2011 Eudomonic wellbeing.pdf
•
0 likes•6 views
This document summarizes a research study that examined how a leader's spiritual values of servant leadership influence employee motivation and well-being. The study analyzed 265 Chinese supervisor-subordinate pairs from various industries in Taiwan. The researchers found that the spiritual values perceived by subordinates, as well as the discrepancy between leader and subordinate perceptions of spiritual values, predicted employee autonomous motivation and well-being beyond transactional leadership. Autonomous motivation was found to fully mediate the relationship between spiritual values and well-being.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to 2011 Eudomonic wellbeing.pdf
Similar to 2011 Eudomonic wellbeing.pdf (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (14)
2011 Eudomonic wellbeing.pdf
- 1. ORIGINAL PAPER The Influence of Leader’s Spiritual Values of Servant Leadership on Employee Motivational Autonomy and Eudaemonic Well-Being Chin-Yi Chen • Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen • Chun-I Li Published online: 22 March 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract This research examined the role of leader’s spiritual values in terms of the ‘‘servant leadership’’ in the process of promoting employee’s autonomous motivation and eudaemonic well-being. Sample consists of 265 Chinese supervisor-subordinate dyads recruited from a variety of industries in Taiwan. Spiritual values perceived by the sub- ordinates, as well as the discrepancy between leader-subordinate perceptions, but not the leader’s self-perceptions of spiritual values, were found to contribute significantly beyond transactional leadership in predicting subordinate motivational autonomy and eudaemonic well-being, and subordinate autonomous motivations fully mediates the relationship between spiritual values and eudaemonic well-being. Keywords Spiritual values Servant leadership Eudaemonic well-being Self-determination theory (SDT) Dyadic discrepancy Introduction The global financial crisis revealed that spiritual/religious values are as important to the profitable organizations in the business world as they are to the religious institutes. The issue of ‘‘workplace spirituality’’ began to be noticed by the academia in the 1990s (Conger 1994). ‘‘Spiritual’’ or ‘‘spirit-centered’’ leadership is a topic of inquiry frequently associ- ated with the workplace spirituality in the literature (Benefiel 2005; Biberman 2000; Fry 2005; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003; Jue 2006). Unlike the traditional leadership models mostly based on the ‘‘economic cost-benefit assumptions’’ (Bass 1985, p. 5) that described leader behavior in terms of leader–follower C.-Y. Chen () Department of Business Administration, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123 University Road, Section 3, Touliu City, Yunlin County 640, Taiwan e-mail: cycmich@gmail.com C.-H. V. Chen C.-I. Li Department of Business Administration, National Central University, No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County 320, Taiwan 123 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 DOI 10.1007/s10943-011-9479-3
- 2. exchange relationships, setting goals, providing direction and support, and reinforcement behaviors, the ‘‘value-based/spirit-centered leadership’’ models are the transformational leadership schools which emphasized symbolic leader behavior; visionary, inspirational messages; emotional feelings; ideological and moral values; individualized attention; and intellectual stimulation (Avolio et al. 2009). Among various addresses of religious/spirit-centered leadership, the ‘‘servant leader- ship’’ has recently attracted the attention of leadership scholars and practitioners (Bass et al. 1999; Bowman 1997). Substantial empirical research for the construct of servant leadership in terms of its philosophical foundation, spiritual values, and influences has been burgeoning. Over the past few years, in the measurement of leadership effectiveness, short-term indicators such as market share and financial enhancement were the most frequently reported indicators of leadership effectiveness (Higgs 2003). However, truly successful leaders maintain subordinate loyalty and promote organizational effectiveness through establishing sustainable long-term assets (Higgs 2003), such as building the capacity of followers (Nwogu 2004), increasing psychological capitals, and enhancing psychological well-being. In addition, most of the current management research perspectives place emphasis on ‘‘leadership,’’ while focusing less on ‘‘followership.’’ The ‘‘servant leader- ship’’ enactment, however, challenges the traditional concept about leadership by emphasizing supervisors to practice leadership in the way of a servant, who thoroughly serve his/her followers. Greenleaf (1977) posited that the first choice of a leader is choosing to serve others. A leader will accomplish little if lacks this ‘‘servanthood’’ cognition. The choice to serve is an expression of the nature of life (Jaworski and Flowers 1998). The leader’s role is like steward of the resources (human, financial, and otherwise) provided by the organization. The power to motivate leadership is not self-interest of the leader, but the need of his/her followers (Russell and Stone 2002). While the management and leadership styles in most non-profit/ religious organizations are directed to pursuit the values of ‘‘meaningfulness’’ and ‘‘spiri- tuality’’ at work, many employees in the profitable organizations actually suffered from performance-resulted pressure and accumulated physical and mental fatigue. The concept of servant leadership inspires subordinates to generate better awareness, trust, learning, and spiritual fulfillment at work. And due to the servant leadership of their supervisors, employees become tolerant, open-minded, patient, optimistic, proactive, and willing to learn. This study therefore views servant leadership as a spiritual, guiding, helping others to grow, and ‘‘humanistic-based’’ leadership style that leading by values and beliefs. To proceed further in understanding the process of servant leadership, there are still questions to be answered. To what extent does servant leadership influence subordinate’s outcomes such as employee motivation and well-being? What are the mechanisms for servant leadership to affect these employee outcomes? How is it compared with non- servant leadership styles (such as the transactional leadership style) in the impact on the leadership effectiveness? To enquire into these questions, we consider the internal and external autonomous motivations, based on the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), as the mediating variables between servant leadership and employee psychological well-being. In addition, there is belief that research gap exists in the relationship between leadership and employee’s behavior since most research is based on individualistic cultural samples, e.g., United States (Fry et al. 2005). Relatively little research has been conducted on samples from collectivistic cultures, e.g., Chinese. It is imperative for scholars to explore the transportability of Western psychological constructs and organizational practices to other cultural contexts (Tsui et al. 2007). Moreover, China has been a rapid growing J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 419 123
