well as assume a part in controlling the institutions
administratively.
A leader, without any doubt, plays a dominant role in a higher educational
organization setting. There are different leadership styles and models available, but over
the most recent couple of years, servant leadership is under discussion (Bryant, 2003;
Chughtai, 2016; Contee-Borders, 2002). Today, this philosophy is being discussed around
the world. This model is new, and still, it is in the early development stage. For its better
understanding and implementation, consistent efforts are being made (Dennis & Winston,
2003; Drury, 2004; Erdurmazl, 2018; Greenleaf & Spears, 1998; Laub, 2003; Patterson,
2003; Irving, 2005; Joseph & Winston, 2005; Northouse, 2015). Servant leadership
creates condusive work environments, where every member feels satisfied with job and as
a result organizational performance increases, productivity enhances and exceptional
output are achieved. (Ding, Lu, Song, & Lu, 2012).
Lack of interest in jobs by employees is not an issue only in Peshawar universities
but also in many other organizations like the police, law enforcing agencies, civil
organizations, and disciplined forces. Some clear examples are in our front: like the
shambled affair and administration of Railways, PIA, Pakistan Steel Mills, and in various
other departments which shows a clear picture of the downfall of most big national
institutions (Ali & Hussain, 2012). There are many causes for such poor administration
like: lack of job interest, lack of organizational performance, employees‟ loyalty and job
Page 20
3
satisfaction. Some of them are a lack of boss and subordinate relationship, trust between
them, self-centeredness and many other reasons, which are relevant to leadership.
Among the findings of various studies conducted during the past few years,
leadership was perceived as the possible solution to increase employees‟ satisfaction and
performance. The success of an educational organization mainly depends on leadership
style (Grimm, 2018; Majauskaitė, 2013; Osseo-Asare, Longbottom & Murphy, 2005),
which take into account all factors motivating employees towards involvement, better
performance provides job satisfaction and enhances productivity.
Most of the research gathered throughout the world from different institutions like
schools, colleges and universities, have identified various factors such as compensation
and benefits, emotional factors, mentoring, administrative support, professional
development, cultural shock, positive environment, which affects the teacher job
satisfaction in educational institutions (Al-Omari, 2008; Cerit, 2009; Giacometti 2005;
Nguni, Sleegers, Denessen, 2006; Seseer, 2007; Siripak, 2006). Ambrose, Huston, and
Norman, (2005), Castillo and Cano, (2004), Ingersoll (2001), Lukens, Lyter, and Fox,
(2004), and Oshagbemi (1997), supported these findings and factors as they are directly
linked to the employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.
Among the various leadership styles, Drury (2005), and Buchan (1998), found that
servant leadership characteristics can most effectively improve the students learning
ability, organizational performance, employees‟ loyalty, and satisfaction. The study also
exposed that if leaders adopt the characteristics of servant leadership, it enables them to
reach the rank of the most effective professors in the mind of students. The final
recommendations of the study were that it is the servant leadership approach for the
university and college which can better meet the needs of higher education.
Page 21
4
Leadership models and approaches have been investigated in Pakistan context, yet it is
still an ignored area. Greater part of the investigation on servant leadership have focused
on western culture, which is more individualistic and a low power distanced, while, in
Pakistan it is more collectivistic and high power distanced. However, a few have
researched the leadership style in higher education institutions (Bryman, 2007). Alam
(2005), pointed out that few studies were undertaken on job satisfaction on university
teachers. Accordingly it is additionally important to remember the assorted variety, and it
is a decent avocation to contemplate servant leadership in the Pakistani setting to know its
conceivable attitudinal results (Ali & Hussain, 2012; Van Dierendonck et al., 2017).
When employing a servant leadership approach in universities or colleges, the
faculty members focus more attention on the pupils, and concentrate as to how students
can learn and develop intellectually. Besides, the universities must maintain highly-
qualified academic staff in performance, and they must be ready to face educational
challenges (Greenleaf & Spares, 1998), Performance and quality of education in university
largely depends on supervisors. The servant leader model best suits higher education
institutions (Koesmono, 2014).
Robert K. Greenleaf first presented the idea of servant leadership in 1970. He
argued that servant leadership is a new model and should be adopted by organizations, not
only for maximization of their profits but to serve society fruitfully and constructively
(Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). As mentioned in different researches that serving others
is the main priority of a servant leaders (Greenleaf, 2005) and thus they serve the needs of
others and develop them professionally as well as emotionally (Lussier & Achua, 2004). A
servant leader emphasizes improved service to others; helps others in their needs; uphold a
sense of a group of people (community); and the sharing of authority in decision making
(Koesmono, 2014).
Page 22
5
A servant leader is service action (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). Servant
leadership is not just a management technique but is in-born which starts with the natural
feelings to serve first (Parris & Peachey, 2013). True leaders are those who are recognized
by the work/service they carry out for an individual, organization and general public
(McCann, Graves & Cox, 2014). The servant leader is the one who focuses on the interest
of others rather than his self. Servant leadership develops a positive sense in others (Ramli
& Desa, 2014) and therefore, identifying all its dimensions and elements clearly for better
measurement/instrumentations.
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed a very concise instrument, SLQ (Servant
Leadership Questionnaire). SLQ measured five factors of a servant leader and deemed it to
be indicative of servant leadership (McCannet al., 2014; Travis, Searle, & Barbuto, 2010).
In this research, the researcher will employ SLQ scale which was derived from Barbuto
and Wheeler (2006). SLQ has five aspects:
Altruistic Calling (AC). The main purpose of altruistic is to be philanthropic in
behavior. This facet measures the level to which the leader looks for to have constructive
outcomes on others‟ lives. Thus, the leader good in this characteristic will focus on the
interest of others besides his/her own (McCann et al., 2014).
Emotional Healing (EH). It is an ability of leader as to how to use the healing
process, and it is the capability of the leader to foster the spiritual recovery of employees
from hardship and distress (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; McCann et al., 2014)
Wisdom (W). This dimension of servant leader shows a strong ability and sense of
awareness (Sosik & Megerian, 1999; Sternberg, 2003). It is a skill of servant to get cues
from the environment, and from that observation, the leader can recognize possible results
and its implications (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
Page 23
6
Persuasive Mapping (PM). This characteristic of servant leadership describes an
ability to develop skills of sound reasoning and to encourage others for lateral thinking. It
is an ability to use a mental model to promote logical thinking in employees (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006).
Organizational Stewardship (OS). This dimension of servant leadership is that
aspect that prepares organization to serve the community and society positively and to
make a positive contribution and facilitate the company policies which should be useful
for society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Travis, Searle & Barbuto, 2010).
Employees‟ performance is primarily based on job satisfaction and leadership
styles. Leadership styles are an important antecedent in job satisfaction (Ding et al., 2012).
Job satisfaction fits between what the organization requires and what the person is looking
for. Job satisfaction elements include pay, autonomy, recognition, status, esteem and work
load. Thus, the larger the gaps between what the workers have and what they want; the
less satisfied they are (Sweeny & Macfarlane, 2002). There is a consistent relationship
between the organization and unit level with the individual results such as pleasure,
satisfaction, performance, loyalty and commitment, involvement and mishap (Ostroff,
2007). Essentially satisfaction of an employee is dependent on working conditions,
benefits and promotion packages, association with administration, training and
development, team and collaborative work and cooperation, communication and
empowerment, recognition and rewards (Pandy & Khare, 2012).
Job satisfaction is closely related with organization performance and employees‟
commitment. Ding et al. (2012), found that employees‟ satisfaction created a strong link
between employees‟ loyalty and servant leadership. Servant leadership has a positive
impact on job satisfaction, which onward influence organizational performance (Alfonso
& Andres 2007; Babin, Griffin, Lee & Kim, 2005; Chang, Chiu and Chen, 2010; Chee,
Haddad & Singh, 2007; Falkenburg & Schyns, 2007; Jones, Reynolds, Arnold, 2006;
Page 24
7
Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014; Wagner, 2007; Yao, Huang, & Fan 2008 ). Little work has
been done on the mediating role of job satisfaction between servant leadership,
employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.
Employees‟ loyalty started from customer loyalty, and scholars believe that it plays
a dominant role in an organization‟s development and maintains its sustainability (Ding et
al., 2012). Servant leadership enhances job satisfaction and organization work thereby
enhancing employees‟ loyalty (Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Herderson, 2008; Needham, 2018).
Brewer (2010), has provided an extensive literature review, which showed that servant
leadership impacted not only job satisfaction, but employees‟ commitment and
organization performance.
Bastian (2001), said that performance is an endeavor to achieve the goal of the
organization as provided in its vision and mission. The performance concept is always
linked with either employee‟s performance or organization‟s performance: from
employee‟s performance, organization‟s performance can be increased directly. The
organization‟s performance is the output of the combined components used as input to
achieve the objectives (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). Irving and Justin (2005), stated in
their findings that there was a association between organization performance and job
satisfaction under the direct influence of servant leadership.
Problem Statement
In an educational institution, quality, performance, and achievement depend on
loyal, skilled, dedicated and satisfied academic staff, and also the coordinator or
supervisor of the institute. Without high-qualified exchange relation of supervisor and
academic staff, the quality of an institution cannot be improved (Chughtai, 2016; Khan et
al., 2013). The leader plays a vital role to give vision, mission, priority and value to the
organization (Carter, 2012; Koesmono, 2014; Rimes, 2011). For the last several years, the
Page 25
8
quality of our education system is going downhill simply because of the poor performance
record of our institutions, whether they are private or public, is not up to the mark (Ali &
Hussain, 2012). The main reason has been a lack of good leadership style and lack of
employees‟ satisfaction and commitment (Northouse, 2015).
As mentioned below, most of the studies have been done on leadership styles and
its implication on employees‟ performance, but there is a dearth of research in the area of
servant leadership. The present study will examine servant leadership, and how it
influences employees‟ satisfaction, loyalty, and performance and can be implemented
easily in the university‟s system. A number of researchers analyzed servant leadership
with SLQ (Guillanume, Honeycutt & Savage-Austin, 2013; Ding, Lu, Song & Lu, 2012;
Christina, 2011; Mahembe & Engelbercht, 2014; McCann et al., 2014), few worked on the
association of servant leadership, employees‟ satisfaction and loyalty (West & Bocarnea,
2008; Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014; Aderson, 2005; Mehta & Pillay, 2011).
However, Servant leadership, organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty
with mediation of job satisfaction got exceptionally restricted literature especially in the
higher education sector in general and specific in Pakistan. Therefore, there are always
problems regarding the performance of employees‟ universities. These complaints may be
about poor teaching methodology of the teaching staff; non-cooperative administration
attitude; lack of training and development program; work load; poor communication and;
lack of management style (Adeniji, 2011).
To overcome all these problems and issues, it is vital to have good supervision of
work, job satisfaction of academicians, their loyalty, and commitment, so there is dire
need to find out the impact of servant leadership behavior on academician and its possible
outcomes. Therefore, this study is conducted on full- time academicians to establish the
relationship between altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping
Page 26
9
and organizational stewardship on employees‟ loyalty, and organizational performance
with mediating role of job satisfaction in universities of Peshawar. The present study
believes that job satisfaction is an imperative mechanism to enhance employees‟ loyalty
and organizational performance. Thus, the present study examines the role of job
satisfaction as a mediator in the above relationship.
Research Questions
The primary purpose of the present study is to find out the influence of servant
leadership on employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. This study also
investigates the role of job satisfaction in the above relationship. Empirically and
theoretically this study will contribute in the existing literature of servant leadership, job
satisfaction, organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty. Thus, the present study
aims to answer the following research questions:
(i) Does servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive
mapping, and organizational stewardship) have a relationship with employees‟
loyalty?
(ii) Does servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive
mapping, and organizational stewardship) have a relationship with organizational
performance?
(iii) Does servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive
mapping, and organizational stewardship) have a relationship with job satisfaction?
(iv) Does job satisfaction mediate the relationships between servant leadership
(altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and
organizational stewardship) and employees‟ loyalty?
Page 27
10
(v) Does job satisfaction mediate the relationships between servant leadership
(altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and
organizational stewardship) and organizational performance?
Objectives of the Study
The objectives to be achieved in this present study are as follows:
(i) To examine the relationship between servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional
healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship) and
employees‟ loyalty;
(ii) To discuss the relationship between servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional
healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship) and
organizational performance;
(iii) To investigate the relationship between servant leadership (altruistic calling,
emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship)
and job satisfaction;
(iv) To explore the mediating impact of job satisfaction on the relationship between
servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive
mapping, and organizational stewardship) and employees‟ loyalty;
(v) To evaluate the mediating impact of job satisfaction on the relationship between
servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive
mapping, and organizational stewardship) and organizational performance.
Page 28
11
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The servant leadership model is new and not widely investigated. Keeping in view
the existing literature, a structure of the main components is: introduction, leadership types
and styles, servant leadership in the literature, servant leadership dimensions in the views
of different researchers, specific dimensions discussed and selected for study such as
altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational
stewardship, its relation with employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance,
dimensions of employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance, empirical literature
and servant leadership linked with the job satisfaction and with its different facets.
Introduction
Every leader has a vision and mission developed for achieving organizational goals
and in case of higher education institutions such concepts encompassed in the servant
leader model is best suited (Saifuddin, 2012). The teaching faculty plays a dominant role
in the organization‟s effectiveness and development and must be facilitated to update
knowledge, abilities, and competencies, followed by an increase in financial benefits and
work recognition, and providing them with a healthy environment (Saifuddin, 2012).
Committed and retained workforce are essential assets of education institutions, and when
effectively utilized may give a good and sound performance and will receive consideration
from the supervisors (Koesmono, 2014). Universities are a place for students from where
they can grow and develop. Moreover, if universities do not have facilities and other
distinctive attractions, they cannot motivate and develop students (Koesmono, 2014),
whether they are in public or private sectors.
Page 29
12
The Public and private universities are the backbone of the education sector. The
objectives of the institutions are to provide better education services to society as a whole
and the same is the case in Peshawar of KPK as well. Learning organizations are
executing a primary responsibility in the achievement and growth of every country, by
offering quality learning to the subsequent generation (Khan, Farhatulla, Khan, Nawaz &
Yar, 2013). The universities must maintain high-qualified academic staff in performance
and be ready to face educational changes in the world. Performance and quality of
education in a university largely depends on supervisors and the leaders who are leading
them.
The success of an educational institution mainly depends on leadership style
(Osseo-Asare, Longbottom & Murphy, 2005). However, very little research has been
done on leadership style in higher education institutions (Bryman, 2007). Alam (2005),
and his fellows noted that there are very few studies done on job satisfaction regarding
university teachers. Most of the researchers throughout the world who researched different
institutions like schools, colleges and universities have identified various factors which
affect teacher- job- satisfaction in a university or college (Al-Omari, 2008; Cerit, 2009)
among which leadership is topmost.
A good leadership enhances the workers‟ growth, which can only be possible when
the leadership style is ethical, effective, responsible and supportive (Sergiovanni, 1993).
The same is with the staff of any organization which is critical to its success. When
workers are dissatisfied in their work place and staff relation then their attitude, their
performance, and commitment, to the organization will suffer (Rimes, 2011). When
workers are dissatisfied, they would be less committed and would quit the organization
(Shirbagi, 2007). Job satisfaction comes with organizational commitment and it leads to
employees‟ loyalty. Employees who are more loyal to the organization and committed,
Page 30
13
have less desire to leave, than those who have little loyalty and commitment (Griffeth &
Hom, 1995; Igharia & Greenhaus, 1992). The aims of the research was to conclude if any
relation exists between employees‟ loyalty and servant leadership; servant leadership and
organizational performance; and that when job satisfaction mediates.
Leadership in the Literature
Leadership is a procedure of impacting individuals with the goal that they will
endeavor energetically and excitedly towards the accomplishment of gathering objectives
(Hashim, 2013). Leadership exists with relationship, opportunities, purpose and aim
(Rimes, 2011). Authority is the making of vision about a coveted future state which looks
to snare all individuals from an association in its net. A leader fills in and also leads. He
has a capacity to stir and develop enthusiastic and also the clear energy of his adherents.
He advises them of the points and targets obviously and particularly in a path as to
demonstrate to them their related enthusiasm for the accomplishment of their coveted
objectives (Ali, 1986; Mango, 2018).
Leadership was considered in the past and in the present, as a factor for the failure
and success of any organization either it was business, military or industry. The positive
qualities of a leader are vital to influence the followers (Bass, 1990). The term „leadership‟
is difficult to define, because a leader is a person who has multitude responsibilities to fill
and many duties to perform. Effective leaders have many qualities, manners, and behavior
(Fisher, 1999).
As mentioned by Bass (1990), research scholars have defined leadership
differently. Bennis and Nanus (1985), have identified over 350 definitions of leadership.
Leaders lead by example. It is a process of influence and persuasion through which a
person or groups act to achieve the objectives of leaders and leader supporters (Gardner,
Page 31
14
1990). Leadership is more than a style; it is a character (MacArthur, 2004). It is a practice
of persuade, or it is the capability of a individual to influence followers (Sanders, 2007).
A leader should be competent and should possess the qualities like integrity,
aptitude to understand reality, discuss the present and also explain it (Bennis & Goldsmith,
1994). Gerber, Nel and Van Dyk (1996), have mentioned in their work that leadership is a
relational procedure in which a leader coordinates the activity of an individual or groups
towards aims and objectives, within the specific state of affairs by using communication.
A leader is distant from human nature because the leader has a higher order value
and by inspiring hope, empowerment and creativity can discover individual abilities
(McCaslin, 2001). Leadership was a practice, and from this process, a leader influenced a
group of people to achieve shared objectives. This influence was between leader and
followers, and ultimately reached in giving attention to goals (Northouse, 2007). Leaders
play very vital role in the organizational culture, values, and way of dealing (Kotter &
Heskett, 1992). Many organizations like institutions, churches, and corporations need a
good leader and manager, who can provide a good support to them for their current needs
and to survive for a long time. In the 1950‟s it was studied by the researchers who
identified the characteristics of a leader which were participation, achievement, status,
capacity and responsibility. In any case, because of the fast change in the worldwide
economy and mechanical development, they were searching for the best model of
leadership that can suit all situations (Leonard, 2003).
Most of the research studies on leadership were searching for effective leadership
behavioral types to improve the unit, and collective performance. There was a lack of
output regarding proper behavioral type of leadership, so a hierarchal classification
emerged to assist in resolving the problem. These classifications consisted of three broad
categories, and these were a relation, change in behavior, and task (Hoch, Bommer,
Page 32
15
Dulebohn, & Wu, 2016; Yukl, Gordon & Taber, 2002). Kotter (1988), in his research
mentioned that leadership is a power tool which produces a movement for the long-term
interest of the group, and the group then can easily be directed towards common
objectives.
Leadership was, and still is critical for any organization as the subordinates of
every organization interact with their managers or supervisors or leaders, where some may
get prosper, and others get fall (Crabtree, 2004). The important things for leaders are
attitudes, needs, and behaviors of followers. Leadership is not only personality traits, but it
is more than that and it is leadership traits to interact with the employees (McGregor,
1976), Hussain and Ali (2012), in their findings showed that leadership characteristics of
inspiration can easily motivate those followers who work hard and have strong work
values and show strong organizational citizenship behavior.
Employees‟ performance depends on the leadership approaches and models.
Performance was different in transactional leadership (management by exception,
contingent reward) then the transformational leadership (charisma, individual
consideration, intellectual stimulation) (Waldman, Bass & Einstein, 1987). Leadership
style plays an essential role in decision making, and it is considered an important
element of effective leadership (Vroom, 2000).
In the 21st century, there has been much of interest in leadership theories. It is
because that the failure and success of an organization largely depend on leaders
(Dierendonck , 2011), According to Collins (2011), it is the key ability of leader who think
what style is fit for the organization to be implemented to achieve its short and long-term
goals. Stum (1999), in his research, mentioned that employees‟ commitment and loyalty
reveal the worth of organizational leadership. Leadership style affects the employees‟
Page 33
16
overall performance; those employees who support their leader show more organizational
commitment (Koopman, 1991).
Researchers have written and discovered what abilities, behaviors traits, and power
fit a leader, is to persuade and to achieve the task or objective (Carter, 2012). Scholars and
researchers have also written on theories of leadership. Their arguments discuss what
leadership attitude, values, beliefs are mainly helpful within organizations based on the
culture, and which leadership philosophy followers respond the most (Bolden, 2004;
Marturano & Gosling, 2008; Nahavandi, 2006; Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2010).
One thing is clear that a leader is usually involved in an organization and the
organization often defines the leadership (Bolden, 2004). However, leadership can also
emerge through one‟s experience and skill, and it has been seen that leaders may practice
different philosophies over a period and the philosophy can change through experience.
Most of the leadership style can be adopted, analyzed and observed in the organizational
context and environment (Carter, 2012).
Carter (2012), mentioned that leaders‟ qualities, and mistreatment or abusive
leadership has been practiced since ages and history bear witness. Most of the
organizations went bankrupt or faced many other problems just because the leader was
unethical or covetous. Such leaders think only of personal gains and do not consider the
employees or the organization‟s benefit and other stakeholders (Carter, 2012). When
abusive leadership is practiced, organizations face more complexity in business dealing;
slowdown in performance, the greater pressure of job activities, lack of employee
commitment and loyalty, lack of job satisfaction and an overall reduction in organizational
performance, and lack of ethical decision (Toor & Ofor, 2009).
Darcy (2010), mentioned that business, institutions, and corporations require an
ethical leader. An immoral or unethical leader not only costs organization billions of
Page 34
17
dollars but also affects its image in the mind of the stakeholders. Carter (2012), in his
research concluded that, before leading any organization, leaders must consider and
question whether they have the ability and skill to serve and lead, create good atmosphere,
and whether they have the potential to influence the followers to achieve the desired goals
and not to compromise their values to meet board expectations.
Leaders motivate followers, and work motivation is needed by every faculty
member in both types of universities whether public or private university. In private
universities, it is especially monitored to have a work motivation for faculty members.
Satisfied faculty members with such motivation are trying to meet the required wishes, as
well as responsibilities and duties (Koesmono, 2014).
A visionary leader is imperative for an institution‟s success and is one who not
only has the ability and skill to lead others to achieve the desired goals but also to maintain
integrity is essential and which is hard to find (Koesmono, 2014). A lot of advancement
and development have been noticed in universities of Peshawar on quality education,
training, and development, institutions affiliation with foreign accredited universities and
colleges, faculty development programs, seminars, conferences, students‟ orientation,
academic development programs but still the employees‟ are detached (Khan et al., 2013).
All these activities would have been better if there had been honest and fair leaders.
Servant leadership is a possible model that may fit this need.
Theories of Leadership
This section will briefly discuss different styles and kinds of leadership to have a
clearer idea and concept of leadership, before addressing servant leadership which is the
foundation of this research study. There are different approaches, theories, concepts,
models which have been presented and explained by many researchers, some of them are
more suitable to the context and environment of the organization while others are not so.
Page 35
18
Those approaches are trait approach of leadership, contingency approach, and situational
approach, the path-goal approach of leadership, style approach of leadership, transactional
and transformational leadership.
Traits Approach of Leadership. Yukl (2002), and Northouse (2007), concluded
that traits were one of oldest approaches to leadership (Daft, 2005). In the 1920‟s
researchers explored what were these particular traits or characteristics in leaders so as to
distinguish them as a leader. Such traits and characteristics have distinguished non-leaders
from leaders and have contributed to achievement. Daft (2005), has also mentioned in his
work regarding these traits and characteristics as height, energy, and intelligence.
Rimes (2012), explained that many researchers have sought to link the traits
approach with the Big Five of Personality Model and they are extraversion, agreeableness,
openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. The traits of a leader may be self-
confidence, integrity, determination, stability, and intelligence (Northouse, 2007). This
approach explained that leadership training would only be helpful for those leaders who
previously hold leadership distinctiveness (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 1996). Beside
all these traits in leaders, this approach was unsuccessful to think of in a variety of
leadership situations (Northouse, 2007). Rimes (2012), has quoted from the work of
Barrick and Mount (1991) that some theorist tried to associate traits approach of
leadership with that of the Big Five Model of Personality.
Style Approach of Leadership. In the style approach, the focus is on behavior
rather than traits of the leader. As mentioned by Fleishman and Hunt (1973), that style
approach gives importance to leader‟s behavior. Scholars have divided behavior in to two
main parts: relationship and task behaviors (Rimes, 2011). As Stogdil (1973) mentioned
that Michigan University and Ohio University worked this style of leadership. The main
theme of this style was to find as to how a leader uses these two behaviors to lead. Task
Page 36
19
behavior focused on goal or objective accomplishment, while relationship behavior
focused on how the employees feel about their selves, others and the situation.
The university of Michigan and Ohio State explained the behavior of a leader and
placed it into common types that are initiating structure and consideration. There is a
difference between these two common terms. The first concept appraises leader behavior,
and in the second concept it is consideration of leader behavior that is associated with
employees, and how sensitive a leader is to subordinates (Rimes, 2012).
Daft (1994), mentioned that consideration is when the leader values the thought
and feeling of followers and where organization trust is developed. Ohio State University
prepared a leadership behavior questionnaire to evaluate leadership behavior. This is
known as the Leader behavior description questionnaire. In a report by Northouse (2007),
that researcher at Michigan University recognized two behaviors of leadership: production
and employees‟ orientation. The first one focused on production and other technical issues
of the leaders‟ behavior, while employees‟ orientation focused on the employees‟ job-
related activities and the behavior of the leader (Rimes, 2012). From the work of Ohio
State and Michigan University Blake, Shepherd, and Mouton (1964), have presented the
Managerial Grid. Based on this model they have placed the leader on two major
components of behavior: concern for productivity, and concern for people.
The grid of leadership provided five different styles of leadership which were
developed by Blake and Mouton. They were country club management, authority
obedience management, organization administration, team and impoverished management
This approach has been advanced by many other scholars and researchers like Adair
(1983), Likert (1967), and Mint Berg (1973) and their followers (Rimes, 2011).
Page 37
20
Comparatively, style approach is good and reasonable. This focuses on task and
relationship-centered as the two most important behaviors for leadership styles. If a person
wants to judge the behavior of a leader, this approach explained that task and relationship-
centered are important to understand leadership behavior (Rimes, 2011).
Situational Approach to Leadership. Those leaders are successful leaders who
adapt their style according to the situation that prevails and to fulfill the demand of
distinctive circumstances; they are winning leaders (Schermerhorn, 1997). This approach
was developed in 1969 by Hersey and Blanchard. Many researchers and writers have
written enough explanations of the approach, but the work of Northouse was appreciable.
