MEDIATIONAL ROLE OF JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEES’ LOYALTY AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN UNIVERSITIES OF

PESHAWAR

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

(MANAGEMENT SCIENCES)

By

MUHAMMAD HASHIM

REGISTRATION NO: 1094-113030

SUPERVISOR

DR. MUHAMMAD AZIZULLAH KHAN

CO-SUPERVISOR

DR. MUHAMMAD ARIF KHATTAK

FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

PRESTON UNIVERSITY, KOHAT, ISLAMABAD CAMPUS,

PAKISTAN

2017

Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and

Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational Performance in Universities of

Peshawar

Doctor of Philosophy

(Management Sciences)

By

Muhammad Hashim

Registration No: 1094-113030

Faculty of Business Administration

Preston University, Kohat, Islamabad Campus,

Pakistan

2017

Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and

Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational Performance in Universities of

Peshawar

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

(Management Sciences)

By

Muhammad Hashim

Registration No: 1094-113030

Supervisor

Dr. Muhammad Azizullah Khan

Co-Supervisor

Dr. Muhammad Arif Khattak

Faculty of Business Administration

Preston University, Kohat, Islamabad Campus,

Pakistan

2017

ii

Supervisor Certificate

This is to certify that PhD (Management Sciences) thesis titled “Mediational Role of

Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and

Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar”, is submitted by Mr.

Muhammad Hashim, Registration No. 1094-113030 in fractional satisfaction for the

honor of PhD degree is a record of the candidate's own particular work completed under

my supervision and has been affirmed for Submission.

1. Supervisor

Dr. Muhammad Azizullah Khan (Assistant Professor)

Department of Management Sciences,

Preston University, Islamabad, Campus.

2. Co-Supervisor

Dr. Muhammad Arif Khattak (Professor)

Department of Management Sciences

Bahria University, Islamabad.

iii

Candidate Declaration Form

I, Muhammad Hashim

S/O Hameedullah

Registration No: 1094-113030

Discipline Management Sciences

Candidate of Doctor of Philosophy at Preston University Kohat, Islamabad Campus,

do hereby declare that the dissertation titled, “Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction

between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational

Performance in Universities of Peshawar” is submitted by me in partial fulfillment of

PhD degree in the discipline of Management Sciences, is my original work, and has

not been submitted or published earlier. I also solemnly declare that it shall not, in

future, be submitted by me for obtaining any other degree from this or any other

university or institution.

I also understand that if evidence of plagiarism is found in my dissertation at any stage,

even after the award of the degree, the work may be canceled and the degree revoked.

Dated:

(Muhammad Hashim)

Registration No: 1094- 113030

Scholar PhD (Management Sciences)

iv

Plagiarism Undertaking

I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled “Mediational

Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and

Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar” is solely my research

work with no significant contribution from any other person. Small contribution/help

wherever taken, has been duly acknowledged and that, complete thesis has been written

by me.

I comprehend the zero resilience approach of the HEC and Preston University

Kohat, Islamabad Campus towards copyright infringement. In this way, I as an Author

of the above titled thesis proclaim that no part of my thesis has been copied and any

material utilized as reference is appropriately referred to.

I attempt that on the off chance that I am discovered liable of any formal written

falsification in the above titled thesis even after honor of PhD degree, the University

holds the rights to pull back/deny my PhD degree and that HEC and the University has

the privilege to publish my name on the HEC/University website on which names of

scholars are put who submitted counterfeited thesis.

(Muhammad Hashim)

v

Copyrights

All rights are reserved. Material of this manuscript is protected by copyright laws. Any

part of the document may not be reproduced or utilized in any form or means, electronic

or mechanical, photocopy, recording, information storage and retrieval system, without

the permission of the University authority.

vi

Acknowledgement

First of all, I am very grateful to ALLAH (SW) who is the Most Gracious and

the Most Merciful. All praises and thanks to Him. He is the Creator and Sustainer of

mankind and all that exists.

I would like to acknowledge the guidance of my supervisor, Dr. Muhammad

Azizullah Khan, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, Preston

University Islamabad for his continuous and valuable support. I would also like to

express my gratitude to Dr. Tahir Saeed, HOD, Faculty of Business Administration,

Preston University Islamabad, who helped me openhandedly for making and choosing

this area of research, and gave me useful pieces of advice. I am also grateful to my co-

supervisor, Dr. Muhammad Arif, Professor, Faculty of Management Sciences, Bahria

University Islamabad, for his support.

How can I forget the love of my parents, their care and motivation towards

knowledge, and providing me all resources to complete my dissertation? Gratitude

should also go to my friends who helped me in questionnaire distribution and collection

of data of the survey (Dr. Wali-Ur-Rahman, Assistant Professor, Sarhad University,

Muhammad Ashfaq, Lecturer Government College of Peshawar, Saqib Hussain,

Institute of Management Sciences Peshawar, Furqan Ullah, Lecturer Government

College of Management Sciences Peshawar, and Mujeeb-Ur-Rahman, Lecturer

Government College of Management Sciences Peshawar).

I would also like to thank Dr. Jack McCann, Associate Professor of Marketing

and Management, Tusculum College, Tennessee, United States, for his cooperation and

guidance. I am also thankful to Dr. Wali-Ur-Rahman, Assistant Professor, Faculty of

vii

Management Sciences, Sarhad University of Sciences and Technology, for his

continuous support and guidance through electronic mails and messages.

I would like to thank Dr. Daisy Mui Hung Kee, Associate Professor of

Organizational Behavior, School of Management, USM, Malaysia, who provided help

and guidance in the research process. I appreciate her patience. I am also thankful to my

close friends Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Afridi and Mr. Mehboob Ullah (my Ph.D. fellows) who

consistently guided me and enhanced my understanding of SPSS and AMOS and

provided me all the software needed. I am also thankful to all the esteemed teachers and

colleagues of Government College of Management Sciences Peshawar, KPK, and to my

dear friends whose affection, sincerity and guidance encouraged me to complete this

project.

Finally, I am very thankful to all family members, my wife, daughters and son

who have been with me during the completion of this thesis.

Muhammad Hashim

viii

Abstract

This study examines the meditational role of job satisfaction in the effects of servant

leadership on employees’ loyalty and organizational performance at the universities of

Peshawar. Empirical support for such relationship was provided through a sample of

308 faculty members from 17 universities of Peshawar. Using Barbuto and Wheeler

(2006), questionnaire of servant leadership, job satisfaction questionnaire Minnesota

satisfaction survey (MSQ), Weiss et al. (1967), employees’ loyalty survey questionnaire

(Pandey & Khare, 2012), organizational performance questionnaire (Katou &

Budhwar, 2010) and a demographic survey, the data was collected through survey.

Evidence supported the reliability and validity of instruments. The results indicate that

there is an affirmative direct influence of servant leadership on organizational

performance and employees’ loyalty, but this relation becomes stronger when it

assesses the indirect influence through job satisfaction as a mediator. Path analysis was

used and found significant positive correlation between servant leadership, employees’

loyalty, and organizational performance; job satisfaction is found to play a partial

mediating role between them. Theoretically, it contributes to the verification of job

satisfaction as intervening variable between servant leadership, employees’ loyalty and

organizational performance. The findings provide a course of action and important

implication to assist management in understanding servant leadership and job

satisfaction better. Therefore, to enhance organizational performance and employees’

loyalty, the leader of the university ought not just adopt servant leadership behavior yet

in addition think about the satisfaction of the faculty. Further research on other

variables such as changing servant leadership and job satisfaction dimensions and

replication of the study in other setting is also recommended for further studies.

Keywords Job Satisfaction, Organizational Performance, Servant Leadership,

Universities, Employees’ Loyalty, Mediation

ix

Table of Contents

Page

Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ vi

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ viii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. ix

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xiii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xv

Chapter:1 Introduction……………………………………………………1

Background of the Study ................................................................................................... 2

Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 7

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 9

Objective of the Study ..................................................................................................... 10

Chapter:2 Literature Review .................................................................... 11

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11

Leadership in the Literature ............................................................................................ 13

Theoreis of Leadership .................................................................................................... 17

Traits Approach of Leadership ................................................................................... 18

Style Approach of Leadership .................................................................................... 18

Situational Approach to Leadership ........................................................................... 20

Contingency Approach ............................................................................................... 20

Path-Goal Approach of Leadership ............................................................................ 21

Leader Member Exchange Theory of Leadership (LMX) ......................................... 21

Transactional Approach of Leadership ..................................................................... 22

Transformational Leadership Approach .................................................................... 22

Spiritual Leadership Approach .................................................................................. 23

Authentic Leadership Approach................................................................................. 24

Charismatic Leadership Approach ............................................................................. 24

Integrated Psychological Leadership Theory ............................................................. 24

Servant Leadership in the Literature ............................................................................... 25

Servant Leadership Link with Leadership Theory ..................................................... 30

x

Dimensions of Servant Leadership ............................................................................ 30

Altruistic Calling (AC) .......................................................................................... 37

Emotional Healing (EH)........................................................................................ 38

Wisdom (W) .......................................................................................................... 38

Persuasive Mapping (PM) ..................................................................................... 39

Organizational Stewardship (OS).......................................................................... 39

Servant Leadership Areas........................................................................................... 41

Education .............................................................................................................. 41

Business ................................................................................................................ 41

Higher Education system ........................................................................................... 42

Servant Leadership in Higher Education Institutions .......................................... 43

Employees‟ Loyalty ........................................................................................................ 44

Dimensions of Employees‟ Loyalty ...................................................................... 47

Commitment ...................................................................................................... 47

Motivation ......................................................................................................... 47

Belongingness ................................................................................................... 47

Career development........................................................................................... 48

Servant Leadership and Employees‟ Loyalty................................................................. 48

Organizational Performance ............................................................................................ 49

Dimensions of Organizational Performance .......................................................... 50

Servant Leader and Organizational Performance........................................................... 51

Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 53

Determinants of Job Satisfaction............................................................................. 55

Dimensions of Job Satisfaction for this Study ........................................................ 57

Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction as Mediator .................................................... 59

Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction .............................................................................. 60

Job Satisfaction, Employees‟ Loyalty and Organizational Performance…………..... 61

Servant Leadership, Job Satisfaction, Employees‟ Loyalty & Organizational

xi

Performance .................................................................................................................... 62

Conceptual Framework of the Study ............................................................................... 65

Research Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 67

Rationale of the Study ..................................................................................................... 68

Chapter:3 Methodology ................................................................................. 72

Philosophy of Research ................................................................................................... 72

Research Approach ......................................................................................................... 72

Survey Design ................................................................................................................. 73

Research Strategy ............................................................................................................ 73

The Target Population ..................................................................................................... 74

Sampling Technique and Sample Strategy...................................................................... 77

Measures and Instruments ............................................................................................... 78

Servant Leadership ................................................................................................... 79

Job Satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 79

Employees‟ Loyalty ................................................................................................ 80

Organizational Performance ..................................................................................... 80

Operational Definitions of Variables .............................................................................. 80

Pilot Study ....................................................................................................................... 81

Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................................. 83

Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................................... 84

Inferential Statistics ......................................................................................................... 84

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ............................................................................. 86

Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................... 86

Statistical Software .......................................................................................................... 87

Ethical Consideration ..................................................................................................... 87

Chapter:4 Results and Analysis ............................................................... 88

Response Rate ................................................................................................................. 88

Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Demographics ..................................................... 88

Descriptive Statistics of Variables ................................................................................. 95

xii

Inferential Statistics ......................................................................................................... 95

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for Servant Leadership ....................................... 95

CFA for Job Satisfaction .............................................................................................. 105

CFA for Employees‟ Loyalty ....................................................................................... 107

CFA for Organizational Performance .......................................................................... 108

CFA for Overall Measurement Model .......................................................................... 110

Pearson Correlation of the Constructs ........................................................................... 113

Structural Model Testing ............................................................................................... 114

Overall Model Fit .......................................................................................................... 116

Testing of Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 117

Chapter:5 Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................... 125

Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 125

Discussion on Research Findings .................................................................................. 125

Contribution to Knowledge…………………………………………………………. 132

Research Implications .................................................................................................. 132

Theoretical Implications .................................................................................. 133

Practical Implications ...................................................................................... 133

Research Recommendations ......................................................................................... 135

Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................ 137

Conclusion of the Research ........................................................................................... 137

References ................................................................................................................... 139

Appendix A: Research Questionnaire ....................................................................... 164

Appendix B: Permission to use the Servant Leadership Questionnaire ...................... 171

Appendix C: Permission to use the Job Satisfaction Survey ...................................... 172

Appendix D: Permission to use the Employees‟ Loyalty Questionnaire .................... 173

Appendix E: Permission to use the Organizational Performance Questionnaire ....... 174

Appendix F: Path Analysis details for Direct and Indirect Effect .............................. 175

Appendix G: Universities Faculty List………………………………....................... 176

xiii

List of Tables

Number Page

Table 1: Greenleaf & Spears Constucts of Servant Leadership ...................................... 31

Table 2: Laub Constructs of Servant Leadership ............................................................ 31

Table 3: Buchen Constructs of Servant Leadership ........................................................ 32

Table 4: Farling, Stone, & Winston Constructs of Servant Leadership .......................... 32

Table 5: Page & Wing Constructs of Servant Leadership .............................................. 32

Table 6: Russell and Stone Constructs of Servant Leadership ....................................... 33

Table 7: Patterson Constructs of Servant Leadership ..................................................... 33

Table 8: Wang, Paul & Page Constructs of Servant Leadership ..................................... 34

Table 9: Barbuto & Wheeler Constructs of Servant Leadership ..................................... 35

Table 10: Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora Constructs of Servant Leadership ...................... 35

Table 11: Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson Constructs of Servant Leadership ........... 35

Table 12: Northouse Consturcts of Servant Leadership ................................................ 36

Table 13: Dierendonck & Nuijten Constructs of Servant Leadership ........................... 36

Table 14: List of Universities in Peshawar .................................................................... 75

Table 15: Questionnaires Detail, Sent and Feedback ..................................................... 78

Table 16: Pilot Study Descriptive Statistics ................................................................... 82

Table 17: Correlation Matrix of Constructs (N=64, Pilot Study) .................................. 83

Table 18: Faculty Position/Ttitle .................................................................................... 89

Table 19: Respondents Education .................................................................................. 89

Table 20: Respondents Langauge .................................................................................. 90

Table 21: Respondents Marital Status............................................................................. 90

Table 22: Respondents Gender ...................................................................................... 91

Table 23: Respondents Organization ............................................................................. 91

Table 24: Respondetns Age ........................................................................................... 92

Table 25: Respondents Nationality ................................................................................ 92

Table 26: Respondents Length of Service ..................................................................... 93

Table 27: Descriptive Statistics of Main Variables (N=308) .......................................... 94

Table 28: Model Fit Statistics & CFA for Altruistic Calling ......................................... 96

xiv

Table 29: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Emotional Healing ..................................... 98

Table 30: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Wisdom ..................................................... 99

Table 31: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Persuasive Mapping ................................ 101

Table 32: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Organizational Stewardship ................... 102

Table 33: Model Fit Statistics of Servant Leadership ................................................... 104

Table 34: Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Job Satisfaction ......................................... 106

Table 35: Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Employees‟ Loyalty…………………… 108

Table 36: Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Organizational Performance .................... 109

Table 37: Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Overall Measurement Model .................. 111

Table 38: Measurement Scale Properties and Fit Statistics .......................................... 112

Table 39: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation of the Constructs ................... 113

Table 40: Model Fit Statistics for Structural Model .................................................... 115

Table 41: Structural Model Goodness –of-Fit Comparison .......................................... 117

Table 42: Hypotheses Results ....................................................................................... 123

Table 43: Hypotheses Testing Summary ..................................................................... 124

xv

List of Figures

Number Page

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Job Satisfaction of the Study ....................................... 58

Figure 2: Explaining Mediation Role (Baron & Kenny, 1986) ..................................... 61

Figure 3: Conceptual Model of the Study ...................................................................... 66

Figure 4: CFA for Altruistic Calling .............................................................................. 96

Figure 5: CFA for Emotional Healing ........................................................................... 98

Figure 6: CFA for Wisdom ............................................................................................ 99

Figure 7: CFA for Persuasive Mapping. ...................................................................... 100

Figure 8: CFA for Organizational Stewardship .......................................................... 102

Figure 9: CFA for Servant Leadership ......................................................................... 103

Figure 10: CFA for Job Satisfaction ............................................................................. 105

Figure 11: CFA for Employees‟ Loyalty ..................................................................... 107

Figure 12: CFA for Organizational Performance .......................................................... 109

Figure 13: CFA for Measurement Model...................................................................... 110

Figure 14: Path Diagram for Theoretical Structural Model ........................................ 115

Figure 15: Path Analysis of SL,JS,EL and OP.............................................................. 122

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

In the modern age, where the world has become a global village, and its impact can

be seen in every turf of life, the educational organizations assume a predominant part in

globalization. The vitality of the educational institutions is common, and in the

organizations of higher education in specific, it is openly about the capability and skill of

their workforce (Chugtai, 2016). The achievement of the academia depends upon

performance, functioning, authenticity and the concerned academicians with regard to

high intensity of teaching and study (Ali & Hussain, 2012). Thus the educational sector is

considered a backbone for growth and development of society (Cerit, 2009), where, three

major areas play a dominant role in the uplift of a country, namely: technology, industry,

and education which are the major pillars of economic and society development. The

contributions of all these elements are crucial in the economic development and growth of

the country. However, all the three pillars of the economy in Pakistan are very weak which

is perhaps due to lack of appropriate leadership styles that the Pakistan is experiencing

ever since its independence (Ali & Hussain, 2012).

The role of leader has been critical from a long time, if it was the minister-ship of

Joseph (Hazrat Yousaf) in Egypt; the prehistoric time of China in Sun Tzu‟s period; if it

was the Jinnah and Gandhi era in the Sub-continent (India); leaders played a dominant role

in the development of the society (Ali & Hussain, 2012). To promote leadership education

sector is considered as backbone and such are the objectives of the universities in

Peshawar. However, the performance of the education institutions is very weak due to the

lack of proper leadership style (Khan, Farhatulla, Khan, Nawaz & Yar, 2013).

2

Background of the Study

Universities are academic organizations. They provide education and nurture

students for their future research and development and other innovative activities whether

academic or of social awareness, and can distinguish one university from another. The

vice chancellors, rectors, director academics, deans, coordinators of universities or schools

and college principals are the pioneers one might say who make scholarly strategies,

standards, and directions as well as assume a part in controlling the institutions

administratively.

A leader, without any doubt, plays a dominant role in a higher educational

organization setting. There are different leadership styles and models available, but over

the most recent couple of years, servant leadership is under discussion (Bryant, 2003;

Chughtai, 2016; Contee-Borders, 2002). Today, this philosophy is being discussed around

the world. This model is new, and still, it is in the early development stage. For its better

understanding and implementation, consistent efforts are being made (Dennis & Winston,

2003; Drury, 2004; Erdurmazl, 2018; Greenleaf & Spears, 1998; Laub, 2003; Patterson,

2003; Irving, 2005; Joseph & Winston, 2005; Northouse, 2015). Servant leadership

creates condusive work environments, where every member feels satisfied with job and as

a result organizational performance increases, productivity enhances and exceptional

output are achieved. (Ding, Lu, Song, & Lu, 2012).

Lack of interest in jobs by employees is not an issue only in Peshawar universities

but also in many other organizations like the police, law enforcing agencies, civil

organizations, and disciplined forces. Some clear examples are in our front: like the

shambled affair and administration of Railways, PIA, Pakistan Steel Mills, and in various

other departments which shows a clear picture of the downfall of most big national

institutions (Ali & Hussain, 2012). There are many causes for such poor administration

like: lack of job interest, lack of organizational performance, employees‟ loyalty and job

3

satisfaction. Some of them are a lack of boss and subordinate relationship, trust between

them, self-centeredness and many other reasons, which are relevant to leadership.

Among the findings of various studies conducted during the past few years,

leadership was perceived as the possible solution to increase employees‟ satisfaction and

performance. The success of an educational organization mainly depends on leadership

style (Grimm, 2018; Majauskaitė, 2013; Osseo-Asare, Longbottom & Murphy, 2005),

which take into account all factors motivating employees towards involvement, better

performance provides job satisfaction and enhances productivity.

Most of the research gathered throughout the world from different institutions like

schools, colleges and universities, have identified various factors such as compensation

and benefits, emotional factors, mentoring, administrative support, professional

development, cultural shock, positive environment, which affects the teacher job

satisfaction in educational institutions (Al-Omari, 2008; Cerit, 2009; Giacometti 2005;

Nguni, Sleegers, Denessen, 2006; Seseer, 2007; Siripak, 2006). Ambrose, Huston, and

Norman, (2005), Castillo and Cano, (2004), Ingersoll (2001), Lukens, Lyter, and Fox,

(2004), and Oshagbemi (1997), supported these findings and factors as they are directly

linked to the employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.

Among the various leadership styles, Drury (2005), and Buchan (1998), found that

servant leadership characteristics can most effectively improve the students learning

ability, organizational performance, employees‟ loyalty, and satisfaction. The study also

exposed that if leaders adopt the characteristics of servant leadership, it enables them to

reach the rank of the most effective professors in the mind of students. The final

recommendations of the study were that it is the servant leadership approach for the

university and college which can better meet the needs of higher education.

4

Leadership models and approaches have been investigated in Pakistan context, yet it is

still an ignored area. Greater part of the investigation on servant leadership have focused

on western culture, which is more individualistic and a low power distanced, while, in

Pakistan it is more collectivistic and high power distanced. However, a few have

researched the leadership style in higher education institutions (Bryman, 2007). Alam

(2005), pointed out that few studies were undertaken on job satisfaction on university

teachers. Accordingly it is additionally important to remember the assorted variety, and it

is a decent avocation to contemplate servant leadership in the Pakistani setting to know its

conceivable attitudinal results (Ali & Hussain, 2012; Van Dierendonck et al., 2017).

