8/10/2019 bNONE

1/22

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

The Influence of Leaders Spiritual Values of Servant

Leadership on Employee Motivational Autonomyand 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 leaders spiritual values in terms of the

servant leadership in the process of promoting employees 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

leaders self-perceptions of spiritual values, were found to contribute significantly beyond

transactional leadership in predicting subordinate motivational autonomy and eudaemonicwell-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; Biberman2000; Fry

2005; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz2003; Jue2006).

Unlike the traditional leadership models mostly based on the economic cost-benefit

assumptions (Bass1985, p. 5) that described leader behavior in terms of leaderfollower

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

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

DOI 10.1007/s10943-011-9479-3

8/10/2019 bNONE

2/22

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 (Nwogu2004), 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 leaders role is like stewardof 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 Stone2002). 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 togrow, 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 subordinates

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 employees behavior since most research is based on individualistic cultural samples,

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 419

8/10/2019 bNONE

3/22

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 others interests above their own. Servant

supervisors serve the front-line subordinates by finding their individual uniqueness

(Aggarwal and Simkins2001; Liden et al. 2008; Lyerly and Maxey2001).

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

(Yukl2002). 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 leaders ororganizations 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 (Fry2003; Fry et al. 2005; Reave2005).

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 theresearch instrument in this study.

Spiritual Values of Servant Leadership Compared with Other Leadership Values

The transformational leadership theory emphasizes leaders 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 beclassified as the transformational leadership schools; however, servant leadership does

have unique characteristics in definitions compared with other leadership styles.

420 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

4/22

similaritiesanddifferencesbetweenserv

antleadershipandtransactional,transformational,paternalistic,integral,spiritual,charismaticleadershipstyles

rshipstyle

Characteristicanduniqueness

Caringfor

others

Calling

Ethicaldecisio

ns

Integrity

Modeling

Auth

enticity

Vision/mission

Empoweringothers,

supporting

personaldecisions

Emphasizingthedevelopmentandaccomplishmentofemployees

Emphasizin

gthenatureof

serviceH

umility

Self-sacrifice

Altruism

hipSty

les

Similarityw

ithServantLeadership

DifferencewithServa

ntLeadership

Fulfillingthepsychologicaldemandsofemployees

relations

Emphasizingtheno

n-ethicalexchange

Emphasizingutilizationofthereward-and-punishmentmanagement

Emphasizingthepo

sitionofleadersaspowercenters

nalleadershipstyle

Leadersin

fluenceemployees

Vision,Motivating,Caring,Calling

Emphasizingleadingthroughmissions,values,andin

tellectual

inspiration.

eadershipstyle

Father-like

kindness

Moralinte

grity

Authority

dership

style

Caringfor

others

Ethicaldecision

Integrity

Modeling

Authentici

ty

Emphasizingself-aw

areness

ershipstyle

Caringfor

others

Integrity

Modeling

Emphasizingvision,hope/faith,andloveaspersonal

pursue

eadershipstyleadership

Modeling,

Vision,Caring,Calling,Inspiring

Emphasizingself-aw

arenessofleadership:values,cognitions,and

emotions

Emphasizingperson

alandsocialidentity

Emphasizingself-ad

justmentofemployees-internaliz

ation

Emphasizingtheun

certainorganizationalenvironmen

t

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 421

8/10/2019 bNONE

5/22

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 Deci2005). 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 Deci2005). Gagne and Deci (2005) assumed that these

five types of motivation mentioned above are displayed (in that order) along the autonomycontinuum 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 ones 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

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) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

6/22

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 Pattersons interactive leaderfollower servant leadership

model, presenting how the service of supervisors affects the Agapao love of followers in

Pattersons 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 leaders 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 employees 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 humanpotential (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

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 423

8/10/2019 bNONE

7/22

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 employeeeudaemonic 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 toverify 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).