- 3. economy, and managing Chinese human resources effectively becomes a critical issue for many multi-national companies. While spiritual values are presumably conceived as uni- versal human capitals, it is important to empirically examine how the servant leadership conceptualization applies to the Chinese organizations (Luthans et al. 2008). Literature Review Spiritual Values of Servant Leadership The servant leadership theory is an approach to leadership development which holds that the leaders are first a servant to serve others before they are guided. When people receive services and guidance from others, they will in turn serve and lead more people, to the extent that a wider number of employees, consumers, and even the whole society perceive this service (Greenlaef 1977). Service is the core of servant leadership and is the most important function of servant leaders, to place other’s interests above their own. Servant supervisors serve the front-line subordinates by finding their individual uniqueness (Aggarwal and Simkins 2001; Liden et al. 2008; Lyerly and Maxey 2001). Servant leadership demonstrates the principles of the leaders. As values and beliefs are the core motivators of leadership, servant supervisors actively endeavor to meet the demand of employees, regarding serving their subordinates as the highest responsibility (Yukl 2002). Their motivation to accomplish these tasks is not self-interest; rather, servant leaders ‘‘want their subordinates to improve for their own good, and view the development of followers as an end, in and of itself, not merely a means to reach the leader’s or organization’s goals’’ (Ehrhart 2004, p. 69). Servant leaders lead with love, humility, altruism, trust, vision, empowerment, and servant hood (Patterson 2003). From the ethical point of view, a leader that recognizes the values of ethics is worthy of the trust of employees, customers, and business stakeholders (Fry 2003; Fry et al. 2005; Reave 2005). In measuring servant leadership, researchers have developed a variety of scales (e.g., Laub 2003; Page and Wong 2000; Russell and Stone 2002), among which, the 12-dimension scale developed by Page and Wong (2000), including integrity, humility, servant hood, caring for others, empowering others, developing others, vision, goal-setting, leading, modeling, team-building, and shared decision-making, comprehensively encom- passes the aspect of spiritual values of servant leadership, therefore is adopted as the research instrument in this study. Spiritual Values of Servant Leadership Compared with Other Leadership Values The transformational leadership theory emphasizes leader’s influence on employees, as the leaders act through vision, intellectual stimulation, inspiring motivations, and paying individual care to motivate employees to achieve work performance. As a matter of fact, spirit-centered leaderships such as ethical leadership, spiritual leadership, servant leader- ship, and charismatic leadership have common characteristics in many aspects, thus, can be classified as the transformational leadership schools; however, servant leadership does have unique characteristics in definitions compared with other leadership styles. The similarities and differences of values between servant leadership and other existing leadership styles are displayed as below (Table 1). The prevalent paternalistic leadership style in Chinese organizations emphasizing paternalistic authority (Cheng et al. 2000), subordinates and supervisors in some cases are 420 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 5. at a status of extreme power imbalance, which leads to conflicts and employee physical and psychological pressure (Cheng et al. 2004). As the world becomes more globalized, the concept of decentralization and shared decision-making being the trends of modern leadership styles, servant leadership has its importance in meeting the demands of employees, serving them wholeheartedly, trusting and empowering them, and thus being completely different in the power relations between supervisors and employees compared to the paternalistic leadership style (Fig. 1). Employee Motivation Based on Motivational Autonomy Porter and Lawler (1968) categorized work motivations into intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. The ‘‘intrinsic’’ motivation refers to motivators from the work itself. The ‘‘extrinsic’’ motivation refers to the intention to work resulting from external rewards, rather than the work itself. They suggested that a work environment for improved work performance is one that subordinates can be satisfied with both their intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Deci 1971). Research supported that challenging tasks would provide higher intrinsic motivation, as the accomplishment of these tasks serves as a positive feedback which enhances intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, negative feedback would decrease the sense of achievement, provoking extrinsic motivation, or amotivation (Gagne and Deci 2005). In 1985, Ryan, Connell, and Deci proposed the self-determination theory (SDT). The SDT suggests that ‘‘autonomous’’ motivation comprises the ‘‘intrinsic motivation’’ and two fully internalized extrinsic motivations, the ‘‘integrated regulation’’ and ‘‘regulation through identification,’’ while ‘‘controlled’’ motivation involves two other extrinsic motivations: the ‘‘introjected regulation of behaviour’’ and ‘‘external regulated behaviour’’ (Gagne and Deci 2005). Gagne and Deci (2005) assumed that these five types of motivation mentioned above are displayed (in that order) along the autonomy continuum in terms of their magnitude of self-determination. The definitions of these five types of motivation are as follows. ‘‘Intrinsic motivation’’ is the natural, inherent drive to seek out challenges and new possibilities that has the highest autonomy by SDT, while ‘‘extrinsic motivation’’ comes from external sources. ‘‘Externally regulated behaviour’’ is performed because of external demand or possible reward. Such actions can be seen to have an externally perceived locus of control. ‘‘Introjected Regu- lation of behaviour’’ describes taking on regulations to behavior but not fully accepting the regulations as one’s own. ‘‘Regulation through identification’’ is a more autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. It involves consciously valuing a goal or regulation so that the action to be taken is accepted as personally