When employing a servant leadership approach in universities or colleges, the

faculty members focus more attention on the pupils, and concentrate as to how students

can learn and develop intellectually. Besides, the universities must maintain highly-

qualified academic staff in performance, and they must be ready to face educational

challenges (Greenleaf & Spares, 1998), Performance and quality of education in university

largely depends on supervisors. The servant leader model best suits higher education

institutions (Koesmono, 2014).

Robert K. Greenleaf first presented the idea of servant leadership in 1970. He

argued that servant leadership is a new model and should be adopted by organizations, not

only for maximization of their profits but to serve society fruitfully and constructively

(Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). As mentioned in different researches that serving others

is the main priority of a servant leaders (Greenleaf, 2005) and thus they serve the needs of

others and develop them professionally as well as emotionally (Lussier & Achua, 2004). A

servant leader emphasizes improved service to others; helps others in their needs; uphold a

sense of a group of people (community); and the sharing of authority in decision making

(Koesmono, 2014).

5

A servant leader is service action (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). Servant

leadership is not just a management technique but is in-born which starts with the natural

feelings to serve first (Parris & Peachey, 2013). True leaders are those who are recognized

by the work/service they carry out for an individual, organization and general public

(McCann, Graves & Cox, 2014). The servant leader is the one who focuses on the interest

of others rather than his self. Servant leadership develops a positive sense in others (Ramli

& Desa, 2014) and therefore, identifying all its dimensions and elements clearly for better

measurement/instrumentations.

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed a very concise instrument, SLQ (Servant

Leadership Questionnaire). SLQ measured five factors of a servant leader and deemed it to

be indicative of servant leadership (McCannet al., 2014; Travis, Searle, & Barbuto, 2010).

In this research, the researcher will employ SLQ scale which was derived from Barbuto

and Wheeler (2006). SLQ has five aspects:

Altruistic Calling (AC). The main purpose of altruistic is to be philanthropic in

behavior. This facet measures the level to which the leader looks for to have constructive

outcomes on others‟ lives. Thus, the leader good in this characteristic will focus on the

interest of others besides his/her own (McCann et al., 2014).

Emotional Healing (EH). It is an ability of leader as to how to use the healing

process, and it is the capability of the leader to foster the spiritual recovery of employees

from hardship and distress (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; McCann et al., 2014)

Wisdom (W). This dimension of servant leader shows a strong ability and sense of

awareness (Sosik & Megerian, 1999; Sternberg, 2003). It is a skill of servant to get cues

from the environment, and from that observation, the leader can recognize possible results

and its implications (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).

6

Persuasive Mapping (PM). This characteristic of servant leadership describes an

ability to develop skills of sound reasoning and to encourage others for lateral thinking. It

is an ability to use a mental model to promote logical thinking in employees (Barbuto &

Wheeler, 2006).

Organizational Stewardship (OS). This dimension of servant leadership is that

aspect that prepares organization to serve the community and society positively and to

make a positive contribution and facilitate the company policies which should be useful

for society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Travis, Searle & Barbuto, 2010).

Employees‟ performance is primarily based on job satisfaction and leadership

styles. Leadership styles are an important antecedent in job satisfaction (Ding et al., 2012).

Job satisfaction fits between what the organization requires and what the person is looking

for. Job satisfaction elements include pay, autonomy, recognition, status, esteem and work

load. Thus, the larger the gaps between what the workers have and what they want; the

less satisfied they are (Sweeny & Macfarlane, 2002). There is a consistent relationship

between the organization and unit level with the individual results such as pleasure,

satisfaction, performance, loyalty and commitment, involvement and mishap (Ostroff,

2007). Essentially satisfaction of an employee is dependent on working conditions,

benefits and promotion packages, association with administration, training and

development, team and collaborative work and cooperation, communication and

empowerment, recognition and rewards (Pandy & Khare, 2012).

Job satisfaction is closely related with organization performance and employees‟

commitment. Ding et al. (2012), found that employees‟ satisfaction created a strong link

between employees‟ loyalty and servant leadership. Servant leadership has a positive

impact on job satisfaction, which onward influence organizational performance (Alfonso

& Andres 2007; Babin, Griffin, Lee & Kim, 2005; Chang, Chiu and Chen, 2010; Chee,

Haddad & Singh, 2007; Falkenburg & Schyns, 2007; Jones, Reynolds, Arnold, 2006;

7

Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014; Wagner, 2007; Yao, Huang, & Fan 2008 ). Little work has

been done on the mediating role of job satisfaction between servant leadership,

employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.

Employees‟ loyalty started from customer loyalty, and scholars believe that it plays

a dominant role in an organization‟s development and maintains its sustainability (Ding et

al., 2012). Servant leadership enhances job satisfaction and organization work thereby

enhancing employees‟ loyalty (Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Herderson, 2008; Needham, 2018).

Brewer (2010), has provided an extensive literature review, which showed that servant

leadership impacted not only job satisfaction, but employees‟ commitment and

organization performance.

Bastian (2001), said that performance is an endeavor to achieve the goal of the

organization as provided in its vision and mission. The performance concept is always

linked with either employee‟s performance or organization‟s performance: from

employee‟s performance, organization‟s performance can be increased directly. The

organization‟s performance is the output of the combined components used as input to

achieve the objectives (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). Irving and Justin (2005), stated in

their findings that there was a association between organization performance and job

satisfaction under the direct influence of servant leadership.

Problem Statement

In an educational institution, quality, performance, and achievement depend on

loyal, skilled, dedicated and satisfied academic staff, and also the coordinator or

supervisor of the institute. Without high-qualified exchange relation of supervisor and

academic staff, the quality of an institution cannot be improved (Chughtai, 2016; Khan et

al., 2013). The leader plays a vital role to give vision, mission, priority and value to the

organization (Carter, 2012; Koesmono, 2014; Rimes, 2011). For the last several years, the

8

quality of our education system is going downhill simply because of the poor performance

record of our institutions, whether they are private or public, is not up to the mark (Ali &

Hussain, 2012). The main reason has been a lack of good leadership style and lack of

employees‟ satisfaction and commitment (Northouse, 2015).

As mentioned below, most of the studies have been done on leadership styles and

its implication on employees‟ performance, but there is a dearth of research in the area of

servant leadership. The present study will examine servant leadership, and how it

influences employees‟ satisfaction, loyalty, and performance and can be implemented

easily in the university‟s system. A number of researchers analyzed servant leadership

with SLQ (Guillanume, Honeycutt & Savage-Austin, 2013; Ding, Lu, Song & Lu, 2012;

Christina, 2011; Mahembe & Engelbercht, 2014; McCann et al., 2014), few worked on the

association of servant leadership, employees‟ satisfaction and loyalty (West & Bocarnea,

2008; Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014; Aderson, 2005; Mehta & Pillay, 2011).

However, Servant leadership, organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty

with mediation of job satisfaction got exceptionally restricted literature especially in the

higher education sector in general and specific in Pakistan. Therefore, there are always

problems regarding the performance of employees‟ universities. These complaints may be

about poor teaching methodology of the teaching staff; non-cooperative administration

attitude; lack of training and development program; work load; poor communication and;

lack of management style (Adeniji, 2011).

To overcome all these problems and issues, it is vital to have good supervision of

work, job satisfaction of academicians, their loyalty, and commitment, so there is dire

need to find out the impact of servant leadership behavior on academician and its possible

outcomes. Therefore, this study is conducted on full- time academicians to establish the

relationship between altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping

9

and organizational stewardship on employees‟ loyalty, and organizational performance

with mediating role of job satisfaction in universities of Peshawar. The present study

believes that job satisfaction is an imperative mechanism to enhance employees‟ loyalty

and organizational performance. Thus, the present study examines the role of job

satisfaction as a mediator in the above relationship.

Research Questions

The primary purpose of the present study is to find out the influence of servant

leadership on employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. This study also

investigates the role of job satisfaction in the above relationship. Empirically and

theoretically this study will contribute in the existing literature of servant leadership, job

satisfaction, organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty. Thus, the present study

aims to answer the following research questions:

(i) Does servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive

mapping, and organizational stewardship) have a relationship with employees‟

loyalty?

(ii) Does servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive

mapping, and organizational stewardship) have a relationship with organizational

performance?

(iii) Does servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive

mapping, and organizational stewardship) have a relationship with job satisfaction?

(iv) Does job satisfaction mediate the relationships between servant leadership

(altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and

organizational stewardship) and employees‟ loyalty?

10

(v) Does job satisfaction mediate the relationships between servant leadership

(altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and

organizational stewardship) and organizational performance?

Objectives of the Study

The objectives to be achieved in this present study are as follows:

(i) To examine the relationship between servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional

healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship) and

employees‟ loyalty;

(ii) To discuss the relationship between servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional

healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship) and

organizational performance;

(iii) To investigate the relationship between servant leadership (altruistic calling,

emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship)

and job satisfaction;

(iv) To explore the mediating impact of job satisfaction on the relationship between

servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive

mapping, and organizational stewardship) and employees‟ loyalty;

(v) To evaluate the mediating impact of job satisfaction on the relationship between

servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive

mapping, and organizational stewardship) and organizational performance.

11

Chapter 2

Literature Review

The servant leadership model is new and not widely investigated. Keeping in view

the existing literature, a structure of the main components is: introduction, leadership types

and styles, servant leadership in the literature, servant leadership dimensions in the views

of different researchers, specific dimensions discussed and selected for study such as

altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational

stewardship, its relation with employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance,

dimensions of employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance, empirical literature

and servant leadership linked with the job satisfaction and with its different facets.

Introduction

Every leader has a vision and mission developed for achieving organizational goals

and in case of higher education institutions such concepts encompassed in the servant

leader model is best suited (Saifuddin, 2012). The teaching faculty plays a dominant role

in the organization‟s effectiveness and development and must be facilitated to update

knowledge, abilities, and competencies, followed by an increase in financial benefits and

work recognition, and providing them with a healthy environment (Saifuddin, 2012).

Committed and retained workforce are essential assets of education institutions, and when

effectively utilized may give a good and sound performance and will receive consideration

from the supervisors (Koesmono, 2014). Universities are a place for students from where

they can grow and develop. Moreover, if universities do not have facilities and other

distinctive attractions, they cannot motivate and develop students (Koesmono, 2014),

whether they are in public or private sectors.

12

The Public and private universities are the backbone of the education sector. The

objectives of the institutions are to provide better education services to society as a whole

and the same is the case in Peshawar of KPK as well. Learning organizations are

executing a primary responsibility in the achievement and growth of every country, by

offering quality learning to the subsequent generation (Khan, Farhatulla, Khan, Nawaz &

Yar, 2013). The universities must maintain high-qualified academic staff in performance

and be ready to face educational changes in the world. Performance and quality of

education in a university largely depends on supervisors and the leaders who are leading

them.

The success of an educational institution mainly depends on leadership style

(Osseo-Asare, Longbottom & Murphy, 2005). However, very little research has been

done on leadership style in higher education institutions (Bryman, 2007). Alam (2005),

and his fellows noted that there are very few studies done on job satisfaction regarding

university teachers. Most of the researchers throughout the world who researched different

institutions like schools, colleges and universities have identified various factors which

affect teacher- job- satisfaction in a university or college (Al-Omari, 2008; Cerit, 2009)

among which leadership is topmost.

A good leadership enhances the workers‟ growth, which can only be possible when

the leadership style is ethical, effective, responsible and supportive (Sergiovanni, 1993).

The same is with the staff of any organization which is critical to its success. When

workers are dissatisfied in their work place and staff relation then their attitude, their

performance, and commitment, to the organization will suffer (Rimes, 2011). When

workers are dissatisfied, they would be less committed and would quit the organization

(Shirbagi, 2007). Job satisfaction comes with organizational commitment and it leads to

employees‟ loyalty. Employees who are more loyal to the organization and committed,

13

have less desire to leave, than those who have little loyalty and commitment (Griffeth &

Hom, 1995; Igharia & Greenhaus, 1992). The aims of the research was to conclude if any

relation exists between employees‟ loyalty and servant leadership; servant leadership and

organizational performance; and that when job satisfaction mediates.

Leadership in the Literature

Leadership is a procedure of impacting individuals with the goal that they will

endeavor energetically and excitedly towards the accomplishment of gathering objectives

(Hashim, 2013). Leadership exists with relationship, opportunities, purpose and aim

(Rimes, 2011). Authority is the making of vision about a coveted future state which looks

to snare all individuals from an association in its net. A leader fills in and also leads. He

has a capacity to stir and develop enthusiastic and also the clear energy of his adherents.

He advises them of the points and targets obviously and particularly in a path as to

demonstrate to them their related enthusiasm for the accomplishment of their coveted

objectives (Ali, 1986; Mango, 2018).

Leadership was considered in the past and in the present, as a factor for the failure

and success of any organization either it was business, military or industry. The positive

qualities of a leader are vital to influence the followers (Bass, 1990). The term „leadership‟

is difficult to define, because a leader is a person who has multitude responsibilities to fill

and many duties to perform. Effective leaders have many qualities, manners, and behavior

(Fisher, 1999).

As mentioned by Bass (1990), research scholars have defined leadership

differently. Bennis and Nanus (1985), have identified over 350 definitions of leadership.

Leaders lead by example. It is a process of influence and persuasion through which a

person or groups act to achieve the objectives of leaders and leader supporters (Gardner,

14

1990). Leadership is more than a style; it is a character (MacArthur, 2004). It is a practice

of persuade, or it is the capability of a individual to influence followers (Sanders, 2007).

A leader should be competent and should possess the qualities like integrity,

aptitude to understand reality, discuss the present and also explain it (Bennis & Goldsmith,

1994). Gerber, Nel and Van Dyk (1996), have mentioned in their work that leadership is a

relational procedure in which a leader coordinates the activity of an individual or groups

towards aims and objectives, within the specific state of affairs by using communication.

A leader is distant from human nature because the leader has a higher order value

and by inspiring hope, empowerment and creativity can discover individual abilities

(McCaslin, 2001). Leadership was a practice, and from this process, a leader influenced a

group of people to achieve shared objectives. This influence was between leader and

followers, and ultimately reached in giving attention to goals (Northouse, 2007). Leaders

play very vital role in the organizational culture, values, and way of dealing (Kotter &

Heskett, 1992). Many organizations like institutions, churches, and corporations need a

good leader and manager, who can provide a good support to them for their current needs

and to survive for a long time. In the 1950‟s it was studied by the researchers who

identified the characteristics of a leader which were participation, achievement, status,

capacity and responsibility. In any case, because of the fast change in the worldwide

economy and mechanical development, they were searching for the best model of

leadership that can suit all situations (Leonard, 2003).

Most of the research studies on leadership were searching for effective leadership

behavioral types to improve the unit, and collective performance. There was a lack of

output regarding proper behavioral type of leadership, so a hierarchal classification

emerged to assist in resolving the problem. These classifications consisted of three broad

categories, and these were a relation, change in behavior, and task (Hoch, Bommer,

15

Dulebohn, & Wu, 2016; Yukl, Gordon & Taber, 2002). Kotter (1988), in his research

mentioned that leadership is a power tool which produces a movement for the long-term

interest of the group, and the group then can easily be directed towards common

objectives.

Leadership was, and still is critical for any organization as the subordinates of

every organization interact with their managers or supervisors or leaders, where some may

get prosper, and others get fall (Crabtree, 2004). The important things for leaders are

attitudes, needs, and behaviors of followers. Leadership is not only personality traits, but it

is more than that and it is leadership traits to interact with the employees (McGregor,

1976), Hussain and Ali (2012), in their findings showed that leadership characteristics of

inspiration can easily motivate those followers who work hard and have strong work

values and show strong organizational citizenship behavior.

Employees‟ performance depends on the leadership approaches and models.

Performance was different in transactional leadership (management by exception,

contingent reward) then the transformational leadership (charisma, individual

consideration, intellectual stimulation) (Waldman, Bass & Einstein, 1987). Leadership

style plays an essential role in decision making, and it is considered an important

element of effective leadership (Vroom, 2000).

In the 21st century, there has been much of interest in leadership theories. It is

because that the failure and success of an organization largely depend on leaders

(Dierendonck , 2011), According to Collins (2011), it is the key ability of leader who think

what style is fit for the organization to be implemented to achieve its short and long-term

goals. Stum (1999), in his research, mentioned that employees‟ commitment and loyalty

reveal the worth of organizational leadership. Leadership style affects the employees‟

16

overall performance; those employees who support their leader show more organizational

commitment (Koopman, 1991).

Researchers have written and discovered what abilities, behaviors traits, and power

fit a leader, is to persuade and to achieve the task or objective (Carter, 2012). Scholars and

researchers have also written on theories of leadership. Their arguments discuss what

leadership attitude, values, beliefs are mainly helpful within organizations based on the

culture, and which leadership philosophy followers respond the most (Bolden, 2004;

Marturano & Gosling, 2008; Nahavandi, 2006; Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2010).

One thing is clear that a leader is usually involved in an organization and the

organization often defines the leadership (Bolden, 2004). However, leadership can also

emerge through one‟s experience and skill, and it has been seen that leaders may practice

different philosophies over a period and the philosophy can change through experience.

Most of the leadership style can be adopted, analyzed and observed in the organizational

context and environment (Carter, 2012).

Carter (2012), mentioned that leaders‟ qualities, and mistreatment or abusive

leadership has been practiced since ages and history bear witness. Most of the

organizations went bankrupt or faced many other problems just because the leader was

unethical or covetous. Such leaders think only of personal gains and do not consider the

employees or the organization‟s benefit and other stakeholders (Carter, 2012). When

abusive leadership is practiced, organizations face more complexity in business dealing;

slowdown in performance, the greater pressure of job activities, lack of employee

commitment and loyalty, lack of job satisfaction and an overall reduction in organizational

performance, and lack of ethical decision (Toor & Ofor, 2009).

Darcy (2010), mentioned that business, institutions, and corporations require an

ethical leader. An immoral or unethical leader not only costs organization billions of

17

dollars but also affects its image in the mind of the stakeholders. Carter (2012), in his

research concluded that, before leading any organization, leaders must consider and

question whether they have the ability and skill to serve and lead, create good atmosphere,

and whether they have the potential to influence the followers to achieve the desired goals

and not to compromise their values to meet board expectations.

Leaders motivate followers, and work motivation is needed by every faculty

member in both types of universities whether public or private university. In private

universities, it is especially monitored to have a work motivation for faculty members.

Satisfied faculty members with such motivation are trying to meet the required wishes, as

well as responsibilities and duties (Koesmono, 2014).

A visionary leader is imperative for an institution‟s success and is one who not

only has the ability and skill to lead others to achieve the desired goals but also to maintain

integrity is essential and which is hard to find (Koesmono, 2014). A lot of advancement

and development have been noticed in universities of Peshawar on quality education,

training, and development, institutions affiliation with foreign accredited universities and

colleges, faculty development programs, seminars, conferences, students‟ orientation,

academic development programs but still the employees‟ are detached (Khan et al., 2013).

All these activities would have been better if there had been honest and fair leaders.

Servant leadership is a possible model that may fit this need.

Theories of Leadership

This section will briefly discuss different styles and kinds of leadership to have a

clearer idea and concept of leadership, before addressing servant leadership which is the

foundation of this research study. There are different approaches, theories, concepts,

models which have been presented and explained by many researchers, some of them are

more suitable to the context and environment of the organization while others are not so.

18

Those approaches are trait approach of leadership, contingency approach, and situational

approach, the path-goal approach of leadership, style approach of leadership, transactional

and transformational leadership.

Traits Approach of Leadership. Yukl (2002), and Northouse (2007), concluded

that traits were one of oldest approaches to leadership (Daft, 2005). In the 1920‟s

researchers explored what were these particular traits or characteristics in leaders so as to

distinguish them as a leader. Such traits and characteristics have distinguished non-leaders

from leaders and have contributed to achievement. Daft (2005), has also mentioned in his

work regarding these traits and characteristics as height, energy, and intelligence.

Rimes (2012), explained that many researchers have sought to link the traits

approach with the Big Five of Personality Model and they are extraversion, agreeableness,

openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. The traits of a leader may be self-

confidence, integrity, determination, stability, and intelligence (Northouse, 2007). This

approach explained that leadership training would only be helpful for those leaders who

previously hold leadership distinctiveness (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 1996). Beside

all these traits in leaders, this approach was unsuccessful to think of in a variety of

leadership situations (Northouse, 2007). Rimes (2012), has quoted from the work of

Barrick and Mount (1991) that some theorist tried to associate traits approach of

leadership with that of the Big Five Model of Personality.

Style Approach of Leadership. In the style approach, the focus is on behavior

rather than traits of the leader. As mentioned by Fleishman and Hunt (1973), that style

approach gives importance to leader‟s behavior. Scholars have divided behavior in to two

main parts: relationship and task behaviors (Rimes, 2011). As Stogdil (1973) mentioned

that Michigan University and Ohio University worked this style of leadership. The main

theme of this style was to find as to how a leader uses these two behaviors to lead. Task

19

behavior focused on goal or objective accomplishment, while relationship behavior

focused on how the employees feel about their selves, others and the situation.

The university of Michigan and Ohio State explained the behavior of a leader and

placed it into common types that are initiating structure and consideration. There is a

difference between these two common terms. The first concept appraises leader behavior,

and in the second concept it is consideration of leader behavior that is associated with

employees, and how sensitive a leader is to subordinates (Rimes, 2012).