Northouse addressed the four leadership styles (delegating, supporting, coaching and
directing) and the development level of the followers (the readiness of the followers).
As mentioned by Northouse (2001), different categories represented situational
leadership approach accurately like: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating. As
the relationship between supervisor and subordinate developed, there was a change in the
competence and ability of the followers, so the leader needed to utilize these styles to keep
on and provide all that is required by subordinates or followers to perform well.
Contingency Approach. This approach was developed by Fred Fiedler (1964). It
is also known as leaders match theory to the situation. It is explained that leader style was
effective and conditional to the situation. It means match leader style to the right setting
(Rimes, 2011). As mentioned by Hashim (2013), the contingency theory states that a
leader should be consistent with the vital characteristics of organizational circumstances,
such as nature of the task, quality, and traits of an employee carrying out work activities.
Northouse also concluded that, this approach was sustained with a large deal of
experimental study, knowledge, and impact of the situation on leaders was predictive, and
Page 38
21
this has also provided data that might be helpful in the development leadership profile
(Northouse, 2007).
Path-Goal Approach of Leadership. House (1971), proposed the path goal
approach theory of leadership. The main function of this theory was that the leader is to
clarify and set goals in collaboration with followers or subordinates, support them in
finding the most excellent way for attaining the objectives and eradicate any impediment
and hindrances. This theory was based on employee perception of work (Hashim, 2013;
Rimes, 2011).
This approach was expected to motivate and influence workers so that, employee
efficiency will increase, and there will be job satisfaction at the work place (House, 1994).
The situational factors which determine the effectiveness of leadership are the
characteristics of employees or workers or followers such as skills, their needs, abilities,
and self-confidence. Second the work environment such as reward system, tasks, and
relationship with workers. The theory examined four leadership styles and behaviors, such
as supportive leadership, directive leadership, achievement oriented leadership and
participative leadership styles (Hashim, 2013; House & Mitchell, 1974).
Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership (LMX). The first detail found
of LMX was in the work of Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1975), as mentioned by Rimes
(2011). As the name signifies LMX theory focused on the leader and member relationship
or interaction. As mentioned by Boss (2000), in his research that LMX examined the
quality of a leader and individual relation with each other. This approach located fit after
empirical testing of 25 years.
The main theme of LMX is that a leader differed from their followers by making
two groups that are in-group and out a group of followers. In-groups are much closer to
leaders, and they received special and particular opportunity and rewards, while the out-
Page 39
22
group member received normal advantages or benefits. Those individuals who were in the
in-group enjoyed respect, obligation and mutual trust (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975).
Transactional Approach of Leadership. It was one of the influential theories of
leadership approaches. Many researchers have turned to transactional leadership approach.
The focus of the theory was a contingent reward, as mentioned by Bass (1985), that this
approach was the exercise of contingent/conditional rewards and management by
exception. The reward which is paid to the employee or worker when the desired objective
is achieved is contingent reward. Through transactional leadership, a leader in providing a
contingent reward may influence worker motivation and to some extent inspire workers to
attain some level of loyalty, involvement, and commitment. Transaction leadership was
effective at the lower level as it was the primary means of motivation (Bass, 1985).
However, many types of research proved that transactional leadership has a propensity to
be a short-lived relationship rather than a permanent one, and the satisfaction from that
relationship was only marginal or superficial (Fairholm, 1991; Rimes, 2011).
Bass (1991), stated that transactional leadership connected actions and dealings
that might or might not have been useful and helpful for workers or followers and was not
a popular method. Many other researchers have proved that the purpose of any leader‟s
action was to give maximum benefit to the leader, irrespective of employee benefit
(Fairholm, 1991). This approach is unsuccessful to judge the worker or the organization‟s
future while presenting rewards (Crosby, 1996).
Transformational Leadership Approach. Transformational leadership concept
was developed by Burns (1978), which took a leadership approach in a new direction. He
explained that it is entirely different from transactional leadership approach, in which
rewards were exchanged for behavior and replaced the concept with transformational
leadership. This model explained how followers and leaders engage with each other to go
Page 40
23
beyond the individual purpose and construct share assurance for better objectives (Rimes,
2011).
As mentioned by Bass and Avolio (1990), that transformational leadership was a
good role model and such type of leaders could make and articulate a clear and short
vision for an institute and organization, perform in a way that others rely on them. The
other good and positive point of transactional leadership were that it was a model to solve
problems rather than just to give direction, orders or instructions (Buhler, 1995).
Transformational leadership involved the great influence of leader on followers to
motivate them to do additional than what was anticipated from them (Northouse, 2007). It
is focused on continuous progress and development (Bass, 1990).
Spiritual Leadership Approach. The definition of the concept of spiritual
leadership is difficult to explain, but some writers have defined it. Bezy (2011), defined
spiritual leadership in his work by saying that spiritual leadership means looking out for
the welfare of others. He further defines that welfare means any task that is completed and
all the groups either small or large are unified throughout the process. In this type of
leadership model, the leaders create a culture in organizations in which followers and
leaders have a dedication. Spiritual leadership is committed to its mission. Such leaders
help their subordinates to develop spiritually (Bezy, 2011). As mentioned by Bezy (2011),
that Sokolow (2006), suggested eight principles of spiritual leadership, such as: trust,
gratitude, intention to draw people, enlightened leaders, and unique life lessons of leaders
help to develop followers, connectedness, openness, and attention to thought to gather
energy.
Page 41
24
Authentic Leadership Approach. Authenticity means one who is not a fake and
is original. Khan (2010), defined authentic leadership as the leaders who are genuine in
their leadership, and they do not fake their leadership. They are not keen for personal
benefits and rewards and do not lead for status and honor. Such leaders‟ actions are
usually based on sincerity and values and are genuine in their actions to get their
objectives. The core characteristics of such leaders are: they are hopeful, flexible, ethical,
optimistic, and confident; they give priority to others in developing persons and future
oriented. Such leaders are genuine and positive to their self and their subordinates.
Charismatic Leadership Approach. This leadership model was derived from the
Max Weber theory of charisma, in which he defines a leader as one who enjoys or is seen
as possessing excellent/exceptional qualities. All the qualities in him are fixed when he is
born, or he is a man of fortune or luck. The followers follow him because he has the
unique qualities or attributes. Charisma is unexpected or a surprising type of attribute or
quality of a person who is conceptualized to handle extraordinary circumstances or an
event which is not usual in life. Therefore, charisma is exceptional and not a common
occurrence or fact. The followers of such leaders are usually attracted to the situation of
crises (Endrissat, Müller, & Fontana, 2006).
Integrated Psychological Leadership Theory. Integrated psychological is a great
inclusion in the leadership theories. It is an endeavor to integrate all the leadership
theories whereas addressing their curbs. Psychological mastery, behavioral suppleness,
attitude towards others and leadership presence are key elements of integrated
psychological theory. This approach has offered support for leaders desiring to apply the
idea of servant leadership (Gomiz, 2014). This approach started to draw attention after the
presentation of James Scouller‟s (2011) three level model of leadership. He criticized the
old approaches by discussing their limited support in developing a person‟s aptitude to
direct and lead efficiently. He pointed out that, traits theories, ideal style, contingency,
Page 42
25
situational and functional theories, might help us but are less useful in developing leaders.
He said, for leaders to be effective they need to work on their inner psychology and it help
in developing leadership presence.
The three-level model of James Scouller consist private, public and personal
leadership. Private and public are outer or behavioral level while, personal leadership is a
fundamental level and concern with the personal growth of the individual. Private and
public dimensions are: 1) team spirit 2) a shared motivating group purpose 3) action,
progress, and results 4) individual motivation and selection. Personal leadership
dimensions are 1) skill development; 2) technical know-how and; 3) right attitude towards
other people; and it is the base of servant leadership (Scouller, 2011).
Servant Leadership in the Literature
The idea of servant leadership was first presented in 1970 by Greenleaf. He wrote a
collection of articles and essays on servant leadership such as “The servant as leader,” it
was that in which he coined the word “servant –leader,” Trustee as a servant and the
institution as servant. The most famous and popular one was the Servant Leadership: A
Journey into the legitimate power and greatness (Van Kuik, 1998). He worked for AT&T
as an executive for long time and most of his working life he spent there. He has delivered
lectures at Harvard Business School, MIT, and the University of Virginia, Dartmouth
College as well, and established The Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership
As mentioned by Spears (1995), that Greenleaf invented the idea of servant
leadership after reading the Journey to the East which was written by Hermann Hesse‟s. It
is the story of group of travelers who were served by Leo, who did their menial chores and
lifted them with his spirit and song. All went well until Leo disappeared one day. The
travelers fell into disarray and could go no further. The journey was over. Years later, one
of the travelers saw Leo again as revered head of the order that sponsored the journey.
Page 43
26
Leo, who had been their servant, was the titular head of the order, a great and noble leader
(Keith, 2017). Greenleaf realized that Leo as servant and leader played a major role for his
followers, and Leo‟s image as transformed Greenleaf‟s understanding. A true leader must
consider himself as a servant for his followers' and this aspiration to serve, makes a great
leader (Rimes, 2011). As mentioned by Van Kuik (1998), servant leadership may be
useful when there is power in the hand of the leader as without power the leader will not
be served. He also mentioned that power could only be saved in the hands of those who
serve.
A servant leader is different from a common leader as his priority is to serve first.
Greenleaf further noted that a servant leader improved others by being there. He not only
maintained his authority which was granted by those being led. He is a servant to his
subordinates and followers (Greenleaf, 1977). The key features of leaders as servant they
emphasized are: personal development, to authorize followers, and put others interest first
being led from their own interest .The servant leader creates the sense of serving others in
the followers‟ mind. Greenleaf suggested the first equal philosophy to leadership. In this
approach, leadership stay alive, but not as a boss he is a servant first (Greenleaf, 1977;
Riems, 2011).
As mentioned by Spears and Lawrence (2004) that scholars have defined different
characteristics of servant leaders. They have mentioned that servant leaders emphasized
the following characteristics such as: a) Leaders who pay attention on employee
development retention; b) Leader is conscientious about producing positive and safe
working conditions that foster intrinsic motivation and enhance innovation; c) Leaders
have the approach of a selfless and humble servant; d) When they treat subordinates as
human beings, they improve and humanize the work place; they give respect and dignity
to all the subordinates; e) Leaders take their subordinates legitimate interest before their
Page 44
27
own interest and they earn trust this way; f) Leaders and employees have full and free
communication; they listen to employees with an open mind; g) Leaders give benefits to
subordinates and society, and earn respect from both; h) They develop a good association
with subordinates and society, through emotional healing, kindness, empathy and
intelligence; i) Such leaders achieve the organizational goals by unleashing and
developing the inventive potential of followers; j) Leaders engage others in decision
making and value team building through which they can gain cooperation and support
from others (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 1994; Spears & Lawrence, 2004).
The servant leader held the organization with conviction to serve people and is
sincerely dedicated to authorizing others to be successful personally and professionally. A
servant leader always works for the followers‟ interest. The main thing in servant
leadership is that the values, morality, principles, ethics and attitudes possess are inspiring
forces to motivate followers (Greenleaf, 1977).
The idea of leader as servant is not new. It grew from Islam and many other
religions that came from ancient time. As mentioned by Rimes (2011), that Jesus taught
and embraced the characteristics of servant leadership. Prophet Muhammad‟s (PBUH) life
was full of servant leadership characteristics. He brought change not by force but through
his servant leader behavior. All the divine books have given one order to apostles to love
humanity and create this spirit in society and the community. Muhammad‟s (PBUH) life is
the paradigm of servant leadership (Life of Muhammad, 2014).
Formerly it was detrimental for organizations to adopt the servant leadership idea
because they considered that those who serve others do not associate with the most
successful one. However, most corporations now are changing their culture to embrace
servant leadership (Lichtenwalner, 2011). This method has been adopted by many
Page 45
28
organizations due to the unethical practices in organization setting like the case of Enron
(Carter, 2012; Hunter, 2004).
As mentioned by Blanchard (2010), whenever servant leaders clearly define the
organization‟s vision and mission, ethical and moral dilemmas are less likely to emerge.
Most of the researchers have written and have provided sound arguments as to why these
cultural changes have occurred in the corporate world. Most wrote and reasoned that
increase in unethical leadership behavior cases caused many organizations and
corporations to fail. Industry competition may be the third reason which caused such
changes in corporate culture. To cope with these issues, many leaders and practitioners
now are interested in having such leadership philosophy which addressed the above causes
(Carter, 2012).
Greenleaf considers that without servant first a leader is not effective to serve and
this thought opened a innovative side in the history of leadership approaches and won
more conformity than transactional and transformational models (Ding et al., 2012).
Leader as servant is not just an administration approach, but a way of life which starts
naturally with feelings to serve first (Parris & Peachey, 2013). True leaders are those who
are identified by the service they perform for an individual, an organization, and society
(McCann, Graves & Cox, 2014). The servant leader is the one who focuses on the interest
of others rather than his/her self (Ramli & Desa, 2014). Servant leadership is basically to
present service, give priorities to vision and mission as well as to moral and spiritual
values (Ding et al., 2012).
As mentioned by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), the servant leader‟s priority is to
serve the staff, while a transformational leader motivates employees to achieve
organizational goals. Servant and authentic leaders are the same as they both are
responsive of the significance of self-perception, positive image, self-restraint, and
Page 46
29
positive moral view but there is a difference in spirit because the spirit is a significant
basis for motivation for a servant leader (Ding et al., 2012). Servant leadership provides
the fundamental approach to those theories whose principle concern is human growth. It
focuses on the individual character (McFarland, Senn & Childress, 1993).
As mentioned by Laub (2004), it is not a new model; it is an example as to how the
leadership can be reshaped, and how we can get understanding and practice of reshaping
the leadership. If the individual‟s development and general health are facilitated, then the
organizational goals can be achieved very easily, and it will bear an impact for a long time
(Rimes, 2011; Stone & Patterson, 2005). It is a practice and understanding of leadership
that placed the interest of others as the priority over the interest of those who are leading
others (Laub, 2004).
This concept is all about keeping the individual‟s interest in mind, it gives value to
people, it builds the community by sharing status and power for the benefit of every one,
and it is the practice of legitimacy (Authenticity) (Rimes,2011; Smith, Montagno, &
Kuzmenko, 2004). As we mentioned that servant leadership is becoming a dominant
approach in leadership approaches, and the one reason for such popularity is the focus of
organizational development on the bottom-up approach rather than the top down approach
(Carter, 2012).
As mentioned by Blanchard (2002), the servant leadership concept is increasing in
popularity because of its unique characteristics. The need for such leadership philosophy is
being demanded because, corporations are going bankrupt due to the certain economic and
environmental factors, or due to the unethical leadership practices or the employees‟ or
people are looking for what can add purpose and meaning to their lives. Servant leadership
viewed employees‟ as an asset for an organization, retaining loyal and productive
Page 47
30
employees while keeping in mind the profit-balancing was one of the challenges for the
leaders (Carter, 2012).
Servant Leadership Link with Leadership Theory
The main distinction between leadership theory and leadership philosophy is:
leadership philosophy (servant leadership) represents values based behavior by leaders to
act; while, leadership theory (situational and functional leadership theories) is a way of
teaching leaders how to be more effective. For some years, many of leadership theories
(style approach, traits, situational approach and functional) did not support the philosophy
of servant leadership openly. Nevertheless, at the advent of James Scouller (2011), three
level of leadership model, which endeavor to put together the previous
approaches/theories by tackling constraint and giving attention on the psychology, stresses
that the leaders. should view leadership as an act of service and task as much care of their
followers needs as of their own. Therefore, the link between modern leadership theory and
the philosophy of servant leadership has strengthened.
Dimensions of Servant Leadership
Servant leadership characteristics have been presented by different authors in
different ways. Greenleaf and his followers suggested the following aspects as mentioned
in Table 1:
Page 48
31
Table 1
Greenleaf & Spears Constructs of Servant Leadership
Empathy Listening
Healing Awareness
Conceptualization Persuasion
Stewardship Foresight
Building Communities Commitment to growth of others
Note: Sources (Blanchard & Hodges, 2003; Carter, 2012; Fisher, 2004; Greenleaf, 1998, 2002;
Spears & Lawrence, 2002).
Laub (1998), presented six major characteristics of servant leadership these were
as mentioned in Table 2:
Table 2
Laub Constructs of Servant Leadership
Laub
(2002)
Value people Authenticity
Develop people Build communities
Provide leadership Share leadership
Note: Adopted from the source of (Carter, 2012).
Buchen (1998), recognized the below given attributes of servant leadership as mentioned
in Table 3:
Greenleaf & Spears
(1998)
Page 49
32
Table 3
Buchen Constructs of Servant Leadership
Buchen
(1998)
Self-identity Capacity for reciprocity (Mutual dependence)
Relationship building Preoccupation with future
Note: sources (Rimes, 2011; Carter, 2012).
Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999), presented five models of servant leadership as
presented in Table 4:
Table 4
Farling, Stone & Winston Constructs of Servant Leadership
Farling, Stone & Winston
(1999)
Vision Credibility
Trust Influence Service
Note: sources (Vondey, 2010; Rimes, 2011; Carter, 2012).
Page and Wing (2000), Construct for Servant Leadership as mentioned in Table 5:
Table 5
Page & Wing Constructs of Leadership
Page & Wing
(2000)
Integrity Humility Goal Setting
Servant hood Developing Others Empowering Others
Caring for others Visioning Leading
Team building Shared decision making
Source: (Vondey, 2010).
Russell and Stone (2002), presented nine functional attributes of servant leadership
and eleven accompanied attributes:
Page 50
33
Table 6
Russell and Stone (2002) Constructs of Servant Leadership
Russell & Stone
(2002)
Honesty Communication Empowerment
Integrity Persuasion Visibility
Trust Listening Appreciation of others
Vision Competence Stewardship
Pioneering Credibility Delegation and influence
Modeling Teaching Service and Encouragement
Sources: (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011; Vondey, 2010).
Patterson (2002), presented and identified the following dimensions of servant
leadership as mentioned in Table 7:
Table 7
Patterson Constructs of Servant Leadership
Patterson
(2002)
Agapao Love* Humility Altruism
Vision Trust empowering others
Service
Sources: (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011; Vondey, 2010). * Intimate Love
Wang, Paul, and Page (2003), presented one of the good measurements of servant
leadership. To measure servant leadership they developed a conceptual framework. Their
frame work consists of four main dimensions such as:
Page 51
34
a) Character Orientation ( Being)
b) Community Orientation (Relating)
c) Task Orientation (Doing)
d) Orientation Process (Organizing)
Table 8
Wang, Paul &Page Constructs of Servant Leadership
Wang, Paul & Page
(2008)
Character Orientation
What kind of individual is the leader?
(This dimension includes three main items such as integrity, servant hood, and humility)
Community Orientation
Leader relatedness to others
(This dimension consists of three main items such as caring for others, empowering and
developing others)
Task Orientation
Leader activity for doing/ what does the leader do?
(This dimension includes three main items such as vision, goal setting, and leading)
Orientation Process
Leader efficiency to organize the process
(This facet consists of three main points such as team building, modeling and shared
decision making)
Page 52
35
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), tested the Greenleaf servant leadership model and
produced the following dimensions of servant leadership as mentioned in Table 9 below:
Table 9
Barbuto and Wheeler Constructs of Servant Leadership
Barbuto & Wheeler
(2008)
Altruistic calling Emotional healing Persuasive mapping
Wisdom Organizational Stewardship
Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora, (2008), presented six aspects of a servant leader, they
are:
Table 10
Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora Constructs of Servant Leadership
Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora
(2008)
Authenticity Responsible morality
Voluntary subordination Transcendent spirituality
Covenantal Relationship Transforming influence
Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Herderson (2008), presented eight dimensions of a
servant leader:
Table 11
Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Henderson Constructs of Servant Leadership
Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson
(2008)
Grow and succeed Behave ethically Emotional healing
Empowerment Helping subordinates Creating value for community
Conceptual skill Putting subordinates first
Northouse (2010), presented facets of servant leadership, which distinguish it from
ethical leadership approach as given in Table 12 below:
Page 53
36
Table 12
Northouse Constructs of Servant Leadership
Northouse
(2010)
Trust Justice Respect
Building communities Honesty
Source: Carter (2012).
Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011), presented an eight dimension model of servant
leadership as mentioned in Table 13 below:
Table 13
Dierendonck and Nuijten Constructs of Servant Leadership
Dierendonck and Nuijten,
(2011)
Authenticity Humility Courage
Forgiveness Stewardship Empowerment
Accountability Standing back
Source: (Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011)
These are the details and up to date dimensions of servant leadership presented by
different scholars and writers. Beside these dimensions, Graham (1991), noted the
following aspect and features such as moral development of employees, humility,
autonomy, leaders emulation toward service and relational power. Now to measure servant
leadership, most of the researchers proposed their own frameworks.
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), presented five facets by testing the servant leadership
model of Greenleaf and Spears. The researcher has also used these dimensions (see Table
9) in the study for servant leadership measurement in universities of Peshawar. The
Page 54
37
Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) developed by Barbuto and Wheeler to measure
the servant leadership behavior (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
The researcher has taken these dimensions of servant leadership because they
provide detail understanding of the behavior of servant leadership. As the other researches,
mentioned in previous pages, done to find out the characteristics and dimensions of
servant leadership were lengthy or too concise for the mind of the respondents. The
researcher has used one dimension or model, developed by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006),
who studied and tested the servant leadership dimensions, presented by Greenleaf (1970),
the founder of servant leadership model.
Altruistic Calling. Being altruistic is to be philanthropic in behavior, and this
facet measures the level to which the leader looks for to build a affirmative effect on
other‟s lives, and has a keen desire to serve others. Thus, the leader who has this high
characteristic will focus on the interest of others, besides himself (McCann, Graves &
Cox, 2014). According to Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), the servant leader‟s first choice is
to serve others in a selfless manner. This selfless manner results in the altruistic calling of
the leader.
Altruistic calling depicts the aspiration to create a assenting difference in the lives
of others. When this characteristic of servant leaders is high, they are more enthusiastic to
serve others and attempt to meet the follower‟s needs (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011). The
main and focused conscious choice of altruistic calling is to serve others (Greenleaf,
1977). Servant leaders sacrifice self-interest for the employee‟s development, serving
others is the number one priority of servant leadership (Bass, 2000; Graham, 1991).
Servant leaders have a great wish or desire for positive development in
organizations, societies, and communities and individuals (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, &
Henderson, 2008). Much work has been done on altruism leadership and scholars (Avolio
Page 55
38
& Locke, 2002; Block, 1996), in their works and studies have mentioned altruism
leadership. However, this characteristic was taken from the concept of servant leadership.
Emotional Healing. It is a special characteristic of a servant leader to develop
spiritual recovery of his followers from either hardship or shock. Both the above
characteristics in a servant leader facilitate the healing process and provide a caring
environment in which employees feel safe and share their different personal and
professional views (McCann, Graves & Cox, 2014). Rimes (2011), also mentioned in his
study, that emotional healing is the ability of leaders, who first identify the need of the
followers in an organization and then start the healing process. Emotional healing is the
ability of a leader to use the healing process and to advance the spiritual recovery of
employees from trauma and hardship (Barbuto. & Wheeler, 2006).
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), said that a servant leader creates an environment
which enables all to say professional and personal concerns. Researchers have identified
that the leaders should possess emotional healing to help employees to recover from
shock, problems, overcome broken dreams and build severed relationships with all the
work force of the organization (Dacher, 1999; Sturnick, 1998). McCann et al. (2014), in
his paper quoted the words of Barbuto and said emotional healing is a special
characteristic of a servant leader to develop spiritual recovery of his followers from either
hardship or shock. A servant leader in this aspect is very empathetic to others (Liden et al.,
2008).
Wisdom. As mentioned by McCann, Graves, and Cox (2014), it is an intuitive
ability in someone to understand organizational dynamics and make a decision by those
consequences. This feature of servant leadership is to think clearly about the prevailing
and upcoming situation. This intuitive ability enables him to observe and learn from the
Page 56
39
surroundings, and to how the situation would influence not only every elements of the
organization but the organization as a whole.
This ability makes the leader a sharp observer and facilitates him/her to presume
what is ahead (Sosik. & Megerian, 1999). This dimension of servant leaders shows a
strong ability and logic of responsiveness (Sternberg, 2003). It is an ability to get cues
from the environment, and from that observation, the leader recognizes possible results
and its implications (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Servant leaders observe things, apply the
knowledge and prepare for possible action (Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000).
Persuasive Mapping. It is the capability of a leader to motivate and influence
others. Persuasive mapping is the ability of a leader to improve and use sound reasoning.
This ability of the leader motivates followers to predict the organization‟s direction, and
make them responsible for achieving that direction. This characteristic of servant
leadership is an ability to use a mental model to persuade logical thinking in employees
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). The silent features of this dimension are articulating issues
and conceptualizing potentials (Barbuto.& Wheeler, 2006). The servant leaders have the
essential information to support and assess their subordinates (Liden et al., 2008; Travis,
Searle & Barbuto, 2010).
Organizational Stewardship. Organizational Stewardship as mentioned by
Melchar (2010), a manager‟s main focus to train members to participate and be involved
in society development programs. This characteristic in a servant leader encourages the
societal organization setting outside the organization, thereby enabling leaders to think for
the community and society as a whole. According to this dimension, the organization
should not only strive for profit maximization but should contribute positively to society
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Organizational stewardship concept is similar to social
responsibility, meaning that the leaders should motivate the organization for community
Page 57
40
development programs, for society, and for the environment (Travis, Searle & Barbuto,
2010).
This feature of servant leadership prepares the organization to behave ethically,
that will be benefitting not only for the community, and society but all the stakeholders as
well (Liden et al., 2008; Sendjayaet, Sarros, & Santora, 2008; Travis, Searle, Barbuto,
2010). As mentioned by Melcher (2010), leader also focuses on preparing an organization
to participate and be involved in society development programs. This type of characteristic
in a servant leader encourages the societal organization setting outside the organization.
McCann and his fellows in their study measured servant leadership behavior by
adopting SLQ. They applied SLQ in Rural Community Hospitals in the United States and
mailed 3942 surveys to ten hospitals. The study was conducted during 2013 and 2014.
Their study revealed that all the five facets in SLQ had a positive impact with
organizational performance and job satisfaction. They have also found that it has a
significant impact on members‟ satisfaction and that is extrinsic satisfaction. In their
findings, they have suggested that managers can improve their relations through servant
leadership behavior, which cannot only improve employee loyalty, job satisfaction but can
also increase customer satisfaction and loyalty (McCann, Graves & Cox, 2014).