important. ‘‘Integrated regulation’’ is the most autonomous kind of extrinsic motivation, occurring when regulations are fully assimilated with self so they are included in persons self-evaluations and beliefs on personal needs. It distinguishes with the intrinsic motivation in that the goals to be achieved are for reasons extrinsic to the self, rather than the inherent enjoyment or interest in the task. Leaders with low power posture Equal power Leader swith high power posture Servant Leadership Participatory Leadership Paternalistic Leadership Fig. 1 The power profile of servant leadership, participatory leadership, and paternalistic leadership 422 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 6. Motivational autonomy is closely related to improved psychological functioning (Deci 1980; Deci and Ryan 1985, 2000; Ryan 1993). As one becomes more self-determined, more positive outcomes will be produced, for example, more excellent problem solving skills, greater cognitive flexibility, and higher level of interest and perseverance. Hypotheses and Research Framework The literatures inferring servant leadership to enhance autonomous motivation are abun- dant. Winston (2003) extended Patterson’s interactive leader–follower servant leadership model, presenting how the service of supervisors affects the ‘‘Agapao’’ love of followers in Patterson’s model, and in turn affects the followers’ commitment to their supervisors as well as their self-efficacy, even further influences their intrinsic motivation, which recip- rocally promotes the leader’s altruistic attitude, and thus causing the followers to serve leaders; these services in turn influence the Agapao love of supervisors to the followers and create a positive loop. Cover (1998) pointed out that under servant leadership, subordinates are driven by intrinsic motivation of shared purpose. The servant leadership is based on mutual trust and empowering others (e.g., Hunt 2000; Russell and Stone 2002), which contribute to promoting employees’ internal locus of causality, and to enhancing the autonomous intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 1985, 1991). While servant leadership enhances autonomous motivation, however, it does not mean it necessarily decreases externally motivated behavior. Theoretically, servant leadership promotes employees from lower (e.g., amotivation) to certain higher (internal or external) motivations behaviors, depending on the prior status of the employee’s motivational autonomy. Based on the above rationale, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H1: Servant leadership is positively related to the intrinsic motivation of subordinates (?). H2: Servant leadership is positively related to the autonomous extrinsic motivation of subordinates (?). H3: Servant leadership is positively related to the controlled extrinsic motivation of subordinates (?). H4: Servant leadership is negatively related to the amotivation of subordinates (-). Ryan and Deci (2001) integrated the field of well-being research into two traditions: one dealing with happiness (the ‘‘hedonic’’ well-being) and another dealing with human potential (the ‘‘eudaemonic’’ well-being). The former encompasses emotional functioning and subjective evaluation of their life, usually operationalized as high positive affect, low negative affect, and high satisfaction with life (Diener 1984). The latter involves more existential concerns and the way how individuals interact with the world, for example, personal growth, purpose in life, etc. (Keyes et al. 2002). Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991) pointed out that self-determination is closely related to mental functioning and can be predictable of positive outcomes. The autonomous loci of control, i.e., the intrinsic and higher-level extrinsic motivation have been proved to have more positive influences, whereas the lower autonomous loci of control, i.e., the extrinsic motivation and amoti- vation, resulted in negative influences. Deci (2000) pointed out that the well-being related to autonomous motivation is the ‘‘eudaemonic’’ well-being. Servant leadership emphasizes trust and empowerment, which provide subordinates with a higher sense of autonomy and meaningfulness, improve their intrinsic motivation, and hence increase their eudaemonic well-being. Thus, this study proposes the following hypotheses: J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 423 123
- 7. H5: Intrinsic motivation enhances eudaemonic well-being (?). H6: Intrinsic motivation mediates servant leadership and employee eudaemonic well- being. H7: Autonomous extrinsic motivation enhances eudaemonic well-being (?). H8: Autonomous extrinsic motivation mediates servant leadership and employee eudaemonic well-being. According to the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci 1975), external rewards, con- straints, monitoring, and evaluations tend to reduce the sense of autonomy, lower down- wards the locus of control from ‘‘intrinsic’’ to ‘‘extrinsic’’ motivation. External desire, such as accumulation of wealth and fame, hardly produce eudaemonic well-being. As indi- viduals satisfy their intrinsic needs, they also internalize their extrinsic motivations. The more satisfied they are the higher extrinsic motivations are internalized, thus improving their autonomous motivations and eudaemonic well-being. Accordingly, this study pro- poses the following hypothesis: H9: Controlled extrinsic motivation does not enhance eudaemonic well-being (-/0). H10: Amotivation does not enhance eudaemonic well-being (-/0). To test for the incremental validity of servant leadership, one approach, according to LeBreton et al. (2007), is to test for its additional explanatory power generated toward the criterion variables in addition to some known existing predictors in multiple regressions. Taking this approach, Liden et al. (2008) have validated that servant leadership provided prominent additional explanatory power other than those of the transformational leadership and the leader-member exchange, in contributing to organizational citizenship behavior, subordinate work performance, and organizational commitment. This study examines to verify whether servant leadership provides additional explanatory power toward autono- mous work motivation, other than transactional leadership (LMX; the traditional concept of leadership). Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H11: Servant leadership contributes beyond transactional leadership to employee autonomous intrinsic motivation. H12: Servant leadership contributes beyond transactional leadership to employee autonomous extrinsic motivation. Following is to integrate the hypotheses stated above into a research framework (Fig. 2). H10(-/0) H1(+) H2(+) H3(+) H4(-) H5(+) H7(+) H9(-/0) Eudaemonic well-being Transactional leadership Servant leadership Intrinsic motivation Autonomous extrinsic motivation Controlled extrinsic motivation Amotivation Fig. 2 Research framework 424 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 8. Methods Sample and Procedure To increase the representativeness of samples, the researchers conveniently recruited leader–follower dyads from profitable organizations as our research samples. A total of 400 supervisor-subordinate dyads from a variety of industries (manufacturing, finance, and service industries) were delivered questionnaires, in which 265 dyads (66.25%) gave valid responses. We did not limit double identities during the process of the sampling. That is, a middle-level manager is on one hand the manager of lower-level employees, while on the other hand, the subordinate of a higher-level manager. The collected questionnaires were valid only if they were paired dyads. Background information about the samples is pre- sented as follows. The percentage for finance industry is 7.2%, and manufacturing 82.3%; large enterprises accounts for 57.4%, while small and medium enterprises 37.4%; men are about 68.3% and women 27.9%. Those with less than 10-year work experience are approximately 59.6%, and 11–20 years 22.7%. Respondents below the age of 30 account for 17.4%, between 31 and 40 for 41.9%, and those between 41 and 50 for 28.7%. General staff constitutes a large percentage of the samples, which is approximately 32.5%, lower- level managers 24.5%, and front-line employees 22.6%. Those with a college degree or above are about 58.1%, and those with a high school or lower degree are 35.1%. Measures Supervisor Questionnaire Servant Leadership Questionnaire (for Supervisor) This questionnaire was originally developed by Page and Wong (2000). The researchers extracted 48 out of its original 60 items based on the results of a pre-test on a sample of 106 business managers. This questionnaire measures 12 dimensions of servant leader’s behavior, including integrity, humility, servant hood, caring for others, empowering others, developing others, vision, goal-setting, leading, modeling, team-building, and shared decision-making. Factor analysis revealed good convergence on each of the 12 dimensions. The reliability indicators were also high. Cronbach’s a’s for the 12 dimensions in this study were: integrity .848, humility .886, servant hood .885, caring for others .927, empowering others .852, developing others .905, vision .921, goal-setting .896, leading .930, modeling .880, team-building .930, and shared decision-making .920. Transactional Leadership Questionnaire The Chinese version of the transactional leadership questionnaire was developed by Wu and Lin (1998), revised from Bass and Avolio’s (1990) original scale. The questionnaire contains 30 items, including ‘‘management by passive exception’’ (7 items), ‘‘management by active exception’’ (8 items), and ‘‘contigent reward’’ (15 items). The ‘‘contigent reward’’ comprises three subscales, ‘‘promised contigent reward’’ (5 items), ‘‘substantial contigent reward- reciprocal’’ (5 items), and ‘‘substantial contigent reward-recognition of courtesy’’ (5 items). The transactional leadership questionnaire was validated by Wu and J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 425 123
- 9. Lin (1998), with the overall internal consistency reliability of .848, and subscale reli- abilities ranging from .783 to .885. In this study, the reliability coefficients are even higher, with Cronbach’s a of .936 for the overall scale, .935 for subscale ‘‘management by passive exception,’’ .900 for ‘‘management by active exception,’’ .929 for ‘‘promised contigent reward,’’ .926 for ‘‘Substantial contigent reward- reciprocal,’’ and .923 for ‘‘Substantial contigent reward-recognition of courtesy.’’ Subordinate Questionnaire Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation This study adopted the Situational Motivation scale (SIMS) developed by Guay et al. (2000). This 16-item SIMS consists of four dimensions with four questions each designed to assess intrinsic motivation, autonomous extrinsic motivation (identified regulation), controlled extrinsic motivation (external regulation), and amotivation. The reliability Cronbach’s a’s of the four dimensions were as follows: .95 for intrinsic motivation, .85 for autonomous extrinsic motivation, .62 for controlled extrinsic motivation, and .83 for amotivation in this study. Eudaemonic Well-Being Ryff’s (1989) Eudaemonic Well-being Scale was reduced from 55 to 24 items after a pre- test on 106 business managers. This measure contains six dimensions of eudaemonic well- being, namely, autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. The internal consistency reliability Cronbach’s a of this questionnaire are as follows: autonomous motivation .819, environment control .899, personal growth .902, positive relations .904, purpose of life .872, and self-accep- tance .739. Servant Leadership Questionnaire The same servant leadership questionnaire as for supervisors is utilized to assess the subordinates’ responses, except the wordings have been revised so that it is appropriate for the subordinates. Transactional Leadership The same transactional leadership questionnaire for supervisors is accordingly revised for the employees. Control Variables This study includes subordinates’ age, gender, educational level, and years of work as control variables, which were previously demonstrated to have relations with the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Diener et al. 1999). All of the above measurement tools were examined, pre-tested, and revised by experts, so that they are easy to understand and have facial validity. Except the demographic background variables, all variables are measured by the Likert 7-point scale. 426 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 10. Results Within-Construct Validity The correlations among the various dimensions of servant leadership ranged from .676 to .877, showing very high positive relationships (P .01), which, after exploratory factor analysis, can be extracted to form a single factor that effectively explained 82.03% of the variance that is similar to the research results by Page and Wong (2000). To simplify subsequent analyses, the researchers utilized the major component after extraction as the single one indicator of the servant leadership for the following analyses. The overall explained variance of the servant leadership construct reached 82.03%, with each of the factor loadings higher than .85. The results presented a one-factor structure with very high validity. As to the transactional leadership, the overall explained variance was 62.09%, with factor loadings ranging from .84 to .91. The work motivation (SIMS) presented a four-factor structure with a cumulative explained variance of 72.63%, and factor loadings ranging from .54 to .90. The eudaemonic well-being revealed a one-factor structure with explained variance of 44.67%, and factor loadings ranging from .41 to .81. The above results showed good construct validity for the