H1(+)

H2(+)

H3(+)

H4(-)

H5(+)

H7(+)

H9(-/0)

Eudaemonicwell-being

Transactionalleadership

Servantleadership

Intrinsicmotivation

Autonomousextrinsicmotivation

Controlledextrinsicmotivation

424 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

8/22

Methods

Sample and Procedure

To increase the representativeness of samples, the researchers conveniently recruitedleaderfollower 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 1120 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 leaders

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. Cronbachs as 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 Avolios (1990) original scale. The questionnairecontains 30 items, including management by passive exception (7 items), management

by active exception (8 items), and contigent reward (15 items). The contigent

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 425

8/10/2019 bNONE

9/22

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 Cronbachsa 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 Substantialcontigent 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

Cronbachsas 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

Ryffs (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 withothers, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. The internal consistency reliability Cronbachs

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 ascontrol variables, which were previously demonstrated to have relations with the intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation (Diener et al. 1999).

426 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

10/22

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

Table2 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 ofPatterson (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. Servantleadership

Intrinsicmotivation

Autonomousextrinsic

motivation

Controlledextrinsic

motivation

Amotivation Eudaemonicwell-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)

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 427

8/10/2019 bNONE

11/22

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 (Table3).

Supervisors tend to perceive higher-, while subordinates tend to perceive lower-, servant

leadership in the dydic relationship. The pairedttests 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 Schaubroeck1988; 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

Trevino2006). 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 (Table3), which was consistent to the findings

from previous studies. This study therefore utilized only the employee (subordinate) scoresin the subsequent analyses.

The Full Mediating Effect of Subordinates Motivation Between Spiritual Values

(Subordinate Ratings) and Eudaemonic Well-Being

Table4 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 inTable5, paths b and c in Model 13 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 EmployeeAutonomous Motivations

428 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

12/22

elationsbetweensupervisorsself-rating

onservantleadershipandemploy

eesmotivationandwell-beingvariables(N=

265)

Intrinsic

motivati

on

Autonomous

extrinsic

motivation

Controlled

extrinsic

motivation

Amotivation

Autonomy

Environm

ental

mastery

Personal

growth

Positive

relations

Purpo

se

inlife

Self-

acceptance

elf-ratingofservantleadership

.029

.036

.092

-

.043

.009

.071

-.032

.055

.112

.154*

P\.01,***P\

.001

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 429

8/10/2019 bNONE

13/22

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. Table7 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

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 0.000Model 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) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

14/22

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 methodvariances 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

leaders 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

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* .030F 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) 52:418438 431

8/10/2019 bNONE

15/22

ressions

ofleaderfollowerdyadicdiscrepanciesinpredictingemployeemotivations(N=

265)