Page 58
41
Servant Leadership Areas
Education. Greenleaf (1977), mentioned that educational institutions play a
dominant role in leadership preparation, and he suggested that universities and colleges
should offer courses for outstanding students. Universities and colleges should educate
them how to look and search for new opportunities to support society. Though servant
leadership is new, it should be the priority in our educational institutions. This concept can
be spread through greater preparation and should be encouraged.
This concept was being used in educational and training programs. Many
organizations had provided training programs to those persons who were in the
supervision level. Corporations had also developed special courses in servant leadership to
provide training to their managers. Colleges and universities offered courses in servant
leadership based on the servant leadership model (Spears, 2004).
Business. Several organizations have used the servant leadership model and have
succeeded. The best example was West Jet Airline Ltd, based in Canada (Calgary) used
the servant leadership model, which achieved tremendous success and did well in the
competitive market. Many individual organizations have also adopted the servant
leadership model such as South West Airline (Dallas, Texas), Men‟s Wear House
(California), Starbucks (Washington), Service Mater Company (Illinois) and TD Industries
Texas (Rimes, 2011; Spears, 2005). According to Page and Wong (2004), conferences,
seminars, programs, and publications have been a good source of spreading the concept
and promotion of servant leadership. Many organizations have adopted servant leadership
and its aspects and have been succeeded in the competitive market.
Besides education and businesses, the servant leadership model has been adopted
by many profits and nonprofit organizations (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011). Many authors
have started research work in servant leadership, and have written on servant leadership as
Page 59
42
it was first considered as an illogical concept of leadership. Today the concept of spiritual
leadership is accepted by many authors like John Carver, Max DePree, Margaret
Wheatley, Peter Senge, and James Kouzes are the few current authors who viewed that
servant leadership is a new paradigm of leadership in 21st century (Spears, 2010).
Higher Education System
In Pakistan, the higher education system comprises primarily of two major set ups:
one is public universities managed by the government, and the other is private universities
operated by private owners. Both universities are the backbone of the education sector as
they provide education and train students for their future development. An institution is a
symphony which is created by communities, who have different attitudes, approaches,
predictions, skills, levels of learning and have come jointly to accomplish the same
objectives and aims.
The objectives of the institutions in Peshawar, which the researcher selected as
population of the study, are to provide better education services to the society as a whole.
Learning organizations are executing a primary responsibility in the achievement and
growth of every country, by offering quality learning to the subsequent generation (Khan,
Farhatulla, Khan, Nawaz & Yar, 2013). The success of an educational organization mainly
depends on leadership style (Osseo-Asare, Longbottom & Murphy, 2005). The universities
must maintain highly-qualified academic staff ready to face educational changes in the
world. Performance and quality of education in a university largely depends on
supervisors and the leaders who are leading them. All these factors improve job
satisfaction, and job satisfaction leads to employees‟ loyalty and organizational
performance and effectiveness (Koesmono, 2014).
Servant leadership in many educational institutions has been applied, and the result
showed a good impact on faculty performance, job satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and
Page 60
43
organizational performance. According to the higher education commission of Pakistan
(HEC), there are seventeen universities in Peshawar (Rehman, 2012). Eight universities
are in the public sector, and nine universities are in the private sector. This study was
conducted to see how the leaders of these different universities possess the servant
leadership behavior and characteristics, and to see its impact on faculty job satisfaction,
loyalty and organizational performance.
Servant Leadership in Higher Education Institutions
According to Ding et al. (2012), servant leadership behavior is important in higher
education. They conducted their research on students and employees and findings showed
that servant leadership behavior creates employees‟ loyalty, maintains the quality of
education and increases employees‟ performance. In the study of Koesmono (2014), which
he conducted in economic and management of private universities in east Surabaya,
Malaysia, the result demonstrated a significant relation between the job satisfaction and
servant leadership with a positive effect on job performance and organizational
commitment. Bass (2000), has also mentioned in his work that servant leadership can
impact the teaching faculty. He mentioned that there is a connection between college
teaching and servant leadership characteristic; it offers the opportunity to the faculty to
transform higher education.
Cerit (2010), mentioned in his study that there was a significant relation between
the teacher loyalty and performance and servant leadership behavior. He conducted his
study by collecting data from 563 teachers working in different schools in Turkey. The
result showed that behavior of servant leader was a significant predictor of teacher
dedication.
Scardino (2012), conducted his study on higher education faculty and servant
leadership and engagement with students. The study population was a Franciscan
Page 61
44
institution of higher education. The result showed a positive association between servant
behavior of leaders on the faculty and engagement on students, and a link between servant
leadership and deep approaches to learning, with a strong connection to emotional healing.
Majauskaitė (2013), explained in his study which was conducted on the impact of job
satisfaction and leadership style of the academician in higher educations. The findings
revealed that there was a positive relationship between the behavior of the leader and job
satisfaction among the faculty.
Machumu and Kaitila (2014), conducted their study on leadership styles on
teacher‟s job satisfaction. They collected data from 200 school teachers, and the study
result showed a strong positive association among democratic leadership styles on job
satisfaction of the teachers. Today organization leaders should consider servant leadership,
as servant leadership can fulfill the organization‟s needs for more ethical and caring type
of leadership to meet the demand for those organizations who are more people oriented
(Ramli & Desa, 2014).
Employees’ Loyalty
Employees‟ loyalty started from the customer loyalty, and the scholars believe that
it plays a dominant role in the organizational development and maintains its sustainability
(Ding et al., 2012). Employees‟ loyalty is when a worker is dedicated to the success of the
organization, and thinking that laboring for it is their most excellent option. It is an
employee‟s current commitment to advocate the organization to outsiders by showing
personal affiliation with the organization (Solomon, 1992). Employees‟ loyal means when
workers have no regret to work and consider that the organization is the best choice for
them. It is the enthusiasm to stay with the organization (Pandey & Khare, 2012).
Page 62
45
Employees‟ loyalty is the commitment of the worker to the organization, and think
that it is the best option; and they are committed to its success and do not search for
another alternative (The Loyalty Research Center, 1990). Most of the authors have written
on employees‟ loyalty; loyalty creates organizational citizenship behavior, which not only
retains them as they promote its image and interest to the public (Bentten Court, Gwinner
& Meuter, 2001).
Employees‟ loyalty is organizational citizenship behavior, and most scholars have
written on this behavior where they have mentioned different characteristics like the
employees‟ strong conviction and recognition of the organization‟s goals and values,
enthusiasm to use significant efforts for the organization‟s success, and well-built wish to
continue the relationship and membership in the organization (Mowday, Porter & Steers
1979).
Employees‟ are more loyal to those organizations that offer opportunities to learn,
grow and develop, and provide a clear career path, and other fringe benefits (Ding et al.,
2012). Most of the scholars and researchers have written that training and development is
one of the biggest factors that relate to the workers‟ loyalty. A few researchers pointed out
that employees‟ want a clear career path to grow and advance within the organization
(Walker & Boyne, 2005). Increasing the level of salary, providing a healthy and suitable
environment for work, working conditions, safety measurements, employees‟
engagements, development programs, career development, promotions all are crucial for
building employees‟ loyalty (Yin, Fin, Meng, Yin & Jack, 2012).
Yin et al. (2012), mentioned one of the elements to increase employees‟ loyalty is
telecommuting, as it can reduce the employee‟s traveling time, and help in maintaining
better work-life balance. Other elements such as self-education, job engagement,
improvement for employee and meeting other basic needs might increase employee
Page 63
46
loyalty. Hart and Thompson (2007), stated that although researchers have done extensive
work on employees‟ loyalty, still there is no concise definition of it. The most important
work shows that there are three types of loyalties: behavioral, attitudinal, and
comprehensive loyalty.
The other aspect to enhance employees‟ loyalty can be reward. Rewards can be an
individual rewards, or team rewards, and performance based rewards. Rewards for an
individual should be based on individual performance, and includes the commission,
bonuses, annual increment, new salary and other types of benefits forms the individual
reward. Similarly, the team rewards depend on the team or specific projects and include all
financial benefits and another benefit are additional time, certificate of recognition (Vince,
2005).
Human Resource (HR) practices also play a dominant role in employees‟ loyalty.
Human resource involves different practices like calculating employee salary and making
the payroll, and organizing an employee training and development program, employee
planning, employees‟ benefits programs, safe working environment, administration of
pension, are all important tasks of the HR manager. Good and sound HR practices can not
only improve the employees‟ loyalty, but it can enhance the productivity level of the
employees as well that can be beneficial not only for the organization but also for their
stakeholders (Vince, 2005; Yin et al., 2012). The same is with the job satisfaction as well.
A study was conducted by Fosam (1998), results showed a strong link between
employees‟ loyalty and job satisfaction. They have summed up their research by finding
some of the variables that greatly contributed in employees‟ loyalty and is more effective
in job satisfaction. These are team work and cooperation, recognition and rewards, relation
with supervisor and working conditions. They have also mentioned that employer-
employee relation is strongly correlated with employees‟ loyalty.
Page 64
47
Today, most of the Western scholars have started work on servant leadership and
employees‟ loyalty relation. Servant leadership behavior contributes to good organization
culture, and this enhances employees‟ loyalty (Liden et al., 2008).
Dimensions of Employees’ Loyalty
In this study, employees‟ loyalty has four dimensions, they are: commitment,
motivation, belongingness, career development (Pandey & Khare, 2012). The dimension
which was used in this study for employees‟ loyalty was adopted from the study of Pandey
and Khare (2012). They identified the following dimensions after factor analysis of 19
items that contributed to employees‟ loyalty:
Commitment. Commitment includes the employee‟s positive attitude and
behavior with the organization like speaking positively, not changing the organization,
working for the organization, enjoying when discussing the organization and feels
attached.
Motivation. As mentioned by Pandey and Khare (2012), this factor emerged one
important determinant of employees‟ loyalty. They mentioned different aspects of
motivation like suggesting my employer to another employee; clearly define roles and
responsibility, recommend the organization to friends, growing with this organization.
Belongingness. The main elements which comprise this aspect are strong
belonging to my organization, loyal to my organization; organization problems are my
own and committed to the organization‟s success.
Career Development. The main elements which comprise this aspect are: fulfill
my career goals, take pride in my work, in future will continue my job in this organization,
and will look for ways and means to improve organizational efficiency.
Page 65
48
Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty
As mentioned previously, employees‟ loyalty originated from customer loyalty,
and most of the researchers have this view that without these two loyalties an organization
cannot survive in this competitive dynamic market (Wang, Ling & Zhang, 2009). Riketta
and Dick (2005), pointed out in their research that servant leadership has a great impact on
job satisfaction, thereby enhancing employees‟ loyalty; servant leadership cannot directly
influence employees‟ loyalty.
The work of Ladin et al. (2008), showed that facet of servant leadership, which is
helping followers development and growth, has a encouraging influence on employees‟
commitment and loyalty. The work of Dubinsky and Skinner demonstrated that care of
employee‟s create commitment and improves loyalty and devotion (Ding et al., 2012).
Jaramillo (2009), studied full time sale staff of an organization, and concluded that servant
leader behavior develops devotion, which enhances commitment and finally all these
factors result in staff retention and improves loyalty (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko &
Roberts, 2009). Mahembe and Engelbrecht (2014), conducted a study on 38 schools by
drawing data from 288 school teachers in Western Cape in South Africa to know the effect
of servant leadership on team effectiveness and organizational citizenship by using SLQ.
Their findings revealed that servant leadership behavior was promoting positive behavior
on team effectiveness resulting in employees‟ satisfaction, increase in job performance
and employees‟ loyalty.
Sokoll (2014), revealed that servant leadership has a significant positive impact on
employee commitment, and these commitments increase employee and supervisor
relationship, which directly increases employees‟ loyalty and organization performance.
David and Susan (2010), conducted their study in a United States automobile dealership
by adopting the servant leadership model and measured the dimension of servant
Page 66
49
leadership model through SLQ. They have used the self-rater and employee- rater version
of SLQ.
Organizational Performance
Performance means the level of accomplishment and achievement. Organizational
performance can be measured with the predefined goals or objectives by an organization
whether they are achieving the goals or not (Keban, 1995; Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014).
Performance is the collective activity of the organization‟s components and its members to
realize the objective of the organization (Bass, 2000). Performance is also the collective
administrative activity striving to achieve the organization‟s objective and goals set by the
management and to use the management system appropriately which will be beneficial for
all the units of the organization (Bastian, 2001). Many researchers have written that
performance is the result of the system and components of the organization while using
some specific inputs or sources (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014).
Organizational performance can also be measured from strategic objectives,
contribution to economy and customer and employee satisfaction (Armstrong, Michael &
Baron, Angela 1998). Some of the researchers have also mentioned that organizational
performance can enhance not only organizations profit, but also benefit society as a whole.
Writers have mentioned that those organizations can improve when they increase all unit
or business profit or operation, and by serving the community and contributing to the local
government (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014).
The main purpose of managing organizational performance is to have efficient and
productive performance with all elements of the organization, and stimulate its members
to participate actively (Subandi, 2008). Bass (2000), has mentioned in his work, that
organizational performance can increase from human resources, and can decrease
consequently when there are poor skill and less quality work force. He further mentioned
Page 67
50
that an organization leader could play a dominant role in organization productivity and its
culture setting.
Many organizations have a mission and vision, so it is imperative to have a leader
who has a vision and mission to serve its members, employees, and community as a
whole. The main purpose of the universities too is to serve the community and students.
University performance can only be enhanced when there is someone who has a feeling to
serve the people and community. Such a person may become the leader to enhance
university efficiency, productivity, image and quality of education and faculty teaching
methodology.
Bass (2000), has mentioned that servant leadership is a good style to manage such
an organization whose priority is in serving the community. Thus leaders must have the
skill and moral value to serve society and the community. Irving and Justin (2005), stated
in their study that there was a positive relation between organizational performance, job
satisfaction with the impact of servant leadership.
Schleicher, Watt, and Greguras (2004), in their studies had summed up that there
was greater consistency between organizational performance and job satisfaction. They
had further mentioned that satisfaction of job affects organizational performance in terms
of quality, efficiency and development, as well as productivity. They further mentioned
effective cognitive work impacts organizational performance.
Dimensions of Organizational Performance
Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014), mentioned about the indicators of organizational
performance, which were taken from the source of Regulation of Minister of Cooperatives
and Small Medium Enterprises of Indonesia. They explained that the six indicators of
organizational performance are: the better organizational performance, having an active
unit business, cohesiveness and members‟ participation, serving the community,
Page 68
51
contributing to the local government and serving member oriented. However, these
dimensions were suggested for cooperatives and small to medium enterprises.
Katou and Budhwar (2010), Chenhall and Lang field-Smith (2007), have used
these dimensions for manufacturing and service industries and they are: development,
innovation, and quality and effectiveness. The researcher has used these dimensions for
this study in measuring the performance of universities and some questions from the study
of Amen et al. (2014), which were included to get reliable data.
Development. Development dimension of the organizational performance includes
items such as organizational development within its capacity to meet future opportunities
and challenges to achieve the organizational goals. For example, plans for career and
development of employees and new executive and development program for the faculty.
Quality. Quality means producing products of high quality. Here quality is used
concerning universities and the education imparted to students. Moreover, the question is,
do some universities produce students with high quality education as compared to other
universities?
Innovation. Innovation in the sense of improved products and processes, good
research environment, produce scholarly publication and citation.
Efficiency. Efficiency means the organization‟s effectiveness by using the least
resources to achieve its objectives.
Servant Leader and Organizational Performance
Aderson (2005), carried out a study to find the impact of servant leadership on
team effectiveness. The result showed that servant leadership behavior impacts positively
on team effectiveness and increases organizational performance. Anderson and Kelly
(2005), identified in their study that there is relationship between job satisfaction and
Page 69
52
servant leadership, which impacts organizational effectiveness that ultimately increases
organizational performance.
Ololube and Nwachukwa (2006), also mentioned in their study that behavior of
servant leaders has a significant relation with organizational effectiveness, and this
effectiveness forms a good relation with the team‟s effectiveness. In the study of the US
and Philippines educational cooperation, it was revealed that there is a positive relation
between job satisfaction, organizational commitment and servant leadership, resulting in a
significant association organizational performance and servant leadership (Ritteka &
Michael, 2008).
David and Susan (2010), stated in their study that the dimension of servant
leadership has a strong relationship with team effectiveness, and this effectiveness
increases organizational performance in those organizations that have used the servant
leadership style. Ololube and Nwachukwa (2006), conducted their research on the
organizational effectiveness and servant leadership. The result showed that there was a
significant positive impact of servant leadership on organizational effectiveness and
performance. There is a great relation between employee attitude and organizational
performance; if employees‟ are satisfied organizational performance increased
(Armstrong, Michael and Baron, Angela, 1998; Schleicher, Deidra, Watt, John, Greguras
& Gary 2004).
Ololube and Nwachukwa (2006), conducted their study on the association among
organizational effectiveness and servant leadership. The result showed that there was a
positive relationship between effective servant leadership on organizational effectiveness
and team performance. Irvin and Justin (2005), also conducted studies on job satisfaction
and motivational level of faculty/teachers performance and among the findings were that
Page 70
53
job satisfaction and work motivation had a significant effect on organizational efficiency
and performance.
Tajammal and Wajid (2012), conducted their study on the impact of servant
leadership on job performance. They distributed a questionnaire among 400 engineers
from a defense organization in Pakistan. They used the factor analysis, reliability analysis
and SEM to analyze the data. Among their findings were the significant implication of
technical management organization to get help from servant leadership behavior to
enhance the organization and job performance.
Job Satisfaction
It fits between what the organization/association needs and what the representative
is looking for and accepting. It is not only an attitude, it is more than this. It is the inward
sentiment a man with respect to accomplishment that might be subjective or quantitative.
It is affected by management style and culture, employee involvement, autonomous and
empowerment work of groups (Mullins, 1999; Sweeny & Macfarlane, 2002). Individual
expectation develops job satisfaction and employees‟ loyalty as mentioned by Herzberg in
his two-factor theory of motivation. It is a positive and upbeat enthusiastic state which one
understands from one's esteem (Ding et al., 2012). It is person‟s feeling of their job
appraisal and composed of different aspects, like working environment and compensation
(Ilies & Judge, 2004).
Mullins further examines it and mentioned that it is between what the business
requires and what the person is looking for, seeking and receiving. He further points out
that job satisfaction level is affected by different variables like: a) individual factors such
as age, income, education status, marital status, personality, intelligence, capabilities, and
orientation to work; b) social factors such as affiliation with colleagues and group working
opportunity for interaction; c) culture factors that is value, attitude and beliefs; d)
Page 71
54
organizational dynamics such as management styles, supervision, structure, size, policies,
rules and regulations, employees relation, working condition and; e) natural factors, for
example, financial, social, mechanical/technological and government impacts (Adeniji,
2011; Mullins, 1999).
The most important aspects which are listed by Obisis (2003), which adds to job/work
support are: job security, satisfactory salary, a chance for growth; optimistic and
supportive environment; the high-quality working conditions, the pleasant relation
between superior and subordinate, good relation with co- workers and colleagues.
Adeniji (2011), mentioned the factors of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction about
organizational ambiance between the faculty members in private universities in southern
Nigeria such as: a) proper managerial approach; b) supervisors supports; c) staff work
load; d) performance feedback; e) co- workers support and core of communication; f)
compensation benefits; g) development opportunities.
Hertzberg‟s theory was concerned with features that stood accountable for
dissatisfaction and satisfaction of workers. Hertzberg‟s motivation included the first
dimension as the hygiene factor, and the second dimension is motivator factors. Hygiene
factor involves the presence or absence of job dissatisfaction. They are also known as the
maintenance factors and includes, pay/salary, interpersonal relation with co-workers and
supervisors, working conditions, personnel policies, status, security, supervision and
organization policy and administration. When these factors are poor, the worker is
dissatisfied, and when these factors are good so less dissatisfaction (Adeniji, 2011).
Whereas, the motivator factors include those variables which motivate people and
persuade satisfaction in job like: appreciation and recognition, accomplishment, work-
itself, responsibility and accountability, the chance for growth and advancement (Judge et
al., 2001; Luthans, 2002).
Page 72
55
Managers make use of incentive programs to motivate and satisfy their work force,
but no amount of money can translate into job satisfaction and motivation (Toloposky,
2000). The work of Fajana (2002), has also identified long range factors which affect the
worker level of satisfaction such as: leadership which is a concern for participation, task,
job design, social relation, working condition, chances for opportunities and need
achievement.
In a work place no one can exactly determine job satisfaction; the reason is that
most employees‟ try not to talk about the level of satisfaction in the organization.
Moreover, it becomes difficult for management to find out whether satisfaction in job is
practiced in the work place or not (Cockburn & Haydn, 2004). They have also further
mentioned that some employees even do not mention that they have a job or career
satisfaction problem. Therefore, it is next to impossible to fathom out the factors which
create job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in an organizational work place (Cockburn &
Haydn, 2004).
Determinants of Job Satisfaction
The extent literature showed that job satisfaction is the main factor which impacts
the workers performance and overall organization efficiency. Performance may affect a
worker‟s ability as well as the organizational environment and the level of supervision.
Job satisfaction may affect productivity, efficiency, turnover ratio, absenteeism, employee-
employer relation (Baron, 1996, Maghradi, 1999). Satisfaction also impacts the
organizational performance, commitment, relation with supervisor and overall
productivity of an organization. When there is no recognition of employees‟ through
promotion and salary, the satisfaction levels tends to be low (Adeniji, 2011).
Adeniji (2011), studied the two factors of Hertzberg‟s theory which centers on job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The two factor theory comprises of two dimensions: the
Page 73
56
first being hygiene factor and the second dimension is motivator factors. Hygiene factor
involves the presence or absence of job dissatisfaction. They are also known as the
maintenance factor and includes, pay/salary, interpersonal relation with coworkers and
supervisors, working condition, personnel policies, status, security supervision and
organization policy and administration. When these factors are poor the worker is
disgruntled, and when removed the worker will be satisfied.
While the motivator factors include those elements which in fact induce people and
persuade satisfaction and include: recognition, achievement, work itself, responsibility,
opportunity for growth and advancement (Judge et al., 2001). Smith, Kindall and Hulin
(1969), have considered five categories as the most relevant to job satisfaction in ones
work place, they are: promotion, pay, supervision, co-workers and work itself.
Locke (1976), mentioned some other aspects in job satisfaction in the work of
Smith as above. The facets which were added by Locke were: working conditions,
recognition, organization and management.
In one model developed by Hackman and Oldham (1976), which is known as Job
Characteristic Model (JCM), they have focused on five main job characteristics. They
argued that these characteristics play a dominant part in work satisfaction and minimize
the chances of withdrawal of employees, which are: Task significance: which means how
the task is important and significant; Task identity: the task from beginning to the end;
Autonomy: discretion on the job by the workers; Skills variety: job allows workers to do
a variety of tasks; Feedback: how the employee is performing the job, which can be seen
from one‟s job performance.
As mentioned by Adeniji (2011), in his research thesis that Gibson, Ivancevich and
Donnelly (1997), and Luthman (1998), have identified some factors of job satisfaction
like: job promotion opportunities, co-workers, supervision and salaries.
Page 74
57
Silver, Poulin and Manning (1997), presented dimensions of job satisfaction, they
are: individual facets such as attitudes and values etc; intrinsic benefits such as problem
solving challenges and opportunity to be creative and; extrinsic rewards such as working
hours, wages, organizational climate and benefits. Fajana (2002), identified factors like,
job design, leadership, social relation, working condition, need achievement, perceived
opportunities, and level of aspiration. Adeniji (2011), identified factors like: appropriate
administrative style, work load, support from supervisor, feedback from performance,
clear line of communication, promotional opportunities and salary and packages.
Dimensions of Job Satisfaction for this Study
The extent literature presents different views which constitute job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction as explained in previous discussion. The current study briefly explains job
satisfaction dimensions which are taken from the Minnesota satisfaction survey
questionnaire (MSQ). The MSQ has very detailed questions which cover the entire
previous dimensions discussed here. This study used the short question form of MSQ. All
the previous dimensions of job satisfaction come in the short form satisfaction survey
questionnaire. Therefore, in this research the questions adopted from this section are from
Minnesota satisfaction survey which is more concise and contains full details of each
aspects of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is categorized into intrinsic satisfaction and
extrinsic satisfaction.
Page 75
58
Intrinsic Satisfaction. It means an inner or internal feeling of satisfaction by the
employees‟. This facet includes 4 items. Intrinsic satisfaction according to the Minnesota
Survey is, employees own judgment freedom, feeling of achievement from the job, to use
own methods while performing the job or task, the job provides steady employment,
chance to say to others what to do and work alone on the job (Minnesota satisfaction
survey, 1967).
Extrinsic Satisfaction. It means an external feeling of satisfaction by employees
from the job such as esteem, recognition, promotion, chances of growth and development.
These facets consist 4 items. According to the Minnesota satisfaction survey extrinsic
satisfaction are: pay and amount of work to do, the competence of supervisor in making
decision, remuneration packages, the companies policies and rules and regulation, chance
of advancement in job, opportunities to express professional development needs
(Minnesota Satisfaction Survey,1967).
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Job Satisfaction of the Study
The researcher has developed this model keeping in mind all the related previous
studies, and the details are given in the above pages.
Intrinsic
satisfaction
Extrinsic
satisfaction
Job satisfaction
Page 76
59
Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction as Mediator
Thompson (2010), in his dissertation concluded, that to increase employees‟
loyalty, the servant leadership model with job satisfaction as a mediator, had a significant
impact on employees‟ loyalty. Shekari and Nikooparvar (2012), conducted their study on
teachers to see the relationship of job satisfaction and servant leadership. The result
showed a positive relationship between job satisfaction and servant leadership and
employees‟ loyalty that teachers intended to stay long in the institutions.
Ding et al. (2012), mentioned that leaders of the today‟s organizations are trying to
establish a harmonious relationship with the employees. In previous studies it has been
found that transformational approach has a great impact on worker satisfaction, but recent
studies findings showed that servant leadership is getting a good response from the
researchers and business community. Jenkins and Stewart (2008), in their research on
nursing staff, found that if leaders are more enthusiastic in service, then there is every
chance to bring more satisfaction to employees. In another study by Mehta & Pillay
(2011), conducted in India, showed that leaders who are more aware of the service and
servant leadership behavior, impact positively on employees‟ satisfaction.
Babin, Lee, Kim, and Griffin (2005), and Jones, Reynolds and Arnold (2006), have
conducted different studies in which they have studied the role of job satisfaction on
employees‟ loyalty. The result showed a positive relation between employees‟ loyalty and
satisfaction. Job satisfaction minimizes perceived risk and maximizes positive emotion,
and this element brings in employees‟ more sense of organizational commitment and
consequently the employees‟ tend to remain with the organization (Ding et al., 2012).