measured variables. Subordinates’ Correlational Analysis Table 2 shows that the servant leadership is positively related to intrinsic motivation, autonomous extrinsic motivation, and controlled extrinsic motivation, with correlations ranging from .180 to .441 (P .01), which is consistent with the research findings of Patterson (2003). The hypotheses, H1, H2, and H3, are verified. Servant leadership is negatively correlated with amotivation (-.132, P .05), and H4 is validated. Intrinsic motivation and autonomous extrinsic motivation are in positive relation with eudaemonic well-being, thus H5 and H7 are supported. Controlled extrinsic motivation has no Table 2 Correlations and descriptives of the research variables (N = 265) Mean S.D. Servant leadership Intrinsic motivation Autonomous extrinsic motivation Controlled extrinsic motivation Amotivation Eudaemonic well-being Servant leadership 4.965 1.250 (.980) Intrinsic motivation 4.775 1.247 .441** (.929) Autonomous extrinsic motivation 5.459 1.026 .361** .605** (.754) Controlled extrinsic motivation 5.107 1.118 .180** .238** .428** (.801) Amotivation 4.147 1.331 -.132* -.147* -.125* .272** (.861) Eudaemonic well- being 5.083 .803 .162** .301** .247** .027 -.359** (.908) * P .05; ** P .01; Diagonals are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients; Variables are measured by the Likert 7-point scale J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 427 123
- 11. significant influence on well-being, while amotivation is in negative relation with well- being, and therefore H9 and H10 are supported. Supervisors’ Self-ratings on Servant Leadership: Low Correlations with Subordinate Outcomes The analysis of leaders’ self-ratings on servant leadership showed that leaders’ self-ratings had non-relevant relationships with almost all variables of subordinates’ work motivation and eudaemonic well-being, except for one marginal positive relationship (r = . 154, P .05) with the ‘‘self-acceptance’’ dimension of eudaemonic well-being (Table 3). Supervisors tend to perceive higher-, while subordinates tend to perceive lower-, servant leadership in the dydic relationship. The paired t tests showed that the dyadic discrepancies reached very significant level (P .000) for all of the 12 dimensions of servant leadership, with mean differences ranging from 1.051 to 1.532 on the 12 spiritual values. Leaders’ self-ratings of their leadership behaviors often showed low relationships with the assessment from their subordinates (Harris and Schaubroeck 1988; Hogan et al. 1994). Hogan et al. (1994) pointed out that the most justified performance appraisal was provided by bosses in evaluating the overall performance of their managers and by subordinates in assessing their direct supervisors. It is almost impossible for supervisors to offer valid and unbiased self-assessment on their own ethical behaviors and leadership (Brown and Trevino 2006). Similar results were found in this study. The correlation coefficients of the supervisors ‘self-ratings on servant leadership with the employee work motivation and eudaemonic well-being variables were low (Table 3), which was consistent to the findings from previous studies. This study therefore utilized only the employee (subordinate) scores in the subsequent analyses. The Full Mediating Effect of Subordinate’s Motivation Between Spiritual Values (Subordinate Ratings) and Eudaemonic Well-Being Table 4 presents the results of SEM tests for hypothetical models of servant leadership, through the mediation of various sources of motivation, to impact on employee eudae- monic well-being. The results reflect an acceptable fit for these mediation models. According to the subordinate-rating results, the path coefficients (Table 5) that link the independent variables, mediating variables and dependent variables were all significant in Table 5, paths b and c in Model 1–3 were all significant except for model 4 (paths b and c were not significant). The results validated the motivation mediation hypothesis of this study that three of the work motivations, including the two autonomous motivations (intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) and the one controlled extrinsic motivation (external regulation), had significant mediating effects between servant leadership and well-being. H6 and H8 are thus validated. The supervisor ratings did not show any pre- dictive power on work motivation and well-being. Servant Leadership Transcends Transactional Leadership to Influence Employee Autonomous Motivations Table 6 presents the hierarchical regression results of servant leadership and transactional leadership on work motivation. When background variables were controlled, and the predicted variables of servant leadership and transactional leadership were entered into the 428 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 13. regression equation, it is shown that servant leadership had significant contributions beyond transactional leadership on intrinsic motivation (DR2 = 9.9%) and on autonomous extrinsic motivation (DR2 = 5.2%). Therefore, H11 and H12 are supported by the findings. Supervisor-Subordinate Dyadic Discrepancy in Predicting Automous Motivations One interesting finding in this study was that the autonomous work motivations can be predicted effectively from the supervisor-subordinate discrepancy scores of the 12 servant leadership values. Table 7 shows the regression results of the supervisor-subordinate discrepancies on work motivations and well-being. The analysis revealed that the dis- crepancies yielded prominent contribution to the two autonomous types of work motivation (DR2 = 25.4% and 18.0%). Based on this finding, the researchers suggest that future research may consider adopting the dyadic discrepancies in leadership perceptions while predicting criterion variables. Control for CMV This study was primarily based on the analyses of subjects’ self-assessments on ‘‘servant leadership,’’ ‘‘work-motivation,’’ and ‘‘eudaemonic well-being.’’ The common method variance (CMV) is likely to be raised as a methodological consideration. However, according to Spector (1987), in the study of individual psychological processes, where predictor and outcome variables are self-reported, no significant evidence showed that CMV would lead to bias. In this study, since all of the three research variables involve measuring the psychological processes of subordinate’s internal cognitions/emotions, thus self-reports (by the subjects) is a fine approach of measurement. Table 4 Impact of servant leadership on eudaemonic well-being through the mediation of various sources of motivation: SEM model testing Mediator (Source of motivation) v2 df NFI CFI NNFI RMR P value Model 1 (Intrinsic motivation) 1,071.79 249 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.068 0.000 Model 2 (Autonomous extrinsic motivation) 1,065.24 249 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.068 0.000 Model 3 (Controlled extrinsic motivation) 1,122.96 249 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.072 0.000 Model 4 (Amotivation) 1,093.12 249 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.078 0.000 Table 5 Path coefficient testing for each mediating structural models Servant leadership (Subordinate ratings) Mediator Path a coefficient* Path b coefficient** Path c coefficient*** Model 1 (Intrinsic motivation) 0.10 0.45*** 0.39*** Model 2 (Autonomous extrinsic motivation) 0.12 0.43*** 0.36*** Model 3 (Controlled extrinsic motivation) 0.20* 0.26*** 0.29*** Model 4 (Amotivation) 0.28** -0.16* 0.06 * path a servant leadership ? eudaemonic well-being; ** path b servant leadership ? source of motiva- tion; *** path c source of motivation ? eudaemonic well-being 430 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 14. In order to decrease possible CMV effect, the researchers further took the following two actions: (1) Include the ‘‘individual background’’ as control variables and ‘‘the third fac- tor’’ of transactional leadership at the previous stage of the regression before servant leadership was entered (Wong, Hui and Law 1998). Theoretically, most common method variances would be controlled through this inclusion, so that the servant leadership can reveal its pure effect on the outcome (well-being) variable. (2) Adopt simultaneously the self- and other-ratings. In addition to the subordinate ratings, this study also analyzed leader’s self-ratings on their spiritual values, and found dissimilar correlation results comparing to their subordinate results. Moreover, we analyzed the supervisor-subordinate discrepancies. This will compensate for the ‘‘employee-only’’ measures and provide more information as solution to the CMV considerations. Conclusion and Discussion Within Construct Validation on Servant Leadership Servant leadership was proved to be a substantial construct. The 12 dimensions of servant leadership exhibited very good reliability and construct validity. As for the criterion Table 6 Hierarchical regressions of servant leadership and transactional leadership on motivations (N = 265) Dependent variable Intrinsic motivation Autonomous extrinsic motivation Controlled extrinsic motivation Amotivation b t b t b t b t Control variable Tenure .053 .407 -.057 -.422 -.086 -.611 -.321* -2.338 Age .011 .083 .072 .534 .184 1.319 .393* 2.877 Gender .065 1.045 .112 1.750 -.121 -1.843 .005 .081 Education -.058 -.957 -.040 -.637 -.126 -1.950 .023 .366 DR2 .019 .008 .058* .030 F change 1.204 .529 3.874 1.880 Model 1 Independent variable Transactional leadership .043 .587 .127 1.690 .100 1.286 .294*** 3.750 DR2 .085*** .092*** .011 .000 F change 23.389 25.031 2.770 .008 R2 .122*** .120*** .071 .030 Model 2 Independent variable Servant leadership .408*** 5.527 .295*** 3.874 .078 .996 -.322*** -4.074 DR2 .099*** .052*** .021* .019* F change 30.544 15.006 5.804 4.657 R2 .203*** .144*** .074* .049* J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 431 123
- 16. variables (autonomous motivations), servant leadership also demonstrated prominent incremental validity beyond transactional leadership, in providing additional explanatory power. Therefore, the servant leadership construct was verified to have generalizability to employees in the Chinese organizations. Convergence of the 12 Spiritual Values The results showed that the 12 dimensions of servant leadership in fact converged on one common factor with high proportion of variance explained (82.03%). Although there were concerns about the discriminant validity among the dimensions of servant leadership (Sendjaya et al. 2008), however, it is quite often seen in spirituality research that spiritual values converged to form one higher-level factor. Similar results can be found in spiritual leadership studies, for example, Fry et al. (2005), Liden et al. (2008), Page and Wong (2000), and Sendjaya et al. (2008). This may be a common phenomenon for these value- based, spirit-centered leadership studies, probably because that spirituality is ‘‘the common factor,’’ or the ‘‘God’’ factor, termed by Fry (2003), of many human virtues. Therefore, leaders with higher spirituality are more likely to manifest all virtues, and vice versa. Other Research Variables, Including the Four Motivation Continuum Variables and the Six Employee Eudaemonic Well-Being Dimensions, Also Showed Good Reliability and Validity Results showed that the four motivation continuum variables and the six employee eudaemonic well-being dimensions revealed good reliability (a = .754–.929) and validity (explained factor variance [.50), which can be used to measure the psychological char- acteristics of employees in Chinese profitable organizations. Servant Leadership Contributes Beyond Transactional Leadership to Influence Subordinate Motivation After controlling the background variables and the transactional leadership, servant lead- ership contributed additional explanatory variance to autonomous intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and amotivation (DR2 = 5.2–9.9%), indicating that servant leadership can satisfy the various psychological needs of employees, enhance both high and low auton- omous motivations, and inhibit amotivation beyond the traditional LMX relationship. Autonomous Motivations Mediate Between Servant Leadership and Subordinate Eudaemonic Well-Being Servant leadership was demonstrated to influence subordinate’s eudaemonic well-being, through the mediation of employees’ autonomy of motivation. By creating a positive work environment, servant leaders enables employees to develop higher goals, promoting the internalization of motivations, leading to more autonomous self-adjustments to work. When autonomy management is supported, employees are more satisfied at work, trust their leaders, and present a positive work attitude. Company managers may consider creating a work environment that supports employee’s autonomy, and servant leadership being a viable approach. J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 433 123