Daft (1994), mentioned that consideration is when the leader values the thought

and feeling of followers and where organization trust is developed. Ohio State University

prepared a leadership behavior questionnaire to evaluate leadership behavior. This is

known as the Leader behavior description questionnaire. In a report by Northouse (2007),

that researcher at Michigan University recognized two behaviors of leadership: production

and employees‟ orientation. The first one focused on production and other technical issues

of the leaders‟ behavior, while employees‟ orientation focused on the employees‟ job-

related activities and the behavior of the leader (Rimes, 2012). From the work of Ohio

State and Michigan University Blake, Shepherd, and Mouton (1964), have presented the

Managerial Grid. Based on this model they have placed the leader on two major

components of behavior: concern for productivity, and concern for people.

The grid of leadership provided five different styles of leadership which were

developed by Blake and Mouton. They were country club management, authority

obedience management, organization administration, team and impoverished management

This approach has been advanced by many other scholars and researchers like Adair

(1983), Likert (1967), and Mint Berg (1973) and their followers (Rimes, 2011).

20

Comparatively, style approach is good and reasonable. This focuses on task and

relationship-centered as the two most important behaviors for leadership styles. If a person

wants to judge the behavior of a leader, this approach explained that task and relationship-

centered are important to understand leadership behavior (Rimes, 2011).

Situational Approach to Leadership. Those leaders are successful leaders who

adapt their style according to the situation that prevails and to fulfill the demand of

distinctive circumstances; they are winning leaders (Schermerhorn, 1997). This approach

was developed in 1969 by Hersey and Blanchard. Many researchers and writers have

written enough explanations of the approach, but the work of Northouse was appreciable.

Northouse addressed the four leadership styles (delegating, supporting, coaching and

directing) and the development level of the followers (the readiness of the followers).

As mentioned by Northouse (2001), different categories represented situational

leadership approach accurately like: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating. As

the relationship between supervisor and subordinate developed, there was a change in the

competence and ability of the followers, so the leader needed to utilize these styles to keep

on and provide all that is required by subordinates or followers to perform well.

Contingency Approach. This approach was developed by Fred Fiedler (1964). It

is also known as leaders match theory to the situation. It is explained that leader style was

effective and conditional to the situation. It means match leader style to the right setting

(Rimes, 2011). As mentioned by Hashim (2013), the contingency theory states that a

leader should be consistent with the vital characteristics of organizational circumstances,

such as nature of the task, quality, and traits of an employee carrying out work activities.

Northouse also concluded that, this approach was sustained with a large deal of

experimental study, knowledge, and impact of the situation on leaders was predictive, and

21

this has also provided data that might be helpful in the development leadership profile

(Northouse, 2007).

Path-Goal Approach of Leadership. House (1971), proposed the path goal

approach theory of leadership. The main function of this theory was that the leader is to

clarify and set goals in collaboration with followers or subordinates, support them in

finding the most excellent way for attaining the objectives and eradicate any impediment

and hindrances. This theory was based on employee perception of work (Hashim, 2013;

Rimes, 2011).

This approach was expected to motivate and influence workers so that, employee

efficiency will increase, and there will be job satisfaction at the work place (House, 1994).

The situational factors which determine the effectiveness of leadership are the

characteristics of employees or workers or followers such as skills, their needs, abilities,

and self-confidence. Second the work environment such as reward system, tasks, and

relationship with workers. The theory examined four leadership styles and behaviors, such

as supportive leadership, directive leadership, achievement oriented leadership and

participative leadership styles (Hashim, 2013; House & Mitchell, 1974).

Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership (LMX). The first detail found

of LMX was in the work of Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1975), as mentioned by Rimes

(2011). As the name signifies LMX theory focused on the leader and member relationship

or interaction. As mentioned by Boss (2000), in his research that LMX examined the

quality of a leader and individual relation with each other. This approach located fit after

empirical testing of 25 years.

The main theme of LMX is that a leader differed from their followers by making

two groups that are in-group and out a group of followers. In-groups are much closer to

leaders, and they received special and particular opportunity and rewards, while the out-

22

group member received normal advantages or benefits. Those individuals who were in the

in-group enjoyed respect, obligation and mutual trust (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975).

Transactional Approach of Leadership. It was one of the influential theories of

leadership approaches. Many researchers have turned to transactional leadership approach.

The focus of the theory was a contingent reward, as mentioned by Bass (1985), that this

approach was the exercise of contingent/conditional rewards and management by

exception. The reward which is paid to the employee or worker when the desired objective

is achieved is contingent reward. Through transactional leadership, a leader in providing a

contingent reward may influence worker motivation and to some extent inspire workers to

attain some level of loyalty, involvement, and commitment. Transaction leadership was

effective at the lower level as it was the primary means of motivation (Bass, 1985).

However, many types of research proved that transactional leadership has a propensity to

be a short-lived relationship rather than a permanent one, and the satisfaction from that

relationship was only marginal or superficial (Fairholm, 1991; Rimes, 2011).

Bass (1991), stated that transactional leadership connected actions and dealings

that might or might not have been useful and helpful for workers or followers and was not

a popular method. Many other researchers have proved that the purpose of any leader‟s

action was to give maximum benefit to the leader, irrespective of employee benefit

(Fairholm, 1991). This approach is unsuccessful to judge the worker or the organization‟s

future while presenting rewards (Crosby, 1996).

Transformational Leadership Approach. Transformational leadership concept

was developed by Burns (1978), which took a leadership approach in a new direction. He

explained that it is entirely different from transactional leadership approach, in which

rewards were exchanged for behavior and replaced the concept with transformational

leadership. This model explained how followers and leaders engage with each other to go

23

beyond the individual purpose and construct share assurance for better objectives (Rimes,

2011).

As mentioned by Bass and Avolio (1990), that transformational leadership was a

good role model and such type of leaders could make and articulate a clear and short

vision for an institute and organization, perform in a way that others rely on them. The

other good and positive point of transactional leadership were that it was a model to solve

problems rather than just to give direction, orders or instructions (Buhler, 1995).

Transformational leadership involved the great influence of leader on followers to

motivate them to do additional than what was anticipated from them (Northouse, 2007). It

is focused on continuous progress and development (Bass, 1990).

Spiritual Leadership Approach. The definition of the concept of spiritual

leadership is difficult to explain, but some writers have defined it. Bezy (2011), defined

spiritual leadership in his work by saying that spiritual leadership means looking out for

the welfare of others. He further defines that welfare means any task that is completed and

all the groups either small or large are unified throughout the process. In this type of

leadership model, the leaders create a culture in organizations in which followers and

leaders have a dedication. Spiritual leadership is committed to its mission. Such leaders

help their subordinates to develop spiritually (Bezy, 2011). As mentioned by Bezy (2011),

that Sokolow (2006), suggested eight principles of spiritual leadership, such as: trust,

gratitude, intention to draw people, enlightened leaders, and unique life lessons of leaders

help to develop followers, connectedness, openness, and attention to thought to gather

energy.

24

Authentic Leadership Approach. Authenticity means one who is not a fake and

is original. Khan (2010), defined authentic leadership as the leaders who are genuine in

their leadership, and they do not fake their leadership. They are not keen for personal

benefits and rewards and do not lead for status and honor. Such leaders‟ actions are

usually based on sincerity and values and are genuine in their actions to get their

objectives. The core characteristics of such leaders are: they are hopeful, flexible, ethical,

optimistic, and confident; they give priority to others in developing persons and future

oriented. Such leaders are genuine and positive to their self and their subordinates.

Charismatic Leadership Approach. This leadership model was derived from the

Max Weber theory of charisma, in which he defines a leader as one who enjoys or is seen

as possessing excellent/exceptional qualities. All the qualities in him are fixed when he is

born, or he is a man of fortune or luck. The followers follow him because he has the

unique qualities or attributes. Charisma is unexpected or a surprising type of attribute or

quality of a person who is conceptualized to handle extraordinary circumstances or an

event which is not usual in life. Therefore, charisma is exceptional and not a common

occurrence or fact. The followers of such leaders are usually attracted to the situation of

crises (Endrissat, Müller, & Fontana, 2006).

Integrated Psychological Leadership Theory. Integrated psychological is a great

inclusion in the leadership theories. It is an endeavor to integrate all the leadership

theories whereas addressing their curbs. Psychological mastery, behavioral suppleness,

attitude towards others and leadership presence are key elements of integrated

psychological theory. This approach has offered support for leaders desiring to apply the

idea of servant leadership (Gomiz, 2014). This approach started to draw attention after the

presentation of James Scouller‟s (2011) three level model of leadership. He criticized the

old approaches by discussing their limited support in developing a person‟s aptitude to

direct and lead efficiently. He pointed out that, traits theories, ideal style, contingency,

25

situational and functional theories, might help us but are less useful in developing leaders.

He said, for leaders to be effective they need to work on their inner psychology and it help

in developing leadership presence.

The three-level model of James Scouller consist private, public and personal

leadership. Private and public are outer or behavioral level while, personal leadership is a

fundamental level and concern with the personal growth of the individual. Private and

public dimensions are: 1) team spirit 2) a shared motivating group purpose 3) action,

progress, and results 4) individual motivation and selection. Personal leadership

dimensions are 1) skill development; 2) technical know-how and; 3) right attitude towards

other people; and it is the base of servant leadership (Scouller, 2011).

Servant Leadership in the Literature

The idea of servant leadership was first presented in 1970 by Greenleaf. He wrote a

collection of articles and essays on servant leadership such as “The servant as leader,” it

was that in which he coined the word “servant –leader,” Trustee as a servant and the

institution as servant. The most famous and popular one was the Servant Leadership: A

Journey into the legitimate power and greatness (Van Kuik, 1998). He worked for AT&T

as an executive for long time and most of his working life he spent there. He has delivered

lectures at Harvard Business School, MIT, and the University of Virginia, Dartmouth

College as well, and established The Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership

As mentioned by Spears (1995), that Greenleaf invented the idea of servant

leadership after reading the Journey to the East which was written by Hermann Hesse‟s. It

is the story of group of travelers who were served by Leo, who did their menial chores and

lifted them with his spirit and song. All went well until Leo disappeared one day. The

travelers fell into disarray and could go no further. The journey was over. Years later, one

of the travelers saw Leo again as revered head of the order that sponsored the journey.

26

Leo, who had been their servant, was the titular head of the order, a great and noble leader

(Keith, 2017). Greenleaf realized that Leo as servant and leader played a major role for his

followers, and Leo‟s image as transformed Greenleaf‟s understanding. A true leader must

consider himself as a servant for his followers' and this aspiration to serve, makes a great

leader (Rimes, 2011). As mentioned by Van Kuik (1998), servant leadership may be

useful when there is power in the hand of the leader as without power the leader will not

be served. He also mentioned that power could only be saved in the hands of those who

serve.

A servant leader is different from a common leader as his priority is to serve first.

Greenleaf further noted that a servant leader improved others by being there. He not only

maintained his authority which was granted by those being led. He is a servant to his

subordinates and followers (Greenleaf, 1977). The key features of leaders as servant they

emphasized are: personal development, to authorize followers, and put others interest first

being led from their own interest .The servant leader creates the sense of serving others in

the followers‟ mind. Greenleaf suggested the first equal philosophy to leadership. In this

approach, leadership stay alive, but not as a boss he is a servant first (Greenleaf, 1977;

Riems, 2011).

As mentioned by Spears and Lawrence (2004) that scholars have defined different

characteristics of servant leaders. They have mentioned that servant leaders emphasized

the following characteristics such as: a) Leaders who pay attention on employee

development retention; b) Leader is conscientious about producing positive and safe

working conditions that foster intrinsic motivation and enhance innovation; c) Leaders

have the approach of a selfless and humble servant; d) When they treat subordinates as

human beings, they improve and humanize the work place; they give respect and dignity

to all the subordinates; e) Leaders take their subordinates legitimate interest before their

27

own interest and they earn trust this way; f) Leaders and employees have full and free

communication; they listen to employees with an open mind; g) Leaders give benefits to

subordinates and society, and earn respect from both; h) They develop a good association

with subordinates and society, through emotional healing, kindness, empathy and

intelligence; i) Such leaders achieve the organizational goals by unleashing and

developing the inventive potential of followers; j) Leaders engage others in decision

making and value team building through which they can gain cooperation and support

from others (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 1994; Spears & Lawrence, 2004).

The servant leader held the organization with conviction to serve people and is

sincerely dedicated to authorizing others to be successful personally and professionally. A

servant leader always works for the followers‟ interest. The main thing in servant

leadership is that the values, morality, principles, ethics and attitudes possess are inspiring

forces to motivate followers (Greenleaf, 1977).

The idea of leader as servant is not new. It grew from Islam and many other

religions that came from ancient time. As mentioned by Rimes (2011), that Jesus taught

and embraced the characteristics of servant leadership. Prophet Muhammad‟s (PBUH) life

was full of servant leadership characteristics. He brought change not by force but through

his servant leader behavior. All the divine books have given one order to apostles to love

humanity and create this spirit in society and the community. Muhammad‟s (PBUH) life is

the paradigm of servant leadership (Life of Muhammad, 2014).

Formerly it was detrimental for organizations to adopt the servant leadership idea

because they considered that those who serve others do not associate with the most

successful one. However, most corporations now are changing their culture to embrace

servant leadership (Lichtenwalner, 2011). This method has been adopted by many

28

organizations due to the unethical practices in organization setting like the case of Enron

(Carter, 2012; Hunter, 2004).

As mentioned by Blanchard (2010), whenever servant leaders clearly define the

organization‟s vision and mission, ethical and moral dilemmas are less likely to emerge.

Most of the researchers have written and have provided sound arguments as to why these

cultural changes have occurred in the corporate world. Most wrote and reasoned that

increase in unethical leadership behavior cases caused many organizations and

corporations to fail. Industry competition may be the third reason which caused such

changes in corporate culture. To cope with these issues, many leaders and practitioners

now are interested in having such leadership philosophy which addressed the above causes

(Carter, 2012).

Greenleaf considers that without servant first a leader is not effective to serve and

this thought opened a innovative side in the history of leadership approaches and won

more conformity than transactional and transformational models (Ding et al., 2012).

Leader as servant is not just an administration approach, but a way of life which starts

naturally with feelings to serve first (Parris & Peachey, 2013). True leaders are those who

are identified by the service they perform for an individual, an organization, and society

(McCann, Graves & Cox, 2014). The servant leader is the one who focuses on the interest

of others rather than his/her self (Ramli & Desa, 2014). Servant leadership is basically to

present service, give priorities to vision and mission as well as to moral and spiritual

values (Ding et al., 2012).

As mentioned by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), the servant leader‟s priority is to

serve the staff, while a transformational leader motivates employees to achieve

organizational goals. Servant and authentic leaders are the same as they both are

responsive of the significance of self-perception, positive image, self-restraint, and

29

positive moral view but there is a difference in spirit because the spirit is a significant

basis for motivation for a servant leader (Ding et al., 2012). Servant leadership provides

the fundamental approach to those theories whose principle concern is human growth. It

focuses on the individual character (McFarland, Senn & Childress, 1993).

As mentioned by Laub (2004), it is not a new model; it is an example as to how the

leadership can be reshaped, and how we can get understanding and practice of reshaping

the leadership. If the individual‟s development and general health are facilitated, then the

organizational goals can be achieved very easily, and it will bear an impact for a long time

(Rimes, 2011; Stone & Patterson, 2005). It is a practice and understanding of leadership

that placed the interest of others as the priority over the interest of those who are leading

others (Laub, 2004).

This concept is all about keeping the individual‟s interest in mind, it gives value to

people, it builds the community by sharing status and power for the benefit of every one,

and it is the practice of legitimacy (Authenticity) (Rimes,2011; Smith, Montagno, &

Kuzmenko, 2004). As we mentioned that servant leadership is becoming a dominant

approach in leadership approaches, and the one reason for such popularity is the focus of

organizational development on the bottom-up approach rather than the top down approach

(Carter, 2012).

As mentioned by Blanchard (2002), the servant leadership concept is increasing in

popularity because of its unique characteristics. The need for such leadership philosophy is

being demanded because, corporations are going bankrupt due to the certain economic and

environmental factors, or due to the unethical leadership practices or the employees‟ or

people are looking for what can add purpose and meaning to their lives. Servant leadership

viewed employees‟ as an asset for an organization, retaining loyal and productive

30

employees while keeping in mind the profit-balancing was one of the challenges for the

leaders (Carter, 2012).

Servant Leadership Link with Leadership Theory

The main distinction between leadership theory and leadership philosophy is:

leadership philosophy (servant leadership) represents values based behavior by leaders to

act; while, leadership theory (situational and functional leadership theories) is a way of

teaching leaders how to be more effective. For some years, many of leadership theories

(style approach, traits, situational approach and functional) did not support the philosophy

of servant leadership openly. Nevertheless, at the advent of James Scouller (2011), three

level of leadership model, which endeavor to put together the previous

approaches/theories by tackling constraint and giving attention on the psychology, stresses

that the leaders. should view leadership as an act of service and task as much care of their

followers needs as of their own. Therefore, the link between modern leadership theory and

the philosophy of servant leadership has strengthened.

Dimensions of Servant Leadership

Servant leadership characteristics have been presented by different authors in

different ways. Greenleaf and his followers suggested the following aspects as mentioned

in Table 1:

31

Table 1

Greenleaf & Spears Constructs of Servant Leadership

Empathy Listening

Healing Awareness

Conceptualization Persuasion

Stewardship Foresight

Building Communities Commitment to growth of others

Note: Sources (Blanchard & Hodges, 2003; Carter, 2012; Fisher, 2004; Greenleaf, 1998, 2002;

Spears & Lawrence, 2002).

Laub (1998), presented six major characteristics of servant leadership these were

as mentioned in Table 2:

Table 2

Laub Constructs of Servant Leadership

Laub

(2002)

Value people Authenticity

Develop people Build communities

Provide leadership Share leadership

Note: Adopted from the source of (Carter, 2012).

Buchen (1998), recognized the below given attributes of servant leadership as mentioned

in Table 3:

Greenleaf & Spears

(1998)

32

Table 3

Buchen Constructs of Servant Leadership

Buchen

(1998)

Self-identity Capacity for reciprocity (Mutual dependence)

Relationship building Preoccupation with future

Note: sources (Rimes, 2011; Carter, 2012).

Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999), presented five models of servant leadership as

presented in Table 4:

Table 4

Farling, Stone & Winston Constructs of Servant Leadership

Farling, Stone & Winston

(1999)

Vision Credibility

Trust Influence Service

Note: sources (Vondey, 2010; Rimes, 2011; Carter, 2012).

Page and Wing (2000), Construct for Servant Leadership as mentioned in Table 5:

Table 5

Page & Wing Constructs of Leadership

Page & Wing

(2000)

Integrity Humility Goal Setting

Servant hood Developing Others Empowering Others

Caring for others Visioning Leading

Team building Shared decision making

Source: (Vondey, 2010).

Russell and Stone (2002), presented nine functional attributes of servant leadership

and eleven accompanied attributes:

33

Table 6

Russell and Stone (2002) Constructs of Servant Leadership

Russell & Stone

(2002)

Honesty Communication Empowerment

Integrity Persuasion Visibility

Trust Listening Appreciation of others

Vision Competence Stewardship

Pioneering Credibility Delegation and influence

Modeling Teaching Service and Encouragement

Sources: (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011; Vondey, 2010).

Patterson (2002), presented and identified the following dimensions of servant

leadership as mentioned in Table 7:

Table 7

Patterson Constructs of Servant Leadership

Patterson

(2002)

Agapao Love* Humility Altruism

Vision Trust empowering others

Service

Sources: (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011; Vondey, 2010). * Intimate Love

Wang, Paul, and Page (2003), presented one of the good measurements of servant

leadership. To measure servant leadership they developed a conceptual framework. Their

frame work consists of four main dimensions such as:

34

a) Character Orientation ( Being)

b) Community Orientation (Relating)

c) Task Orientation (Doing)

d) Orientation Process (Organizing)

Table 8

Wang, Paul &Page Constructs of Servant Leadership

Wang, Paul & Page

(2008)

Character Orientation

What kind of individual is the leader?

(This dimension includes three main items such as integrity, servant hood, and humility)

Community Orientation

Leader relatedness to others

(This dimension consists of three main items such as caring for others, empowering and

developing others)

Task Orientation

Leader activity for doing/ what does the leader do?

(This dimension includes three main items such as vision, goal setting, and leading)

Orientation Process

Leader efficiency to organize the process

(This facet consists of three main points such as team building, modeling and shared

decision making)

35

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), tested the Greenleaf servant leadership model and

produced the following dimensions of servant leadership as mentioned in Table 9 below:

Table 9

Barbuto and Wheeler Constructs of Servant Leadership

Barbuto & Wheeler

(2008)

Altruistic calling Emotional healing Persuasive mapping

Wisdom Organizational Stewardship

Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora, (2008), presented six aspects of a servant leader, they

are:

Table 10

Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora Constructs of Servant Leadership

Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora

(2008)

Authenticity Responsible morality

Voluntary subordination Transcendent spirituality

Covenantal Relationship Transforming influence

Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Herderson (2008), presented eight dimensions of a

servant leader:

Table 11

Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Henderson Constructs of Servant Leadership

Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson

(2008)

Grow and succeed Behave ethically Emotional healing

Empowerment Helping subordinates Creating value for community

Conceptual skill Putting subordinates first

Northouse (2010), presented facets of servant leadership, which distinguish it from

ethical leadership approach as given in Table 12 below:

36

Table 12

Northouse Constructs of Servant Leadership

Northouse

(2010)

Trust Justice Respect

Building communities Honesty

Source: Carter (2012).

Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011), presented an eight dimension model of servant

leadership as mentioned in Table 13 below:

Table 13

Dierendonck and Nuijten Constructs of Servant Leadership

Dierendonck and Nuijten,

(2011)

Authenticity Humility Courage

Forgiveness Stewardship Empowerment

Accountability Standing back

Source: (Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011)

These are the details and up to date dimensions of servant leadership presented by

different scholars and writers. Beside these dimensions, Graham (1991), noted the

following aspect and features such as moral development of employees, humility,

autonomy, leaders emulation toward service and relational power. Now to measure servant

leadership, most of the researchers proposed their own frameworks.

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), presented five facets by testing the servant leadership

model of Greenleaf and Spears. The researcher has also used these dimensions (see Table

9) in the study for servant leadership measurement in universities of Peshawar. The

37

Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) developed by Barbuto and Wheeler to measure

the servant leadership behavior (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).

The researcher has taken these dimensions of servant leadership because they

provide detail understanding of the behavior of servant leadership. As the other researches,

mentioned in previous pages, done to find out the characteristics and dimensions of

servant leadership were lengthy or too concise for the mind of the respondents. The

researcher has used one dimension or model, developed by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006),

who studied and tested the servant leadership dimensions, presented by Greenleaf (1970),

the founder of servant leadership model.

Altruistic Calling. Being altruistic is to be philanthropic in behavior, and this

facet measures the level to which the leader looks for to build a affirmative effect on

other‟s lives, and has a keen desire to serve others. Thus, the leader who has this high

characteristic will focus on the interest of others, besides himself (McCann, Graves &

Cox, 2014). According to Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), the servant leader‟s first choice is

to serve others in a selfless manner. This selfless manner results in the altruistic calling of

the leader.

Altruistic calling depicts the aspiration to create a assenting difference in the lives

of others. When this characteristic of servant leaders is high, they are more enthusiastic to

serve others and attempt to meet the follower‟s needs (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011). The

main and focused conscious choice of altruistic calling is to serve others (Greenleaf,

1977). Servant leaders sacrifice self-interest for the employee‟s development, serving

others is the number one priority of servant leadership (Bass, 2000; Graham, 1991).

Servant leaders have a great wish or desire for positive development in

organizations, societies, and communities and individuals (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, &

Henderson, 2008). Much work has been done on altruism leadership and scholars (Avolio

38

& Locke, 2002; Block, 1996), in their works and studies have mentioned altruism

leadership. However, this characteristic was taken from the concept of servant leadership.

Emotional Healing. It is a special characteristic of a servant leader to develop

spiritual recovery of his followers from either hardship or shock. Both the above

characteristics in a servant leader facilitate the healing process and provide a caring

environment in which employees feel safe and share their different personal and

professional views (McCann, Graves & Cox, 2014). Rimes (2011), also mentioned in his

study, that emotional healing is the ability of leaders, who first identify the need of the

followers in an organization and then start the healing process. Emotional healing is the

ability of a leader to use the healing process and to advance the spiritual recovery of

employees from trauma and hardship (Barbuto. & Wheeler, 2006).

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), said that a servant leader creates an environment

which enables all to say professional and personal concerns. Researchers have identified

that the leaders should possess emotional healing to help employees to recover from

shock, problems, overcome broken dreams and build severed relationships with all the

work force of the organization (Dacher, 1999; Sturnick, 1998). McCann et al. (2014), in

his paper quoted the words of Barbuto and said emotional healing is a special

characteristic of a servant leader to develop spiritual recovery of his followers from either

hardship or shock. A servant leader in this aspect is very empathetic to others (Liden et al.,

2008).

Wisdom. As mentioned by McCann, Graves, and Cox (2014), it is an intuitive

ability in someone to understand organizational dynamics and make a decision by those

consequences. This feature of servant leadership is to think clearly about the prevailing

and upcoming situation. This intuitive ability enables him to observe and learn from the

39

surroundings, and to how the situation would influence not only every elements of the

organization but the organization as a whole.

This ability makes the leader a sharp observer and facilitates him/her to presume

what is ahead (Sosik. & Megerian, 1999). This dimension of servant leaders shows a

strong ability and logic of responsiveness (Sternberg, 2003). It is an ability to get cues

from the environment, and from that observation, the leader recognizes possible results

and its implications (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Servant leaders observe things, apply the

knowledge and prepare for possible action (Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000).

Persuasive Mapping. It is the capability of a leader to motivate and influence

others. Persuasive mapping is the ability of a leader to improve and use sound reasoning.

This ability of the leader motivates followers to predict the organization‟s direction, and

make them responsible for achieving that direction. This characteristic of servant

leadership is an ability to use a mental model to persuade logical thinking in employees

(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). The silent features of this dimension are articulating issues

and conceptualizing potentials (Barbuto.& Wheeler, 2006). The servant leaders have the

essential information to support and assess their subordinates (Liden et al., 2008; Travis,

Searle & Barbuto, 2010).

Organizational Stewardship. Organizational Stewardship as mentioned by

Melchar (2010), a manager‟s main focus to train members to participate and be involved

in society development programs. This characteristic in a servant leader encourages the

societal organization setting outside the organization, thereby enabling leaders to think for

the community and society as a whole. According to this dimension, the organization

should not only strive for profit maximization but should contribute positively to society

(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Organizational stewardship concept is similar to social

responsibility, meaning that the leaders should motivate the organization for community

40

development programs, for society, and for the environment (Travis, Searle & Barbuto,

2010).

This feature of servant leadership prepares the organization to behave ethically,

that will be benefitting not only for the community, and society but all the stakeholders as

well (Liden et al., 2008; Sendjayaet, Sarros, & Santora, 2008; Travis, Searle, Barbuto,

2010). As mentioned by Melcher (2010), leader also focuses on preparing an organization

to participate and be involved in society development programs. This type of characteristic

in a servant leader encourages the societal organization setting outside the organization.

McCann and his fellows in their study measured servant leadership behavior by

adopting SLQ. They applied SLQ in Rural Community Hospitals in the United States and

mailed 3942 surveys to ten hospitals. The study was conducted during 2013 and 2014.

Their study revealed that all the five facets in SLQ had a positive impact with

organizational performance and job satisfaction. They have also found that it has a

significant impact on members‟ satisfaction and that is extrinsic satisfaction. In their

findings, they have suggested that managers can improve their relations through servant

leadership behavior, which cannot only improve employee loyalty, job satisfaction but can

also increase customer satisfaction and loyalty (McCann, Graves & Cox, 2014).

41

Servant Leadership Areas

Education. Greenleaf (1977), mentioned that educational institutions play a

dominant role in leadership preparation, and he suggested that universities and colleges

should offer courses for outstanding students. Universities and colleges should educate

them how to look and search for new opportunities to support society. Though servant

leadership is new, it should be the priority in our educational institutions. This concept can

be spread through greater preparation and should be encouraged.

This concept was being used in educational and training programs. Many

organizations had provided training programs to those persons who were in the

supervision level. Corporations had also developed special courses in servant leadership to

provide training to their managers. Colleges and universities offered courses in servant

leadership based on the servant leadership model (Spears, 2004).

Business. Several organizations have used the servant leadership model and have

succeeded. The best example was West Jet Airline Ltd, based in Canada (Calgary) used

the servant leadership model, which achieved tremendous success and did well in the

competitive market. Many individual organizations have also adopted the servant

leadership model such as South West Airline (Dallas, Texas), Men‟s Wear House

(California), Starbucks (Washington), Service Mater Company (Illinois) and TD Industries

Texas (Rimes, 2011; Spears, 2005). According to Page and Wong (2004), conferences,

seminars, programs, and publications have been a good source of spreading the concept

and promotion of servant leadership. Many organizations have adopted servant leadership

and its aspects and have been succeeded in the competitive market.

Besides education and businesses, the servant leadership model has been adopted

by many profits and nonprofit organizations (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011). Many authors

have started research work in servant leadership, and have written on servant leadership as

42

it was first considered as an illogical concept of leadership. Today the concept of spiritual

leadership is accepted by many authors like John Carver, Max DePree, Margaret

Wheatley, Peter Senge, and James Kouzes are the few current authors who viewed that

servant leadership is a new paradigm of leadership in 21st century (Spears, 2010).

Higher Education System

In Pakistan, the higher education system comprises primarily of two major set ups:

one is public universities managed by the government, and the other is private universities

operated by private owners. Both universities are the backbone of the education sector as

they provide education and train students for their future development. An institution is a

symphony which is created by communities, who have different attitudes, approaches,

predictions, skills, levels of learning and have come jointly to accomplish the same

objectives and aims.

The objectives of the institutions in Peshawar, which the researcher selected as

population of the study, are to provide better education services to the society as a whole.

Learning organizations are executing a primary responsibility in the achievement and

growth of every country, by offering quality learning to the subsequent generation (Khan,

Farhatulla, Khan, Nawaz & Yar, 2013). The success of an educational organization mainly

depends on leadership style (Osseo-Asare, Longbottom & Murphy, 2005). The universities

must maintain highly-qualified academic staff ready to face educational changes in the

world. Performance and quality of education in a university largely depends on

supervisors and the leaders who are leading them. All these factors improve job

satisfaction, and job satisfaction leads to employees‟ loyalty and organizational

performance and effectiveness (Koesmono, 2014).

Servant leadership in many educational institutions has been applied, and the result

showed a good impact on faculty performance, job satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and

43

organizational performance. According to the higher education commission of Pakistan

(HEC), there are seventeen universities in Peshawar (Rehman, 2012). Eight universities

are in the public sector, and nine universities are in the private sector. This study was

conducted to see how the leaders of these different universities possess the servant

leadership behavior and characteristics, and to see its impact on faculty job satisfaction,

loyalty and organizational performance.

Servant Leadership in Higher Education Institutions

According to Ding et al. (2012), servant leadership behavior is important in higher

education. They conducted their research on students and employees and findings showed

that servant leadership behavior creates employees‟ loyalty, maintains the quality of

education and increases employees‟ performance. In the study of Koesmono (2014), which

he conducted in economic and management of private universities in east Surabaya,

Malaysia, the result demonstrated a significant relation between the job satisfaction and

servant leadership with a positive effect on job performance and organizational

commitment. Bass (2000), has also mentioned in his work that servant leadership can

impact the teaching faculty. He mentioned that there is a connection between college

teaching and servant leadership characteristic; it offers the opportunity to the faculty to

transform higher education.

Cerit (2010), mentioned in his study that there was a significant relation between

the teacher loyalty and performance and servant leadership behavior. He conducted his

study by collecting data from 563 teachers working in different schools in Turkey. The

result showed that behavior of servant leader was a significant predictor of teacher

dedication.

Scardino (2012), conducted his study on higher education faculty and servant

leadership and engagement with students. The study population was a Franciscan

44

institution of higher education. The result showed a positive association between servant

behavior of leaders on the faculty and engagement on students, and a link between servant

leadership and deep approaches to learning, with a strong connection to emotional healing.

Majauskaitė (2013), explained in his study which was conducted on the impact of job

satisfaction and leadership style of the academician in higher educations. The findings

revealed that there was a positive relationship between the behavior of the leader and job

satisfaction among the faculty.

Machumu and Kaitila (2014), conducted their study on leadership styles on

teacher‟s job satisfaction. They collected data from 200 school teachers, and the study

result showed a strong positive association among democratic leadership styles on job

satisfaction of the teachers. Today organization leaders should consider servant leadership,

as servant leadership can fulfill the organization‟s needs for more ethical and caring type

of leadership to meet the demand for those organizations who are more people oriented

(Ramli & Desa, 2014).

Employees’ Loyalty

Employees‟ loyalty started from the customer loyalty, and the scholars believe that

it plays a dominant role in the organizational development and maintains its sustainability

(Ding et al., 2012). Employees‟ loyalty is when a worker is dedicated to the success of the

organization, and thinking that laboring for it is their most excellent option. It is an

employee‟s current commitment to advocate the organization to outsiders by showing

personal affiliation with the organization (Solomon, 1992). Employees‟ loyal means when

workers have no regret to work and consider that the organization is the best choice for

them. It is the enthusiasm to stay with the organization (Pandey & Khare, 2012).

45

Employees‟ loyalty is the commitment of the worker to the organization, and think

that it is the best option; and they are committed to its success and do not search for

another alternative (The Loyalty Research Center, 1990). Most of the authors have written

on employees‟ loyalty; loyalty creates organizational citizenship behavior, which not only

retains them as they promote its image and interest to the public (Bentten Court, Gwinner

& Meuter, 2001).

Employees‟ loyalty is organizational citizenship behavior, and most scholars have

written on this behavior where they have mentioned different characteristics like the

employees‟ strong conviction and recognition of the organization‟s goals and values,

enthusiasm to use significant efforts for the organization‟s success, and well-built wish to

continue the relationship and membership in the organization (Mowday, Porter & Steers

1979).

Employees‟ are more loyal to those organizations that offer opportunities to learn,

grow and develop, and provide a clear career path, and other fringe benefits (Ding et al.,

2012). Most of the scholars and researchers have written that training and development is

one of the biggest factors that relate to the workers‟ loyalty. A few researchers pointed out

that employees‟ want a clear career path to grow and advance within the organization

(Walker & Boyne, 2005). Increasing the level of salary, providing a healthy and suitable

environment for work, working conditions, safety measurements, employees‟

engagements, development programs, career development, promotions all are crucial for

building employees‟ loyalty (Yin, Fin, Meng, Yin & Jack, 2012).

Yin et al. (2012), mentioned one of the elements to increase employees‟ loyalty is

telecommuting, as it can reduce the employee‟s traveling time, and help in maintaining

better work-life balance. Other elements such as self-education, job engagement,

improvement for employee and meeting other basic needs might increase employee

46

loyalty. Hart and Thompson (2007), stated that although researchers have done extensive

work on employees‟ loyalty, still there is no concise definition of it. The most important

work shows that there are three types of loyalties: behavioral, attitudinal, and

comprehensive loyalty.

The other aspect to enhance employees‟ loyalty can be reward. Rewards can be an

individual rewards, or team rewards, and performance based rewards. Rewards for an

individual should be based on individual performance, and includes the commission,

bonuses, annual increment, new salary and other types of benefits forms the individual

reward. Similarly, the team rewards depend on the team or specific projects and include all

financial benefits and another benefit are additional time, certificate of recognition (Vince,

2005).

Human Resource (HR) practices also play a dominant role in employees‟ loyalty.

Human resource involves different practices like calculating employee salary and making

the payroll, and organizing an employee training and development program, employee

planning, employees‟ benefits programs, safe working environment, administration of

pension, are all important tasks of the HR manager. Good and sound HR practices can not

only improve the employees‟ loyalty, but it can enhance the productivity level of the

employees as well that can be beneficial not only for the organization but also for their

stakeholders (Vince, 2005; Yin et al., 2012). The same is with the job satisfaction as well.

A study was conducted by Fosam (1998), results showed a strong link between

employees‟ loyalty and job satisfaction. They have summed up their research by finding

some of the variables that greatly contributed in employees‟ loyalty and is more effective

in job satisfaction. These are team work and cooperation, recognition and rewards, relation

with supervisor and working conditions. They have also mentioned that employer-

employee relation is strongly correlated with employees‟ loyalty.

47

Today, most of the Western scholars have started work on servant leadership and

employees‟ loyalty relation. Servant leadership behavior contributes to good organization

culture, and this enhances employees‟ loyalty (Liden et al., 2008).

Dimensions of Employees’ Loyalty

In this study, employees‟ loyalty has four dimensions, they are: commitment,

motivation, belongingness, career development (Pandey & Khare, 2012). The dimension

which was used in this study for employees‟ loyalty was adopted from the study of Pandey

and Khare (2012). They identified the following dimensions after factor analysis of 19

items that contributed to employees‟ loyalty:

Commitment. Commitment includes the employee‟s positive attitude and

behavior with the organization like speaking positively, not changing the organization,

working for the organization, enjoying when discussing the organization and feels

attached.

Motivation. As mentioned by Pandey and Khare (2012), this factor emerged one

important determinant of employees‟ loyalty. They mentioned different aspects of

motivation like suggesting my employer to another employee; clearly define roles and

responsibility, recommend the organization to friends, growing with this organization.

Belongingness. The main elements which comprise this aspect are strong

belonging to my organization, loyal to my organization; organization problems are my

own and committed to the organization‟s success.

Career Development. The main elements which comprise this aspect are: fulfill

my career goals, take pride in my work, in future will continue my job in this organization,

and will look for ways and means to improve organizational efficiency.

48

Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty

As mentioned previously, employees‟ loyalty originated from customer loyalty,

and most of the researchers have this view that without these two loyalties an organization

cannot survive in this competitive dynamic market (Wang, Ling & Zhang, 2009). Riketta

and Dick (2005), pointed out in their research that servant leadership has a great impact on

job satisfaction, thereby enhancing employees‟ loyalty; servant leadership cannot directly

influence employees‟ loyalty.

The work of Ladin et al. (2008), showed that facet of servant leadership, which is

helping followers development and growth, has a encouraging influence on employees‟

commitment and loyalty. The work of Dubinsky and Skinner demonstrated that care of

employee‟s create commitment and improves loyalty and devotion (Ding et al., 2012).

Jaramillo (2009), studied full time sale staff of an organization, and concluded that servant

leader behavior develops devotion, which enhances commitment and finally all these

factors result in staff retention and improves loyalty (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko &

Roberts, 2009). Mahembe and Engelbrecht (2014), conducted a study on 38 schools by

drawing data from 288 school teachers in Western Cape in South Africa to know the effect

of servant leadership on team effectiveness and organizational citizenship by using SLQ.

Their findings revealed that servant leadership behavior was promoting positive behavior

on team effectiveness resulting in employees‟ satisfaction, increase in job performance

and employees‟ loyalty.

Sokoll (2014), revealed that servant leadership has a significant positive impact on

employee commitment, and these commitments increase employee and supervisor

relationship, which directly increases employees‟ loyalty and organization performance.

David and Susan (2010), conducted their study in a United States automobile dealership

by adopting the servant leadership model and measured the dimension of servant

49

leadership model through SLQ. They have used the self-rater and employee- rater version

of SLQ.

Organizational Performance

Performance means the level of accomplishment and achievement. Organizational

performance can be measured with the predefined goals or objectives by an organization

whether they are achieving the goals or not (Keban, 1995; Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014).

Performance is the collective activity of the organization‟s components and its members to

realize the objective of the organization (Bass, 2000). Performance is also the collective

administrative activity striving to achieve the organization‟s objective and goals set by the

management and to use the management system appropriately which will be beneficial for

all the units of the organization (Bastian, 2001). Many researchers have written that

performance is the result of the system and components of the organization while using

some specific inputs or sources (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014).

Organizational performance can also be measured from strategic objectives,

contribution to economy and customer and employee satisfaction (Armstrong, Michael &

Baron, Angela 1998). Some of the researchers have also mentioned that organizational

performance can enhance not only organizations profit, but also benefit society as a whole.

Writers have mentioned that those organizations can improve when they increase all unit

or business profit or operation, and by serving the community and contributing to the local

government (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014).

The main purpose of managing organizational performance is to have efficient and

productive performance with all elements of the organization, and stimulate its members

to participate actively (Subandi, 2008). Bass (2000), has mentioned in his work, that

organizational performance can increase from human resources, and can decrease

consequently when there are poor skill and less quality work force. He further mentioned

50

that an organization leader could play a dominant role in organization productivity and its

culture setting.

Many organizations have a mission and vision, so it is imperative to have a leader

who has a vision and mission to serve its members, employees, and community as a

whole. The main purpose of the universities too is to serve the community and students.

University performance can only be enhanced when there is someone who has a feeling to

serve the people and community. Such a person may become the leader to enhance

university efficiency, productivity, image and quality of education and faculty teaching

methodology.

Bass (2000), has mentioned that servant leadership is a good style to manage such

an organization whose priority is in serving the community. Thus leaders must have the

skill and moral value to serve society and the community. Irving and Justin (2005), stated

in their study that there was a positive relation between organizational performance, job

satisfaction with the impact of servant leadership.

Schleicher, Watt, and Greguras (2004), in their studies had summed up that there

was greater consistency between organizational performance and job satisfaction. They

had further mentioned that satisfaction of job affects organizational performance in terms

of quality, efficiency and development, as well as productivity. They further mentioned

effective cognitive work impacts organizational performance.

Dimensions of Organizational Performance

Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014), mentioned about the indicators of organizational

performance, which were taken from the source of Regulation of Minister of Cooperatives

and Small Medium Enterprises of Indonesia. They explained that the six indicators of

organizational performance are: the better organizational performance, having an active

unit business, cohesiveness and members‟ participation, serving the community,

51

contributing to the local government and serving member oriented. However, these

dimensions were suggested for cooperatives and small to medium enterprises.

Katou and Budhwar (2010), Chenhall and Lang field-Smith (2007), have used

these dimensions for manufacturing and service industries and they are: development,

innovation, and quality and effectiveness. The researcher has used these dimensions for

this study in measuring the performance of universities and some questions from the study

of Amen et al. (2014), which were included to get reliable data.

Development. Development dimension of the organizational performance includes

items such as organizational development within its capacity to meet future opportunities

and challenges to achieve the organizational goals. For example, plans for career and

development of employees and new executive and development program for the faculty.

Quality. Quality means producing products of high quality. Here quality is used

concerning universities and the education imparted to students. Moreover, the question is,

do some universities produce students with high quality education as compared to other

universities?

Innovation. Innovation in the sense of improved products and processes, good

research environment, produce scholarly publication and citation.

Efficiency. Efficiency means the organization‟s effectiveness by using the least

resources to achieve its objectives.