However, it has been proved that servant leadership has a positive impact on job
satisfaction, and job satisfaction has a positive influence on organizational performance
and employees‟ loyalty (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). Many studies finding showed that
Page 77
60
job satisfaction plays a role on employees‟ loyalty, and concluded that employees‟
satisfaction has a significant relation with loyalty (Jones, Reynolds & Arnold, 2006;
Babin, Griffin, Lee & Kim, 2005).
The servant leader style is the antecedent of employees‟ satisfaction, and it
decreases job hopping and reduces employee turnover. The servant leader cannot directly
influence employees‟ loyalty because an employee‟s commitment with the leader is much
important and employees‟ satisfaction impacts loyalty (Wright & Bonett, 2007). West,
Bud and Bocarnea, Mihai (2008), conducted their research on nurses, and the results
showed a strong relationship between nurses‟ satisfaction and servant leadership.
Tajammal and Wajid (2012), in their study on the impact of servant leadership on job
performance by distributing a questionnaire among 400 engineers from a defense
organization in Pakistan found that there is significant relationship between technical
management organization and servant leadership behavior which results in enhancing the
organizational and job performance.
Guillaume, Honeycutt and Savage-Austin (2013), conducted their study on job
satisfaction and servant leadership in a private university in Atlanta, using SLQ (Servant
Leadership Questionnaire and the Minnesota Satisfaction Survey for data collection). The
data showed that a positive link between servant leadership and job satisfaction. Adopting
the servant leadership style can not only improve the employees‟ loyalty, but also
managers have to consider person needs to get better mental satisfaction. Employees‟
satisfaction has played an intervening role between employees‟ loyalty and servant
leadership that has occupied 77% correlation (Ding, Lu, Song & Lu, 2012).
Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction
As explained in detail in the previous section that how servant leadership impacts
employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance with mediation role of job satisfaction.
Page 78
61
Mediation role can easily be understood from the model provided by Baron and Kenny
(1986). The model was also discussed by Rahman (2012), in his study with detailed
clarification. This study has used the model provided by Baron and Kenny for the role of
mediator.
According to Baron and Kenny, a variable can be named as a mediator when an
exogenous variable altogether influences it (mediator). The exogenous variable
significantly affects the indigenous variables, and the mediator affects the indigenous
variables as shown in the path diagram. By adding the mediator, the effect of exogenous
variable on indigenous variable shrinks. An explanation is given here in the following
Figure 2.
a b
c
Figure 2 Explaining Mediation Role (Baron & Kenny, 1986)
Job Satisfaction, Employees’ Loyalty, and Organizational Performance
Many findings showed job satisfaction and servant leadership role on employees‟
loyalty and organizational performance and concluded that employees‟ satisfaction has a
positive relation with loyalty and performance (Babin, Griffin, Lee, Kim, 2005; Lisbijanto
& Budiyanto, 2014). Anderson and Kelly (2005), also identified in their study that there is
a relationship between job satisfaction and servant leadership, and this relationship
impacts organizational effectiveness which ultimately increases organizational
performance and employees‟ loyalty (Irvin & Justin, 2005).
Mediator
Dependent
Variables
Independent
Variables
Page 79
62
Amadeo and Carol (2008), conducted 16 studies on organizational performance,
organizational loyalty/commitment and job satisfaction. The findings showed that there is
a strong impact of commitment and job satisfaction, on organizational performance. Yao,
Huang and Fan (2008), studied the job satisfaction and employees‟ loyalty from two
aspects. First they mentioned that it reduced perceived risk and maximized positive
emotions. Second, these things create a good feeling and ultimately result in pleasure and
good work result. Chang, Chiu and Chen (2010), have also mentioned the same result
from their study. When the employees‟ satisfaction is low, employee turnover increases
and when employee satisfaction is high it reduces the employee turnover. So employee
and job satisfaction has a positive impact on employees‟ loyalty (Alfonso & Andres 2007;
Chee, Haddad & Singh, 2007; Falkenburg & Schyns, 2007; Wagner, 2007).
Servant Leadership, Job Satisfaction, Employees’ Loyalty & Organizational
Performance
Servant leadership is not similarly as an administration method, yet a lifestyle
which begins when one needs to serve first (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Servant leadership
positively affects work satisfaction which thusly positively affects organizational
execution and employees' commitment and loyalty (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014).
Anderson and Kelly (2005), also identified from their study that there is a correlation
between servant leadership and job satisfaction. The work of Ladin et al. (2008),
statistically proved that the facet of servant leadership that is helping subordinates grow
and succeed has a positive influence on employees‟ loyalty/commitment. Dubinsky and
Skinner revealed that concern of employees creates commitment and improves loyalty
(Ding et al., 2012). They argued that servant leadership behavior would influence job
satisfaction and this will turn impacts commitment/loyalty and organizational
performance.
Page 80
63
Other studies reported that servant leadership will increase employees‟ loyalty and
job satisfaction (Jones, Reynolds, Arnold, 2006; Jenkins & Stewart 2008; Lisbijanto &
Budiyanto, 2014; Sweeny & Macfarlane, 2002; Wright & Bonett, 2007).
Blanchard (2007), cited in his work that Huselid and Becker (n.d.) studied round
about 1500 firms, and found that servant leadership practices had improved job
satisfaction, increased productivity, improved employee retention and increased the
organization‟s market value. Riketta (2008), conducted the study on servant leadership
impact on organizational performance, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in
educational cooperation in the United States. The study statistically showed that there was
a positive link between behavior of servant leaders and organizational performance.
Chang, Chiu, and Chen (2010), pointed out that high qualified exchange relation
between supervisors and subordinates will increase employees‟ satisfaction, which will in
turn improve employee commitment, and they will stay for long in the organization and
thus increase employees‟ loyalty (Cheung & Wu, 2012). Kasun (2009), in his dissertation
on servant leadership and public school principals by using Self-Assessment of Servant
Leadership (SASL) to collect data from 70 school principals in New Jersey found that
there was significant impact of servant leadership characteristics on principal‟s
performance, and due to this leadership characteristics they were successful in making
New Jersey schools as one of the top schools among other public institutions.
Christina (2011), conducted a survey research on servant leadership, and student
professional affairs, and used SLQ in her study. The instrument consisted of 266
questionnaires and was distributed among the students. Her findings illustrated that
servant leadership behavior exists in the association of college union International
(ACUI), and all the students are satisfied with their behavior. Jose and Mampilly (2012),
have also mentioned in the study that HR practices have a great impact on job satisfaction
Page 81
64
and organizational performance that leads to employees‟ loyalty. Ramli and Desa (2014),
conducted their study on different organizations in Malaysia. They distributed 200
questionnaires randomly in different organizations. They found that there is a significant
relationship between the servant leadership behavior and organizational commitment with
the mediating role of trust. They further found that all these things increase organizational
performance and job satisfaction of the employees‟. The result showed that all the facets
of servant leadership were above the average point, and concluded that servant leadership
behavior is a model behavior for all other types of leadership, and through this behavior
manger can create healthy organizational culture which may foster job satisfaction and
employees‟ loyalty.
Mahembe and Engelbrecht (2014), conducted study on 38 schools and data was
drawn from 288 school teachers in Western Cape in South Africa. They used servant
leadership dimension model SLQ to know the effect of servant leadership on
organizational citizenship and team effectiveness; the data revealed that the servant
leadership conduct supports positive behavior on team effectiveness, which creates
employees‟ satisfaction and increases job performance and employees‟ loyalty.
Tahira, Hussain, and Saadi (2015), conducted their study on higher education
institutions in Pakistan. They had used the population of universities of Punjab. The result
statistically showed that there was a significant relation between the role of chairs and the
quality of education. It will not only enhance job satisfaction but increases organizational
performance. It was also recommended in this study that there should be proper training to
chairs and department heads to improve skills and ability further.
Sokoll (2014), in his study conducted on full-time university employees in the US,
and distributed questionnaire to 149 out of 207 full-time employees which was adopted
from Field & Winston servant leadership instrument. His findings showed that servant
Page 82
65
leadership has a significant positive impact on employees‟ commitment, and these
commitments increase employee and supervisor relationship which directly increases
employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.
Conceptual Framework of the Study
The researcher has drawn this conceptual model of the study by exploring some
diverse studies on job satisfaction and servant leadership and its relation to employees‟
loyalty and organizational performance. The studies of some of researchers and scholars
having contributed to this conceptual model are: servant leadership and organizational
outcome of job satisfaction; employees‟ loyalty was taken from the work of “Relationship
of Servant Leadership and Employees‟ Loyalty” Mediating Role of Employees‟
Satisfaction carried out by Ding, Lu, Song and Lu, (2012); organizational performance
from the study of Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014) and McCann, Graves and Cox, (2014).
The job satisfaction variable was taken from the study of Adeniji (2011) and from
the study “Effect of servant leadership on followers‟ job performance” (Tajammal &
Wajid, 2012), employees‟ loyalty and job satisfaction concept was taken from Pandy and
Khare, (2012). The additional studies included were Achieving High Organization
Performance through Servant Leadership (Melchar & Susan, 2010), impact of servant
leadership on job satisfaction (Guillaume, Honeycutt & Savage-Austin, 2013).
This research model was made under the guidance of models of Lisbijanto and
Budiyanto (2014), McCann, Graves and Cox, (2014), Ding, Lu, Song and Lu (2012), and
these studies mentioned that servant leadership impacts employees‟ loyalty when job
satisfaction mediates, and servant leadership impacts organizational performance when
employee satisfaction mediates.
The previous studies were taken individually and in different organizations while,
the present study has used collectively all the variables that are the meditational role of job
Page 83
66
satisfaction between servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational
performance in universities of Peshawar. There is a dearth of research on servant
leadership in educational institutions in Peshawar, but with the above literature and studies
as discussed in the previous pages it has been theorized that servant leadership impacts
organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty when job satisfaction mediates in the
education institutions of Peshawar. The researcher has developed the conceptual
framework, which not only help to the executives level to get help while making strategy
or policy at university level but it will also examine the association of these constructs
and their interdependencies on each other as given by Figure 3:
Based on the above framework the following assumptions were tested to get answers to
the research questions for this study.
Altruistic
calling
Servant
Leadership
Employee
Loyalty
Job
Satisfaction
Organizational
Performance
Emotional
healing
Wisdom
Persuasive
mapping
Organizational Stewardship
H6
Figure 3 Conceptual Model of the Study
H2, H2a, H2b
H1, H1a, H1b
H3, H3a, H3b H 4
H
H 5
H
Page 84
67
Research Hypotheses
The following will be the research hypothesis which will be tested to verify the
answers to the research questions.
H1: Servant leadership is positively related to organizational performance.
H1a Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership affect
organizational performance positively.
H1b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship dimensions of
servant leadership are positively related to organizational performance.
H2: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and employees‟ loyalty.
H2a Servant leadership dimensions like altruistic calling and emotional healing are
positively related to employees‟ loyalty.
H2b: Servant leadership facets like wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational
stewardship are positively impact employees‟ loyalty.
H3: Servant leadership has a positive relation with job satisfaction.
H3a Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership affect job or
employees‟ satisfaction positively.
H3b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship dimensions of
servant leadership are positively related to job satisfaction.
H4: There is a positive relation between job satisfaction and employees‟ loyalty.
H5: job satisfaction is positively related to organizational performance.
H6: job satisfaction mediates the association between servant leadership, employees‟
loyalty, and organizational performance.
Page 85
68
Rationale of the Study
Different studies have been done to know what increases employees‟ loyalty and
organizational or job performance, and to know the relationships between these variables.
It is critical to identify factors that impact employees‟ loyalty and organizational
performance in higher education institutions to maintain and provide quality education to
society and the community. Recent studies revealed that servant leadership behavior (see
Table 9) play a dominant role in employees‟ loyalty and commitment, as well as
organizational and job performance. The extent literature shows the impact of servant
leadership on employees‟ loyalty, commitment, job satisfaction, work motivation,
organizational commitment, and job and organization performance. The resulting passages
are identified with work done by researchers on servant leadership by diverse but vital
linked variables
In the study of Koesmono (2014), which he conducted in economic and
management private universities in East Surabaya, the result showed a positive relation
between servant leadership and job satisfaction, and also a positive effect on
organizational commitment and job performance. Cerit (2010), conducted a study on
effect of servant leadership on teachers‟ commitment, the findings empirically proved
positive relationship between behavior of servant leadership and teacher‟s commitment.
Machumu and Kaitila (2014), conducted study on leadership styles and teachers‟
satisfaction. The study conducted on school teachers revealed that there was positive
relation between the variables. Scardino (2012), conducted study in higher education
titled: “the Influence of servant-Led faculty on student engagement” which showed that
servant leadership behavior not only impacts faculty satisfaction but also influence student
engagement.
Page 86
69
Anderson (2005), conducted his research by collecting data from religious
educational organizations. His study showed a significant relation between servant
leadership and job satisfaction. West and Bocârnea (2008), worked on nurses job
satisfaction and servant leadership behavior. By collecting data from registered nurses
working at different hospitals revealed that there is positive impact of servant leadership
on nurses‟ satisfaction. Jenkins and Stewart (2008), conducted their research on different
health care management to find out the relation of servant leadership oriented behavior on
job satisfaction and employees‟ commitment. The results showed that there is positive
relationship between the variables. Vondy (2010), conducted a study on organizational
citizenship and servant leadership. The findings revealed that there is positive effect of
servant leadership on employees‟ loyalty.
Coetzer, Bussin, and Geldenhuys (2017), conducted their study by reviewing
different literatures from different countries and summarized that servant leadership
played a dominant role in employees‟ loyalty and organizational outcomes. Ryckman
(2017), mentioned that in army, implementing servant leadership behavior not only caused
job satisfaction but also created loyalty in junior officers to their jobs
Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014), collected data from 396 employees, 132
chairpersons and 132 workers cooperatives and requested them to answer organizational
performance variables. The study revealed that servant leadership has a positive impact on
job satisfaction but little impact on organizational performance.
Chang et al. (2010), study revealed that leadership style like servant leadership,
empowering, team work and rewarding have a positive impact on job satisfaction,
resulting in employees‟ loyalty. Ding et al. (2012), conducted their research in China,
collected data from 186 participants using the SEM method found that there is a
significant relationship between the servant leadership behavior and employees‟ loyalty.
Page 87
70
Schneider and George (2011), have identified in their study carried out in a
voluntary service organization. This study was conducted by selecting eight clubs of a
national voluntary service organization. The main purpose of their study was to see the
impact of servant leadership or transformational leadership on member commitment,
intentions, and satisfaction to stay in the club. For this purpose, they had collected data
from 110 respondents through a questionnaire or online survey. The club presidents
completed the survey of leadership. They concluded that servant leadership explained
more the commitment and attitudes of members of the service organization than the
transformational leadership with the mediating effect of empowerment.
The study of McCann et al. (2014), which they conducted in United States rural
community hospitals, revealed that servant leadership and employee satisfaction are highly
correlated with each other. They conducted 219 surveys from 10 community hospitals.
The final result showed that behavior of servant leadership, organizational performance
and employee satisfaction have a positive correlation.
David and Susan (2010), in their study conducted in a high performing automobile
dealership in the United States. Results showed that all factors of servant leadership have a
significant influence on high organizational performance. Many studies have proved that
the employee satisfaction has a role on employees‟ loyalty, and came to the conclusion
that employee satisfaction has a significant positive relation with loyalty of the employees‟
(Arnold, Jones & Reynolds, 2006; Babin, Kim, Lee and Griffin, 2005). Jaramillo (2009),
studied full time sale staff of an organization and concluded that servant leader behavior
first develops organizational adjustment, which creates commitment and in turn reduces
staff retention and enhance loyalty (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts, 2009).
Page 88
71
After reviewing the available literature, the researcher concluded that numbers of
authors worked on servant leadership, job satisfaction and organizational performance,
separately or in some combination but organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty
with job satisfaction and servant leadership got limited literature, particularly in
universities. The same is the case with public and private universities in Pakistan.
Therefore, this study will focus the servant leadership impact on organizational
performance and servant leadership on employees‟ loyalty and the mediating role of job
satisfaction between the servant leadership and employees‟ loyalty and servant leadership
and organizational performance in public and private sector universities in Peshawar.
Page 89
72
Chapter 3
Methodology
The research aims at studying the behavior of servant leader in universities, and to
analyze its impact on the faculty satisfaction, their loyalty and organizational performance.
This chapter will discuss the method used to achieve the research objectives, the sample
and its size, participants, the instruments and method used in collecting the data, statistical
tools and SEM for data analysis.
Philosophy of Research
The philosophy of research is concerned with the extension and characteristics of
knowledge (Rehman, 2012). In social science and business research, research philosophy
helps the researchers to know and to pick up the right research strategy (Johnson & Clrak,
2006). It consists of three main types of philosophies: realism, positivism and interpretive
(Sanunder, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Interpretivism is an approach of social sciences
research and usually uses to conduct qualitative studies. Realism philosophy is based on
assumptions of scientific approach of the knowledge development and generally relies on
combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques.
This study is based on positivism approach just because the researcher is
examining a theory through assumptions. The researcher assumes that servant leadership
behavior builds job satisfaction in organization, which will further enhance employees‟
loyalty and organizational performance.
Research Approach
It is based on two main approaches, such as: inductive and deductive approach and
is proposed in the chosen philosophy of research (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
Page 90
73
Inductive research approach is applied in cases where the researcher is a particular
set of facts or ideas to establish new theory on the basis of available literature, however, in
the deductive way of research the researcher works on the already available theory. To
conduct this type of research quantitative techniques are used to test the theory. The
researcher has used positivism research philosophy and deductive research approach to
test the theory.
Survey Design
Different strategies can be used by the researchers to conduct their research works
based on preferences and nature of study. Strategy used in this study is survey and related
with deductive research approach. Hence, deductive and quantitative approach is used for
this study to collect data. This study is based on survey. Survey includes observation,
interviews, electronic mails and questionnaire. Therefore, questionnaire survey was used
in this study to collect data. The principal objective is to find out that how the target
population of the research conceive and respond. They were only asked about the
questions. The selected population for the current study is the faculty members of
universities in Peshawar.
Research Strategy
Research strategy is a plan which helps the researcher to best pick research
methodology to answer the research questions (Afridi, 2017; Rehman, 2012). As
mentioned by Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009), and Rehman (2012), that there are
two major approach of research strategies such as: qualitative approach of research, and
the quantitative approach of research. Qualitative strategy is usually used when the
researcher is conducting interview from respondents. Whereas, quantitative research
strategy gives results in numerical data and can be carried out via questionnaires, statistics
Page 91
74
and graphs (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Research design used for this study is
survey and related with deductive research approach (Rehman, 2012).
The Target Population
The target population of the study consists of faculty from the selected universities
in Peshawar city. The term population here stands for group of participants, events and
objects which are the primary concern of the research area (Rehman, 2102). The number
of total universities in Peshawar is seventeen, and their faculties constitute around 2969
members (Appendix G). These seventeen universities include 7 public sector, 9 private
sector universities and one degree awarding institute. Seven public sector universities
include Agriculture University of Peshawar, Frontier Women University, Islamia College
University of Peshawar, Khyber Medical University, National University of Modern
Languages, University of Engineering and Technology and University of Peshawar.
Private sector universities include, City University of Sciences and Technology,
CECOS University, Gandhara Univesity, Iqra National University, National University
(FAST), Preston University, Qurtaba University of Science and information Technology
and Sarhad University of Sciences and Information Technology. One degree awarding
institute include Institute of Management Sciences Peshawar (IMSciences).
All public and private universities in Peshawar have accentuated to provide better
education to the community and enlightened them with latest technological advancement
to accept global challenges. The mission of all universities is future-arranged and
extraordinary institutions focused on accomplishing perfection in the graduate and
undergraduate education, research and community service. The universities give prevalent
and complete educational open doors through doctoral and professional levels.
Some universities are old such as University of Peshawar and Islamia College
University. The foundation of Peshawar University was laid down in 1950 while Islamia
Page 92
75
College was established in 1913, since then both the institution are providing their services
in the education sector.
The academic hierarchy of both type universities and one degree awarding institute
consists of head of departments, professors, associate professors, assistant professors and
lecturers. In public universities approximately 1983 academicians are working in different
departments and they are permanent academic staff, which comprises 66.7% of the total
population. In private sector universities 923 faculty members, which is 31.08% of the
total population, are working in different departments in which only 20% are visiting
faculty and 80% are permanent academic members. In one degree awarding institute the
total number of faculty members are 63 which covers 2.12% of the total target population
(Appendix G).
All the faculty data was taken from respective universities website. Target
population was faculty members of all the universities in Peshawar. Peshawar is the
capital of the province and all the major public and private universities are placed here,
however, it was not possible to study the entire population and to get a response from
every member. Therefore, sampling method was used to collect data which could give a
good representation of the entire population. Sampling technique and procedure are
discussed in the sampling section in detail. The list of universities in Peshawar are
provided in the below Table 14 and numbers of the faculty members in both public and
private universities are provided in detail on page 176 (Appendix G).
Page 93
76
Table 14
List of Universities in Peshawar
# Name of Universities Campus Website
1. Agricultural University Peshawar Peshawar www.aup.edul.pk
2. Abasyn University Peshawar PEW www.abasyn.edu.pk
3. City University PEW www.cityuniversity.edu.pk
4. CECOS University PEW www.cecos.edu.pk
5. Frontier Women University PEW www.sbbwu.edu.pk
6. Gandhara University PEW www.gandhara.edu.pk
7. Islamia College University PEW www.icp.edu.pk
8. Iqra National University PEW www.inu.edu.pk
9. Khyber Medical University PEW www.inu.edu.pk
10.
National University Of Modern
Languages PEW www.inu.edu.pk
11. National University (FAST) PEW www.nu.edu.pk
12. Preston University PEW www.preston.edu.pk
13. Qurtuba University PEW www.qurtuba.edu.pk
14. Sarhad University PEW www.suit.edu.pk
15. University of Engineering & Tech. PEW www.nwfpuetp.edu.pk
16. University of Peshawar PEW www.upesh.edu.pk
Degree Awarding Institute
17. IMSciences Peshawar www.imsciences.edu.pk
Page 94
77
Sampling Technique and Sample Size Strategy
Probability stratified random sampling method was utilized for the distribution of
questionnaires among the target population. The Stratified random sampling is a tool
which divides the target population into sections and layers, or the sub population or
stratum and employs disproportionate random sampling to gain the data from each of its
subsection. Due to this methodology each university got equal chance to participate in the
survey for appropriate representation to reduce the favoritism or bias.
Hair et al. (2006), recommended an appropriate sample size for confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) using SEM, which should be between 100 and 200. He suggested that a
ratio of 10 responses for each construct is requisite to obtain reliable estimates. If data go
against the assumption of multivariate normality, the respondents‟ number can be
increased to 15 per estimated parameter. Reisinger (2006), recommended 100 to 400
sample size. Krejcie and Morgan (1970) have also provided a detailed table for sample
size decision. The researcher has followed them in the selection of proper sample size and
took 308 faculty members as sample size.
A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed in all the universities of Peshawar.
The participants were divided into strata such as: lecturer, assistant professor, associate
professor, and professor. Participation was voluntary. Out of the total 500 questionnaires,
319 were received with a response rate of 64%. 11 questionnaires were incomplete.
Hence, final useable questionnaires were 308. The data was collected from Peshawar
universities only. Details of the questionnaires sent and feedback are given in Table 15
below.
Page 95
78
Table 15
Questionnaires Detail, Sent and Feedback
Measures and Instruments
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed servant leadership questionnaire (SLQ)
rater version which was used to measure the facets of servant leadership. Job satisfaction
# Universities Name Sent Received %
1. Agricultural University Pesh. 40 24 60%
2. Abasyn University Peshawar 30 18 60%
3. City University 30 22 73%
4. CECOS University 30 23 77%
5. Frontier Women University 20 10 50%
6. Gandhara University 30 17 57%
7. Islamia College University 30 11 36%
8. Iqra National University 30 19 63%
9. Khyber Medical University 30 16 53%
10.
National University Of Modern
Languages 30 18 90%
11. National University (FAST) 30 16 53%
12. Preston University 20 14 70%
13. Qurtuba University 35 16
14. Sarhad University 20 15 75%
15. University of Engineering & Tech. 30 14 47%
16. University of Peshawar 50 29 58%
Degree Awarding Institute
17. Institute of Management Sciences 50 26 52%
Page 96
79
was measured by using the survey of Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist (1967),
Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Employees‟ loyalty was measured by
the survey of Pandey and Khare (2012), and organizational performance was measured by
survey from Katou and Budhwar (2010). Besides these four survey‟s, respondents
demographic survey was also included to collect information about the respondent‟s
demographics. The demographic survey was aimed to collect information regarding age,
qualification, gender, designation, length of service, language, marital status, organization
type and respondent language.
Servant Leadership. The servant leadership questionnaire contained five facets,
such as: altruistic calling, wisdom, emotional healing, persuasive mapping and
organization stewardship. These entire dimensions have been discussed in detail in
Chapter 1 & 2. The servant leadership questionnaire consisted of 23 items with 5 points
Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree (Appendix A).
The internal consistency and reliability determined by Barbuto and Wheeler was
good, and varied from 0.82 to 0.92 (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Rimes, 2011). The mean of
SLQ rater version for all five categories was also good and it ranged between 2.58 to 3.24,
and the standard deviations were ranged between 0.73 to0 .97 (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
Keeping in view the reliability and validity of the instruments the researcher used this
instrument to measure servant leadership behavior.
Job Satisfaction. MSQ developed by Weiss et al. (1967), which consisted of 2
facets namely extrinsic satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction was used for job satisfaction.
The job satisfaction questionnaire consisted of 8 items. All these questions were rated on
5-points Likert scale (Appendix A). Weiss et al. (1967), developed two forms for
measuring job satisfaction known as “long form” and “small form.” Both the instruments
were quite reliable and many researchers have used these instruments in their studies. The
Page 97
80
long form consisted of 100 items, while the short form consisted of 20 items; but in this
research 8 questions were taken for the data collection. Both forms had good reliability
values and were valid to use in this study for job satisfaction. The researcher used the short
form job satisfaction question of the MSQ. The internal reliability determined for this
short form was good and it ranged between 0.77 to 0.92. The mean of short form MSQ for
all items was also good.
Employees’ Loyalty. To measure employees‟ loyalty, a 17 items instrument from
Pandey and Khare (2012), was used in this study. Respondents reported their agreements
on five points Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree (Appendix A). The
reliability determined for this instrument was good and it ranged between 0.67 to 0.77.