- 17. Research Findings from the Dyadic Analyses Discrepancy Exists Between Supervisor and Subordinate Ratings In measuring the perception of servant leadership, discrepancies between supervisor self- ratings and subordinate ratings was noticed by this study. Moreover, about 63.2% of the supervisor-subordinate dyads had a difference score of ±1 or above, indicating the exis- tence of a perception gap toward leaders’ spirituality between the two sides. A high proportion of 73.3% of the supervisors rated themselves higher than their subordinates, suggesting that supervisors easily overestimated themselves, or that employees did not perceive the leadership values as much as the supervisors perceived with themselves, which is a noticeable fact for leaders or human resource personnel when managing employees. Supervisor’s Self-Ratings have Very Limited or No Power in Predicting Subordinate’s Intrinsic Motivation and Eudaemonic Well-Being As Table 3 shows, supervisor’s self-ratings on their leadership were of little importance to employee motivation and well-being variables. These findings echoed the studies by other researchers, as reviewed by Brwown and Trevino (2006). After reviewing past studies of leadership, Brwown and Trevino (2006) suggested that there is a significant difference between self-ratings of supervisors and ratings given by subordinates. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain unbiased self-assessment on ethical leadership from supervisors. Supervisor’s self-ratings seem to be more related to employee performance variables, but less related to employee’s well-being. Similar findings were observed in this study. The self-ratings of supervisors showed almost none prediction on employee’s well-being variables, nor did they show any rela- tionship with the employee’s internal psychological process (motivations). Future studies of leadership style and organizational behavior regarding employee’s internal psycholog- ical processes, therefore, are suggested to use the employee-assessment as the major measurement of leadership quality. Supervisor-Subordinate Dyadic Discrepancy Significantly Predicts of Employee Autonomous Motivations An interesting finding in this study is that although the leader’s self-ratings was less important to the motivation and well-being of employees, the dyadic discrepancy of ratings between supervisors and subordinates, however, predicted the employee auton- omous intrinsic and extrinsic motivations rather effectively, with an explanation variance of 25.4 and 18.0%, respectively (see Table 7). After performed two other hierarchical regression analyses, it is shown that the supervisor-subordinate dyadic discrepancy contributed beyond the transactional leadership and background variables, providing additional explanatory power toward intrinsic motivation and autonomous extrinsic motivation (14.5%; 9.3%), indicating the lower the perception discrepancy on servant leadership the higher the autonomous motivations of employees. This is a unique finding of this study. 434 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 18. Implications Relevance Between the Supervisors’ Spiritual Values and Subordinate’s Sense of Eudaemonic Well-Being Leaders should understand that leadership styles affect the eudaemonic well-being of their subordinates. Despite paternalistic leadership is prevalent among Chinese organizations (Farh and Cheng 2000), the power imbalance between positions of supervisors and sub- ordinates is likely to result in conflicts, as well as causing physical and psychological pressure to employees. Leaders should be aware of the consequences of their leadership and adjust themselves to create a positive working environment, guiding, and developing employees. By being kind, caring, considerate, and serving as a behavior model that is honest, humble, and selfless, leaders build the followership of subordinates, and further enhance the well-being of subordinates. Relevance Between Work Motivation and Eudaemonic Well-Being of Subordinates Leaders should understand that autonomy of motivation is a necessity for eudaemonic well-being. This study supported the hypothetical models in which it is through the mediation of autonomous motivations that servant leadership or transactional leadership bears influence on eudaemonic well-being. The results in this study are consistent to that of the SDT aspect. Therefore, leaders should seek to create a work environment supportive of autonomy, in order to encourage employees internalize their motivation to produce eudaemonic well-being. The atmosphere of an organization created by reward management has great impact on outcomes. The reward therefore must be perceived as appropriate and fair, for employees to avoid negative emotions and cognitions, which lead to amotivation toward work. Implications of the Supervisor-Subordinate Dyadic Discrepancy on Servant Leadership One implication to the personnel training and development domain, in addition for the organizations and human resource personnel to strive to develop a servant leadership style, is that the supervisor-subordinate dyadic discrepancy in perceiving leadership values must be minimized, as the discrepancy provides substantial prediction to employee autonomous motivations beyond transactional leadership and background variables. Enabling super- visors and subordinates to understand the different point of views of each other and expectations from both sides will improve mutual harmony and reduce conflicts. It seems that reducing the supervisor-subordinate dyadic discrepancy is as well important as changing leadership styles, as the two approaches to promote motivational autonomy of employees should both be weighted by practitioners. Research Constraints and Future Study Due to the sampling scope, research results of this study may have the following con- straints. First, this study was subject to the limitation of a convenient sampling. Although the researchers tried hard to recruit samples as representative as possible, and include all of the large, medium, and small enterprises, and manufacturing industries as well as the financial service industries, yet under the size limitations of small and medium enterprises, J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 435 123
- 19. often dyadic samples cannot be selected randomly by the researchers, and volunteer dyads must be used. This made difficult the dyads distribution to represent the population dis- tribution. Second, the samples of this study did not cover industries such as retailing services, government agencies, educational organizations, and non-profit organizations. Third, the influence of superior supervisors (the supervisor of supervisors) on subordinates and the overall organizational culture/climate factors cannot be ruled out from the sub- ordinate’s outcomes. Future studies are encouraged to further examine these effects with finer research designs. Other suggestions for future study are as follows. First, since there is still a majority of residual variance for the well-being variables, are there other mechanisms and factors affecting the process of servant leadership and eudaemonic well-being? How do employee personal factors, or other interpersonal/organizational mechanisms beyond motivation and locus of control, for example, work meaning and membership (Fry et al. 2005), to enhance employee well-being? Second, the organizational atmosphere in which the employees work, including leadership styles, reward system, and peer relations also have impact on the psychological well-being of employees. When investigating the dyadic relations between leadership style and subordinate’s psychological process, clarifications must be drawn about what are attributed to direct supervisors, and what are subject to the orga- nizational atmosphere variables, or the interaction of both. Studies involving the multi- level and cross-level analyses should be rigorously considered for future research. Acknowledgments This research was supported by grant from the National Science Council, Taiwan (NSC 97-2410-H-224-002). The authors thank Mr. Chin-Yuan Yang for assistance in data collection and effort in earlier literature review. References Aggarwal, R., Simkin, B. J. (2001). Open book, management-optimizing human capital. Business Horizons, 44, 5–13. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expections. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Paloato, AC: Consulting Psychologist Press. Bass, B. M., Paul, Steidlmeier, (1999). Ethic, character and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217. Benefiel, M. (2005). Soul at work: Spiritual leadership in organizations. New York: Seabury Books. Biberman, J. (Ed.). (2000). Work and spirit: A reader of new spiritual paradigms for organizations. Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press. Bowman, M. A. (1997). Popular approaches to leadership. In P. G. Northouse (Ed.), Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616. Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Farh, J. L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3–64. (In Chinese). Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89–117. Conger, J. A. (1994).Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cover, S. R. (1998). Servant leadership from the inside out. In L. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York, NY: John Wiley. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115. 436 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 20. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. D.C: Heath and company. Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319–338. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on motivation. Vol.38: Perspectives on motivation. (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘What’’ and ‘‘Why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self- determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11, 227–269. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. Diener, E., Such, E. M., Lucas, R. E., Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–303. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94. Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese Context (pp. 85–127). London: Macmillan. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727. Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a paradigm of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 619–722. Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory mea- surement and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835–862. Gagne, M., Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. Giacalone, R. A., Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Greenlaef, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A Journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175–214. Harris, M., Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-superior ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62. Higgs, M. (2003). Leadership. Henley Manager, 11, 6. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and per- sonality. American Psychology, 49, 493–504. Hunt, J. B. (2000). Travel experience in the formation of leadership: John Quincy Adams, Frederick Douglass and Jane Addams. Journal of Leadership, 7, 92–106. Jaworski, J., Flowers, B. S. (1998). Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Jue, A. L. (2006). Practicing spirit-centered leadership: Lessons from a corporate layoff. In C. Gerus (Ed.), Leadership moments: Turning points that changed lives and organizations. Victoria, BC: Trafford. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022. Laub, J. (2003). From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the organizational leadership assessment (ola) model. Paper presented at the Regent University Servant leadership Roundtable. Virginia: Virginia Beach. LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., Ployhart, R. (2007). A multidimentional approach for evaluation variables in organizational research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475–498. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177. Luthans, F., Avey, J., Smith, C. R., Li, X. (2008). More evidence on the value of Chinese workers’ psychological capital: A potentially unlimited competitive resource? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 818–827. Lyerly, B., Maxey, C. (2001). Learning partnerships. T D., 55, 24. Nwogu, O. G. (2004). Servant leadership model: The role of follower self-esteem, emotional intelligence, and attributions on organizational effectiveness. http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2004 SLRoundtable/ nwogu-2004SL.pdf. J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 437 123
- 21. Page, D., Wong, T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In S. Adjibolosoo (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history and development. Lanham, M.D.: University/Press of America. Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership theory: A theroetical model, digital dissertations. AAT3082719. Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E. I. I. I. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin- Dorsey. Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quar- terly, 16, 655–687. Russell, R. F., Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 145–157. Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation autonomy and the self in psychological development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Vol. 40: Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 1–56). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 141–166. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well- Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 402–424. Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438–443. Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., Yi Ou, A. (2007). Cross national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 426–478. Winston, B. E. (2003). A holi definition of leadership. Puzzle Back Together. Unpublished manuscript. Wong, C. S., Hui, C., Law, K. S. (1998). A longitudinal study of the job perception-job satisfaction relationships: A test of the three alternative specifications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 127–146. Wu, C. C., Lin, M. H. (1998). Transformational leadership and transactional leadership scale scale establishment. The Chinese test Association annual test, 44, 57–88. (In Chinese). Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organization.5th Ed. NJ: Upper Saddle River prentice Hall International, Inc. 438 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418–438 123
- 22. Copyright of Journal of Religion Health is the property of Springer Science Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.