Servant Leader and Organizational Performance

Aderson (2005), carried out a study to find the impact of servant leadership on

team effectiveness. The result showed that servant leadership behavior impacts positively

on team effectiveness and increases organizational performance. Anderson and Kelly

(2005), identified in their study that there is relationship between job satisfaction and

52

servant leadership, which impacts organizational effectiveness that ultimately increases

organizational performance.

Ololube and Nwachukwa (2006), also mentioned in their study that behavior of

servant leaders has a significant relation with organizational effectiveness, and this

effectiveness forms a good relation with the team‟s effectiveness. In the study of the US

and Philippines educational cooperation, it was revealed that there is a positive relation

between job satisfaction, organizational commitment and servant leadership, resulting in a

significant association organizational performance and servant leadership (Ritteka &

Michael, 2008).

David and Susan (2010), stated in their study that the dimension of servant

leadership has a strong relationship with team effectiveness, and this effectiveness

increases organizational performance in those organizations that have used the servant

leadership style. Ololube and Nwachukwa (2006), conducted their research on the

organizational effectiveness and servant leadership. The result showed that there was a

significant positive impact of servant leadership on organizational effectiveness and

performance. There is a great relation between employee attitude and organizational

performance; if employees‟ are satisfied organizational performance increased

(Armstrong, Michael and Baron, Angela, 1998; Schleicher, Deidra, Watt, John, Greguras

& Gary 2004).

Ololube and Nwachukwa (2006), conducted their study on the association among

organizational effectiveness and servant leadership. The result showed that there was a

positive relationship between effective servant leadership on organizational effectiveness

and team performance. Irvin and Justin (2005), also conducted studies on job satisfaction

and motivational level of faculty/teachers performance and among the findings were that

53

job satisfaction and work motivation had a significant effect on organizational efficiency

and performance.

Tajammal and Wajid (2012), conducted their study on the impact of servant

leadership on job performance. They distributed a questionnaire among 400 engineers

from a defense organization in Pakistan. They used the factor analysis, reliability analysis

and SEM to analyze the data. Among their findings were the significant implication of

technical management organization to get help from servant leadership behavior to

enhance the organization and job performance.

Job Satisfaction

It fits between what the organization/association needs and what the representative

is looking for and accepting. It is not only an attitude, it is more than this. It is the inward

sentiment a man with respect to accomplishment that might be subjective or quantitative.

It is affected by management style and culture, employee involvement, autonomous and

empowerment work of groups (Mullins, 1999; Sweeny & Macfarlane, 2002). Individual

expectation develops job satisfaction and employees‟ loyalty as mentioned by Herzberg in

his two-factor theory of motivation. It is a positive and upbeat enthusiastic state which one

understands from one's esteem (Ding et al., 2012). It is person‟s feeling of their job

appraisal and composed of different aspects, like working environment and compensation

(Ilies & Judge, 2004).

Mullins further examines it and mentioned that it is between what the business

requires and what the person is looking for, seeking and receiving. He further points out

that job satisfaction level is affected by different variables like: a) individual factors such

as age, income, education status, marital status, personality, intelligence, capabilities, and

orientation to work; b) social factors such as affiliation with colleagues and group working

opportunity for interaction; c) culture factors that is value, attitude and beliefs; d)

54

organizational dynamics such as management styles, supervision, structure, size, policies,

rules and regulations, employees relation, working condition and; e) natural factors, for

example, financial, social, mechanical/technological and government impacts (Adeniji,

2011; Mullins, 1999).

The most important aspects which are listed by Obisis (2003), which adds to job/work

support are: job security, satisfactory salary, a chance for growth; optimistic and

supportive environment; the high-quality working conditions, the pleasant relation

between superior and subordinate, good relation with co- workers and colleagues.

Adeniji (2011), mentioned the factors of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction about

organizational ambiance between the faculty members in private universities in southern

Nigeria such as: a) proper managerial approach; b) supervisors supports; c) staff work

load; d) performance feedback; e) co- workers support and core of communication; f)

compensation benefits; g) development opportunities.

Hertzberg‟s theory was concerned with features that stood accountable for

dissatisfaction and satisfaction of workers. Hertzberg‟s motivation included the first

dimension as the hygiene factor, and the second dimension is motivator factors. Hygiene

factor involves the presence or absence of job dissatisfaction. They are also known as the

maintenance factors and includes, pay/salary, interpersonal relation with co-workers and

supervisors, working conditions, personnel policies, status, security, supervision and

organization policy and administration. When these factors are poor, the worker is

dissatisfied, and when these factors are good so less dissatisfaction (Adeniji, 2011).

Whereas, the motivator factors include those variables which motivate people and

persuade satisfaction in job like: appreciation and recognition, accomplishment, work-

itself, responsibility and accountability, the chance for growth and advancement (Judge et

al., 2001; Luthans, 2002).

55

Managers make use of incentive programs to motivate and satisfy their work force,

but no amount of money can translate into job satisfaction and motivation (Toloposky,

2000). The work of Fajana (2002), has also identified long range factors which affect the

worker level of satisfaction such as: leadership which is a concern for participation, task,

job design, social relation, working condition, chances for opportunities and need

achievement.

In a work place no one can exactly determine job satisfaction; the reason is that

most employees‟ try not to talk about the level of satisfaction in the organization.

Moreover, it becomes difficult for management to find out whether satisfaction in job is

practiced in the work place or not (Cockburn & Haydn, 2004). They have also further

mentioned that some employees even do not mention that they have a job or career

satisfaction problem. Therefore, it is next to impossible to fathom out the factors which

create job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in an organizational work place (Cockburn &

Haydn, 2004).

Determinants of Job Satisfaction

The extent literature showed that job satisfaction is the main factor which impacts

the workers performance and overall organization efficiency. Performance may affect a

worker‟s ability as well as the organizational environment and the level of supervision.

Job satisfaction may affect productivity, efficiency, turnover ratio, absenteeism, employee-

employer relation (Baron, 1996, Maghradi, 1999). Satisfaction also impacts the

organizational performance, commitment, relation with supervisor and overall

productivity of an organization. When there is no recognition of employees‟ through

promotion and salary, the satisfaction levels tends to be low (Adeniji, 2011).

Adeniji (2011), studied the two factors of Hertzberg‟s theory which centers on job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The two factor theory comprises of two dimensions: the

56

first being hygiene factor and the second dimension is motivator factors. Hygiene factor

involves the presence or absence of job dissatisfaction. They are also known as the

maintenance factor and includes, pay/salary, interpersonal relation with coworkers and

supervisors, working condition, personnel policies, status, security supervision and

organization policy and administration. When these factors are poor the worker is

disgruntled, and when removed the worker will be satisfied.

While the motivator factors include those elements which in fact induce people and

persuade satisfaction and include: recognition, achievement, work itself, responsibility,

opportunity for growth and advancement (Judge et al., 2001). Smith, Kindall and Hulin

(1969), have considered five categories as the most relevant to job satisfaction in ones

work place, they are: promotion, pay, supervision, co-workers and work itself.

Locke (1976), mentioned some other aspects in job satisfaction in the work of

Smith as above. The facets which were added by Locke were: working conditions,

recognition, organization and management.

In one model developed by Hackman and Oldham (1976), which is known as Job

Characteristic Model (JCM), they have focused on five main job characteristics. They

argued that these characteristics play a dominant part in work satisfaction and minimize

the chances of withdrawal of employees, which are: Task significance: which means how

the task is important and significant; Task identity: the task from beginning to the end;

Autonomy: discretion on the job by the workers; Skills variety: job allows workers to do

a variety of tasks; Feedback: how the employee is performing the job, which can be seen

from one‟s job performance.

As mentioned by Adeniji (2011), in his research thesis that Gibson, Ivancevich and

Donnelly (1997), and Luthman (1998), have identified some factors of job satisfaction

like: job promotion opportunities, co-workers, supervision and salaries.

57

Silver, Poulin and Manning (1997), presented dimensions of job satisfaction, they

are: individual facets such as attitudes and values etc; intrinsic benefits such as problem

solving challenges and opportunity to be creative and; extrinsic rewards such as working

hours, wages, organizational climate and benefits. Fajana (2002), identified factors like,

job design, leadership, social relation, working condition, need achievement, perceived

opportunities, and level of aspiration. Adeniji (2011), identified factors like: appropriate

administrative style, work load, support from supervisor, feedback from performance,

clear line of communication, promotional opportunities and salary and packages.

Dimensions of Job Satisfaction for this Study

The extent literature presents different views which constitute job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction as explained in previous discussion. The current study briefly explains job

satisfaction dimensions which are taken from the Minnesota satisfaction survey

questionnaire (MSQ). The MSQ has very detailed questions which cover the entire

previous dimensions discussed here. This study used the short question form of MSQ. All

the previous dimensions of job satisfaction come in the short form satisfaction survey

questionnaire. Therefore, in this research the questions adopted from this section are from

Minnesota satisfaction survey which is more concise and contains full details of each

aspects of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is categorized into intrinsic satisfaction and

extrinsic satisfaction.

58

Intrinsic Satisfaction. It means an inner or internal feeling of satisfaction by the

employees‟. This facet includes 4 items. Intrinsic satisfaction according to the Minnesota

Survey is, employees own judgment freedom, feeling of achievement from the job, to use

own methods while performing the job or task, the job provides steady employment,

chance to say to others what to do and work alone on the job (Minnesota satisfaction

survey, 1967).

Extrinsic Satisfaction. It means an external feeling of satisfaction by employees

from the job such as esteem, recognition, promotion, chances of growth and development.

These facets consist 4 items. According to the Minnesota satisfaction survey extrinsic

satisfaction are: pay and amount of work to do, the competence of supervisor in making

decision, remuneration packages, the companies policies and rules and regulation, chance

of advancement in job, opportunities to express professional development needs

(Minnesota Satisfaction Survey,1967).

________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Job Satisfaction of the Study

The researcher has developed this model keeping in mind all the related previous

studies, and the details are given in the above pages.

Intrinsic

satisfaction

Extrinsic

satisfaction

Job satisfaction

59

Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction as Mediator

Thompson (2010), in his dissertation concluded, that to increase employees‟

loyalty, the servant leadership model with job satisfaction as a mediator, had a significant

impact on employees‟ loyalty. Shekari and Nikooparvar (2012), conducted their study on

teachers to see the relationship of job satisfaction and servant leadership. The result

showed a positive relationship between job satisfaction and servant leadership and

employees‟ loyalty that teachers intended to stay long in the institutions.

Ding et al. (2012), mentioned that leaders of the today‟s organizations are trying to

establish a harmonious relationship with the employees. In previous studies it has been

found that transformational approach has a great impact on worker satisfaction, but recent

studies findings showed that servant leadership is getting a good response from the

researchers and business community. Jenkins and Stewart (2008), in their research on

nursing staff, found that if leaders are more enthusiastic in service, then there is every

chance to bring more satisfaction to employees. In another study by Mehta & Pillay

(2011), conducted in India, showed that leaders who are more aware of the service and

servant leadership behavior, impact positively on employees‟ satisfaction.

Babin, Lee, Kim, and Griffin (2005), and Jones, Reynolds and Arnold (2006), have

conducted different studies in which they have studied the role of job satisfaction on

employees‟ loyalty. The result showed a positive relation between employees‟ loyalty and

satisfaction. Job satisfaction minimizes perceived risk and maximizes positive emotion,

and this element brings in employees‟ more sense of organizational commitment and

consequently the employees‟ tend to remain with the organization (Ding et al., 2012).

However, it has been proved that servant leadership has a positive impact on job

satisfaction, and job satisfaction has a positive influence on organizational performance

and employees‟ loyalty (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). Many studies finding showed that

60

job satisfaction plays a role on employees‟ loyalty, and concluded that employees‟

satisfaction has a significant relation with loyalty (Jones, Reynolds & Arnold, 2006;

Babin, Griffin, Lee & Kim, 2005).

The servant leader style is the antecedent of employees‟ satisfaction, and it

decreases job hopping and reduces employee turnover. The servant leader cannot directly

influence employees‟ loyalty because an employee‟s commitment with the leader is much

important and employees‟ satisfaction impacts loyalty (Wright & Bonett, 2007). West,

Bud and Bocarnea, Mihai (2008), conducted their research on nurses, and the results

showed a strong relationship between nurses‟ satisfaction and servant leadership.

Tajammal and Wajid (2012), in their study on the impact of servant leadership on job

performance by distributing a questionnaire among 400 engineers from a defense

organization in Pakistan found that there is significant relationship between technical

management organization and servant leadership behavior which results in enhancing the

organizational and job performance.

Guillaume, Honeycutt and Savage-Austin (2013), conducted their study on job

satisfaction and servant leadership in a private university in Atlanta, using SLQ (Servant

Leadership Questionnaire and the Minnesota Satisfaction Survey for data collection). The

data showed that a positive link between servant leadership and job satisfaction. Adopting

the servant leadership style can not only improve the employees‟ loyalty, but also

managers have to consider person needs to get better mental satisfaction. Employees‟

satisfaction has played an intervening role between employees‟ loyalty and servant

leadership that has occupied 77% correlation (Ding, Lu, Song & Lu, 2012).

Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction

As explained in detail in the previous section that how servant leadership impacts

employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance with mediation role of job satisfaction.

61

Mediation role can easily be understood from the model provided by Baron and Kenny

(1986). The model was also discussed by Rahman (2012), in his study with detailed

clarification. This study has used the model provided by Baron and Kenny for the role of

mediator.

According to Baron and Kenny, a variable can be named as a mediator when an

exogenous variable altogether influences it (mediator). The exogenous variable

significantly affects the indigenous variables, and the mediator affects the indigenous

variables as shown in the path diagram. By adding the mediator, the effect of exogenous

variable on indigenous variable shrinks. An explanation is given here in the following

Figure 2.

a b

c

Figure 2 Explaining Mediation Role (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

Job Satisfaction, Employees’ Loyalty, and Organizational Performance

Many findings showed job satisfaction and servant leadership role on employees‟

loyalty and organizational performance and concluded that employees‟ satisfaction has a

positive relation with loyalty and performance (Babin, Griffin, Lee, Kim, 2005; Lisbijanto

& Budiyanto, 2014). Anderson and Kelly (2005), also identified in their study that there is

a relationship between job satisfaction and servant leadership, and this relationship

impacts organizational effectiveness which ultimately increases organizational

performance and employees‟ loyalty (Irvin & Justin, 2005).

Mediator

Dependent

Variables

Independent

Variables

62

Amadeo and Carol (2008), conducted 16 studies on organizational performance,

organizational loyalty/commitment and job satisfaction. The findings showed that there is

a strong impact of commitment and job satisfaction, on organizational performance. Yao,

Huang and Fan (2008), studied the job satisfaction and employees‟ loyalty from two

aspects. First they mentioned that it reduced perceived risk and maximized positive

emotions. Second, these things create a good feeling and ultimately result in pleasure and

good work result. Chang, Chiu and Chen (2010), have also mentioned the same result

from their study. When the employees‟ satisfaction is low, employee turnover increases

and when employee satisfaction is high it reduces the employee turnover. So employee

and job satisfaction has a positive impact on employees‟ loyalty (Alfonso & Andres 2007;

Chee, Haddad & Singh, 2007; Falkenburg & Schyns, 2007; Wagner, 2007).

Servant Leadership, Job Satisfaction, Employees’ Loyalty & Organizational

Performance

Servant leadership is not similarly as an administration method, yet a lifestyle

which begins when one needs to serve first (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Servant leadership

positively affects work satisfaction which thusly positively affects organizational

execution and employees' commitment and loyalty (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014).

Anderson and Kelly (2005), also identified from their study that there is a correlation

between servant leadership and job satisfaction. The work of Ladin et al. (2008),

statistically proved that the facet of servant leadership that is helping subordinates grow

and succeed has a positive influence on employees‟ loyalty/commitment. Dubinsky and

Skinner revealed that concern of employees creates commitment and improves loyalty

(Ding et al., 2012). They argued that servant leadership behavior would influence job

satisfaction and this will turn impacts commitment/loyalty and organizational

performance.

63

Other studies reported that servant leadership will increase employees‟ loyalty and

job satisfaction (Jones, Reynolds, Arnold, 2006; Jenkins & Stewart 2008; Lisbijanto &

Budiyanto, 2014; Sweeny & Macfarlane, 2002; Wright & Bonett, 2007).

Blanchard (2007), cited in his work that Huselid and Becker (n.d.) studied round

about 1500 firms, and found that servant leadership practices had improved job

satisfaction, increased productivity, improved employee retention and increased the

organization‟s market value. Riketta (2008), conducted the study on servant leadership

impact on organizational performance, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in

educational cooperation in the United States. The study statistically showed that there was

a positive link between behavior of servant leaders and organizational performance.

Chang, Chiu, and Chen (2010), pointed out that high qualified exchange relation

between supervisors and subordinates will increase employees‟ satisfaction, which will in

turn improve employee commitment, and they will stay for long in the organization and

thus increase employees‟ loyalty (Cheung & Wu, 2012). Kasun (2009), in his dissertation

on servant leadership and public school principals by using Self-Assessment of Servant

Leadership (SASL) to collect data from 70 school principals in New Jersey found that

there was significant impact of servant leadership characteristics on principal‟s

performance, and due to this leadership characteristics they were successful in making

New Jersey schools as one of the top schools among other public institutions.

Christina (2011), conducted a survey research on servant leadership, and student

professional affairs, and used SLQ in her study. The instrument consisted of 266

questionnaires and was distributed among the students. Her findings illustrated that

servant leadership behavior exists in the association of college union International

(ACUI), and all the students are satisfied with their behavior. Jose and Mampilly (2012),

have also mentioned in the study that HR practices have a great impact on job satisfaction

64

and organizational performance that leads to employees‟ loyalty. Ramli and Desa (2014),

conducted their study on different organizations in Malaysia. They distributed 200

questionnaires randomly in different organizations. They found that there is a significant

relationship between the servant leadership behavior and organizational commitment with

the mediating role of trust. They further found that all these things increase organizational

performance and job satisfaction of the employees‟. The result showed that all the facets

of servant leadership were above the average point, and concluded that servant leadership

behavior is a model behavior for all other types of leadership, and through this behavior

manger can create healthy organizational culture which may foster job satisfaction and

employees‟ loyalty.

Mahembe and Engelbrecht (2014), conducted study on 38 schools and data was

drawn from 288 school teachers in Western Cape in South Africa. They used servant

leadership dimension model SLQ to know the effect of servant leadership on

organizational citizenship and team effectiveness; the data revealed that the servant

leadership conduct supports positive behavior on team effectiveness, which creates

employees‟ satisfaction and increases job performance and employees‟ loyalty.

Tahira, Hussain, and Saadi (2015), conducted their study on higher education

institutions in Pakistan. They had used the population of universities of Punjab. The result

statistically showed that there was a significant relation between the role of chairs and the

quality of education. It will not only enhance job satisfaction but increases organizational

performance. It was also recommended in this study that there should be proper training to

chairs and department heads to improve skills and ability further.

Sokoll (2014), in his study conducted on full-time university employees in the US,

and distributed questionnaire to 149 out of 207 full-time employees which was adopted

from Field & Winston servant leadership instrument. His findings showed that servant

65

leadership has a significant positive impact on employees‟ commitment, and these

commitments increase employee and supervisor relationship which directly increases

employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

The researcher has drawn this conceptual model of the study by exploring some

diverse studies on job satisfaction and servant leadership and its relation to employees‟

loyalty and organizational performance. The studies of some of researchers and scholars

having contributed to this conceptual model are: servant leadership and organizational

outcome of job satisfaction; employees‟ loyalty was taken from the work of “Relationship

of Servant Leadership and Employees‟ Loyalty” Mediating Role of Employees‟

Satisfaction carried out by Ding, Lu, Song and Lu, (2012); organizational performance

from the study of Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014) and McCann, Graves and Cox, (2014).

The job satisfaction variable was taken from the study of Adeniji (2011) and from

the study “Effect of servant leadership on followers‟ job performance” (Tajammal &

Wajid, 2012), employees‟ loyalty and job satisfaction concept was taken from Pandy and

Khare, (2012). The additional studies included were Achieving High Organization

Performance through Servant Leadership (Melchar & Susan, 2010), impact of servant

leadership on job satisfaction (Guillaume, Honeycutt & Savage-Austin, 2013).

This research model was made under the guidance of models of Lisbijanto and

Budiyanto (2014), McCann, Graves and Cox, (2014), Ding, Lu, Song and Lu (2012), and

these studies mentioned that servant leadership impacts employees‟ loyalty when job

satisfaction mediates, and servant leadership impacts organizational performance when

employee satisfaction mediates.

The previous studies were taken individually and in different organizations while,

the present study has used collectively all the variables that are the meditational role of job

66

satisfaction between servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational

performance in universities of Peshawar. There is a dearth of research on servant

leadership in educational institutions in Peshawar, but with the above literature and studies

as discussed in the previous pages it has been theorized that servant leadership impacts

organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty when job satisfaction mediates in the

education institutions of Peshawar. The researcher has developed the conceptual

framework, which not only help to the executives level to get help while making strategy

or policy at university level but it will also examine the association of these constructs

and their interdependencies on each other as given by Figure 3:

Based on the above framework the following assumptions were tested to get answers to

the research questions for this study.

Altruistic

calling

Servant

Leadership

Employee

Loyalty

Job

Satisfaction

Organizational

Performance

Emotional

healing

Wisdom

Persuasive

mapping

Organizational Stewardship

H6

Figure 3 Conceptual Model of the Study

H2, H2a, H2b

H1, H1a, H1b

H3, H3a, H3b H 4

H

H 5

H

67

Research Hypotheses

The following will be the research hypothesis which will be tested to verify the

answers to the research questions.