Organizational Performance. The measurement of organizational performance in
this study is based on items developed by Katou and Budhwar (2010), and Ismail, Rasid
and Selemani (2014). Katou and Budhwar (2010), determined the internal consistency of
the construct which were good. The internal consistency reliability determined for all 11
items ranged from 0.66 to0 .78, used to measure organizational performance.
Operational Definitions of Variables
Servant Leadership. The servant leader is the one who focuses on the interest of
others rather than his/her self (Ramli, & Desa, 2014). Servant leadership has been a role
and understanding of leadership which gives preference to the interest of others over the
interest of those who are leading others (Laub, 2004).
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the inner feeling of the person regarding
achievement that may be quantitative or qualitative. Job satisfaction is positive and happy
emotional state of the employee (Ding et al., 2012).
Page 98
81
Employees’ Loyalty. Employees‟ loyalty is the commitment of the worker to the
organization, and think it is the best option; and they are committed to its success and do
not search for another alternative (Pandey & Khare, 2012).
Organizational Performance. Organizational performance is to have efficient and
productive performance with all elements of the organization, and stimulate its members
to participate actively (Subandi, 2008).
Pilot Study
Instrument assumes overwhelming part in survey research for information
gathering. On the off chance that instrument is not substantial and solid or not coherent
this may make issue advance in study. So it was crucial to direct pilot study to judge
unwavering quality for instruments and to think about questionnaire readability to utilize
them in further study for information accumulation. (Rahman, 2012). For this reason
somewhere in the range of 75 questionnaires were disseminated in four universities. Sixty
four (64) were received with return rate of 85% which as indicated by Rahman (2012) and
Babbie (1998) is great response for pilot study. Internal consistency of all scales was
conducted. The cronbach‟s alpha for each scale was good. First overall reliability was
measured which showed adequate level of reliability. The cronbach‟s alpha for all the
questionnaire was .92. Then individual reliability of the scale was also measured which
also showed sufficient level of internal consistency. The reliability of servant leadership
for 23 items was .903, for 8 items of job satisfaction was .751, for 17 items of employees‟
loyalty was .891 and for 11 items of organizational performance it was .921. Table 16
presents the descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation and internal
reliability of all four variables and Table 17 presents Pearson Correlation Matrix of all
four main variables for pilot study. The correlation matrix Table presents that there is
Page 99
82
positive relationship between independent and dependent variables. These results of pilot
study show that all the instruments are reliable and valid and can be used for further study.
Table 16
Pilot Study Descriptive Statistics ( N=64)
Variable Sample Mean S.D Alpha
Servant Leadership 64 3.3321 .43211 .903
AC 64 3.2376 .96584
EH 64 3.6574 .79986
W 64 3.1276 .87765
PM 64 3.8643 .87654
OS 64 3.8762 .90875
Job Satisfaction (JS) 64 3.2389 .43359 .751
Intrinsic Satisfaction (4) 64 3.4405 .58980
Extrinsic Satisfaction(4) 64 3.0527 .76145
E. Loyalty (EL) 64 3.9876 .56432 .891
Commitment. 64 2.9876 .86543
Motivation. 64 3.8976 .65432
Belongingness. 64 3.4390 .87601
Career Development. 64 3.4328 .90754
Org. Performance (OP) 64 3.2746 .51625 .921
O Development 64 3.1048 1.01869
Quality 64 3.0810 .84150
Innovation 64 3.3905 .91995
Efficiency 64 3.6857 1.13167
Page 100
83
Table 17
Correlation Matrix of Constructs (N=64, Pilot Study)
Variables
1
2 3 4
5 6
7 8
1.AC
2.EH 0.51*
3.W 0.36 0.68*
4.PM 0.41 0.56 0.51*
5.OS 0.30 0.43 0.54 0.45*
6.JS 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.42 0.47*
7.EL 0.53 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.79*
8.OP 0.47 0.52 0.51 0.43 0.48 0.77 0.76*
Note: * All Correlation values are significant p<0.01
Data Collection Procedure
The researcher can collect data for the research in two ways; the first one is
primary data and the second one is secondary data of research. The former is, when the
researcher for the first time collects data from respondents or form study field, such as
data collected through designed questionnaire (Sekaran, 2003). While, secondary data
based on those data already available and easily accessible such as books, newspapers,
articles, web pages (Afridi, 2017).
In this study, the researcher is used both type of data. Structured questionnaire is
used to collect responses from the faculties of different universities which is primary data
while, Data from other different sources like, books, articles, journals, official web site,
internet browsing and newspapers are called secondary data. The faculty information was
collected directly from each respective university website which is secondary data.
For collecting responses for the faculties of the target population structured
questionnaire is used. Before collection of data, in each department, relevant Head of
Department (HOD) was contacted personally by the researcher. They were guided for the
distribution and filling of a questionnaire from the participants in each department. The
Page 101
84
required number of questionnaires was handed over in a sealed envelope to the HOD for
possible distribution. The participants returned the filled questionnaires in provided
envelopes to the relevant HOD in department concerned. The researcher, on the specified
dates, collected the questionnaire in person from them. The entire procedure consumed
approximately fourteen weeks in data collection.
Statistical Analysis
Data collected was analyzed with the help of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS). The softwares used were SPSS 23 and
AMOS 21 to check for reliability and validity of data. SPSS 23 version was used for
descriptive statistics like frequencies, means, standard deviations, and AMOS 21 version
was used for SEM to check construct validity of each instrument and model fit. Pearson
Correlation was conducted to know the variables relationship. Standardized coefficient
was also conducted with t values to test each hypothesis.
Inferential Statistics
It is one of the important techniques in most of the research to reach on conclusion.
It includes, Multiple Regression, Linear Regression, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM),
T test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) etc. On
these techniques researcher can inspect the model by applying different test to find the
conclusion. The present study will use SEM and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to
check the hypotheses and model.
In social science while researchers conducting study may face measurement error.
This may be due to the researcher or respondent understanding of the concept. To
overcome such errors, one should first test the theorized relationship among various
factors prior to figuring the model (Rehman, 2012).
Page 102
85
The purpose of testing the model is to approach the goodness of fit between the
theorized model and the empirical samples. To see whether the data fit or not to the
hypothesized model, Confirmatory Factor Analysis can be used for this purpose.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is different form CFA. It is usually used in
exploratory investigations where the researcher tries to identify factors and their
constructions (Child, 1990). In this study instruments are adopted from different
researches, hence, the researcher has used CFA by using Structural Equation Modeling,
AMOS 21. To find out that, whether model adapted to the data? There are different tests
available under Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), they are: Goodness-of- Fit Index,
Chi-square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR).
The Chi-square analysis specifies the gap between the observed and expected
covariance matrix. To have a model fit Chi-square value or p-value should be less than
0.05 or closer to zero (Gatignon, 2010). But the Chi-square significant does not mean that
the model is good fitted. However, Chi- Square with insignificant value will lead to a good
fitted model. In a small sample size, it can accept an incorrect model but in a large simple
size it may reject a good model. For such reasons, the researchers use other indices like,
GFI, CFI, RMR and RMSEA to find a good fitted model (Rahman, 2012).
Goodness-of- Fit Index shows a complete degree of model fit. Value greater than
0.90 signifies satisfactory model, closer to 1 consider good and equal to 1 indicates as well
fitted model. CFA gives complete co-variation between empirical data and theoretical
model. Value greater than 0.9 indicates acceptable fit, while value closer to 1 indicate that
there is less variation between the theoretical model and empirical data.
Other fit indices are RMSEA and RMR. RMSEA is very popular index among
researchers and it avoids the issues relating with sample size. Its values vary from 0 to 1.
Page 103
86
RMSEA closer to 0 is considered good model and value equal to 0.06 considered
acceptable model. While, Root Mean Squared Residual is the square root of the mean of
the squared residuals. Value less than .05 considered good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; cited
by Afrid, 2017).
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
It is the representation of a theoretical concept regarding the structural equation. It
represents a diagram of statistical values. It shows the theoretical concept in a structural
form. It is also known as casual modeling which shows the impact. In SEM, the researcher
can also know about the correlation between exogenous and indigenous variables
(Rahman, 2012). A theoretical concept which has been shown by the researcher can easily
be drawn as a model with the help of SEM. Researchers can also put unobserved variables
in the diagram to have a lucid picture regarding equation modeling.
SEM has many names they are: CFA, Covariance structure analysis (CSA), and
Latent variable analysis (Rahman, 2012). SEM has been used to measure the constructs
and assess the hypothesized relationship between variables, and to test the model of the
study. SEM makes it easy to establish goodness- of -fit between the sample data and
hypothesized model variables (Kumar, 2014).
Reliability and Validity
The instrument validity and reliability are very important. It usually shows how
much an instrument is valid and reliable. Following are the details:
Reliability. It measures the consistency of the questionnaire. Consistency is when
the instrument is free from random error (Rahman, 2012). Reliability was measured with
the help of Cronbach‟s alpha. The reliability for all the questionnaires was .97. Then
individual reliability of the scale was also measured, which also showed sufficient level of
Page 104
87
internal consistency. The reliability for 23 items of servant leadership was .92, for job
satisfaction 8 items it was .76, for 17 items of employees‟ loyalty was .91 and for 11 items
of organizational performance, it was .94. The main purpose of this evaluation is to see
whether the relationship between the different constructs is strong and valid.
Validity. Questionnaire validity can be checked to see that it assessed the related
aspect of the measure. Its primary objective is to know how strong the relationship among
the measures and its underlying characters is established (Rahman, 2012). For this
purpose the questionnaire was discussed with subject experts in the universities,
suggestions and comments were included and then send for data collection. As mentioned
by different scholars and researchers such as Burns and Bush (2004), and Hair, Black,
Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2006) that the main important validities are: content
validity, face validity, constructs validity and predictive validity.
Statistical Software
Statistical software like SPSS 23 and for Structural Equation Modeling, Analysis
of Moment Structure (AMOS) 21 edition is used to check for reliability and validity of
data. SPSS 23 version is used for descriptive statistics like frequencies, means, standard
deviations, and AMOS 21 version is used for SEM to check model fit.
Ethical Consideration
Ethical consideration of confidentiality, voluntary participation, academic
objectivity, informed consent and privacy were addressed in the questionnaire and assured
each respondent that the study would not reveal any personal information to any irrelevant
person. It was also assumed that the purpose of this study is purely research oriented and
academic in nature. The covering letter further elaborated that their responses will be used
only for analysis and will be reported as group data. Hence, in this study ethical codes had
been followed according to research standards.
Page 105
88
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
This chapter provides data analysis obtained through the survey. Main sections of
this chapter include: inferential statistics, descriptive statistics, test and results of the
hypotheses and model fit through structural equation modeling.
Response Rate
Total 500 survey questionnaires were send to all 17 universities of Peshawar
(Seven in the public sector, one semi-government, and nine private-sector universities),
out of which 319 were received with a return rate of 64%. In the analysis stage, it was
found that 11 questionnaires had major missing data, which were excluded. Thus, it was
decided to take 308 questionnaires for the examination. According to Gaur and Gaur
(2006), frequencies and percentages of data provide summary statistics. Hence, a
descriptive statistics of the data provided have a detailed description of the respondents.
The demographic variables were: designation, education, language, marital status, gender,
and length of service, age, organization type and type of the respondents (Rehman, 2012)
Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Demographics
Position/Title. Table 18 presents the details regarding position/title of the faculty
members. The table demonstrates respondents majority are lecturers (n=144), consisting
47% of the total population, next by Assistant Professors (102), comprising of 33%,
subsequently by Associate Professors (27) with a 9%, followed by Professors (24) with a
valid of 8%, then by others or Junior Lecturers are (n=11) with a valid percentage of 7.
Page 106
89
Table 18
Faculty Position/Title (N=308)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Professor 24 7.8 7.8 7.8
Associate Professor 27 8.8 8.8 16.6
Assistant Professor 102 33.1 33.1 49.7
Lecturer 144 46.8 46.8 96.4
Junior Lecturer 11 3.6 3.6 100.0
Missing System
Total
0
308
100.0
100.0
Education. Table 19 gives the details of respondent‟s qualification. Majority of the
respondents are Master of Philosophy/Master of Science including valid of 59%, followed
by Ph.D. with valid percent of 18%, then by Masters 17%, Bachelors 5%, and others with
6% of the total population.
Table 19
Respondents Education (N=308)
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
Bachelors 16 5.2 5.2 5.2
Masters 53 17.2 17.2 22.4
M. Phil/MS 181 58.8 58.8 81.2
Doctoral (PhD) 56 18.2 18.2 99.4
Others 2 .6 .6 100.0
Total 308 100 100
Page 107
90
Language. Table 20 demonstrates details of faculty languages. Majority of the
teaching staff members speaking Pashto consisting of 67% (n=206) of the population,
Urdu speaker 25% (77), then by Panjabi 9% (18), others 2% (5), and last English 0.6%
(2), of the total population.
Table 20
Respondents Language (N=308)
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
Urdu 77 25.0 25.0 25.0
English 2 .6 .6 25.6
Panjabi 18 5.8 5.8 31.5
Pashto 206 66.9 66.9 98.4
Others 5 1.6 1.6 100.0
Missing System
Total
0
308
100.0
100.0
Marital Status. Table 21 provides the detail of respondent‟s marital status. 74%
(n=227) of the respondents were married and 26% (81) of the total population was un-
married.
Table 21
Marital Status (N=308)
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Married 227 73.7 73.7 73.7
Un-married 81 26.3 26.3 100.0
Missing System
Total
0
308
100.0
100.0
Page 108
91
Gender. Table 22 provides detail of respondents‟ gender. Below is the Table 20
which provides detail of faculty members‟ gender. 63% (n=194) of the respondents were
male and 37% (114) was female faculty members.
Table 22
Respondents Gender (N=308)
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
Male Faculty 194 63% 63% 63%
Female Faculty 114 37% 37% 100%
Missing System
Total
0
308
100.0
100.0
Organization Type. Table 23 demonstrates the detail of the respondent‟s
organization type. The Table shows that a majority of the respondents are from the Private
Sector (n=160) containing a percentage of 52, followed by Public Sector (n=148) with a
valid value of 48%.
Table 23
Age. Table 24 provides detail of faculty age. Table shows majority of the faculty
members are in the age group of 27-38 (n=163) comprising valid percentage of 53,
followed by age group of 22-27 (n=57) with valid percent of 19, followed by age group
Respondents Organization (N=308)
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
Public 148 48.1 48.1 48.1
Private 160 51.9 51.9 100.0
Missing System
Total
0
308
100.0
100.0
Page 109
92
38-45 (n=53), with total percentage of 17, subsequently by age group 45-60 (n=34) with
value percent of 11, then followed by age group 60-above (n=1) with value .3%.
Table 24
Respondents Age (N=308)
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
22-27 57 18.5 18.5 18.5
27-38 163 52.9 52.9 71.4
38-45 53 17.2 17.2 88.6
45-60 34 11.0 11.0 99.7
60-above 1 .3 .3 100.0
Missing System
Total
0
308
100.0
100.0
Nationality. Table 25 provides detail of respondent‟s nationality. The Table shows
all faculty members are Pakistani (n=308) with a valid value of 100%.
Table 25
Respondents Nationality (N=308)
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
Missing System
Pakistan
0
308
100.0
100.0
100.0
The Length of Service. Table 26 presents a detail of respondent‟s length of service in
a specific university. The Table give details that a majority of faculty members service are
2-5 years (n=119), containing total valid percent of 38.63, followed by 5-10 years service
(n=81), comprising percentage of 26.29, followed by 1-2 years service (n=62) with
Page 110
93
percentage of 20.12, followed by 10-15 years of service (n=28), with total valid value of
9.09%, followed by less than 1 year of service (n=9) comprising percentage 2.9, followed
by 15-20 years‟ service (n=7) with a valid percentage of 2.27, followed by above 20 years
(n=2), with a valid percents of 64%.
Table 26
Respondents Length of Service (N=308)
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Less than 1 year 09 2.92 2.92 2.92
1-2 years 62 20.12 20.12 23.04
2-5 years 119 38.63 38.63 61.67
5-10 years 81 26.29 26.29 87.96
10-15 years 28 9.09 9.09 97.05
15-20 years 07 2.27 2.27 99.32
Above 20 years 02 0.64 0.64 100.00
Total 308 100 100
Page 111
94
K
urt
osi
s
Sta
tist
ic S
E
-.17 .2
7
-.81 .27
-.22 .27
-.60 .27
-.17 .2
7
.05 . 2
7
-.43 .27
.29 .2
7
.39 .27
S
kew
nes
s
Sta
tist
ic S
E
-.50 .1
3
-.31 .13
-.67 .13
-.57 .13
-.56 .13
-.62 .1
3
-.43 .13
-.48 .13
-.89 .13
Alp
ha
0.9
2
0.9
3
0.9
3
0.9
1
0.7
4
0.9
1
0.7
6
0.9
1
0.9
4
SD
0.7
8
1.0
7
1.0
2
0.9
2
1.1
5
0.8
9
0.7
1
0.6
6
0.6
2
M
ean
s
3.2
8
3.2
8
3.2
8
3.2
8
3.2
8
3.2
8
3.2
8
3.2
8
3.2
8
Maxim
um
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Min
imum
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No o
f
item
s
23
4
4
5
5
5
8
17
11
Vari
ab
les
Ser
van
t
lead
ersh
ip
A
C*
E
H
W
P
M
O
S
Job
Sati
sfact
ion
Em
plo
yee
s’
Loyalt
y
Loyalt
y
Org
.
Per
form
an
ce
Tab
le 2
7
Des
crip
tive
sta
tist
ics
of
Main
Vari
able
s (N
=308)
*A
C=
Alt
ruis
tic
Cal
ling, E
H=
Em
oti
onal
Hea
ling
, W
=W
isdom
, P
M=
Per
suas
ive
Map
pin
g, O
S=
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Ste
war
dsh
ip
Page 112
95
Descriptive Statistics of Variables
The Table 27 shows descriptive analysis of the variables such as: means, standard
deviations and reliability, skewness and kurtosis of the data for its normal distribution.
Reliability of the variables was above 0.7 with means value 3.28 and standard deviations
range from 0.78 to 0.6 showed that all the instruments were good to use. Skewness and
kurtosis statistics with standard error showed that all the data were normally distributed.
As mentioned by George and Mallery (2010), that for normal distribution of data values
for kurtosis and skewness between +2 and -2 are acceptable. As given in the above table
that all the values of skewness ranged between -.31 and -.89 and kurtosis ranged between -
.17 to .05 revealed that data was normally distributed.
Inferential Statistics
Inferential statistics are very useful in social science research. Previous section
provided descriptive statistics that simply presents the characteristics or behavior of the
sample data itself. To generalize the information collected from the sample it required the
use and help of inferential statistics, as it can help the researcher to generalize the
information and reach to final conclusion.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for Servant Leadership
In this section CFA was used to check the construct validity of the servant
leadership and its all dimensions such as: altruistic calling, wisdom, emotional healing,
persuasive mapping, organization stewardship separately.
Altruistic Calling. The below given Figure 4 and Table 28 represents the CFA
and model fit statistics for altruistic calling.
Page 113
96
Table 28
Model Fit Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Altruistic Calling
X2 DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Un-Fit Model 33.2 2 .945 .968 .041 .225
Model Fit 0.54 (p<.03) 1 1.00 1.00 0.001 .000
Note: *All t values were significant at p<0.05
Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance
SLAC1 0.92 0.90
3.00 0.03
SLAC2 0.91 0.90 3.02 0.03
SLAC3 0.83 0.90 3.08 0.05
SLAC4 0.77 0.92 3.09 0.06
Figure 4 CFA for Altruistic Calling
Page 114
97
Figure 4 presents CFA for altruistic calling constructs. CFA was run and found that
the model was not well fitted. The Table 28 shows value of the Chi-square 33.2 with 2
degrees of freedom (DF) was significant at p< 0.05. Other statistics was also not in
acceptable range such as root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) as its value was
.225, other statistics showed good values as goodness of fit index (GFI) was .945,
confirmatory fit index (CFI) .968 and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was
.041. Therefore, the model was examined in the light of modification indices. The error of
servant leadership altruistic calling (SLAC 3) and SLAC 4 found highly correlated. Factor
loading was run again and found that all the values are in acceptable range and model was
fitted well. The above Figure shows CFA for altruistic calling with covariance.
Table 28 provides model fit statistics and the result of CFA for four indicators.
Model fit statistics values for altruistic calling are in acceptable range. The Chi-square
value 0.54 with 1 DF was significant at p<0.03, GFI value 1.00, CFI value 1.00, SRMR
value 0.001 and the RMSEA 0.000, all values were in acceptable range and model was
good fit. The Standardized estimates range from .77 to .92 and reliability of the indicators
was above .70 showed that all the indicators were good predictors of altruistic calling.
Emotional Healing. The CFA and model fit statistics for emotional healing are
given below in Figure 5 and Table 29.
Page 115
98
Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance
SLEH1 0.87 0.91 3.12 0.03
SLEH2 0.85 0.91 3.32 0.03
SLEH3 0.93 0.89 3.34 0.03
SLEH4 0.83 0.91 3.34 0.04
Note: * p<0.05 (t values)
Figure 5 presents CFA for emotional healing constructs. This was a single model
with four indicators. By estimation, it has been found that this model did fit well. As
provided in Table 29 the Chi-square value of 3.3 with 2 DF was significant at p< 0.018.
Other statistics fit showed the model was fit. The value of RMSEA was .047, other
statistics showed good values as GFI was .994, CFI .999 and standardized RMR was .011.
All values were in acceptable range and indicated good fit model. Similar findings were
made by (Rahman, 2012).
Figure 5 CFA for Emotional Healing
Table 29
Model Fit Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Emotional Healing
Model Fit Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Value 3.3 (p<.018) 2.00 0.994 0.999 0.011 .047
Page 116
99
Wisdom. The following Figure 6 and Table 30 present CFA and fit statistics for
wisdom.
Figure 6 presents CFA for wisdom constructs. CFA was run and got the Chi-square
value of 90.06 with 5 DF was significant at p< 0.05. Other fit statistics showed the model
was not well because of RMSEA as it value was .235, GFI was .899, CFI .920 and
standardized RMR was .057. Therefore, the model was examined in the light of model
modification indices. The error of servant leadership wisdom (SLW1) and SLW2 were
Model Fit 3.4 (p<.017) 2 0.996 0.999 0.012 0.04 .04
Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance
SLW1 0.65 0.92 3.32 0.06
SLW2 0.77 0.91 3.32 0.04
SLW3 0.84 0.91 3.46 0.03
SLW4 0.89 0.91 3.62 0.03
SLW5 0.87 0.91 3.52 0.04
Figure 6 CFA for Wisdom
Table 30
Model Fit Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Wisdom
Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Un-Fit Model 90.06 5 0.899 0.920 0.057 .235
Page 117
100
found. Correlation was made with the help of path diagram and factor loading was run
again, it was found that the model fitted well because all the values were in the acceptable
range. The above Figure shows CFA for wisdom with covariance indication.
Table 30 provides model fit statistics and results of CFA for all indicators. The
Chi-square value 3.4 with 2 DF was significant at p< 0.017, GFI 0.996, CFI 0.999, SRMR
0.012 and the RMSEA was 0.04. The estimates and reliability values were also good.
Persuasive Mapping. The CFA and model fit statistics are given for persuasive
mapping in Figure 7 and Table 31.
Figure 7 CFA for Persuasive Mapping
Page 118
101
Table 31
Model Fit Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Persuasive Mapping
Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Un-Fit Model 16.29 (p<.05) 5 0.985 0.990 0.10 .086
Model Fit 11.42 (p<.05) 4 0.985 0.990 0.040 .078
Note: * p<0.05 (t values)
Figure 7 presents CFA for persuasive mapping constructs. In the validation
process model indices were not fit well. The Chi-square value of 16.29 was significant
with 5 DF at p< 0.05. RMSEA as its value was .086, and standardized RMR was .100
which was not in their acceptable range. Therefore, the model was examined with the help
of model modification indices. The error of SLPM1 and SLPM2 found correlated with
each other. With the help of path analysis, covariance was established and factor loading
was run again. It was found that the model was fitted well.
Table 31 provides CFA results for all indicators of persuasive mapping. The Chi-
square value 11.42 with 4 DF was significant at p< 0.05, GFI 0.985, CFI 0.990, SRMR
0.040 and the RMSEA was 0.078. The reliability values were above .70 and standardized
estimates ranged from 0.28 to 0.94 which showed that the model was good fit.
Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance
SLPM1 0.28 0.95 3.48 0.85
SLPM2 0.55 0.92 3.35 0.05
SLPM3 0.81 0.92 3.13 0.04
SLPM4 0.94 0.91 3.22 0.03
SLPM5 0.86 0.91 3.24 0.04
Page 119
102
Organizational Stewardship. The following Figure 8 presents CFA and Table 32
presents model fit statistics for organizational stewardship.
Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance
Note: * p<0.05 (t values)
SLOS1 0.68 0.90 3.48 0.06
SLOS2 0.89 0.87 3.35 0.04
SLOS3 0.86 0.87 3.13 0.03
SLOS4 0.75 0.88 3.22 0.05
SLOS5 0.83 0.88 3.24 0.05
Figure 8 CFA for Organizational Stewardship
Table 32
Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Organizational Stewardship
Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Un-Fit Model 53.37 5 0.997 1.00 0.01 .178
Model Fit 2.17(p<.033) 2 0.997 1.00 0.01 .017
Page 120
103
Figure 8 presents CFA for organizational stewardship constructs. The model was
validated and found not fit. The Chi-square value of 53.37 was significant with 5 DF at p<
0.05. The RMSEA as it value was .178, which was not in the acceptable range. Hence, the
model was looked with the help of modification indices. The error of SLOS 2 was found
correlated. With the help of path analysis covariance were made between the construct and
factor loading run again. This time the model was fit well. Table 30 provides model fit
statistics and final results of CFA for all five indicators. The value of RMSEA was 0.017,
SRMR 0.01, GFI 0.997, CFI was 1.00 and the chi-square value 2.17 with 2 DF was
significant at p< 0.33. All the values were acceptable range and showed that the model
was good fit.
Servant Leadership. The below given Figure 9 and Table 33 presents CFA and
Model fit statistics for servant leadership dimensions.