Dependentvariable

Intrinsicmotiv

ation

Aautonomousextrinsic

motivation

Controlledextrinsic

motivation

Amotivation

Eudaem

onicwell-

being

b

t

b

t

b

t

b

t

b

t

ble

0.037

0.253

-0.266

-1.889

-0.027

-0.198

-0.060

-0.426

0.382

2.642

0.007

0.049

0.268

1.906

0.243

1.806

0.095

0.670

-0.307

-2.143

-0.018

-

0.244

-0.039

-0.553

-0.037

-0.544

0.018

0.247

-0.061

-0.891

-0.030

-

0.411

-0.088

-1.213

-0.158*

-2.263

-0.075

-1.013

0.113

1.687

0.005

0.029

0.106***

0.009

0.035

.271

1.731

6.890

0.496

2.159

ariable

screpancy

-0.244*

-

2.395

-0.252*

-2.354

-0.025

-0.233

-0.075

-0.662

0.017

0.146

crepancy

-0.192

-

1.747

-0.097

-0.859

-0.224

-1.960

-0.027

-0.220

0.041

0.346

ddiscrepancy

0.144

1.468

0.118

1.162

0.118

1.153

-0.106

-0.956

0.031

0.285

othersd

iscrepancy

-0.068

-

0.548

0.105

0.815

-0.025

-0.190

0.214

1.463

-0.094

-0.688

others

discrepancy

-0.028

-

0.232

-0.043

-0.347

-0.013

-0.106

-0.218

-1.601

0.003

0.023

othersd

iscrepancy

-0.147

-

1.204

-0.072

-0.567

-0.088

-0.681

-0.146

-1.070

0.169

0.146

screpan

cy

-0.070

-

0.584

0.028

0.226

0.204

1.628

0.340*

2.450

-0.001

-0.004

discrep

ancy

0.171

1.344

0.009

0.067

-0.123

-0.914

-0.145

-0.999

0.030

0.213

crepancy

-0.134

-

1.027

-0.214

-1.576

0.043

0.310

0.194

1.293

-0.199

-1.413

screpan

cy

-0.361**

-

2.734

-0.177

-1.294

-0.039

-0.279

-0.052

-0.343

-0.126

-0.855

ngdiscrepancy

0.107

0.828

-0.127

-0.943

-0.254

-1.870

-0.042

-0.291

0.082

0.570

ion-makingdiscrepancy

0.366**

3.027

0.332**

2.652

0.290*

2.303

0.183

1.302

-0.080

-0.579

0.254***

0.180***

0.075

0.075

0.044

6.239

4.150

1.680

1.490

0.910

432 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

16/22

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= 5.29.9%), 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 subordinates 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

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 433

8/10/2019 bNONE

17/22

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 of1 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.

Supervisors Self-Ratings have Very Limited or No Power in Predicting Subordinates

Intrinsic Motivation and Eudaemonic Well-Being

As Table3shows, supervisors 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.

Supervisors self-ratings seem to be more related to employee performance variables, butless related to employees well-being.

Similar findings were observed in this study. The self-ratings of supervisors showed

almost none prediction on employees well-being variables, nor did they show any rela-

tionship with the employees internal psychological process (motivations). Future studies

of leadership style and organizational behavior regarding employees 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 EmployeeAutonomous Motivations

An interesting finding in this study is that although the leaders 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 Table7). 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

434 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

18/22

Implications

Relevance Between the Supervisors Spiritual Values and Subordinates 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 managementhas 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 autonomousmotivations 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

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 435

8/10/2019 bNONE

19/22

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 subordinatesand the overall organizational culture/climate factors cannot be ruled out from the sub-

ordinates 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 subordinates 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, 513.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future

directions.Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421449.

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 leadershipbehavior.Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181217.

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, 595616.

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, 364. (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, 89117.

C J A (1994) S i it t k Di i th i it lit i l d hi S F i J B

436 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

20/22

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, 319338.

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.

237288). 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, 227269.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542575.

Diener, E., Such, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of

progress.Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276303.

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship

behavior.Personnel Psychology, 57, 6194.

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.85127). London: Macmillan.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693727.

Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a paradigm of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 619722.

Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory mea-

surement and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835862.

Gagne, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26, 331362.

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 extrinsicmotivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175214.

Harris, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-superior

ratings.Personnel Psychology, 41, 4362.

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, 493504.

Hunt, J. B. (2000). Travel experience in the formation of leadership: John Quincy Adams, Frederick

Douglass and Jane Addams. Journal of Leadership, 7, 92106.

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, 10071022.

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,

475498.

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, 161177.

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 ofHuman Resource Management, 19, 818827.

Lyerly B & Maxey C (2001) Learning partnerships T & D 55 24

J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438 437

8/10/2019 bNONE

21/22

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, 655687.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical

model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 145157.

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. 156). 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, 141166.

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, 10691081.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior inorganizations.Journal of Management Studies, 45, 402424.

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, 438443.

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, 426478.

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, 127146.

Wu, C. C., &Lin, M. H. (1998). Transformational leadership and transactional leadership scale scale

establishment.The Chinese test Association annual test, 44, 5788. (In Chinese).

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organization.5th Ed. NJ: Upper Saddle River prentice Hall International,Inc.

438 J Relig Health (2013) 52:418438

8/10/2019 bNONE

22/22

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

permission.