H1: Servant leadership is positively related to organizational performance.

H1a Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership affect

organizational performance positively.

H1b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship dimensions of

servant leadership are positively related to organizational performance.

H2: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and employees‟ loyalty.

H2a Servant leadership dimensions like altruistic calling and emotional healing are

positively related to employees‟ loyalty.

H2b: Servant leadership facets like wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational

stewardship are positively impact employees‟ loyalty.

H3: Servant leadership has a positive relation with job satisfaction.

H3a Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership affect job or

employees‟ satisfaction positively.

H3b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship dimensions of

servant leadership are positively related to job satisfaction.

H4: There is a positive relation between job satisfaction and employees‟ loyalty.

H5: job satisfaction is positively related to organizational performance.

H6: job satisfaction mediates the association between servant leadership, employees‟

loyalty, and organizational performance.

68

Rationale of the Study

Different studies have been done to know what increases employees‟ loyalty and

organizational or job performance, and to know the relationships between these variables.

It is critical to identify factors that impact employees‟ loyalty and organizational

performance in higher education institutions to maintain and provide quality education to

society and the community. Recent studies revealed that servant leadership behavior (see

Table 9) play a dominant role in employees‟ loyalty and commitment, as well as

organizational and job performance. The extent literature shows the impact of servant

leadership on employees‟ loyalty, commitment, job satisfaction, work motivation,

organizational commitment, and job and organization performance. The resulting passages

are identified with work done by researchers on servant leadership by diverse but vital

linked variables

In the study of Koesmono (2014), which he conducted in economic and

management private universities in East Surabaya, the result showed a positive relation

between servant leadership and job satisfaction, and also a positive effect on

organizational commitment and job performance. Cerit (2010), conducted a study on

effect of servant leadership on teachers‟ commitment, the findings empirically proved

positive relationship between behavior of servant leadership and teacher‟s commitment.

Machumu and Kaitila (2014), conducted study on leadership styles and teachers‟

satisfaction. The study conducted on school teachers revealed that there was positive

relation between the variables. Scardino (2012), conducted study in higher education

titled: “the Influence of servant-Led faculty on student engagement” which showed that

servant leadership behavior not only impacts faculty satisfaction but also influence student

engagement.

69

Anderson (2005), conducted his research by collecting data from religious

educational organizations. His study showed a significant relation between servant

leadership and job satisfaction. West and Bocârnea (2008), worked on nurses job

satisfaction and servant leadership behavior. By collecting data from registered nurses

working at different hospitals revealed that there is positive impact of servant leadership

on nurses‟ satisfaction. Jenkins and Stewart (2008), conducted their research on different

health care management to find out the relation of servant leadership oriented behavior on

job satisfaction and employees‟ commitment. The results showed that there is positive

relationship between the variables. Vondy (2010), conducted a study on organizational

citizenship and servant leadership. The findings revealed that there is positive effect of

servant leadership on employees‟ loyalty.

Coetzer, Bussin, and Geldenhuys (2017), conducted their study by reviewing

different literatures from different countries and summarized that servant leadership

played a dominant role in employees‟ loyalty and organizational outcomes. Ryckman

(2017), mentioned that in army, implementing servant leadership behavior not only caused

job satisfaction but also created loyalty in junior officers to their jobs

Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014), collected data from 396 employees, 132

chairpersons and 132 workers cooperatives and requested them to answer organizational

performance variables. The study revealed that servant leadership has a positive impact on

job satisfaction but little impact on organizational performance.

Chang et al. (2010), study revealed that leadership style like servant leadership,

empowering, team work and rewarding have a positive impact on job satisfaction,

resulting in employees‟ loyalty. Ding et al. (2012), conducted their research in China,

collected data from 186 participants using the SEM method found that there is a

significant relationship between the servant leadership behavior and employees‟ loyalty.

70

Schneider and George (2011), have identified in their study carried out in a

voluntary service organization. This study was conducted by selecting eight clubs of a

national voluntary service organization. The main purpose of their study was to see the

impact of servant leadership or transformational leadership on member commitment,

intentions, and satisfaction to stay in the club. For this purpose, they had collected data

from 110 respondents through a questionnaire or online survey. The club presidents

completed the survey of leadership. They concluded that servant leadership explained

more the commitment and attitudes of members of the service organization than the

transformational leadership with the mediating effect of empowerment.

The study of McCann et al. (2014), which they conducted in United States rural

community hospitals, revealed that servant leadership and employee satisfaction are highly

correlated with each other. They conducted 219 surveys from 10 community hospitals.

The final result showed that behavior of servant leadership, organizational performance

and employee satisfaction have a positive correlation.

David and Susan (2010), in their study conducted in a high performing automobile

dealership in the United States. Results showed that all factors of servant leadership have a

significant influence on high organizational performance. Many studies have proved that

the employee satisfaction has a role on employees‟ loyalty, and came to the conclusion

that employee satisfaction has a significant positive relation with loyalty of the employees‟

(Arnold, Jones & Reynolds, 2006; Babin, Kim, Lee and Griffin, 2005). Jaramillo (2009),

studied full time sale staff of an organization and concluded that servant leader behavior

first develops organizational adjustment, which creates commitment and in turn reduces

staff retention and enhance loyalty (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts, 2009).

71

After reviewing the available literature, the researcher concluded that numbers of

authors worked on servant leadership, job satisfaction and organizational performance,

separately or in some combination but organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty

with job satisfaction and servant leadership got limited literature, particularly in

universities. The same is the case with public and private universities in Pakistan.

Therefore, this study will focus the servant leadership impact on organizational

performance and servant leadership on employees‟ loyalty and the mediating role of job

satisfaction between the servant leadership and employees‟ loyalty and servant leadership

and organizational performance in public and private sector universities in Peshawar.

72

Chapter 3

Methodology

The research aims at studying the behavior of servant leader in universities, and to

analyze its impact on the faculty satisfaction, their loyalty and organizational performance.

This chapter will discuss the method used to achieve the research objectives, the sample

and its size, participants, the instruments and method used in collecting the data, statistical

tools and SEM for data analysis.

Philosophy of Research

The philosophy of research is concerned with the extension and characteristics of

knowledge (Rehman, 2012). In social science and business research, research philosophy

helps the researchers to know and to pick up the right research strategy (Johnson & Clrak,

2006). It consists of three main types of philosophies: realism, positivism and interpretive

(Sanunder, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Interpretivism is an approach of social sciences

research and usually uses to conduct qualitative studies. Realism philosophy is based on

assumptions of scientific approach of the knowledge development and generally relies on

combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques.

This study is based on positivism approach just because the researcher is

examining a theory through assumptions. The researcher assumes that servant leadership

behavior builds job satisfaction in organization, which will further enhance employees‟

loyalty and organizational performance.

Research Approach

It is based on two main approaches, such as: inductive and deductive approach and

is proposed in the chosen philosophy of research (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).

73

Inductive research approach is applied in cases where the researcher is a particular

set of facts or ideas to establish new theory on the basis of available literature, however, in

the deductive way of research the researcher works on the already available theory. To

conduct this type of research quantitative techniques are used to test the theory. The

researcher has used positivism research philosophy and deductive research approach to

test the theory.

Survey Design

Different strategies can be used by the researchers to conduct their research works

based on preferences and nature of study. Strategy used in this study is survey and related

with deductive research approach. Hence, deductive and quantitative approach is used for

this study to collect data. This study is based on survey. Survey includes observation,

interviews, electronic mails and questionnaire. Therefore, questionnaire survey was used

in this study to collect data. The principal objective is to find out that how the target

population of the research conceive and respond. They were only asked about the

questions. The selected population for the current study is the faculty members of

universities in Peshawar.

Research Strategy

Research strategy is a plan which helps the researcher to best pick research

methodology to answer the research questions (Afridi, 2017; Rehman, 2012). As

mentioned by Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009), and Rehman (2012), that there are

two major approach of research strategies such as: qualitative approach of research, and

the quantitative approach of research. Qualitative strategy is usually used when the

researcher is conducting interview from respondents. Whereas, quantitative research

strategy gives results in numerical data and can be carried out via questionnaires, statistics

74

and graphs (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Research design used for this study is

survey and related with deductive research approach (Rehman, 2012).

The Target Population

The target population of the study consists of faculty from the selected universities

in Peshawar city. The term population here stands for group of participants, events and

objects which are the primary concern of the research area (Rehman, 2102). The number

of total universities in Peshawar is seventeen, and their faculties constitute around 2969

members (Appendix G). These seventeen universities include 7 public sector, 9 private

sector universities and one degree awarding institute. Seven public sector universities

include Agriculture University of Peshawar, Frontier Women University, Islamia College

University of Peshawar, Khyber Medical University, National University of Modern

Languages, University of Engineering and Technology and University of Peshawar.

Private sector universities include, City University of Sciences and Technology,

CECOS University, Gandhara Univesity, Iqra National University, National University

(FAST), Preston University, Qurtaba University of Science and information Technology

and Sarhad University of Sciences and Information Technology. One degree awarding

institute include Institute of Management Sciences Peshawar (IMSciences).

All public and private universities in Peshawar have accentuated to provide better

education to the community and enlightened them with latest technological advancement

to accept global challenges. The mission of all universities is future-arranged and

extraordinary institutions focused on accomplishing perfection in the graduate and

undergraduate education, research and community service. The universities give prevalent

and complete educational open doors through doctoral and professional levels.

Some universities are old such as University of Peshawar and Islamia College

University. The foundation of Peshawar University was laid down in 1950 while Islamia

75

College was established in 1913, since then both the institution are providing their services

in the education sector.

The academic hierarchy of both type universities and one degree awarding institute

consists of head of departments, professors, associate professors, assistant professors and

lecturers. In public universities approximately 1983 academicians are working in different

departments and they are permanent academic staff, which comprises 66.7% of the total

population. In private sector universities 923 faculty members, which is 31.08% of the

total population, are working in different departments in which only 20% are visiting

faculty and 80% are permanent academic members. In one degree awarding institute the

total number of faculty members are 63 which covers 2.12% of the total target population

(Appendix G).

All the faculty data was taken from respective universities website. Target

population was faculty members of all the universities in Peshawar. Peshawar is the

capital of the province and all the major public and private universities are placed here,

however, it was not possible to study the entire population and to get a response from

every member. Therefore, sampling method was used to collect data which could give a

good representation of the entire population. Sampling technique and procedure are

discussed in the sampling section in detail. The list of universities in Peshawar are

provided in the below Table 14 and numbers of the faculty members in both public and

private universities are provided in detail on page 176 (Appendix G).

76

Table 14

List of Universities in Peshawar

# Name of Universities Campus Website

1. Agricultural University Peshawar Peshawar www.aup.edul.pk

2. Abasyn University Peshawar PEW www.abasyn.edu.pk

3. City University PEW www.cityuniversity.edu.pk

4. CECOS University PEW www.cecos.edu.pk

5. Frontier Women University PEW www.sbbwu.edu.pk

6. Gandhara University PEW www.gandhara.edu.pk

7. Islamia College University PEW www.icp.edu.pk

8. Iqra National University PEW www.inu.edu.pk

9. Khyber Medical University PEW www.inu.edu.pk

10.

National University Of Modern

Languages PEW www.inu.edu.pk

11. National University (FAST) PEW www.nu.edu.pk

12. Preston University PEW www.preston.edu.pk

13. Qurtuba University PEW www.qurtuba.edu.pk

14. Sarhad University PEW www.suit.edu.pk

15. University of Engineering & Tech. PEW www.nwfpuetp.edu.pk

16. University of Peshawar PEW www.upesh.edu.pk

Degree Awarding Institute

17. IMSciences Peshawar www.imsciences.edu.pk

77

Sampling Technique and Sample Size Strategy

Probability stratified random sampling method was utilized for the distribution of

questionnaires among the target population. The Stratified random sampling is a tool

which divides the target population into sections and layers, or the sub population or

stratum and employs disproportionate random sampling to gain the data from each of its

subsection. Due to this methodology each university got equal chance to participate in the

survey for appropriate representation to reduce the favoritism or bias.

Hair et al. (2006), recommended an appropriate sample size for confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA) using SEM, which should be between 100 and 200. He suggested that a

ratio of 10 responses for each construct is requisite to obtain reliable estimates. If data go

against the assumption of multivariate normality, the respondents‟ number can be

increased to 15 per estimated parameter. Reisinger (2006), recommended 100 to 400

sample size. Krejcie and Morgan (1970) have also provided a detailed table for sample

size decision. The researcher has followed them in the selection of proper sample size and

took 308 faculty members as sample size.

A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed in all the universities of Peshawar.

The participants were divided into strata such as: lecturer, assistant professor, associate

professor, and professor. Participation was voluntary. Out of the total 500 questionnaires,

319 were received with a response rate of 64%. 11 questionnaires were incomplete.

Hence, final useable questionnaires were 308. The data was collected from Peshawar

universities only. Details of the questionnaires sent and feedback are given in Table 15

below.

78

Table 15

Questionnaires Detail, Sent and Feedback

Measures and Instruments

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed servant leadership questionnaire (SLQ)

rater version which was used to measure the facets of servant leadership. Job satisfaction

# Universities Name Sent Received %

1. Agricultural University Pesh. 40 24 60%

2. Abasyn University Peshawar 30 18 60%

3. City University 30 22 73%

4. CECOS University 30 23 77%

5. Frontier Women University 20 10 50%

6. Gandhara University 30 17 57%

7. Islamia College University 30 11 36%

8. Iqra National University 30 19 63%

9. Khyber Medical University 30 16 53%

10.

National University Of Modern

Languages 30 18 90%

11. National University (FAST) 30 16 53%

12. Preston University 20 14 70%

13. Qurtuba University 35 16

14. Sarhad University 20 15 75%

15. University of Engineering & Tech. 30 14 47%

16. University of Peshawar 50 29 58%

Degree Awarding Institute

17. Institute of Management Sciences 50 26 52%

79

was measured by using the survey of Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist (1967),

Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Employees‟ loyalty was measured by

the survey of Pandey and Khare (2012), and organizational performance was measured by

survey from Katou and Budhwar (2010). Besides these four survey‟s, respondents

demographic survey was also included to collect information about the respondent‟s

demographics. The demographic survey was aimed to collect information regarding age,

qualification, gender, designation, length of service, language, marital status, organization

type and respondent language.

Servant Leadership. The servant leadership questionnaire contained five facets,

such as: altruistic calling, wisdom, emotional healing, persuasive mapping and

organization stewardship. These entire dimensions have been discussed in detail in

Chapter 1 & 2. The servant leadership questionnaire consisted of 23 items with 5 points

Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree (Appendix A).

The internal consistency and reliability determined by Barbuto and Wheeler was

good, and varied from 0.82 to 0.92 (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Rimes, 2011). The mean of

SLQ rater version for all five categories was also good and it ranged between 2.58 to 3.24,

and the standard deviations were ranged between 0.73 to0 .97 (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).

Keeping in view the reliability and validity of the instruments the researcher used this

instrument to measure servant leadership behavior.

Job Satisfaction. MSQ developed by Weiss et al. (1967), which consisted of 2

facets namely extrinsic satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction was used for job satisfaction.

The job satisfaction questionnaire consisted of 8 items. All these questions were rated on

5-points Likert scale (Appendix A). Weiss et al. (1967), developed two forms for

measuring job satisfaction known as “long form” and “small form.” Both the instruments

were quite reliable and many researchers have used these instruments in their studies. The

80

long form consisted of 100 items, while the short form consisted of 20 items; but in this

research 8 questions were taken for the data collection. Both forms had good reliability

values and were valid to use in this study for job satisfaction. The researcher used the short

form job satisfaction question of the MSQ. The internal reliability determined for this

short form was good and it ranged between 0.77 to 0.92. The mean of short form MSQ for

all items was also good.

Employees’ Loyalty. To measure employees‟ loyalty, a 17 items instrument from

Pandey and Khare (2012), was used in this study. Respondents reported their agreements

on five points Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree (Appendix A). The

reliability determined for this instrument was good and it ranged between 0.67 to 0.77.

Organizational Performance. The measurement of organizational performance in

this study is based on items developed by Katou and Budhwar (2010), and Ismail, Rasid

and Selemani (2014). Katou and Budhwar (2010), determined the internal consistency of

the construct which were good. The internal consistency reliability determined for all 11

items ranged from 0.66 to0 .78, used to measure organizational performance.

Operational Definitions of Variables

Servant Leadership. The servant leader is the one who focuses on the interest of

others rather than his/her self (Ramli, & Desa, 2014). Servant leadership has been a role

and understanding of leadership which gives preference to the interest of others over the

interest of those who are leading others (Laub, 2004).

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the inner feeling of the person regarding

achievement that may be quantitative or qualitative. Job satisfaction is positive and happy

emotional state of the employee (Ding et al., 2012).

81

Employees’ Loyalty. Employees‟ loyalty is the commitment of the worker to the

organization, and think it is the best option; and they are committed to its success and do

not search for another alternative (Pandey & Khare, 2012).

Organizational Performance. Organizational performance is to have efficient and

productive performance with all elements of the organization, and stimulate its members

to participate actively (Subandi, 2008).

Pilot Study

Instrument assumes overwhelming part in survey research for information

gathering. On the off chance that instrument is not substantial and solid or not coherent

this may make issue advance in study. So it was crucial to direct pilot study to judge

unwavering quality for instruments and to think about questionnaire readability to utilize

them in further study for information accumulation. (Rahman, 2012). For this reason

somewhere in the range of 75 questionnaires were disseminated in four universities. Sixty

four (64) were received with return rate of 85% which as indicated by Rahman (2012) and

Babbie (1998) is great response for pilot study. Internal consistency of all scales was

conducted. The cronbach‟s alpha for each scale was good. First overall reliability was

measured which showed adequate level of reliability. The cronbach‟s alpha for all the

questionnaire was .92. Then individual reliability of the scale was also measured which

also showed sufficient level of internal consistency. The reliability of servant leadership

for 23 items was .903, for 8 items of job satisfaction was .751, for 17 items of employees‟

loyalty was .891 and for 11 items of organizational performance it was .921. Table 16

presents the descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation and internal

reliability of all four variables and Table 17 presents Pearson Correlation Matrix of all

four main variables for pilot study. The correlation matrix Table presents that there is

82

positive relationship between independent and dependent variables. These results of pilot

study show that all the instruments are reliable and valid and can be used for further study.

Table 16

Pilot Study Descriptive Statistics ( N=64)

Variable Sample Mean S.D Alpha

Servant Leadership 64 3.3321 .43211 .903

AC 64 3.2376 .96584

EH 64 3.6574 .79986

W 64 3.1276 .87765

PM 64 3.8643 .87654

OS 64 3.8762 .90875

Job Satisfaction (JS) 64 3.2389 .43359 .751

Intrinsic Satisfaction (4) 64 3.4405 .58980

Extrinsic Satisfaction(4) 64 3.0527 .76145

E. Loyalty (EL) 64 3.9876 .56432 .891

Commitment. 64 2.9876 .86543

Motivation. 64 3.8976 .65432

Belongingness. 64 3.4390 .87601

Career Development. 64 3.4328 .90754

Org. Performance (OP) 64 3.2746 .51625 .921

O Development 64 3.1048 1.01869

Quality 64 3.0810 .84150

Innovation 64 3.3905 .91995

Efficiency 64 3.6857 1.13167

83

Table 17

Correlation Matrix of Constructs (N=64, Pilot Study)

Variables

1

2 3 4

5 6

7 8

1.AC

2.EH 0.51*

3.W 0.36 0.68*

4.PM 0.41 0.56 0.51*

5.OS 0.30 0.43 0.54 0.45*

6.JS 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.42 0.47*

7.EL 0.53 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.79*

8.OP 0.47 0.52 0.51 0.43 0.48 0.77 0.76*

Note: * All Correlation values are significant p<0.01

Data Collection Procedure

The researcher can collect data for the research in two ways; the first one is

primary data and the second one is secondary data of research. The former is, when the

researcher for the first time collects data from respondents or form study field, such as

data collected through designed questionnaire (Sekaran, 2003). While, secondary data

based on those data already available and easily accessible such as books, newspapers,

articles, web pages (Afridi, 2017).

In this study, the researcher is used both type of data. Structured questionnaire is

used to collect responses from the faculties of different universities which is primary data

while, Data from other different sources like, books, articles, journals, official web site,

internet browsing and newspapers are called secondary data. The faculty information was

collected directly from each respective university website which is secondary data.

For collecting responses for the faculties of the target population structured

questionnaire is used. Before collection of data, in each department, relevant Head of

Department (HOD) was contacted personally by the researcher. They were guided for the

distribution and filling of a questionnaire from the participants in each department. The

84

required number of questionnaires was handed over in a sealed envelope to the HOD for

possible distribution. The participants returned the filled questionnaires in provided

envelopes to the relevant HOD in department concerned. The researcher, on the specified

dates, collected the questionnaire in person from them. The entire procedure consumed

approximately fourteen weeks in data collection.

Statistical Analysis

Data collected was analyzed with the help of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS). The softwares used were SPSS 23 and

AMOS 21 to check for reliability and validity of data. SPSS 23 version was used for

descriptive statistics like frequencies, means, standard deviations, and AMOS 21 version

was used for SEM to check construct validity of each instrument and model fit. Pearson

Correlation was conducted to know the variables relationship. Standardized coefficient

was also conducted with t values to test each hypothesis.

Inferential Statistics

It is one of the important techniques in most of the research to reach on conclusion.

It includes, Multiple Regression, Linear Regression, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM),

T test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) etc. On

these techniques researcher can inspect the model by applying different test to find the

conclusion. The present study will use SEM and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to

check the hypotheses and model.