Figure 9 CFA for Servant Leadership
Page 121
104
Table 33
Model Fit Statistics of Servant Leadership
Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Un-Fit Model 19.80 (0.01) 5 0.976 0.970 0.037 0.098
Model Fit
6.49(p<.000) 4 0.995 0.995 0.024 0.045
Dimensions St. Loadings Reliability Mean Variance
AC 0.61* 0.93 3.28 0.07
EH 0.84 0.93 3.28 0.04
W 0.80 0.91 3.28 0.04
PM 0.62 0.64 3.28 0.09
OS 0.56 0.91 3.28 0.05
Note: * p<0.05 (t values)
CFA was run for all dimensions of servant leadership as showed in Figure 9. In
validation process it was found that the model was not fit well. As provided in Table 33
the Chi-square value of 19.80 was significant with 5 DF at p< 0.01, but the value of
RMSEA was not in acceptable range 0.098. All other statistics value of GFI was 0.976,
CFI 0.970, SRMR 0.037 was good. Therefore, the model was examined with the help of
model modification indices. The error of altruistic calling (AC) was found highly
correlated with wisdom (W). With the help of path analysis covariance were made
between the construct and factor loading run again. This time the model was fit well.
Table 33 provides model fit statistics and results of CFA for all five servant
leadership dimensions. The RMSEA value was 0.045, SRMR 0.024, GFI 0.995, CFI was
0.995, and the Chi-square value 6.49 with 4 DF was significant at p< .000. All the values
were acceptable range and the model was good fit. Standard estimates and reliability of the
Page 122
105
dimensions were also good which showed that these were good predictors of servant
leadership.
CFA for Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction CFA and model fit statistics are given
here below in Figure 10 and Table 34.
Figure 10 CFA for Job Satisfaction (AMOS)
Page 123
106
Table 34
Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Job Satisfaction
Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Un-Fit Model 104.53 20 0.91 .868 .091 .117
Model Fit 51.73(p<.000) 18 .960 .947 .073 .078
Note: * p<0.05 (t values)
CFA was run for job satisfaction constructs as showed in Figure 10. In validation
process it was found that the model was not fit well. As provided in Table 34 the Chi-
square value of 104.53 was significant with 20 DF at p< 0.05. Other fit statistics was also
not good because of RMSEA as it value was .117, and standardized RMR was .091, GFI
0.91 and CFI .868 which were not in the acceptable range. Therefore, the model was
examined in the light of model modification indices. The error of job satisfaction (JSIS 6)
and JSES 3 were found highly correlated with other indicators. Correlation was made
again with the help of path diagram and this time the model was found fitted well. The
above figure shows CFA for job satisfaction with covariance indication. Table 32 provides
Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance
JSIS1 0.33 0.76 3.41 0.07
JSIS4 0.37 0.80 3.51 0.29
JSIS6 0.63 0.71 3.62 0.06
JSIS9 0.40 0.74 3.72 0.05
JSES2 0.70 0.72 3.35 0.05
JSES3 0.68 0.71 3.25 0.07
JSES4 0.63 0.71 3.37 0.07
JSES6 0.68 0.72 2.89 0.07
Page 124
107
model fit statistics results of CFA of job satisfaction for all indicators. The value of SRMR
was 0.073, GFI 0.960, CFI was 0.947 and the RMSEA was .078, the Chi-square value
51.73 with 18 DF was significant at p< .000. All the values were acceptable range and the
model was good fit. Standard estimates and reliability of the instruments were also good
which showed that the model was good fitted.
CFA for Employees’ Loyalty. The CFA and model fit statistics are given here for
employees‟ loyalty in Figure 11 and Table 35.
Figure 11 CFA for Employees‟ Loyalty (AMOS)
Page 125
108
Table 35
Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Employees’ Loyalty
Model Fit Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Value 5.84(p<.034) 2 0.990 0.988 0.019 0.07
Dimensions St. Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance
Commitment 0.74 0.71 3.38 0.03
Motivation 0.78 0.70 3.40 0.03
Belongingness 0.66 0.72 3.53 0.03
Career Development 0.57 0.76 3.54 0.05
Note: * p<0.05 (t value)
Figure 11 shows CFA for employees‟ loyalty constructs. CFA was run and found
that all the constructs were valid and the model was well fitted. The Table 35 shows that
the value of Chi-square was 5.84 and significant with 2 DF at p< 0.034. Other statistics fit
showed the model was fit. The value of RMSEA was 0.07, other statistics showed good
values as GFI was .990, CFI .988 and standardized RMR was 0.019. The standardized
estimates and reliability values were in acceptable range and indicated good fit model.
CFA for Organizational Performance. The below given Figure 12 and Table 36
shows CFA and model fit statistics for organizational performance.
Page 126
109
Dimensions Standardized Loadings* Reliability
Mean
Error Variance
Development 0.62 0.84 3.25 0.05
Quality 0.72 0.84 3.36 0.03
Innovation 0.87 0.81 3.25 0.04
Efficiency 0.54 0.86 3.35 0.06
Note: * p<0.05 (t value)
_______________________________________________________________
Figure 12 CFA for Organizational Performance
Table 36
Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Organizational Performance
Model Fit Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Value 3.81(p<.000) 2 .994 .995 0.021 .054
Page 127
110
Figure 14 presents CFA for organizational performance constructs. This was a
combined model with four dimensions. CFA was run and found that all the constructs
were valid and the model was well fitted. The value of Chi-square was 3.81 and significant
with 2 degree at p< 0.000. All other fit statistics were acceptable range such as: GFI value
was .994, CFI .995, RMSEA value was .054, and standardized RMR was .021. The above
figure shows CFA for organizational performance. Table 36 provides model fit statistics
and final result of CFA with four dimensions. The reliability values all were above .70 and
standardized loadings were ranged from 0.54 to 0.87 showed that the model was good
fitted.
CFA for Overall Measurement Model
The following Figure 13 and Table 37 presents CFA and model fit statistics for
overall combined model.
Figure 13 CFA for Measurement Model
Page 128
111
Table 37
Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Measurement Model
Model Fit Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Recommended > 0.05
>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08
Value 617.14(p<.000) 182 0.897 0.907 0.068 0.08
ECVI Saturated Model ECVI Independence Model ECVI
2.33 1.50 9.97
The researcher has mentioned CFA for each construct of servant leadership, job
satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. Now, there is need to
find CFA for combined model. Measurement model shows the relationship between
observed and latent variables (Rehman, 2012). The measurement model consists of servant
leadership dimensions (Table 9). It also contains job satisfaction as mediating variable and
employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance as dependent variables. The above
Figure 13 shows the overall model goodness- of- fit indicators. The Table 37 shows that
the CMIN value 617.14 was significant with 182 DF at p< 0.000. Other value of fit
statistics was also in acceptable such as: GFI = .897, CFI= .907, SRMR= .068 and
RMSEA= .080.
All the values show that model is reasonably good fit. Reliability of the
instruments is also very important. Here the researcher has extracted reliability and
variances for each construct to assess measurement of the model. As mentioned by Hair et
al. (2006) that the standard value for reliability is 0.70. Higher variance means higher
consistency and lower variance value means lower internal consistency between the
construct indicators. The Table 38 shows standardized loadings, error variance, indicators
reliability and constructs reliability. All the constructs and indicators reliability values
exceed the recommended level of 0.70.
Page 129
112
Table 38
Measurement Scale Properties and Fit Statistics (N=308)
Variables
Completely
Standardized
Loadings* Mean
Error
Variance
Construct
Reliability
Servant Leadership
0.92
Altruistic Calling 0.60 3.03 0.05
Emotional Healing 0.83 3.45 0.04
Wisdom 0.76 3.28 0.04
Persuasive Mapping 0.62 3.28 0.09
Organizational Stewardship 0.59 3.31 0.05
Job Satisfaction
0.76
JSIS 1 0.41 3.41 0.07
JSIS 4 0.35 3.51 0.29
JSIS 6 0.68 3.62 0.06
JSIS 9 0.50 3.72 0.05
JSES 2 0.65 3.35 0.05
JSES 3 0.61 3.25 0.07
JSES 4 0.60 3.37 0.07
JSES 6 0.60 2.89 0.07
Employees’ Loyalty
0.91
Commitment 0.60 3.38 0.03
Motivation 0.60 3.40 0.03
Belongingness 0.69 3.53 0.03
Career Development 0.61 3.54 0.05
Organizational Performance
0.94
Development 0.70 3.25 0.05
Quality 0.74 3.36 0.03
Innovation 0.79 3.25 0.03
Efficiency 0.51 3.35 0.06
Note: * p<0.05 (t value)
Expected Cross - Validation Index (ECVI) has also been mentioned in the fit statistics of
the overall measurement model. This value assesses cross-validation. ECVI, as mentioned
Page 130
113
by Rahman (2012), means “an approximation of goodness -of- fit the estimated model
would achieve in another sample of the same size” (p.178). Many researchers have
mentioned that the smallest ECVI value provides the greatest replication potential. The
value of ECVI for this study is small as mentioned in fit statistics above, showing that the
model is well fitted and having great potential for replication. The ECVI value for this
model has been compared to saturated and independence model. The measurement model
is fitted and characterizes reasonable estimation to the population.
Pearson Correlation of the Constructs
The Table 39 is given below representing Pearson Correlation between variables of the
study.
Table 39
Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation* of Constructs (N=308)
Variables Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Note:*All Correlation values are significant p<0.01. JS= Job Satisfaction, EL=
Employees‟ Loyalty OP= Organizational Performance
1. AC 3.03 1.07
2. EH 3.28 1.02 0.54*
3. W 3.45 0.92 0.37* 0.69*
4. PM 3.28 1.15 0.42* 0.57* 0.51*
5. OS 3.31 0.89 0.31* 0.48* 0.54* 0.46*
6. JS 3.41 0.71 0.52* 0.52* 0.53* 0.43* 0.47*
7. EL 3.45 0.65 0.55* 0.48* 0.44* 0.40* 0.47* 0.80*
8. OP 3.32 0.71 0.47* 0.52* 0.50* 0.44* 0.48* 0.77* 0.77*
Page 131
114
The correlation matrix provides significant positive relation between job
satisfaction and servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and servant leadership, and
organizational performance and servant leadership. All the values are significant at 0.01
level. As the result shows, that the servant leadership dimensions has positive relationship
with all other variables but this relation is strong with the mediation of job satisfaction
between servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.
The Table 39 shows that altruistic calling is positively related with job satisfaction,
employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance (r = 0.52, 0.55 and 0.47) followed by
emotional healing (r = 0.52, 0.48 and 0.52), wisdom (r =0.53, 0.44 and 0.50), persuasive
mapping (r = 0.43, 0.40 and 0.44) and organizational stewardship (r = 0.47, 0.47 and
0.48). These five dimensions of servant leadership had positive significant relationship
with faculty satisfaction, loyalty and universities performance. Job satisfaction is the
strongest positive relationship with employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance (r
= 0.80 and 0.77). Therefore, the findings provided a significant positive correlation
between servant leadership of the university leader and the faculty job satisfaction, loyalty
and university performance. As mentioned by Rehman (2012) that when all values of
correlation matrix are coming positive between variables so this is the first step of
hypotheses acceptance. The above correlation matrix also proves that all the hypotheses
which are developed are supported and acceptable.
Structural Model Testing
The below Figure 14 and Table 40 presents path diagram for hypothesized theoretical
structural model and model fit statistics.
Page 132
115
Table 40
Model Fit Statistics for Structural Model
CMIN* DF
Standardized
RMR GFI CFI RMSEA
SM** 650.131 192 0.068 0.890 0.903 0.08
Note: * p<0.01 (t value) ** (Structural Model)
______________________________________________________________________
Figure 14 Path Diagram for Theoretical Structural Model
Page 133
116
The above Figure 14 shows the standardized coefficient path of the structural
model. All the values of t were found significant at p< 0.01. As provides in Table 40 the
Chi-square of the structural model was 650.131, the degree of freedom was 192, p-value
.000, standardized RMR 0.068, GFI 0.890, CFI .903, RMSEA was 0.80. All values show
that model is reasonably good fit. SEM is divided into two basic models such as: structural
and measurement model. The structural model is that part of the SEM which shows
relationship of latent variables with one another, while the measurement model is that part
of the SEM which shows the relationship of measured or observed variables with latent
variables (Rehman, 2012).
The Table 40 shows detail fit statistics of structural model. Difference existed
between the two models. The fit statistics were for structural model (Chi-square =
650.131, DF = 192, SRMR= 0.068, GFI = 0.890, CFI = 0.903 AND RMSEA = .080) and
fit statistics for measurement model were as given in table 37 (Chi-square = 617.14, DF=
182, SRMR=.068, GFI=.897, CFI=.907 and RMSEA=.08). The difference between the
Chi-square of the two models was 33 with 10 DF. In Chi-Square table, the CMIN critical
value with 10 DF at p=0.05 is 18.31 which is less than 33. This difference showed that the
model proposed was successful fit to data and showed strong relationship between latent
variables.
Overall Model Fit
The Table 41 given below presents comparison of measures of goodness-of-fit for
structural model.
Page 134
117
Table 41
Structural Model Goodness-of-Fit Comparison
Fit Statistics Fit Level Model fit Calculation Acceptability
CMIN/Chi-Square value > 0.05 650.131 sig, p<0.000 Acceptable
GFI >0.90 0.892 Acceptable
RMSEA <0.080 0.080 Acceptable
SRMR <.10 0.068 Acceptable
CFI >0.90 0.903 Acceptable
CMIN/DF Minimum limit 1.0
higher limit 3.0 to 5.0 3.70 Acceptable
Note: Source Rahman (2012)
Table 41 provides goodness-of-fit indices and can be compared with structural
model statistics which shows that the overall model as proposed was good fit and
acceptable model.
Testing of Hypotheses
Hypotheses were tested with the help of SEM to find the relationship between
servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance with mediating
role of job satisfaction among the faculty members of universities in Peshawar. SEM was
used to specify the direct and indirect relationship between independent and dependent
variables. Servant leadership is exogenous variable while, job satisfaction, employee‟s
loyalty and organizational performance is endogenous variables.
H1: Servant leadership is positively related to organizational performance.
Hypothesis H1 defines the direct positive relationship of servant leadership with
organizational performance. It was tested using path analysis AMOS 21.The results
Page 135
118
showed standardized estimates of 0.62 and the value of t 13.92 at p= 0.000, which are
significant at p>0.01. Hence, the results supported this hypothesis.
H1a: Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership affect
organizational performance positively.
Hypothesis H1a investigates the direct positive influence of servant leadership
facets on organizational performance. The results showed standardized path coefficient of
0.26 and 0.37 and t value of 4.68 and 6.59 with p-value .000, which are highly significant
at p> 0.01. Hence, the data supported this hypothesis.
H1b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship dimensions of
servant leadership are positively related to organizational performance
Hypothesis H1b determines the direct positive influence of servant leadership
dimensions such as wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship on
organizational performance. It was tested with the help of path analysis and got
standardized path coefficients of 0.28 for wisdom, 0.19 for persuasive mapping and .24 for
organizational stewardship and t-value of 4.63 for wisdom, 3.33 for persuasive mapping
and 4.24 for organizational stewardship with p-value .000, .001 and .000, which were
found significant at p< 0.01, indicating that there is positive relationship between all these
variable. Therefore, the results supported this hypothesis.
H2: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and employees’
loyalty.
Hypothesis H2 examines the positive direct relation of servant leadership on
employees‟ loyalty. This hypothesis was tested via path analysis AMOS. The results
Page 136
119
showed that beta value of 0.62 and t-value 13.18 with p-value 0.000, indicates a strong
positive relation of servant leadership with employees‟ loyalty. Therefore, the data
supported this hypothesis.
H2a: Servant leadership dimensions like altruistic calling and emotional healing are
positively related to employees’ loyalty.
Hypothesis H2a investigates the direct positive influence of dimensions of servant
leadership on employees‟ loyalty. The results showed standardized path coefficient of 0.40
and 0.27 and t value of 7.24 and 4.82 with p-value .000, which are highly significant at p>
0.01. Hence, the data supported this hypothesis.
H2b: Servant leadership facets like wisdom, persuasive mapping, and
organizational stewardship are positively impact employees’ loyalty.
Hypothesis H2b defines the direct positive influence of servant leadership
dimensions such as wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship on
employees‟ loyalty. It was tested with the help of path analysis and got standardized path
coefficients of 0.21 for wisdom, 0.26 for persuasive mapping and 0.29 for organizational
stewardship and t-value of 3.332 for wisdom, 3.789 for persuasive mapping and 4.746 for
organizational stewardship with p-value .000, .001 and .000, which were found significant
at p< 0.01, indicating that there is positive relationship between all these variable.
Therefore, the results supported this hypothesis.
Page 137
120
H3: Servant leadership has a positive relation with job satisfaction.
Hypothesis H3 examines the positive direct relation of servant leadership on job
satisfaction. This hypothesis was tested via path analysis. The results showed that beta
value of 0.64 and t-value 14.405 with p-value 0.000 (p< 0.01), indicating a strong positive
relation of servant leadership with job satisfaction. Therefore, the results supported this
hypothesis of the study.
H3a: Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership affect job
satisfaction positively.
Hypothesis H3a determines the direct positive influence of facets of servant
leadership on job satisfaction. The results showed standardized path coefficient of 0.34
and 0.34 and t value of 6.095 and 6.069 with p-value .000, which are highly significant at
p> 0.01. Hence, the results supported this hypothesis.
H3b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship dimensions of
servant leadership are positively related to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis H3b investigates positive direct influence of servant leadership
dimensions such as wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship on job
satisfaction. It was tested with the help of path analysis and got standardized beta of 0.34
for wisdom, 0.26 for persuasive mapping and 0.21 for organizational stewardship and t-
value of 5.667 for wisdom, 2.923 for persuasive mapping and 3.621 for organizational
stewardship with p-value .000, .001 and .000 which were found significant at p< 0.01,
indicating that there is positive relationship between all these variable. Therefore, the
results supported this hypothesis.
Page 138
121
H4: There is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and employees’
loyalty.
Hypothesis H4 determines the positive direct relation of job satisfaction on
employees‟ loyalty. This hypothesis was tested via path analysis. The results showed that
beta value of 0.80 and t-value 23.578 with p-value 0.000 (p >0.01), indicating a strong
positive relation of job satisfaction with employees‟ loyalty. Therefore, the results strongly
supported this hypothesis of the study.
H5: There is positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
Performance.
Hypothesis H5 examines the direct positive relationship of job satisfaction on
organizational performance. This hypothesis was tested via path analysis AMOS. The
results showed that beta value of 0.74 and t-value 19.330 with p-value 0.000 were highly
significant at p< 0.01, indicates a strong positive relation of job satisfaction with
organizational performance. Therefore, the results strongly supported this hypothesis of
the study.
H6: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between servant leadership,
employees’ loyalty, and organizational performance.
Hypothesis H6 determines the impact of servant leadership on employees‟ loyalty
and organizational performance indirectly through job satisfaction as mediator. To check
the mediation the direct effect should be significant between exogenous and indigenous
variables. This association was analyzed through path analysis and found that servant
leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance relationship were
significant. The standardized estimates of employees‟ loyalty and organizational
Page 139
122
performance 0.60 and 0.62 were found significant with p<0.01 for direct impact. Bootstrap
function was performed in AMOS to check indirect impact. The standardized direct
estimates were reduced employees‟ loyalty 0.15 and organizational performance 0.25 but
found also significant in the indirect model at p> 0.05. Hence, the findings exemplify that
job satisfaction partially mediates that association. The results are supported by the
hypothesis (Appendix F).
Figure 15 Path Analysis of Servant Leadership, Jobs Satisfaction, Employees‟ Loyalty &
Organizational Performance.
Page 140
123
Table 42
Hypotheses Results
Note: *= p<0.01, SL=Servant Leadership,OP=Organizational Performance, EL=
Employee‟s Loyalty, JS= Job Satisfaction
Hypotheses Direct Effect Indirect Effect Results
SL OP 0.62 (.000)* NA Significant
AC- EH OP 0.26,0.37(.000)* NA Significant
W-PM-OS OP 0.28,0.19,0.24 (.000)* NA Significant
SL EL 0.60 (.000)* NA Significant
AC- EH EL 0.40, 0.27 (.000)* NA Significant
W- PM- OS EL 0.21,0.26,.029 (.000)* NA Significant
SL JS 0.64 (.000)* NA Significant
AC- EH JS 0.34,0.34 (.000)* NA Significant
W- PM-OS JS 0.34,0.26,0.21(.000)* NA Significant
JS EL 0.80 (.000)* NA Significant
JS OP 0.74 (.000)* NA Significant
SL JS EL OP 0.60,0.62 (.000)* 0.15,0.25(.000)* Partial Mediation
Page 141
124
Table 43
Hypotheses Testing Summary
Hypotheses End Result
H1: Servant leadership is positively related with organizational
Performance Supported
H1a: Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership
affect organizational performance positively. Supported
H1b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship
dimensions of servant leadership are positively related to
organizational performance Supported
H2: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and
employees‟ loyalty. Supported
H2a: Servant leadership dimensions like altruistic calling and emotional healing
are positively related to employees‟ loyalty. Supported
H2b: Servant leadership facets wisdom, persuasive mapping and Supported
organizational stewardship are positively impact employees‟ loyalty.
H3: Servant leadership has a positive relation with job satisfaction. Supported
H3a: Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership
affect job satisfaction positively. Supported
H3b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship Supported
dimensions of servant leadership are positively related with job satisfaction.
H4: There is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and
employees‟ loyalty Supported
H5: Job satisfaction is positively related with organizational performance Supported
H6: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between servant leadership,
employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. Supported
Page 142
125
Chapter 5
Discussion and Conclusions
The section consists of the purpose, findings of research, implication of present
research study, recommendations, limitations and conclusion of the research.
Purpose
The research mainly aims at the examining the impact of servant leadership behavior
on employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance, with the mediating role of job
satisfaction. This research was set to achieve the following research objectives:
1) To examine the relationship of servant leadership dimensions (altruistic calling,
emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship) and
organizational performance. 2) To examine that how servant leadership facets impact
employees‟ loyalty. 3) To examine the impact of servant leadership dimensions on job
satisfaction. 4) To examine the relationship of job satisfaction with employees‟ loyalty
and organizational performance. 5) To examine that how job satisfaction mediate the
relationships between servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational
performance.
Discussion on Research Findings
Findings of the research study showed an important contribution to the field of
leadership studies and broadened the limited research in the field of servant leadership,
job satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance in a university
setting. The target population of this study was the faculty members of public and private
universities of Peshawar. Servant Leadership Questionnaire was used to measure servant
leadership. Employees‟ loyalty was measured by using Pandey and Khare (2012) loyalty
questionnaire. For measuring the job satisfaction Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
was used and for organizational performance Katou and Budhwar questionnaire was used.
Page 143
126
The instruments validity was checked through CFA. The CFA results showed that all the
instruments were valid and good to use for this research. In the following sections the
researcher discussed all the hypotheses of the current study.
Impact of Servant Leadership on Organizational Performance. Empirical data has
supported the hypothesis of the relationship of servant leadership with organizational
performance. The data also supported the previous research on servant leadership and
organizational performance (Amadeo & Carol, 2008; Ding, Lu, Song & Lu, 2012;
Koesmono, 2014; Riketta, 2008; Sokoll, 2014; Tajammal & Wajid, 2012). The data
analysis has provided sufficient evidence that all the faculty members believe that
characteristics of servant leadership (see Table 9) increase organizational performance in
terms of development, quality, efficiency and innovation in universities of Peshawar. The
leader effected the development, quality effectiveness and innovation of the universities.
Studies have shown that servant leader behavior of the academic directors, head of
departments, and voice chancellor did have an effect on faculty members (Ding et al.,
2012). The data supported the research question and hypotheses H1.
It was also hypothesized that altruistic calling and emotional healing have positive
influence on organizational performance. The empirical data has supported H1a. The data
analysis has provided sufficient evidence that there was a positive relationship between the
university leader‟s altruistic calling, emotional healing behavior and university
performance. The altruistic calling behavior is to be more generous in behavior while
emotional healing is the ability to use healing process to recover employees from hardship
and mental shocks (McCann et al., 2014). These behaviors of the leader directly affect the
faculty ability to work and the notion of reciprocity.
It was also hypothesized that persuasive mapping, wisdom and organizational
stewardship have significant positive influence on organizational performance. The
Page 144
127
empirical data has supported H1b. The data analysis has provided sufficient evidence that
showed a positive impact between the university leader‟s persuasive mapping, wisdom
and organizational stewardship behaviors and university performance. Wisdom is the
ability and sense of awareness to get cues from the observation (Sternberg, 2003).
Persuasive mapping is the ability to develop skills of logical reasoning (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006), while organizational stewardship is the ability of the servant leaders that
they enable the organization and its system to make a contribution and play its part in the
society (Travis, Searle & Barbuto, 2010). The findings revealed that servant leadership
style of leadership in universities did have positive impact on faculty perception, and this
positive perception prompt faculty to reciprocate with their job-related outcomes and thus
improve university performance.
Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Loyalty. Empirical evidence
supported the hypothesized link of servant leadership with employees‟ loyalty. The direct
positive influence of Servant leadership was found on faculty loyalty. It is an emotional
state that affects employees‟ relationship, identification and attachment with organization
and helps them in decision to continue or discontinue membership in the organization
(Rehman, 2012; Rimes, 2012). The data also supported the previous researches on servant
leadership and employees‟ loyalty (Chang, Chiu and Chen 2010; Ding, Lu, Song & Lu,
2012; Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014; Riketta & Dick 2005). Employees‟ have assorted
desires in job perspective and addressing them all is not possible. Nevertheless,
organization inquisitiveness is always reciprocated. When administration articulates their
assurance to the training and development, motivation and career need, the faculty in turn
feel esteemed and become part of the organization (Rehman, 2012). Therefore,
commitment to the employees‟ development needs will affect their loyalty to the
organization. The data supported the research question and hypothesis H2 related to
servant leadership and employees‟ loyalty.
Page 145
128
The results of the hypothesis H2a reveal that there is statistically significant positive
relationship between emotional healing, altruistic calling and employees‟ loyalty to the
universities. Emotional healing promotes the healing process and enables the faculty to
express their apprehensions (Rimes, 2012). The altruistic calling behavior accentuates to
make distinction in others‟ lives, while putting other interest before his/her own. It is a
philanthropic in nature (Rimes, 2012). The data analysis has provided sufficient evidence
that there was a positive relationship between the university leader‟s altruistic calling,
emotional healing behaviors and faculty loyalty to the university. The data supported the
research question and hypothesis H2a related to altruistic calling, emotional healing and
employees‟ loyalty.
Empirical data has supported the hypothesis H2b that there is positive relationship
between persuasive mapping, wisdom, organizational stewardship and employees‟ loyalty.
The findings supported the previous research Ding et al. (2012). Commitment and
motivation are the results if employees‟ are provided more chances for training and career
development. They will behave positively and will be more loyal to their jobs (Rehman,
2012). Persuasive mapping is that ability of servant leadership, due to which he gives
confidence to faculty to look ahead and make positive decision. Wisdom is the capability
of servant leader to predict and to see future in advance and learn from the observation of
surroundings, while organizational stewardship is the ability of the servant leader to affect
the society through the university (Rimes, 2102). The data has supported that there was
significant positive relationship between wisdom, persuasive mapping, organizational
stewardship and employees‟ loyalty to universities.
Impact of Servant Leadership on Job Satisfaction. It was assumed as
hypothesis that the relationship between servant leadership positively impact on the job
satisfaction. Empirically, data supported the hypothesis. The results also supported past
Page 146
129
study (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). Some of the researchers have mentioned job
satisfaction as an important factor in job performance, and leadership styles are important
antecedent in job satisfaction (Ding et al., 2012). Data analysis has been provided
sufficient evidence that universities of Peshawar faculty perceive that servant leadership
facets such as emotional healing, wisdom, altruistic calling, persuasive mapping and
organizational stewardship bring faculty satisfaction in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic
satisfaction and it has a central importance in their contentment.
Intrinsic satisfaction is that when employees‟ consider only the kind of work they
do. In simple words it means that the tasks that make up the job. The extrinsic satisfaction
is presents when they consider not only the kind of work they do but also consider
working conditions such as the supervisor, the pay and coworkers etc.
When faculty feel unjustly treated, they are expected to respond by changing their job
attitude (Rehman, 2012). Faculty tends to be more contented with results they anticipate.
Faculty may evaluate the volume of the compensation they receive to their anticipation.
Consequently, if faculty feels dissatisfied, the behavior would be affected. Therefore, if
faculty is endowed with more chances for development they would behave positively. The
data has supported that faculty tend to be more satisfied when led in the university with
servant leadership style of leadership. The data supported the research question and
hypotheses H3 related to servant leadership and job satisfaction.
Empirical data has supported hypothesis H3a that there is significant positive
impact of emotional healing and altruistic calling on job satisfaction. Altruistic calling and
emotional healing behaviors of the university leader affect faculty intrinsic and extrinsic
satisfaction to university. The results supported the previous studies (Ding et al., 2012;
McCann et al., 2014). The data supported the research question and hypothesis H3a
related to altruistic calling, emotional healing and job satisfaction.
Page 147
130
It was also hypothesized that there was significant relationship between wisdom,
persuasive mapping, organizational stewardship and job satisfaction. These behaviors of
university leader impact faculty job satisfaction in university. A leader with high value of
these behaviors can influence faculty to be more satisfied and responsive. The data
supported the research question and hypothesis H3b related to wisdom, persuasive
mapping, organizational stewardship and job satisfaction.
Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational
Performance. Organizational performance, employees‟ loyalty and job satisfaction have
been found interrelated as it was assumed by the hypothesis. Job satisfaction has direct
role and salutary effect on employees‟ loyalty and organizational output. The findings also
supported past studies (Anderson & Kelly, 2005; Arnold, Jones & Reynolds, 2006; Babin,
Griffin, Lee & Kim, 2005; Ding et al., 2012; McCann, Graves, & Cox, 2014; Lisbijanto &
Budiyanto, 2014). The data analysis provides statistically significant evidence that faculty
members in universities of Peshawar perceive that job satisfaction characteristics such as
intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction make sense of organization commitment behavior which
in return make faculty more loyal to their universities. Job satisfaction builds employees‟
Loyalty in terms of career development, commitment, motivation and belongingness and
universities performance in terms of development, quality, efficiency and innovation. The
data supported the research question and hypotheses H4, H5 related to job satisfaction,
employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.
The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction. The primary purpose of understanding
exogenous variable (servant leadership) is the prediction of certain outcomes. The
exogenous variable has direct and indirect effect on employees‟ loyalty, job satisfaction
organizational performance. The path analysis results showed that job satisfaction partially
mediates between faculty loyalty and organizational performance. Members perceived that
servant leadership behaviors (see Table 9) strongly impacts faculty loyalty in terms of
Page 148
131
motivation, commitment, belongingness and career development and organizational
performance in terms of development, quality, efficiency and innovation when job
satisfaction mediates. These relationships accentuate the importance of job satisfaction and
the notion of reciprocity. Faculty members who believe that they lead by university leader
with servant leadership style of leadership and provide development opportunities are
expected to behave reciprocally (Rehman, 2012). Reciprocity is instinctive human
quality. When the faculty members feel that they are treated as assets of the organization,
they reciprocate. Universities will be more effective if faculty members are satisfied
(Ostroff, 1992; cited by Rehman, 2012).
Satisfaction usually depends on the social exchange theory ---- You cannot clap
with one hand, but if you combine both, then you can clap (Rahman, 2012). Thus servant
leadership affects employees' perception of satisfaction, and this attitude prompts workers
to react with the job-related result. Though, very limited literature is available on servant
leadership, job satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance but the
results of this study were consistent with the studies of Ding et al. (2012), Koesmono
(2014), Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014). Thus, servant leadership affects faculty
perception of job satisfaction and this perception prompts faculty members to reciprocate.
The data supported the research question and hypothesis H6 related to job satisfaction
mediation between servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty, and organizational
performance.
Servant Leadership, Job Satisfaction, Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational
Performance. The present study also examines the overall relationship of servant
leadership with employees‟ loyalty, job satisfaction, and organizational performance. The
results showed partial mediation role of job satisfaction in the association between the
servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. It is worth
mentioning that servant leadership facets had a direct and indirect effect on employees‟
Page 149
132
loyalty and organizational performance. The findings show that a servant leadership
behavior imparts satisfaction in faculty members which further plays positive role in
making them loyal, remain committed and dedicated to the same university. Similarly, job
satisfaction plays an important contribution in making the universities performance better
in terms of development, quality, efficiency and innovation. The data also supported
previous studies of Ding et al. (2012), Koesmono (2014), Lisbijanto and Budiyanto,
(2014), McCann, Graves, and Cox, (2014) and Tajammal and Wajid, (2012).
Contribution to Knowledge
Before conducting the research study, few research studies were available on
servant leadership and particularly on servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and
organizational performance with mediating effect of job satisfaction in education sector
especially in universities. There were studies available on servant leadership but all were
separate studies (Ding et al., 2012; Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). No single study was
found by the researcher that examines the impact of servant leadership on all such
combinations. This study will provide a framework that link servant leadership with
organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty with mediating role of job satisfaction.
This study also elucidates the importance of job satisfaction in the relationship of servant
leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. This study will also
contribute in the field of management and will assist the administration in required
literature.
Research Implications
This study has analyzed job satisfaction as the mediator between servant
leadership, employees‟ loyalty, and organizational performance. The results presented in
the preceding chapters provide both practical and theoretical implication.
Page 150
133
Theoretical Implications. First, this study would contribute to theory in the form
of servant leadership and to the literature by providing more information on servant
leadership and other variables such as employees‟ loyalty, job satisfaction and
organizational performance. Second, the research has designed a new model to show that
how the relationship between the endogenous and exogenous variables is intervened by a
third variable i.e., job satisfaction. Higher educational institutions today face the challenge
of formulating strategies for achieving organizational performance, employees‟ loyalty
and team effectiveness. Implementation of servant leadership style is desirable to promote
individual development and to achieve productive results.
Third, this study provides theoretical support concerning the antecedents and
outcomes of job satisfaction in universities of Peshawar, KPK. Fourth, the current study
also provides detail of empirical research on servant leadership behavior of leadership
styles in universities of Peshawar.
Fifth, In Pakistan, the field of servant leadership is being researched. Therefore,
there is lack of research in educational institutions especially the universities of Peshawar.
This study revealed the importance and effects of servant leadership behavior in
comprehending the faculty views of job satisfaction and added to our knowledge of job
satisfaction factors which are crucial in the field as per the empirical results of the target
population reflect. The research therefore, supply a base the researchers for testing further
the relationship among these variables.
Practical Implications. This study will be significant in the sense because it will
provide the administrative management an understanding to foster new leadership
practices like servant leadership, to enhance employees‟ commitment and organizational
performance through job satisfaction. This study will also provide insight into
Page 151
134
management and practitioners about the servant leadership approach that can help
developing competitive advantages and reduced costs.
Second, this study will not only provide information on the importance of servant
leadership but will exactly show the consequences of job satisfaction in public and private
sector universities. This study will also facilitate the future researcher in their further study
on servant leadership in other different areas of interest. The leaders would know exactly
how the servant leadership dimensions (see Table 9) affect employees‟ loyalty and
organizational performance positively or negatively with the mediation of job satisfaction.
This work will be the first attempt in this area of leadership, especially in the education
sector.
Third, the impact of the study reflects that servant leadership style has a strong
indirect relation with employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance through job
satisfaction. As universities are responsible for providing higher education, they must take
care of faculty members in terms of leadership behavior or style, and satisfaction should
be given key importance in the formulation of policies. The administration should
understand the importance of servant leadership and job satisfaction for universities as
well as for faculty members.
Further, servant leadership had a direct positive effect on job satisfaction. Thus,
identifying the faculty potential through the excellence of this leadership style might be
valuable in making their perceptions of job satisfaction in the outcome and their
performance. Servant leadership principles have been used in different areas such as
profit, non-profit organizations, and universities and churches, and health care institutions.
Group oriented approach is the main feature of servant leadership; as such an approach
enhances decision-making ability, thereby strengthening an organization which improves
Page 152
135
the community and society. The other good feature of servant leadership is that it
accentuates persuasion power and looking for consensus.
Many corporations have adopted servant leadership as a guiding philosophy. Even
the supervisor of those organizations instructs their employees‟ who are supervisors that
one person must go for servant leadership training (Carter, 2012). Many business
organizations have adopted servant leadership philosophy as an imperative structure that is
useful (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011). Spears (2005), mentioned that the servant leadership
concept is extending into educational institutions by giving training and courses on servant
leadership. He said that servant leadership experiential programs (learning by doing) have
now been introduced in every college and university and this should be the case for
universities in Peshawar, the high-level executives should follow the servant leadership
behaviors to implement policies more effectively and efficiently at the universities.
If the Peshawar universities administration needs a faculty member to be more
industrious, they should consider promoting servant leadership behavior and provide good
working conditions, pay, environment, promotion, development and encourage them to
take more responsibility (Adeniji, 2011; Ding et al., 2012). This could improve faculty
satisfaction and enhance employees‟ loyalty and organizational (University) performance.
This study outcome can also be useful in other public sectors of Pakistan such as in
railways, police, civil sectors, air lines, manufacturing industries and other educational and
business institutions.
Research Recommendations
The following further research recommendations are suggested:
The universities management should encourage new management practices (servant
leadership) to improve organizational performance. They must identify which factors of
Page 153
136
servant leadership are more effective than others to improve job satisfaction and build
employees‟ loyalty. Servant leadership implementation in universities did not strongly
affect employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance, but it was through job
satisfaction. Thus servant leadership would impact both. Therefore, leaders of the
universities should provide better consideration. Similar findings that servant leader
behavior improves job satisfaction, were made by Ding et al. (2012), and it would bring
good performance, and the employees‟ will be more committed and loyal to the
organization, and it would increase organizational performance (McCann et al., 2014;
Rimes, 2012)
The current research is quantitative in nature and therefore, it is recommended to have
qualitative research on the same variables to get additional results. This study has proved
that servant leadership made a significant effect on the faculty members in universities.
The leaders of universities who desire that the faculty stay with the institution, and who
want to have the organizational commitment, organizational loyalty, organizational
performance, and satisfied staff searching for goals, should think of further improvement
of servant leadership behavior.
The current study also recommends a longitudinal research with the same variables as
it would be a contribution to the knowledge. The sample size should be enlarged as much
as possible, and it would be better to analyze the sample according to different industries
and regions to know the difference. More variables may be taken for further research such
as changing the factors of servant leadership, organizational trust, organizational
citizenship, employees‟ empowerment, employees‟ commitment, organizational image
and effect of employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance with each other to
provide further literature on variables.
Page 154
137
Limitations of the Study
This study results have some limitations. The sample size could be the one. The
sample size comprised only public and private universities in the city of Peshawar, KPK
with total faculty members of 2000 or more. This study sample size was adequate
(N= 308), although a large number of sample population of universities in Peshawar could
have changed the results.
Another limitation could be that servant leadership only five dimensions were
taken to measure in study survey. Therefore, this study was limited to servant leadership
five dimensions such as; altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping
and organizational stewardship.
The instruments choice for job satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and organizational
performance could be another limitation. The researcher used these instruments due to the
detail of their available measures. However, the instruments were not designed for
education institutions.
The study employed cross-sectional data without any regard to the longitudinal
approach and drew its conclusions accordingly. Therefore, the study should be classified
in the field of leadership especially the servant leadership with the mentioned limitations.
Alongside the limitations the generalization made over here can only be applied to the
universities in the Peshawar city.
Conclusion of the Research
This study main purpose was to develop a model in the existing literature, wherein
the mediating role of job satisfaction that links servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and
organizational performance among academicians in universities of Peshawar is examined.
The study revealed that servant leadership positively influences organizational
Page 155
138
performance and employees‟ loyalty and that this relation was stronger when it measured
through job satisfaction as mediator. This reflects that the servant leadership relationship
with employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance is stronger when job satisfaction
is high among the organizational members. Findings also indicated a significant positive
direct influence of job satisfaction on employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.
It is assumed that this study would provide a course of action to the management
for better understanding of servant leadership and its outcomes. It is also assumed that this
study would be useful for universities leaders who want to make appropriate decisions for
faculty members. In short, academicians‟ perception of servant leadership behaviors such
as altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational
stewardship should be given more attention as these are significant predictors of job
satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and universities performance.
Page 156
139
References
Adeniji, A. A. (2011). Organizational climate and job satisfaction among academic staff
in some selected private universities in southwest Nigeria. Doctoral dissertation,
Covenant University.
Afridi, A. S. (2017). The impact of service quality on customers’ loyalty and
advocacy; Mediating role of trust: A comparative study of public and private
sectors hospitals. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Preston University Islmabad, Pakistan.
Alfonso, S., & Andres, S.P. (2007). The effect of job satisfaction on labor turnover by
gender: An analysis for Switzerland. Journal of Socioeconomics, 3 (6), 859-913
Ali, W., & Hussain, T.(2012). Effects on servant leadership on follower‟s job
performance. Sci., Tech. and Dev., 31 (4): 359-368
Ali, S.S. (1986). Principles of Management (5th ed.). Kifayat Academy Karachi, Pakistan.
Al-Omari, A. (2008). The relationship between leadership styles of Hashemite University
department chairs and job satisfaction as reported by department faculty members
the University of Sharjah. Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 5 (2),101-
124.
Alam, S.S., Talha, M., Sivan, C.N., & Ahsan, M.N. (2005). Job satisfaction of university
woman teachers in Bangladesh. Journal of Social Sciences, 1 (2), 88-9.
Amin, M., Amin, H., Tatlah, I.A., Islam, M., Lodhi, S.A., & Khan, M.A. (2015). Faculty
job satisfaction and leader‟s Influence: A case of a public university of Pakistan.
International Journal of AYER, 1, 29-46.
Amin, M., Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail, W., Zaleha Abdul Rasid, S., & Daverson Andrew
Page 157
140
Selemani, R. (2014). The impact of human resource management practices on
performance: Evidence from a public university. The TQM Journal, 26 (2), 125-
142.
Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing
faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46 (7), 803-830.
Amadeo, & Carol. (2008). A co- relational study of servant leadership and registered
nurse job satisfaction in acute health-care settings. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Phoenix, USA.
Anderson, P. (2005). A Co-relational analysis of servant leadership and job satisfaction
in a religious educational organization. School of Advanced Studies, University
of Phoenix, USA.
Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (1998). Performance management. London: Institute of
Personnel and Development.
Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism versus
Egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13,169-191.
Babbie, E. R. (1998). The practice of social research: Belmont, MA: Wadsworth Pub.
Babin, B.J., Lee, Y.K., Kim, E.J., & Griffin, M. (2005). Modeling consumer satisfaction
and word-of-mouth: Restaurant patronage in Korea. Journal of Services Marketing
19 (3),133-139.
Barbuto, J. E. Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification
of servant leadership. Group and Organization Management,31 (3), 300-326.
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.
Bashir, M., Jianqiao, L. Zhang, Y, J., Ghazanfar, F. & Abrar, M. (2011). The relationship
Page 158
141
between high performance work system, organizational commitment and
demographic factors in public sector universities of Pakistan. International Journal
of Research in Business, 1(62), 71-75
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. 2000. The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics 3, (3), 26-40
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
The Free Press.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership 1992 and
beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training 14, (5), 21-27.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row Publisher.
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1994). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a leader.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Bettercoure, Lance A., Kevin, P., Gwinner, Mathew, L., & Meuter.(2001). A comparison
of attitude, personality and knowledge predictors of service oriented organization
citizen ship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29-41.
Bezy, K. G. (2011). An operational definition of spiritual leadership. Doctoral dissertation
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning
knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 595-
618.
Page 159
142
Blake, R. R., Shepherd, H.A., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). Managing intergroup conflict
industry. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blanchard, K. (2002). Forward: The heart of a servant. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence
(Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Blanchard, K. (2007). Leading at a higher level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating
high performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Blanchard Management
Corporation.
Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A
phenomenological approach to the social sciences. Wiley-Interscience Publication.
Bolden, R. (2004). What is leadership? Leadership South West, Research Report.
Retrieved from http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/research/abstract.php?id=43
Brewer, C. (2010). Servant leadership: A Review of the literature. Online Journal of Work
Force Education and Development, 4(2), 1-8.
Bryant, S.R. (2003). Servant leadership and public managers. Regent University.
Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review.
Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710.
Buchen, I.H. (1998). Servant leadership: A model for future faculty and future institutions.
The Journal of Leadership Studies 5 (1), 125- 134.
Page 160
143
Buhler, P. (1995). Leaders vs. managers. Supervision 56 (5), 24-26.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (2004). Marketing Research (6th ed.). Chicago: Mosby.
Carter, D.R.(2012). The influence of servant leadership on employee engagement: A
qualitative phenomenological study of restaurant employees. Doctoral dissertation
the University of Phoenix.
Castillo, J.X., & Cano, J. (2004). Factors explaining job satisfaction among the faculty.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 45 (3), 65-74.
Cerit, Y. (2009).The effects of servant leadership behavior of school principals on
teachers‟ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
37 (5), 600-623.
Cerit, Y.(2010). The effect of servant leadership on teachers‟ performance measures.
European Management Journal 25(4), 266–282.
Chang, C. C., Chiu, C. M., & Chen, C. A. (2010). The effect of TQM practices on
employee satisfaction and loyalty in government. Total Quality Management,
21(12),1299-1314.
Chee, C., Haddad, K., & Singh, G. (2007). Human resource management, job satisfaction,
morale, optimism, and turnover. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Administration,8 (2), 73-88.
Cheng, E. W. L. (2001). SEM being more effective than multiple regressions in
parsimonious model testing for management development research. Journal of
Management Development, 20(7), 650-667.
Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2007). Multiple perspectives on performance
Page 161
144
measures. European Management Journal 25(4), 266–282.
Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis. Cassell Educational.
Christina, R. (2011). Servant leadership practice among student affairs professional.
The Bulletin, 79 (6).
Chughtai, A. A. (2016). Servant leadership and follower outcomes: mediating effects
of organizational identification and psychological safety. The Journal of
Psychology, 1-15.
Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The Functions of a
Servant Leader. Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 5-10.
Contee-Borders, A.K. (2002). A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace.
Regent University.
Crabtree, S. (2004). Getting personal in the workplace: Are negative relationships
squelching productivity in your company. The Gallup Management Journal.
Crosby, P.B. (1996). The Absolutes of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dacher, E. S. (1999). Loving openness and the healing relationship. Advances in Mind-
Body Medicine, 15(1), 32-43.
Daft, R.L. (1994). Management. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership with in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior & Human
Performance (13), 46-78.
Darcy, K. T. (2010, Aug). Ethical leadership: The past, present and future. International
Journal of Disclosure & Governance, 7(3), 198-212.
Dennis, R., & B.E. Winston. (2003). A factor analysis of page and Wong‟s servant
Page 162
145
leadership instrument. Leadership &Organization Development Journal,
24(8),455-459.
Dennis, R.S. & M. Bocarnea. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment
instrument. Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600-615.
Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.
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
Ding, D., Lu, H., Song, Y., & Lu, Q. (2012). Relationship of Servant Leadership and
Employee Loyalty; the mediating role of employee satisfaction. iBusiness
Scientific Research, 4, 208-215.
Drury, S. (2005). Teacher as servant leader: A faculty model for effectiveness with students.
School of Leadership Studies Regent University.
Dusitsutirat, A. (2009). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction of Teachers in Rajamangala
University of Technology Krung. The Paper presented at the International
Conference on the Role of Universities in Hands-On Education, Rajamangala
University of Technology Lanna, Chiang-Mai.
Endrissat, N., Müller, W. R., & Fontana, A. J. (2006). In search of charismatic leaders,
or, you get what you ask for. Wirtschafts wissenschaftliches Zentrum (WWZ) der
Universität Basel.
Erdurmazlı, E. (2018). Satisfaction and Commitment in Voluntary Organizations: A
Cultural Analysis Along with Servant Leadership. VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-18.
Page 163
146
Fairholm, G.W. (1991). Values leadership: Toward a new philosophy of leadership
New York: Praeger Publishers.
Fajana, Sola (2002). Human resource management: An introduction. Lagos:
Labofin and Company.
Falkenburg, K., & Schyns, B. (2007). Work satisfaction, organizational commitment
and withdrawal behavior. Management Research News, 30(10), 708-723.
Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G., & Winston, B.E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage
for empirical research. The Journal of Leadership Studies (6), 49-72.
Fisher, J.R. (1999). What will it take to transform your organization in the 21st century?
Journal for Quality & Participation, 22 (6), 7-14.
Fleishman, E.A., & Hunt, G. (1973). Current development in the study of leadership.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Fosam, E.B., Grimsley, M.F.J., & Wisher, S.J. (1998). Exploring models for employee
satisfaction with particular reference to a police force. Total Quality
Management,9 ( 2), 235-247.
Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Gatignon, H. (2010). Confirmatory Factor Analysis in Statistical analysis of management
data. Springer, New York, NY.
Gaur, A. S., & Gaur, S. S. (2006). Statistical methods for practice and research: A guide
to data analysis using SPSS: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple study guide
and reference (10a.ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Page 164
147
Gerber, P.D., Nel, P.S., & Van Dyk, P.S. (1996). Human Resource Management
Johannesburg International Thompson Publishing.
Giacometti, K.S.M. (2005). Factors affecting job satisfaction and retention of beginning
teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M. & Donnelly, J. H. (1997). Organization behavior structure
process (9th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Gomez, G.(2014, December,13). Integrated psychological theory of leadership. Retrieved
from www. linkedin.com
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral.
Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1970). The servant as a leader. The Robert K Greenleaf Center.
Indianapolis.
Greenleaf, R.K., & Spears, L.C. (1998). The power of servant leadership :Essays.
Barrett-Koehler.
Griffeth, R.W., & Hom, P.W. (1995). The employee turnover process. Research in
Personnel and Human Resource Management (13), 245-9.
Grimm, R. (2018). The Link between Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction in the DON
Civilian Workforce. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects.
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1637
Guidelines for Cooperative Rankings (2007). Regulation of minister of cooperatives and
Page 165
148
Small, medium enterprises of Indonesia. No. 22/PER/M.KUKM/IV.
Guidelines for Cooperative Rankings Review (2008). Regulation of Minister of
Cooperatives and Small Medium Enterprises of Indonesia No.
06/PER/M.KUKM/III/.
Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E (1971). Employee reaction to job characteristics. Journal
of Applied Psychology,55, 259-286.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R (1976). Motivation through the design of work.
Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,16, 250-279.
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.(2006).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Pearson Education. Inc.
Hart, D. W., & Thompson, J. A. (2007). Untangling employee loyalty: A psychological
contract perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly,17(2), 297-323.
Hashim, M. (2013). Understanding organizational behavior. Academic Press Corporation,
salt lake city United States.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & D.E. Johnson (1996). Management of organizational
behavior: Utilizing human resource. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Herzberg, F., & Grigaliuma, B. J. (1971). Relevancy in the test of motivator – hygiene
theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(1), 73 – 79.
Herzberg, F. (1967). Work and the Nature of Man . Cleveland: OH. World Book.
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2016). Do ethical, authentic, and
Page 166
149
servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership?
A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 0149206316665461.
House, R.J. (1994). Global perspectives for local action. Washington, DC: National
Academic Press.
House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. In decision making:
An organizational behavior approach . Markus Wiener Publishing Inc.
Hunter, J. C. (2004). The world’s most powerful leadership principle: How to become a
servant -leader. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Igharia, M., & Greenhaus, J.H. (1992). Determinants of MIS employee turnover
intentions: A structural equation model. Association for Computing Machinery
Communications, 359 (2), 34-45.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2004). An experience sampling measure of job satisfaction:
It‟s relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job belief, and general job
satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3),
367-389.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American educational research journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Ingram,T.N., Laforge, R.W., Locander,W.B., Mackenzie,S.B., & Podsakoff, P.M.
(2005). New directions in sales leadership research. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 25(2) , 137-154.
Page 167
150
Irving, J.A. (2005). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams.Regent University.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the
impact of servant leadership on salesperson‟s turnover intention. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management,29(4) , 351-365.
Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2008). Enhancing nurse job satisfaction: The importance
of servant leader orientation in health care management. Academy of Management
Proceedings (1),1-6.
Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2006). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value: Investigating differential effect on retail outcome. Journal of Business
Research,59 (9), 974-981.
Johnson, P., & Clark, M. (Eds.). (2006). Business and management research
methodologies. Sage Publications Ltd.
Jonker, J., & Pennink, B. (2010). The essence of research methodology: A concise guide
for master and Ph.D. students in management science: Springer Heidelberg
Dordrecht: London, New York
Joseph, E. E., & B.E. Winston. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust,
and organizational trust. Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 26(1),
6-22.
Jose, G., & Mampilly, S. R. (2012). Satisfaction with HR practices and employee
engagement: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Economics and Behavioral
Studies, 4(7), 423.
Karimi, S. (2008). Factors affecting job satisfaction of faculty members of Bu-Ali
Sina University. Scientific & Research Quarterly Journal of Mazandaran
Page 168
151
University, 23 (6), 89-104.
Kasun, R. (2009). The application of servant leadership by selected New Jersey public
school principals. Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University.
Katou, A. (2002). The link between business strategies, human resource management
and business performance: The case of the Greek manufacturing
sector. Management Research News, 25(8/10), 99-101.