In social science while researchers conducting study may face measurement error.

This may be due to the researcher or respondent understanding of the concept. To

overcome such errors, one should first test the theorized relationship among various

factors prior to figuring the model (Rehman, 2012).

85

The purpose of testing the model is to approach the goodness of fit between the

theorized model and the empirical samples. To see whether the data fit or not to the

hypothesized model, Confirmatory Factor Analysis can be used for this purpose.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is different form CFA. It is usually used in

exploratory investigations where the researcher tries to identify factors and their

constructions (Child, 1990). In this study instruments are adopted from different

researches, hence, the researcher has used CFA by using Structural Equation Modeling,

AMOS 21. To find out that, whether model adapted to the data? There are different tests

available under Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), they are: Goodness-of- Fit Index,

Chi-square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR).

The Chi-square analysis specifies the gap between the observed and expected

covariance matrix. To have a model fit Chi-square value or p-value should be less than

0.05 or closer to zero (Gatignon, 2010). But the Chi-square significant does not mean that

the model is good fitted. However, Chi- Square with insignificant value will lead to a good

fitted model. In a small sample size, it can accept an incorrect model but in a large simple

size it may reject a good model. For such reasons, the researchers use other indices like,

GFI, CFI, RMR and RMSEA to find a good fitted model (Rahman, 2012).

Goodness-of- Fit Index shows a complete degree of model fit. Value greater than

0.90 signifies satisfactory model, closer to 1 consider good and equal to 1 indicates as well

fitted model. CFA gives complete co-variation between empirical data and theoretical

model. Value greater than 0.9 indicates acceptable fit, while value closer to 1 indicate that

there is less variation between the theoretical model and empirical data.

Other fit indices are RMSEA and RMR. RMSEA is very popular index among

researchers and it avoids the issues relating with sample size. Its values vary from 0 to 1.

86

RMSEA closer to 0 is considered good model and value equal to 0.06 considered

acceptable model. While, Root Mean Squared Residual is the square root of the mean of

the squared residuals. Value less than .05 considered good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; cited

by Afrid, 2017).

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

It is the representation of a theoretical concept regarding the structural equation. It

represents a diagram of statistical values. It shows the theoretical concept in a structural

form. It is also known as casual modeling which shows the impact. In SEM, the researcher

can also know about the correlation between exogenous and indigenous variables

(Rahman, 2012). A theoretical concept which has been shown by the researcher can easily

be drawn as a model with the help of SEM. Researchers can also put unobserved variables

in the diagram to have a lucid picture regarding equation modeling.

SEM has many names they are: CFA, Covariance structure analysis (CSA), and

Latent variable analysis (Rahman, 2012). SEM has been used to measure the constructs

and assess the hypothesized relationship between variables, and to test the model of the

study. SEM makes it easy to establish goodness- of -fit between the sample data and

hypothesized model variables (Kumar, 2014).

Reliability and Validity

The instrument validity and reliability are very important. It usually shows how

much an instrument is valid and reliable. Following are the details:

Reliability. It measures the consistency of the questionnaire. Consistency is when

the instrument is free from random error (Rahman, 2012). Reliability was measured with

the help of Cronbach‟s alpha. The reliability for all the questionnaires was .97. Then

individual reliability of the scale was also measured, which also showed sufficient level of

87

internal consistency. The reliability for 23 items of servant leadership was .92, for job

satisfaction 8 items it was .76, for 17 items of employees‟ loyalty was .91 and for 11 items

of organizational performance, it was .94. The main purpose of this evaluation is to see

whether the relationship between the different constructs is strong and valid.

Validity. Questionnaire validity can be checked to see that it assessed the related

aspect of the measure. Its primary objective is to know how strong the relationship among

the measures and its underlying characters is established (Rahman, 2012). For this

purpose the questionnaire was discussed with subject experts in the universities,

suggestions and comments were included and then send for data collection. As mentioned

by different scholars and researchers such as Burns and Bush (2004), and Hair, Black,

Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2006) that the main important validities are: content

validity, face validity, constructs validity and predictive validity.

Statistical Software

Statistical software like SPSS 23 and for Structural Equation Modeling, Analysis

of Moment Structure (AMOS) 21 edition is used to check for reliability and validity of

data. SPSS 23 version is used for descriptive statistics like frequencies, means, standard

deviations, and AMOS 21 version is used for SEM to check model fit.

Ethical Consideration

Ethical consideration of confidentiality, voluntary participation, academic

objectivity, informed consent and privacy were addressed in the questionnaire and assured

each respondent that the study would not reveal any personal information to any irrelevant

person. It was also assumed that the purpose of this study is purely research oriented and

academic in nature. The covering letter further elaborated that their responses will be used

only for analysis and will be reported as group data. Hence, in this study ethical codes had

been followed according to research standards.

88

Chapter 4

Results and Analysis

This chapter provides data analysis obtained through the survey. Main sections of

this chapter include: inferential statistics, descriptive statistics, test and results of the

hypotheses and model fit through structural equation modeling.

Response Rate

Total 500 survey questionnaires were send to all 17 universities of Peshawar

(Seven in the public sector, one semi-government, and nine private-sector universities),

out of which 319 were received with a return rate of 64%. In the analysis stage, it was

found that 11 questionnaires had major missing data, which were excluded. Thus, it was

decided to take 308 questionnaires for the examination. According to Gaur and Gaur

(2006), frequencies and percentages of data provide summary statistics. Hence, a

descriptive statistics of the data provided have a detailed description of the respondents.

The demographic variables were: designation, education, language, marital status, gender,

and length of service, age, organization type and type of the respondents (Rehman, 2012)

Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Demographics

Position/Title. Table 18 presents the details regarding position/title of the faculty

members. The table demonstrates respondents majority are lecturers (n=144), consisting

47% of the total population, next by Assistant Professors (102), comprising of 33%,

subsequently by Associate Professors (27) with a 9%, followed by Professors (24) with a

valid of 8%, then by others or Junior Lecturers are (n=11) with a valid percentage of 7.

89

Table 18

Faculty Position/Title (N=308)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Professor 24 7.8 7.8 7.8

Associate Professor 27 8.8 8.8 16.6

Assistant Professor 102 33.1 33.1 49.7

Lecturer 144 46.8 46.8 96.4

Junior Lecturer 11 3.6 3.6 100.0

Missing System

Total

0

308

100.0

100.0

Education. Table 19 gives the details of respondent‟s qualification. Majority of the

respondents are Master of Philosophy/Master of Science including valid of 59%, followed

by Ph.D. with valid percent of 18%, then by Masters 17%, Bachelors 5%, and others with

6% of the total population.

Table 19

Respondents Education (N=308)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Valid

Bachelors 16 5.2 5.2 5.2

Masters 53 17.2 17.2 22.4

M. Phil/MS 181 58.8 58.8 81.2

Doctoral (PhD) 56 18.2 18.2 99.4

Others 2 .6 .6 100.0

Total 308 100 100

90

Language. Table 20 demonstrates details of faculty languages. Majority of the

teaching staff members speaking Pashto consisting of 67% (n=206) of the population,

Urdu speaker 25% (77), then by Panjabi 9% (18), others 2% (5), and last English 0.6%

(2), of the total population.

Table 20

Respondents Language (N=308)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Valid

Urdu 77 25.0 25.0 25.0

English 2 .6 .6 25.6

Panjabi 18 5.8 5.8 31.5

Pashto 206 66.9 66.9 98.4

Others 5 1.6 1.6 100.0

Missing System

Total

0

308

100.0

100.0

Marital Status. Table 21 provides the detail of respondent‟s marital status. 74%

(n=227) of the respondents were married and 26% (81) of the total population was un-

married.

Table 21

Marital Status (N=308)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Married 227 73.7 73.7 73.7

Un-married 81 26.3 26.3 100.0

Missing System

Total

0

308

100.0

100.0

91

Gender. Table 22 provides detail of respondents‟ gender. Below is the Table 20

which provides detail of faculty members‟ gender. 63% (n=194) of the respondents were

male and 37% (114) was female faculty members.

Table 22

Respondents Gender (N=308)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Valid

Male Faculty 194 63% 63% 63%

Female Faculty 114 37% 37% 100%

Missing System

Total

0

308

100.0

100.0

Organization Type. Table 23 demonstrates the detail of the respondent‟s

organization type. The Table shows that a majority of the respondents are from the Private

Sector (n=160) containing a percentage of 52, followed by Public Sector (n=148) with a

valid value of 48%.

Table 23

Age. Table 24 provides detail of faculty age. Table shows majority of the faculty

members are in the age group of 27-38 (n=163) comprising valid percentage of 53,

followed by age group of 22-27 (n=57) with valid percent of 19, followed by age group

Respondents Organization (N=308)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Valid

Public 148 48.1 48.1 48.1

Private 160 51.9 51.9 100.0

Missing System

Total

0

308

100.0

100.0

92

38-45 (n=53), with total percentage of 17, subsequently by age group 45-60 (n=34) with

value percent of 11, then followed by age group 60-above (n=1) with value .3%.

Table 24

Respondents Age (N=308)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Valid

22-27 57 18.5 18.5 18.5

27-38 163 52.9 52.9 71.4

38-45 53 17.2 17.2 88.6

45-60 34 11.0 11.0 99.7

60-above 1 .3 .3 100.0

Missing System

Total

0

308

100.0

100.0

Nationality. Table 25 provides detail of respondent‟s nationality. The Table shows

all faculty members are Pakistani (n=308) with a valid value of 100%.

Table 25

Respondents Nationality (N=308)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Valid

Missing System

Pakistan

0

308

100.0

100.0

100.0

The Length of Service. Table 26 presents a detail of respondent‟s length of service in

a specific university. The Table give details that a majority of faculty members service are

2-5 years (n=119), containing total valid percent of 38.63, followed by 5-10 years service

(n=81), comprising percentage of 26.29, followed by 1-2 years service (n=62) with

93

percentage of 20.12, followed by 10-15 years of service (n=28), with total valid value of

9.09%, followed by less than 1 year of service (n=9) comprising percentage 2.9, followed

by 15-20 years‟ service (n=7) with a valid percentage of 2.27, followed by above 20 years

(n=2), with a valid percents of 64%.

Table 26

Respondents Length of Service (N=308)

Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

Less than 1 year 09 2.92 2.92 2.92

1-2 years 62 20.12 20.12 23.04

2-5 years 119 38.63 38.63 61.67

5-10 years 81 26.29 26.29 87.96

10-15 years 28 9.09 9.09 97.05

15-20 years 07 2.27 2.27 99.32

Above 20 years 02 0.64 0.64 100.00

Total 308 100 100

94

K

urt

osi

s

Sta

tist

ic S

E

-.17 .2

7

-.81 .27

-.22 .27

-.60 .27

-.17 .2

7

.05 . 2

7

-.43 .27

.29 .2

7

.39 .27

S

kew

nes

s

Sta

tist

ic S

E

-.50 .1

3

-.31 .13

-.67 .13

-.57 .13

-.56 .13

-.62 .1

3

-.43 .13

-.48 .13

-.89 .13

Alp

ha

0.9

2

0.9

3

0.9

3

0.9

1

0.7

4

0.9

1

0.7

6

0.9

1

0.9

4

SD

0.7

8

1.0

7

1.0

2

0.9

2

1.1

5

0.8

9

0.7

1

0.6

6

0.6

2

M

ean

s

3.2

8

3.2

8

3.2

8

3.2

8

3.2

8

3.2

8

3.2

8

3.2

8

3.2

8

Maxim

um

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Min

imum

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

No o

f

item

s

23

4

4

5

5

5

8

17

11

Vari

ab

les

Ser

van

t

lead

ersh

ip

A

C*

E

H

W

P

M

O

S

Job

Sati

sfact

ion

Em

plo

yee

s’

Loyalt

y

Loyalt

y

Org

.

Per

form

an

ce

Tab

le 2

7

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

of

Main

Vari

able

s (N

=308)

*A

C=

Alt

ruis

tic

Cal

ling, E

H=

Em

oti

onal

Hea

ling

, W

=W

isdom

, P

M=

Per

suas

ive

Map

pin

g, O

S=

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Ste

war

dsh

ip

95

Descriptive Statistics of Variables

The Table 27 shows descriptive analysis of the variables such as: means, standard

deviations and reliability, skewness and kurtosis of the data for its normal distribution.

Reliability of the variables was above 0.7 with means value 3.28 and standard deviations

range from 0.78 to 0.6 showed that all the instruments were good to use. Skewness and

kurtosis statistics with standard error showed that all the data were normally distributed.

As mentioned by George and Mallery (2010), that for normal distribution of data values

for kurtosis and skewness between +2 and -2 are acceptable. As given in the above table

that all the values of skewness ranged between -.31 and -.89 and kurtosis ranged between -

.17 to .05 revealed that data was normally distributed.

Inferential Statistics

Inferential statistics are very useful in social science research. Previous section

provided descriptive statistics that simply presents the characteristics or behavior of the

sample data itself. To generalize the information collected from the sample it required the

use and help of inferential statistics, as it can help the researcher to generalize the

information and reach to final conclusion.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for Servant Leadership

In this section CFA was used to check the construct validity of the servant

leadership and its all dimensions such as: altruistic calling, wisdom, emotional healing,

persuasive mapping, organization stewardship separately.

Altruistic Calling. The below given Figure 4 and Table 28 represents the CFA

and model fit statistics for altruistic calling.

96

Table 28

Model Fit Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Altruistic Calling

X2 DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Un-Fit Model 33.2 2 .945 .968 .041 .225

Model Fit 0.54 (p<.03) 1 1.00 1.00 0.001 .000

Note: *All t values were significant at p<0.05

Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance

SLAC1 0.92 0.90

3.00 0.03

SLAC2 0.91 0.90 3.02 0.03

SLAC3 0.83 0.90 3.08 0.05

SLAC4 0.77 0.92 3.09 0.06

Figure 4 CFA for Altruistic Calling

97

Figure 4 presents CFA for altruistic calling constructs. CFA was run and found that

the model was not well fitted. The Table 28 shows value of the Chi-square 33.2 with 2

degrees of freedom (DF) was significant at p< 0.05. Other statistics was also not in

acceptable range such as root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) as its value was

.225, other statistics showed good values as goodness of fit index (GFI) was .945,

confirmatory fit index (CFI) .968 and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was

.041. Therefore, the model was examined in the light of modification indices. The error of

servant leadership altruistic calling (SLAC 3) and SLAC 4 found highly correlated. Factor

loading was run again and found that all the values are in acceptable range and model was

fitted well. The above Figure shows CFA for altruistic calling with covariance.

Table 28 provides model fit statistics and the result of CFA for four indicators.

Model fit statistics values for altruistic calling are in acceptable range. The Chi-square

value 0.54 with 1 DF was significant at p<0.03, GFI value 1.00, CFI value 1.00, SRMR

value 0.001 and the RMSEA 0.000, all values were in acceptable range and model was

good fit. The Standardized estimates range from .77 to .92 and reliability of the indicators

was above .70 showed that all the indicators were good predictors of altruistic calling.

Emotional Healing. The CFA and model fit statistics for emotional healing are

given below in Figure 5 and Table 29.

98

Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance

SLEH1 0.87 0.91 3.12 0.03

SLEH2 0.85 0.91 3.32 0.03

SLEH3 0.93 0.89 3.34 0.03

SLEH4 0.83 0.91 3.34 0.04

Note: * p<0.05 (t values)

Figure 5 presents CFA for emotional healing constructs. This was a single model

with four indicators. By estimation, it has been found that this model did fit well. As

provided in Table 29 the Chi-square value of 3.3 with 2 DF was significant at p< 0.018.

Other statistics fit showed the model was fit. The value of RMSEA was .047, other

statistics showed good values as GFI was .994, CFI .999 and standardized RMR was .011.

All values were in acceptable range and indicated good fit model. Similar findings were

made by (Rahman, 2012).

Figure 5 CFA for Emotional Healing

Table 29

Model Fit Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Emotional Healing

Model Fit Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Value 3.3 (p<.018) 2.00 0.994 0.999 0.011 .047

99

Wisdom. The following Figure 6 and Table 30 present CFA and fit statistics for

wisdom.

Figure 6 presents CFA for wisdom constructs. CFA was run and got the Chi-square

value of 90.06 with 5 DF was significant at p< 0.05. Other fit statistics showed the model

was not well because of RMSEA as it value was .235, GFI was .899, CFI .920 and

standardized RMR was .057. Therefore, the model was examined in the light of model

modification indices. The error of servant leadership wisdom (SLW1) and SLW2 were

Model Fit 3.4 (p<.017) 2 0.996 0.999 0.012 0.04 .04

Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance

SLW1 0.65 0.92 3.32 0.06

SLW2 0.77 0.91 3.32 0.04

SLW3 0.84 0.91 3.46 0.03

SLW4 0.89 0.91 3.62 0.03

SLW5 0.87 0.91 3.52 0.04

Figure 6 CFA for Wisdom

Table 30

Model Fit Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Wisdom

Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Un-Fit Model 90.06 5 0.899 0.920 0.057 .235

100

found. Correlation was made with the help of path diagram and factor loading was run

again, it was found that the model fitted well because all the values were in the acceptable

range. The above Figure shows CFA for wisdom with covariance indication.

Table 30 provides model fit statistics and results of CFA for all indicators. The

Chi-square value 3.4 with 2 DF was significant at p< 0.017, GFI 0.996, CFI 0.999, SRMR

0.012 and the RMSEA was 0.04. The estimates and reliability values were also good.

Persuasive Mapping. The CFA and model fit statistics are given for persuasive

mapping in Figure 7 and Table 31.

Figure 7 CFA for Persuasive Mapping

101

Table 31

Model Fit Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Persuasive Mapping

Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Un-Fit Model 16.29 (p<.05) 5 0.985 0.990 0.10 .086

Model Fit 11.42 (p<.05) 4 0.985 0.990 0.040 .078

Note: * p<0.05 (t values)

Figure 7 presents CFA for persuasive mapping constructs. In the validation

process model indices were not fit well. The Chi-square value of 16.29 was significant

with 5 DF at p< 0.05. RMSEA as its value was .086, and standardized RMR was .100

which was not in their acceptable range. Therefore, the model was examined with the help

of model modification indices. The error of SLPM1 and SLPM2 found correlated with

each other. With the help of path analysis, covariance was established and factor loading

was run again. It was found that the model was fitted well.

Table 31 provides CFA results for all indicators of persuasive mapping. The Chi-

square value 11.42 with 4 DF was significant at p< 0.05, GFI 0.985, CFI 0.990, SRMR

0.040 and the RMSEA was 0.078. The reliability values were above .70 and standardized

estimates ranged from 0.28 to 0.94 which showed that the model was good fit.

Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance

SLPM1 0.28 0.95 3.48 0.85

SLPM2 0.55 0.92 3.35 0.05

SLPM3 0.81 0.92 3.13 0.04

SLPM4 0.94 0.91 3.22 0.03

SLPM5 0.86 0.91 3.24 0.04

102

Organizational Stewardship. The following Figure 8 presents CFA and Table 32

presents model fit statistics for organizational stewardship.

Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance

Note: * p<0.05 (t values)

SLOS1 0.68 0.90 3.48 0.06

SLOS2 0.89 0.87 3.35 0.04

SLOS3 0.86 0.87 3.13 0.03

SLOS4 0.75 0.88 3.22 0.05

SLOS5 0.83 0.88 3.24 0.05

Figure 8 CFA for Organizational Stewardship

Table 32

Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Organizational Stewardship

Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Un-Fit Model 53.37 5 0.997 1.00 0.01 .178

Model Fit 2.17(p<.033) 2 0.997 1.00 0.01 .017

103

Figure 8 presents CFA for organizational stewardship constructs. The model was

validated and found not fit. The Chi-square value of 53.37 was significant with 5 DF at p<

0.05. The RMSEA as it value was .178, which was not in the acceptable range. Hence, the

model was looked with the help of modification indices. The error of SLOS 2 was found

correlated. With the help of path analysis covariance were made between the construct and

factor loading run again. This time the model was fit well. Table 30 provides model fit

statistics and final results of CFA for all five indicators. The value of RMSEA was 0.017,

SRMR 0.01, GFI 0.997, CFI was 1.00 and the chi-square value 2.17 with 2 DF was

significant at p< 0.33. All the values were acceptable range and showed that the model

was good fit.

Servant Leadership. The below given Figure 9 and Table 33 presents CFA and

Model fit statistics for servant leadership dimensions.

Figure 9 CFA for Servant Leadership

104

Table 33

Model Fit Statistics of Servant Leadership

Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Un-Fit Model 19.80 (0.01) 5 0.976 0.970 0.037 0.098

Model Fit

6.49(p<.000) 4 0.995 0.995 0.024 0.045

Dimensions St. Loadings Reliability Mean Variance

AC 0.61* 0.93 3.28 0.07

EH 0.84 0.93 3.28 0.04

W 0.80 0.91 3.28 0.04

PM 0.62 0.64 3.28 0.09

OS 0.56 0.91 3.28 0.05

Note: * p<0.05 (t values)

CFA was run for all dimensions of servant leadership as showed in Figure 9. In

validation process it was found that the model was not fit well. As provided in Table 33

the Chi-square value of 19.80 was significant with 5 DF at p< 0.01, but the value of

RMSEA was not in acceptable range 0.098. All other statistics value of GFI was 0.976,

CFI 0.970, SRMR 0.037 was good. Therefore, the model was examined with the help of

model modification indices. The error of altruistic calling (AC) was found highly

correlated with wisdom (W). With the help of path analysis covariance were made

between the construct and factor loading run again. This time the model was fit well.