Katou, A. A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2010). Causal relationship between HRM policies
and organizational performance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing
sector. European Management Journal, 28(1), 25-39.
Keban, YT. (1995). Performance of public organizations. One day seminar, Faculty of
Social Politic, UGM Yogyakarta.
Keith, M., K. (2017). To serve first: The servant leadership journey. www.toservefirst.com
Khan, I., Farhatulla, Khan,H., Nawaz,& Yar,N.B. (2013). The Demographic Impact on
the organizational commitment of academicians in the HEIs of DC like Pakistan.
European Journal of Sustainable Development,2 (4), 117-130.
Khan, S. N. (2010). Impact of authentic leaders on organization performance.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 167-76.
Koesmono, H.T.(2014). The influence of organizational culture, servant leadership, and
job satisfaction toward organizational commitment and job performance through
work motivation as moderating variables for lecturers in economics and
management of private universities in East Surabaya. Educational Research
International, 3(4), 25-39.
Koopman, P. L. (1991). Between control and commitment: management and change as
the art of balancing. Leadership and OD Journal, 12, 3 – 7.
Page 169
152
Kotter, J.P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: The Free Press.
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Education and pshychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Kumar,S.(2014). Structural Equation Modeling [online] available at Ytpak.com
Laub, J. A. (1998). Organizational leadership assessment. Wellington, FL: Organizational
Leadership Assess.
Laub, J. (2003). From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the
Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) model. In Proceedings of the
Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.
Laub, J.A. (2004). Defining servant leadership: A recommended typology for
servant leadership studies. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable Proceedings,
Regent University, School of Leadership Studies. Virginia Beach.
Lichtenwalner, B. (2011). Fortune’s best companies to work for with Servant leadership.
Retrieved from http://modernservantleader.com/servant leadership/fortunes-best-
companies-to-work-for-with-servant leadership.
Lichtenwalner, B. (2011). Servant leader companies list. Retrieved from
http://modernservantleader.com/featured/servant leadership-companies-list.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Development of
multi-dimensional measures and multilevel assessment. The Leadership Quarterly,
19(2), 161-177.
Life of Muhammad. (2014, November 21). The Dialy Qudrat. Retrieved from
http://www.Dailyqudrat.com/
Lisbijanto, H., & Budiyanto. (2014). Influence of servant leadership on organization
Page 170
153
performance through job satisfaction in employees cooperative Surabaya.
International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 3( 4), 01-06.
Locke, E.A (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 4, 309-336.
Locke, E.A (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Luekens, M.T., Lyter, D.M., & Fox, E.E. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility results
from the teacher follow-up survey, 2000-01 (NCES 2004-301). Washington:
National Centre for Education Statistics.
Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2004). Leadership theory application skill development
(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson South-Western.
Luthans, F. (2002). Organizational Behavior (8th ed.). Chicago: Mosby.
MacArthur, J. (2004). The book on leadership. Nelson Books.
Machumu, H. J., & Kaitila, M. M. (2014). Influence of leadership styles on teachers
job satisfaction: A case of selected primary schools in Songea and Morogoro
districts, Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Administration and
Policy Studies, 6(4), 56-61.
Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2014). The relationship between servant leadership,
organizational citizenship behavior and team effectiveness. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 01-10.
Majauskaitė,M.(2013). The impact of leadership style on job satisfaction of faculty in
higher education institutions in Lithuania. Master thesis. ISM University of
Management and Economics International Marketing and Management Program.
Malhota, B.R., Jackofsky, E.F.,& Indik, B.P (1996). A longitudinal study of climates.
Page 171
154
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(3), 319-334.
Mango, E. (2018). Beyond Leadership. Open Journal of Leadership, 7(01), 117.
Marriner-Tomey, A. (1996). Guide to nursing management and leadership (5th ed.).
Chicago: Mosby.
Marriner-Tomey, A. (2000). Guide to nursing management and leadership (6th ed.).
Chicago: Mosby.
Marturano, A., & Gosling, J. (2008). Leadership: The key concepts. New York, NY:
Rutledge,Taylor & Francis Group
McCann, J. T., Graves, D., & Cox, L. (2014). Servant leadership, employee satisfaction
and organizational performance in rural community hospitals. International
Journal of Business and Management, 9(10), 28-38.
McCaslin, M. (2001). The landscape of leadership building relationships. Journal of
Leadership Studies (8), 21.
McFarland, L.J., Senn, L.E., & Childress, J.R. (1993). 21st century leadership: Dialogues
with 100 top leaders. New York: Leadership Press.
McGregor, D. (1976). An analysis of leadership. Lassey and Fernandez.
Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011). Revisiting servant leadership: An empirical study in Indian
context. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 5(2) 24-30
Melchar, D., and Susan B. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through
servant leadership. The International Journal of Business Enquirer, 9(1), 74-88.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (2004). TCM employee commitment survey academic users
guide London: Univerity of Western Ontario.
Moday,R. T., Richard, M., Steers & Layman,W. P. (1979). The measurement of
Page 172
155
organizational commitment . Journal of vocational behavior, 14, 244-247.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-227.
Mulki,J.P., Jaramillo, F., and Locander, W.B. (2006). Effects of ethical climate and
supervisory trust on salesperson‟s job attitudes and intentions to quit. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26(1),19-26.
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Person Prentice Hall.
Needham, M. R. (2018). Relationship Between Servant Leadership Characteristics and
Turnover in Fast-Casual Restaurants. Doctoral Dissertation.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006) .Transformational and transactional
leadership effects on teachers‟ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (2),145-177.
Northouse, Peter G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Obisi, C (2003). Organizational Behavior: Concepts and applications. Lagos: Malt House
Press Limited.
Ololube, N. P. (2006). Teachers job satisfaction and motivation for school effectiveness:
An assessment. Online Submission.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997). Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education. Education
and Training, 39 (9), 354-359.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers.
Page 173
156
Women in Management Review, 15, 331-343.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Is the length of service related to the level of job satisfaction?
International Journal of Social Economics, 27, 213-226.
Osseo-Asare, A.E., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W.D. (2005). Leadership best practices
for sustaining quality in UK higher education from perspective of the EFQM
excellence model. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(2), 148-170.
Ostroff, O.R., Kinicki, S.N., & Tamkins, U.O.(2007). Relationships between
psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta analytic review.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389-416.
Page R, Jagger N, Tamkin P., & Henwood N. (2006). The measurement of organizational
performance, Research Report, Sector Skills Development Agency.
Pandy C., & Khare R.( 2012). Impact of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment on employee loyalty. International Journal of Social Science &
Interdisciplinary Research,1 (8),26-41.
Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership
theory in organizational context. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393.
Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Regent
University. Dissertation Abstracts, UMI, 3082719.
Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (1991). Essentials of nursing research methods, appraisal
and utilization (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Rahman, W. (2012). The relationship of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes with
employee development in the context of performance appraisal in public
universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, National
University of Modern Languages, Islamabad.
Page 174
157
Ramli, A., & Desa, N.M. (2014). The relationship between servant leadership and
organizational commitment: The Malaysian perspectives. International Journal of
Management and Sustainability,3(2), 111-123.
Reisinger, Y., Mavondo, F., Moutinho, L., & Rita, P. (2006). Structural equation
modeling:Critical issues and new developments. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 21(4), 41-71.
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: A meta-
analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472.
Rimes, W. D. (2011). The relationship between servant leadership and organizational
commitment .Doctoral dissertation, Temple University.
Russell, R.F. (1999). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &
Organizational Development Journal,22 (2), 76-83.
Ryckman, O. J. (2017). Retention, mentorship, and servant leadership: An analysis for
retaining 2050‟s Generals in Today‟s Army. M.A. in Leadership Studies Capstone
Project Paper. http://digital.sandiego.edu/solesmalscap/4
Saifuddin, Nawaz, A., & Jan, F. (2012). Predicting job satisfaction among the
academicians of universities in Peshawar, Pakistan. IEL, 2(2), 34-45.
Sanders, J. O. (2007). Spiritual leadership. Chicago: Moody Publishers.
Sargent, T. and Hannum, E. (2005). Keeping teachers happy: Job satisfaction among
primary school teachers in rural Northwest China. Comparative Education Review,
49 (2), 173-204.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Understanding research philosophies and
approaches. Research Methods for Business Students, 4, 106-135.
Scardino, A. J. (2012). Servant leadership in higher education: The influence of servant-
Page 175
158
led faculty on student engagement. Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University.
Schermerhorn, John, Jr. (1997). Situational leadership: Conversations with Paul Hersey.
Mid-American Journal of Business, 12 (2), 5-11.
Schleicher, D., Watt, J., & Greguras, G. (2004). Re- examining the job satisfaction
performanceship. The complexity of attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(1), 165-177.
Schneider, S. K., & George, W. M. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational
leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 32(1), 60-77.
Scouller, J. (2011). The three levels of leadership: How to develop your leadership
presence, knowhow, and skill. Management Books.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (5th ed. ).
Wiley, India.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant
leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-
424.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1993). Frames of leadership. International Journal of Educational Reform,
2 (1), 19-26.
Seseer, B. (2007). Perceived presidential leadership styles and faculty job satisfaction at
Mongolian public universities. Unpublished dissertation, Purdue University,
Educational Studies.
Shekari, H., & Nikooparvar, M. Z. (2012). Promoting leadership effectiveness in
organizations: A case study on the involved factors of servant leadership.
International Journal of Business Administration, 3(1), 54-65
Page 176
159
Shirbagi, N. ( 2007). Exploring organizational commitment and leadership frames
within Indian and Iranian higher education institutions. Bulletin of Education
Research , 29 (1), 17-32.
Siripak, S. (2006). Job satisfaction of academic staff in Mahidol University. Unpublished
Thesis, Mahidol University, Faculty of Graduates Studies.
Smith, Brien N., Montagno, R.V., & Kuzmenko, T.N.( 2004). Transformational and
servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 10 (4), 80-91.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in
work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. The Handbook of
Psychology, 406-417.
Solomon, C.M. (1992). The loyalty factor, Personnel Journal, 52-62.
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership
perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367-390.
Spears, L.C. (1994). Servant leadership: Quest for caring leadership. Inner Quest , (2), 1-4.
Spears, L.C. (2004). Practicing servant leadership. Leader to Leader (34), 7-11.
Spears, L.C.(2005). The understanding and practice of servant leadership. Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable. School of Leadership studies, Regent University.
Spears, L.C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2004). Practicing servant-leadership: Succeeding
through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spears, Larry C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective,
Page 177
160
caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1 (1), 25-30.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS: A model of leadership in organizations. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 2,386-401.
Steyn, G.M., & Van Wyk, J.N. ( 1999). Job satisfaction of teachers. South African
Journal of Education, 19 (1), 37-44.
Stogdill, R.M. (1973). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research.
NewYork: Free Press.
Stone, A.G., & Patterson, K.A. (2005). The history of leadership focus. Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable Proceedings.
Stone, G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant
leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25(4), 349-361.
Stum, D. L. (1999). Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid.
Strategy and Leadership,29(4),4 -9
Sturnick, J. A. (1998). Healing leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on Leadership
185-193. New York, NY: Wiley.
Subandi, S. (2008). Cooperative strategies in the face of the less conducive business
climate Infokop,16,102 -125.
Tahira, S. S., Hussain, A., & Saadi, A. M. (2015). Compromising the quality: Role of
chairs in improving the quality of education in higher education institutions in
Pakistan. The AYER, 3, 1-10.
Tajammal, & Wajid (2012). Effect of servant leadership on followers‟ job performance.
Sci., Tech. and Dev., 31 (4), 359-368.
Tasnim, S. (2006). Job satisfaction among female teachers: A study on primary schools
Page 178
161
in Bangladesh, Unpublished thesis for the Master of Philosophy program,
University of Bergen.
Theron, A, S., & Dodd, M, N. (2011). Organizational commitment in a Post-merger
situation. SAJEMSNS,14(3), 333-345.
Thompson, K. N. (2010). Servant-leadership: An effective model for project management.
Doctoral dissertation, Capella University.
Toker, B. (2011). Job satisfaction of academic staff: An empirical study on Turkey.
Quality Assurance in Education, 19 (2), 156-169.
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full
range leadership model, employee outcome, and organizational culture. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(4), 533-547.
Travis P. Searle, & Barbuto, Jr. (2010). Servant leadership, hope, and organizational
virtuousness: A framework exploring positive micro and macro behavior and
performance impact. Journal of leadership and organization studies, 18(1), 107–
117.
Treece, E. W., & Treece, J. W. (1986). Elements of research in nursing (4th ed.).Toronto:
Mosby.
Van Dierendonck, D., Sousa, M., Gunnarsdóttir, S., Bobbio, A., Hakanen, J., Pircher
Verdorfer, A., ... & Rodriguez-Carvajal, R. (2017). The Cross-Cultural Invariance
of the Servant Leadership Survey: A Comparative Study across Eight
Countries. Administrative Sciences, 7(2), 1-11.
Van Kuik, A. (1998). The meaning of servant leadership. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Manitoba.
Page 179
162
Vondy, M.(2010). The relationships among servant leadership, organizational citizenship
behavior, person-organization fit, and organizational identification. International
Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 3-27.
Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Pittsburgh Press.
Vroom, V.H., & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburg
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Waldman, D.A., Bass ,B.M., & Einstein, W.O. (1987). Leadership and outcome of
performance appraisal process. Journal of occupational psychology, 60,177-186.
Walker, K., & Scharf, M. (2001). Servant-leadership review. Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada: SELU, University of Saskatchewan.
Walker, R.M., & Boyne, G.A. (2005). Public management reform and organizational
performance: An empirical assessment of the UK labor government’s public
service improvement strategy. Working Paper, Center for Local and Regional
Government Research, Cardiff University.
Wallace, J. R. (2007). Servant leadership: A worldview perspective. International Journal
of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 114-132.
Wang, C. X., Ling, Q., & Zhang, X. J. (2009). The servant leadership scale, design, and
inspection in a Chinese enterprise. Nankai Business Review,3, 94-103.
Wagner, C. M. (2007). Organizational commitment as a predictor variable in nursing
turnover research: Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60 (3), 235-
247.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
Industrial Relations Center.
Page 180
163
Wong, Paul, T.P., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and
the revised servant leadership profile. Servant Leadership Roundtable, 3, 1-13.
Yao, T., Huang, W. B.,& Fan, X. C. (2008). Research about employee loyalty of the
services sector based on the organizational commitment mechanism. Management
World Magazine, 5, 102-123.
YIN, C. S. (2012). A study of employee satisfaction and its effects toward loyalty in the
Hotel industry. Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 9 (1), 15-32.
Zembylas, M.,& Papanastasiou, E. (2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in
Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (3), 357-374.
Zembylas, M.,& Papanastasiou, E. (2006). Teacher job satisfaction in Cyprus: The results
of a mixed-methods approach. Paper presented at the Commonwealth Council for
Educational Administration and Management Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Page 181
164
Appendices
Appendix A
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
Department of Management Sciences
Preston University
No 85, Street 3, Sector H-8/1,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Dear Respondent,
I am doctoral degree student conducting research in Management Sciences- Human
Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant
Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational Performance in Universities of
Peshawar.” This questionnaire is designed to get information and to assist me in this
regard. You are requested to take 10 minutes out of your busy schedule to fill this
questionnaire. I would appreciate your efforts in completing the attached questionnaire.
The information you provide will help the researcher to understand about the Servant
leadership and its impact. The purpose of the study is purely academic and research
oriented.
I assure you that all information received in this association shall be treated and held in
strict confidence.
Thank you.
Yours Faithfully,
Muhammad Hashim
PhD. Scholar,
Address:
GT Road Haji Camp Sethi Town,
Pahari Pura Road Master Street
House No: 03, Peshawar.
Email: [email protected]
Cell No. 0321-9008943
Page 182
165
QUESTIONNAIRE
MEDIATIONAL ROLE OF JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN SERVANT
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEES‟ LOYALTY AND ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE IN UNIVERSITIES OF PESHAWAR
SECTION A
Respondent Bio Data/Information
Instruction: Please mark the correct answer in the Tables and box given.
1. What is your Title/Position in the University? 2. What is your highest
qualification?
Professor 1 Bachelors 1
Associate Professor 2 Masters 2
Assistant Professor 3 M.Phil./MS 3
Lecturer 4 Doctoral 4
Junior Lecturer/Research Assistant 5 Others 5
3. What is your native language? 4. What is your marital status?
5. What is your Gender?
6. How many years have you been in existing university?
___________________________________ (Days, Month, Years etc)
7. Length of service in the university? _________________________________.
8. Organization: ________________________________ Public Private
9. Age: 22-27 28-38 39-45 46-60 61-above
10. Nationality: _______________________________
Urdu 1
English 2
Panjabi 3
Pashto 4
Sindhi 5
Balochi 6
Others 7
Married 1
Un-married 2
Male 1
Female 2
Page 183
166
SECTION B
Questions directed to higher-ranking and low-ranking Academic Staff. Please indicate on
a scale of 1 to 5; if you Strongly Agree, for instance, mark 5, or if you Strongly Disagree,
please mark 1. We are concerned in the digit that best demonstrates your views on the
expectation of the study.
Name of Leader: ______________________ (Optional)
This questionnaire is to describe the leader behaviors and attitudes of the above-mentioned
individual as you perceive it. Please answer all of the questions describe this person.
Please indicate how well each of the following statements describes this person. Please
answer the questionnaire anonymously.
1. Servant Leadership
Altruistic Calling 1 2 3 4 5
1. This person puts my interests ahead of his/her own
2. This person does everything he/she can to serve me
3. This person sacrifices his/her own interests to meet my
needs
4. This person goes above and beyond the call of duty to meet
my needs
Emotional Healing 1 2 3 4 5
1. This person is one I would turn to if I had a personal trauma
2. This person is good at helping me with my emotional issues
3. This person is talented at helping me to heal emotionally
4. This person is one that could help me mend my hard
feelings
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
Page 184
167
Wisdom 1 2 3 4 5
1. This person seems alert to what's happening
2. This person is good at anticipating the consequences of
decisions
3. This person has great awareness of what is going on
4. This person seems very in touch with what is going on
5. This person seems to know what's going to happen
Persuasive Mapping 1 2 3 4 5
1. This person offers compelling reasons to get me to do things
2. This person encourages me to dream "big dreams" about the
organization
3. This person is very persuasive
4. This person is good at convincing me to do things
5. This person is gifted when it comes to persuading me
Organizational Stewardship 1 2 3 4 5
1. This person believes that the organization needs to play a
moral role in society
2. This person believes that our organization needs to function
as a community
3. This person sees the organization for its potential to
contribute to society
4. This person encourages me to have a community spirit in
the workplace
5. This person is preparing the organization to make a positive
difference in the future
Page 185
168
Job Satisfaction
Ask yourself: How satisfied am I with this aspect of my job?
Please use the above scale for indicating a statement as 1 for
Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Neutral, 4 for Agree
and 5 for Strongly Agree.
Intrinsic Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5
1. Being able to keep busy all the time
2. The chance to be “somebody” in the community
3. The way my job provides for steady employment
4. The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities
Extrinsic Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5
1. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions.
2. The way organization policies are put into practice
3. My pay and the amount of work I do.
4. The chances for advancement on this job.
3. Employees’ Loyalty
Commitment 1 2 3 4 5
1. Would not change organization if got an offer
2. Enjoy discussing my organization to others
3. Will work for this organization for ever
4. Not emotionally attached to this organization
5. Organization is of great personal meaning to me
Motivation 1 2 3 4 5
1. Would recommend this organization to a friend
2. Will recommend my employer to other employees
3. Like part of family at this organization
4. Will enhance the organization image to the public.
Page 186
169
Belongingness 1 2 3 4 5
1. Organization‟s problems are my own
2. Strong belonging to my organization
3. Devoted to my organization
4. Committed to organization‟s success
Career Development 1 2 3 4 5
1. Take pride in my work
2. Can further fulfill my career goals
3. Look ways to improve organizational efficiency
4. Like to stay with this organization in the future
4. Organizational Performance
How would you rate the overall university performance over the
past years? Please use the above scale for indicating a statement as
1 for Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Neutral, 4 for
Agree and 5 for Strongly Agree.
Development
1
2
3
4
5
1. The organization is developing in its capacity to meet future
opportunities and challenges
2. Plans for career and development for me as an employee
3. Introduces new executive and professional development
program
Quality 1 2 3 4 5
1. Percentage of Products of High Quality
2. Programs are accredited by professional bodies
3. Adequate and best infrastructure and facilities compared to
other universities
Page 187
170
4. Good reputation to attract students
Innovation 1 2 3 4 5
1. Improvement for products and Processes
2. Produces scholarly publication and citation
3. Invest many funds in research and development
Efficiency 1 2 3 4 5
1. The organization uses the fewest possible resources to meet
its objectives
Thank you very much for your co-operation
Page 188
171
Appendix B
Permission to Use the Servant Leadership Questionnaire
12/23/2014
Dear Dr. Barbuto and Wheeler,
I am doctoral degree student of Preston University in Islamabad, Pakistan conducting
research in Management Sciences- Human Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational
Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and
Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar.” I would like to use the
Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) survey in my dissertation. The purpose of the
study is to determine the relationship between servant leadership behavior, job
satisfaction, the loyalty of the faculty and organization performance. The staff will consist
of faculty only.
My plan is to have the faculty of 17 Universities in the district of Peshawar, 308 faculty
members were selected to participate in this study. I am hoping that you can direct me in
how to purchase the survey for use in my study or give me permission to use it at no cost.
I look forward to hearing from you.
12/24/14
Dear Hashim,
You are certainly welcome to use the SLQ. Is your study using the self-assessment or the
other rater version or both? Thank you and good luck with your research.
Jay Barbuto
***************************************************************
John E. Barbuto, Jr., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership
Coordinator, Leadership Studies Doctoral Specialization
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Page 189
172
Appendix C
Permission to Use the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
06/02/2015
Dear Sir/Madam
I am doctoral degree student of Preston University in Islamabad, Pakistan, conducting
research in Management Sciences- Human Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational
Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and
Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar.” I would like to use the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) survey in my dissertation. The purpose of
the study is to determine the relationship between servant leadership behavior, job
satisfaction, the loyalty of the faculty and organization performance. The staff will consist
of faculty only.
My plan is to have the faculty of 17 Universities in the district of Peshawar, 308 faculty
members were selected to participate in this study. I am hoping that you can direct me in
how to purchase the survey for use in my study or give me permission to use it at no cost.
I look forward to hearing from you.
02/03/2015
Hello Muhammad,
Thank you for your interest in using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire in your
research. You‟ll find instructions for ordering the measure on our website:
www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/vpr. Please complete the qualifications form and the order form,
and mail them with your payment to the address listed. We also offer the option for
researchers to reproduce the measure on their own secure website, as opposed to ordering the
forms themselves [note: this is the only option for international customers]. The royalty
charge for this option is $.20 per participant for the short form MSQ and $.45 per participant
for the long form MSQ. With the royalty only option there is no shipping charge.
Best,
********************************************************** Vocational Psychology Research University of Minnesota N612 Elliott Hall 75 East River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Phone. 612 626 9884
Fax. 612 625 4051
Email [email protected]
Website
Page 190
173
Appendix D
Permission to Use the Employee Loyalty Questionnaire
22/02/2015
Dear MS. Chetna Pandey and Mrs. Rajni Khare
I am doctoral degree student of Preston University in Islamabad, Pakistan, conducting
research in Management Sciences- Human Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational
Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and
Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar.” I would like to use the
Employee loyalty questionnaire in my dissertation. The purpose of the study is to
determine the relationship between servant leadership behavior, job satisfaction, the
loyalty of the faculty and organization performance. The staff will consist of faculty only.
My plan is to have the faculty of 17 Universities in the district of Peshawar, 308 faculty
members were selected to participate in this study. I am hoping that you can direct me in
how to purchase the survey for use in my study or give me permission to use it at no cost.
I look forward to hearing from you.
26/02/2015
Dear Hashim,
Yes you are welcome to use employee loyalty questionnaire and keep up update with
result of your study. Best of luck
MS. Chetna Pandey Mrs. Rajni Khare
Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor,
Aditya College, BVM College of Management Education,
Gwalior. Gwalior.
Page 191
174
Appendix E
Permission to Use the Organizational Performance Questionnaire
22/02/2015
Dear Dr. Anastasia Katou.
I am doctoral degree student of Preston University in Islamabad, Pakistan, conducting
research in Management Sciences- Human Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational
Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and
Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar.” I would like to use the
Organizational Performance Questionnaire in my dissertation. The purpose of the study is
to determine the relationship between servant leadership behavior, job satisfaction, the
loyalty of the faculty and organization performance. The staff will consist of faculty only.
My plan is to have the faculty of 17 Universities in the district of Peshawar, 308 faculty
members were selected to participate in this study. I am hoping that you can direct me in
how to purchase the survey for use in my study or give me permission to use it at no cost.
I look forward to hearing from you.
2/23/15
Dear Hashim,
Please find attached a general questionnaire I am often use in my
publications.
Best Wishes,
**********************************************
Anastasia Katou.
Assistant Professor of Organizational Strategy
at the Department of Business Administration,
University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece
Page 192
175
Appendix F
Path Analysis details for Direct and Indirect Effect
Total Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)
Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction .581 .000
Org. Performance .574 .584
Employees‟ Loyalty .508 .652
Total Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)
Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction .001 ...
Org. Performance .002 .001
Employees‟ Loyalty .001 .001
Standardized Direct Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)
Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction .636 .000
Org. Performance .254 .580
Employees‟ Loyalty .153 .706
Standardized Direct Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)
Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction .001 ...
Org Performance .001 .001
Employees‟ Loyalty .001 .002
Standardized Indirect Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)
Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction .000 .000
Org. Performance .369 .000
Employees‟ Loyalty .449 .000
Standardized Indirect Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)
Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction ... ...
Org. Performance .001 ...
Employees‟ Loyalty .001 ...
Page 193
176
Appendix G
Universities Faculty List
# Name of Universities Campus Faculty
1. Agricultural University Peshawar Peshawar 480
2. Abasyn University Peshawar PEW 124
3. City University PEW 85
4. CECOS University PEW 300
5. Frontier Women University PEW 94
6. Gandhara University PEW 75
7. Islamia College University PEW 430
8. Iqra National University PEW 80
9. Khyber Medical University PEW 100
10.
National University Of Modern
Languages PEW 65
11. National University (FAST) PEW 62
12. Preston University PEW 62
13. Qurtuba University PEW 65
14. Sarhad University PEW 70
15. University of Engineering & Tech. PEW 215
16. University of Peshawar PEW 599
Degree Awarding Institute
17. IMSciences Peshawar 63