Table 33 provides model fit statistics and results of CFA for all five servant

leadership dimensions. The RMSEA value was 0.045, SRMR 0.024, GFI 0.995, CFI was

0.995, and the Chi-square value 6.49 with 4 DF was significant at p< .000. All the values

were acceptable range and the model was good fit. Standard estimates and reliability of the

105

dimensions were also good which showed that these were good predictors of servant

leadership.

CFA for Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction CFA and model fit statistics are given

here below in Figure 10 and Table 34.

Figure 10 CFA for Job Satisfaction (AMOS)

106

Table 34

Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Job Satisfaction

Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Un-Fit Model 104.53 20 0.91 .868 .091 .117

Model Fit 51.73(p<.000) 18 .960 .947 .073 .078

Note: * p<0.05 (t values)

CFA was run for job satisfaction constructs as showed in Figure 10. In validation

process it was found that the model was not fit well. As provided in Table 34 the Chi-

square value of 104.53 was significant with 20 DF at p< 0.05. Other fit statistics was also

not good because of RMSEA as it value was .117, and standardized RMR was .091, GFI

0.91 and CFI .868 which were not in the acceptable range. Therefore, the model was

examined in the light of model modification indices. The error of job satisfaction (JSIS 6)

and JSES 3 were found highly correlated with other indicators. Correlation was made

again with the help of path diagram and this time the model was found fitted well. The

above figure shows CFA for job satisfaction with covariance indication. Table 32 provides

Indicators Standardized Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance

JSIS1 0.33 0.76 3.41 0.07

JSIS4 0.37 0.80 3.51 0.29

JSIS6 0.63 0.71 3.62 0.06

JSIS9 0.40 0.74 3.72 0.05

JSES2 0.70 0.72 3.35 0.05

JSES3 0.68 0.71 3.25 0.07

JSES4 0.63 0.71 3.37 0.07

JSES6 0.68 0.72 2.89 0.07

107

model fit statistics results of CFA of job satisfaction for all indicators. The value of SRMR

was 0.073, GFI 0.960, CFI was 0.947 and the RMSEA was .078, the Chi-square value

51.73 with 18 DF was significant at p< .000. All the values were acceptable range and the

model was good fit. Standard estimates and reliability of the instruments were also good

which showed that the model was good fitted.

CFA for Employees’ Loyalty. The CFA and model fit statistics are given here for

employees‟ loyalty in Figure 11 and Table 35.

Figure 11 CFA for Employees‟ Loyalty (AMOS)

108

Table 35

Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Employees’ Loyalty

Model Fit Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Value 5.84(p<.034) 2 0.990 0.988 0.019 0.07

Dimensions St. Loadings* Indicator Reliability Mean Error Variance

Commitment 0.74 0.71 3.38 0.03

Motivation 0.78 0.70 3.40 0.03

Belongingness 0.66 0.72 3.53 0.03

Career Development 0.57 0.76 3.54 0.05

Note: * p<0.05 (t value)

Figure 11 shows CFA for employees‟ loyalty constructs. CFA was run and found

that all the constructs were valid and the model was well fitted. The Table 35 shows that

the value of Chi-square was 5.84 and significant with 2 DF at p< 0.034. Other statistics fit

showed the model was fit. The value of RMSEA was 0.07, other statistics showed good

values as GFI was .990, CFI .988 and standardized RMR was 0.019. The standardized

estimates and reliability values were in acceptable range and indicated good fit model.

CFA for Organizational Performance. The below given Figure 12 and Table 36

shows CFA and model fit statistics for organizational performance.

109

Dimensions Standardized Loadings* Reliability

Mean

Error Variance

Development 0.62 0.84 3.25 0.05

Quality 0.72 0.84 3.36 0.03

Innovation 0.87 0.81 3.25 0.04

Efficiency 0.54 0.86 3.35 0.06

Note: * p<0.05 (t value)

_______________________________________________________________

Figure 12 CFA for Organizational Performance

Table 36

Model Fit Statistics and CFA of Organizational Performance

Model Fit Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Value 3.81(p<.000) 2 .994 .995 0.021 .054

110

Figure 14 presents CFA for organizational performance constructs. This was a

combined model with four dimensions. CFA was run and found that all the constructs

were valid and the model was well fitted. The value of Chi-square was 3.81 and significant

with 2 degree at p< 0.000. All other fit statistics were acceptable range such as: GFI value

was .994, CFI .995, RMSEA value was .054, and standardized RMR was .021. The above

figure shows CFA for organizational performance. Table 36 provides model fit statistics

and final result of CFA with four dimensions. The reliability values all were above .70 and

standardized loadings were ranged from 0.54 to 0.87 showed that the model was good

fitted.

CFA for Overall Measurement Model

The following Figure 13 and Table 37 presents CFA and model fit statistics for

overall combined model.

Figure 13 CFA for Measurement Model

111

Table 37

Model Fit Statistics and CFA for Measurement Model

Model Fit Chi-Square DF GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Recommended > 0.05

>.90 >.90 <.10 <.08

Value 617.14(p<.000) 182 0.897 0.907 0.068 0.08

ECVI Saturated Model ECVI Independence Model ECVI

2.33 1.50 9.97

The researcher has mentioned CFA for each construct of servant leadership, job

satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. Now, there is need to

find CFA for combined model. Measurement model shows the relationship between

observed and latent variables (Rehman, 2012). The measurement model consists of servant

leadership dimensions (Table 9). It also contains job satisfaction as mediating variable and

employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance as dependent variables. The above

Figure 13 shows the overall model goodness- of- fit indicators. The Table 37 shows that

the CMIN value 617.14 was significant with 182 DF at p< 0.000. Other value of fit

statistics was also in acceptable such as: GFI = .897, CFI= .907, SRMR= .068 and

RMSEA= .080.

All the values show that model is reasonably good fit. Reliability of the

instruments is also very important. Here the researcher has extracted reliability and

variances for each construct to assess measurement of the model. As mentioned by Hair et

al. (2006) that the standard value for reliability is 0.70. Higher variance means higher

consistency and lower variance value means lower internal consistency between the

construct indicators. The Table 38 shows standardized loadings, error variance, indicators

reliability and constructs reliability. All the constructs and indicators reliability values

exceed the recommended level of 0.70.

112

Table 38

Measurement Scale Properties and Fit Statistics (N=308)

Variables

Completely

Standardized

Loadings* Mean

Error

Variance

Construct

Reliability

Servant Leadership

0.92

Altruistic Calling 0.60 3.03 0.05

Emotional Healing 0.83 3.45 0.04

Wisdom 0.76 3.28 0.04

Persuasive Mapping 0.62 3.28 0.09

Organizational Stewardship 0.59 3.31 0.05

Job Satisfaction

0.76

JSIS 1 0.41 3.41 0.07

JSIS 4 0.35 3.51 0.29

JSIS 6 0.68 3.62 0.06

JSIS 9 0.50 3.72 0.05

JSES 2 0.65 3.35 0.05

JSES 3 0.61 3.25 0.07

JSES 4 0.60 3.37 0.07

JSES 6 0.60 2.89 0.07

Employees’ Loyalty

0.91

Commitment 0.60 3.38 0.03

Motivation 0.60 3.40 0.03

Belongingness 0.69 3.53 0.03

Career Development 0.61 3.54 0.05

Organizational Performance

0.94

Development 0.70 3.25 0.05

Quality 0.74 3.36 0.03

Innovation 0.79 3.25 0.03

Efficiency 0.51 3.35 0.06

Note: * p<0.05 (t value)

Expected Cross - Validation Index (ECVI) has also been mentioned in the fit statistics of

the overall measurement model. This value assesses cross-validation. ECVI, as mentioned

113

by Rahman (2012), means “an approximation of goodness -of- fit the estimated model

would achieve in another sample of the same size” (p.178). Many researchers have

mentioned that the smallest ECVI value provides the greatest replication potential. The

value of ECVI for this study is small as mentioned in fit statistics above, showing that the

model is well fitted and having great potential for replication. The ECVI value for this

model has been compared to saturated and independence model. The measurement model

is fitted and characterizes reasonable estimation to the population.

Pearson Correlation of the Constructs

The Table 39 is given below representing Pearson Correlation between variables of the

study.

Table 39

Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation* of Constructs (N=308)

Variables Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Note:*All Correlation values are significant p<0.01. JS= Job Satisfaction, EL=

Employees‟ Loyalty OP= Organizational Performance

1. AC 3.03 1.07

2. EH 3.28 1.02 0.54*

3. W 3.45 0.92 0.37* 0.69*

4. PM 3.28 1.15 0.42* 0.57* 0.51*

5. OS 3.31 0.89 0.31* 0.48* 0.54* 0.46*

6. JS 3.41 0.71 0.52* 0.52* 0.53* 0.43* 0.47*

7. EL 3.45 0.65 0.55* 0.48* 0.44* 0.40* 0.47* 0.80*

8. OP 3.32 0.71 0.47* 0.52* 0.50* 0.44* 0.48* 0.77* 0.77*

114

The correlation matrix provides significant positive relation between job

satisfaction and servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and servant leadership, and

organizational performance and servant leadership. All the values are significant at 0.01

level. As the result shows, that the servant leadership dimensions has positive relationship

with all other variables but this relation is strong with the mediation of job satisfaction

between servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.

The Table 39 shows that altruistic calling is positively related with job satisfaction,

employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance (r = 0.52, 0.55 and 0.47) followed by

emotional healing (r = 0.52, 0.48 and 0.52), wisdom (r =0.53, 0.44 and 0.50), persuasive

mapping (r = 0.43, 0.40 and 0.44) and organizational stewardship (r = 0.47, 0.47 and

0.48). These five dimensions of servant leadership had positive significant relationship

with faculty satisfaction, loyalty and universities performance. Job satisfaction is the

strongest positive relationship with employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance (r

= 0.80 and 0.77). Therefore, the findings provided a significant positive correlation

between servant leadership of the university leader and the faculty job satisfaction, loyalty

and university performance. As mentioned by Rehman (2012) that when all values of

correlation matrix are coming positive between variables so this is the first step of

hypotheses acceptance. The above correlation matrix also proves that all the hypotheses

which are developed are supported and acceptable.

Structural Model Testing

The below Figure 14 and Table 40 presents path diagram for hypothesized theoretical

structural model and model fit statistics.

115

Table 40

Model Fit Statistics for Structural Model

CMIN* DF

Standardized

RMR GFI CFI RMSEA

SM** 650.131 192 0.068 0.890 0.903 0.08

Note: * p<0.01 (t value) ** (Structural Model)

______________________________________________________________________

Figure 14 Path Diagram for Theoretical Structural Model

116

The above Figure 14 shows the standardized coefficient path of the structural

model. All the values of t were found significant at p< 0.01. As provides in Table 40 the

Chi-square of the structural model was 650.131, the degree of freedom was 192, p-value

.000, standardized RMR 0.068, GFI 0.890, CFI .903, RMSEA was 0.80. All values show

that model is reasonably good fit. SEM is divided into two basic models such as: structural

and measurement model. The structural model is that part of the SEM which shows

relationship of latent variables with one another, while the measurement model is that part

of the SEM which shows the relationship of measured or observed variables with latent

variables (Rehman, 2012).

The Table 40 shows detail fit statistics of structural model. Difference existed

between the two models. The fit statistics were for structural model (Chi-square =

650.131, DF = 192, SRMR= 0.068, GFI = 0.890, CFI = 0.903 AND RMSEA = .080) and

fit statistics for measurement model were as given in table 37 (Chi-square = 617.14, DF=

182, SRMR=.068, GFI=.897, CFI=.907 and RMSEA=.08). The difference between the

Chi-square of the two models was 33 with 10 DF. In Chi-Square table, the CMIN critical

value with 10 DF at p=0.05 is 18.31 which is less than 33. This difference showed that the

model proposed was successful fit to data and showed strong relationship between latent

variables.

Overall Model Fit

The Table 41 given below presents comparison of measures of goodness-of-fit for

structural model.

117

Table 41

Structural Model Goodness-of-Fit Comparison

Fit Statistics Fit Level Model fit Calculation Acceptability

CMIN/Chi-Square value > 0.05 650.131 sig, p<0.000 Acceptable

GFI >0.90 0.892 Acceptable

RMSEA <0.080 0.080 Acceptable

SRMR <.10 0.068 Acceptable

CFI >0.90 0.903 Acceptable

CMIN/DF Minimum limit 1.0

higher limit 3.0 to 5.0 3.70 Acceptable

Note: Source Rahman (2012)

Table 41 provides goodness-of-fit indices and can be compared with structural

model statistics which shows that the overall model as proposed was good fit and

acceptable model.

Testing of Hypotheses

Hypotheses were tested with the help of SEM to find the relationship between

servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance with mediating

role of job satisfaction among the faculty members of universities in Peshawar. SEM was

used to specify the direct and indirect relationship between independent and dependent

variables. Servant leadership is exogenous variable while, job satisfaction, employee‟s

loyalty and organizational performance is endogenous variables.

H1: Servant leadership is positively related to organizational performance.

Hypothesis H1 defines the direct positive relationship of servant leadership with

organizational performance. It was tested using path analysis AMOS 21.The results

118

showed standardized estimates of 0.62 and the value of t 13.92 at p= 0.000, which are

significant at p>0.01. Hence, the results supported this hypothesis.

H1a: Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership affect

organizational performance positively.

Hypothesis H1a investigates the direct positive influence of servant leadership

facets on organizational performance. The results showed standardized path coefficient of

0.26 and 0.37 and t value of 4.68 and 6.59 with p-value .000, which are highly significant

at p> 0.01. Hence, the data supported this hypothesis.

H1b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship dimensions of

servant leadership are positively related to organizational performance

Hypothesis H1b determines the direct positive influence of servant leadership

dimensions such as wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship on

organizational performance. It was tested with the help of path analysis and got

standardized path coefficients of 0.28 for wisdom, 0.19 for persuasive mapping and .24 for

organizational stewardship and t-value of 4.63 for wisdom, 3.33 for persuasive mapping

and 4.24 for organizational stewardship with p-value .000, .001 and .000, which were

found significant at p< 0.01, indicating that there is positive relationship between all these

variable. Therefore, the results supported this hypothesis.

H2: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and employees’

loyalty.

Hypothesis H2 examines the positive direct relation of servant leadership on

employees‟ loyalty. This hypothesis was tested via path analysis AMOS. The results

119

showed that beta value of 0.62 and t-value 13.18 with p-value 0.000, indicates a strong

positive relation of servant leadership with employees‟ loyalty. Therefore, the data

supported this hypothesis.

H2a: Servant leadership dimensions like altruistic calling and emotional healing are

positively related to employees’ loyalty.

Hypothesis H2a investigates the direct positive influence of dimensions of servant

leadership on employees‟ loyalty. The results showed standardized path coefficient of 0.40

and 0.27 and t value of 7.24 and 4.82 with p-value .000, which are highly significant at p>

0.01. Hence, the data supported this hypothesis.

H2b: Servant leadership facets like wisdom, persuasive mapping, and

organizational stewardship are positively impact employees’ loyalty.

Hypothesis H2b defines the direct positive influence of servant leadership

dimensions such as wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship on

employees‟ loyalty. It was tested with the help of path analysis and got standardized path

coefficients of 0.21 for wisdom, 0.26 for persuasive mapping and 0.29 for organizational

stewardship and t-value of 3.332 for wisdom, 3.789 for persuasive mapping and 4.746 for

organizational stewardship with p-value .000, .001 and .000, which were found significant

at p< 0.01, indicating that there is positive relationship between all these variable.

Therefore, the results supported this hypothesis.

120

H3: Servant leadership has a positive relation with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis H3 examines the positive direct relation of servant leadership on job

satisfaction. This hypothesis was tested via path analysis. The results showed that beta

value of 0.64 and t-value 14.405 with p-value 0.000 (p< 0.01), indicating a strong positive

relation of servant leadership with job satisfaction. Therefore, the results supported this

hypothesis of the study.

H3a: Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership affect job

satisfaction positively.

Hypothesis H3a determines the direct positive influence of facets of servant

leadership on job satisfaction. The results showed standardized path coefficient of 0.34

and 0.34 and t value of 6.095 and 6.069 with p-value .000, which are highly significant at

p> 0.01. Hence, the results supported this hypothesis.

H3b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship dimensions of

servant leadership are positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis H3b investigates positive direct influence of servant leadership

dimensions such as wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship on job

satisfaction. It was tested with the help of path analysis and got standardized beta of 0.34

for wisdom, 0.26 for persuasive mapping and 0.21 for organizational stewardship and t-

value of 5.667 for wisdom, 2.923 for persuasive mapping and 3.621 for organizational

stewardship with p-value .000, .001 and .000 which were found significant at p< 0.01,

indicating that there is positive relationship between all these variable. Therefore, the

results supported this hypothesis.

121

H4: There is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and employees’

loyalty.

Hypothesis H4 determines the positive direct relation of job satisfaction on

employees‟ loyalty. This hypothesis was tested via path analysis. The results showed that

beta value of 0.80 and t-value 23.578 with p-value 0.000 (p >0.01), indicating a strong

positive relation of job satisfaction with employees‟ loyalty. Therefore, the results strongly

supported this hypothesis of the study.

H5: There is positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational

Performance.

Hypothesis H5 examines the direct positive relationship of job satisfaction on

organizational performance. This hypothesis was tested via path analysis AMOS. The

results showed that beta value of 0.74 and t-value 19.330 with p-value 0.000 were highly

significant at p< 0.01, indicates a strong positive relation of job satisfaction with

organizational performance. Therefore, the results strongly supported this hypothesis of

the study.

H6: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between servant leadership,

employees’ loyalty, and organizational performance.

Hypothesis H6 determines the impact of servant leadership on employees‟ loyalty

and organizational performance indirectly through job satisfaction as mediator. To check

the mediation the direct effect should be significant between exogenous and indigenous

variables. This association was analyzed through path analysis and found that servant

leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance relationship were

significant. The standardized estimates of employees‟ loyalty and organizational

122

performance 0.60 and 0.62 were found significant with p<0.01 for direct impact. Bootstrap

function was performed in AMOS to check indirect impact. The standardized direct

estimates were reduced employees‟ loyalty 0.15 and organizational performance 0.25 but

found also significant in the indirect model at p> 0.05. Hence, the findings exemplify that

job satisfaction partially mediates that association. The results are supported by the

hypothesis (Appendix F).

Figure 15 Path Analysis of Servant Leadership, Jobs Satisfaction, Employees‟ Loyalty &

Organizational Performance.

123

Table 42

Hypotheses Results

Note: *= p<0.01, SL=Servant Leadership,OP=Organizational Performance, EL=

Employee‟s Loyalty, JS= Job Satisfaction

Hypotheses Direct Effect Indirect Effect Results

SL OP 0.62 (.000)* NA Significant

AC- EH OP 0.26,0.37(.000)* NA Significant

W-PM-OS OP 0.28,0.19,0.24 (.000)* NA Significant

SL EL 0.60 (.000)* NA Significant

AC- EH EL 0.40, 0.27 (.000)* NA Significant

W- PM- OS EL 0.21,0.26,.029 (.000)* NA Significant

SL JS 0.64 (.000)* NA Significant

AC- EH JS 0.34,0.34 (.000)* NA Significant

W- PM-OS JS 0.34,0.26,0.21(.000)* NA Significant

JS EL 0.80 (.000)* NA Significant

JS OP 0.74 (.000)* NA Significant

SL JS EL OP 0.60,0.62 (.000)* 0.15,0.25(.000)* Partial Mediation

124

Table 43

Hypotheses Testing Summary

Hypotheses End Result

H1: Servant leadership is positively related with organizational

Performance Supported

H1a: Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership

affect organizational performance positively. Supported

H1b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship

dimensions of servant leadership are positively related to

organizational performance Supported

H2: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and

employees‟ loyalty. Supported

H2a: Servant leadership dimensions like altruistic calling and emotional healing

are positively related to employees‟ loyalty. Supported

H2b: Servant leadership facets wisdom, persuasive mapping and Supported

organizational stewardship are positively impact employees‟ loyalty.

H3: Servant leadership has a positive relation with job satisfaction. Supported

H3a: Altruistic calling and emotional healing facets of servant leadership

affect job satisfaction positively. Supported

H3b: Wisdom, persuasive mapping and organizational stewardship Supported

dimensions of servant leadership are positively related with job satisfaction.

H4: There is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and

employees‟ loyalty Supported

H5: Job satisfaction is positively related with organizational performance Supported

H6: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between servant leadership,

employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. Supported

125

Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusions

The section consists of the purpose, findings of research, implication of present

research study, recommendations, limitations and conclusion of the research.

Purpose

The research mainly aims at the examining the impact of servant leadership behavior

on employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance, with the mediating role of job

satisfaction. This research was set to achieve the following research objectives:

1) To examine the relationship of servant leadership dimensions (altruistic calling,

emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship) and

organizational performance. 2) To examine that how servant leadership facets impact

employees‟ loyalty. 3) To examine the impact of servant leadership dimensions on job

satisfaction. 4) To examine the relationship of job satisfaction with employees‟ loyalty

and organizational performance. 5) To examine that how job satisfaction mediate the

relationships between servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational

performance.

Discussion on Research Findings

Findings of the research study showed an important contribution to the field of

leadership studies and broadened the limited research in the field of servant leadership,

job satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance in a university

setting. The target population of this study was the faculty members of public and private

universities of Peshawar. Servant Leadership Questionnaire was used to measure servant

leadership. Employees‟ loyalty was measured by using Pandey and Khare (2012) loyalty

questionnaire. For measuring the job satisfaction Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire

was used and for organizational performance Katou and Budhwar questionnaire was used.

126

The instruments validity was checked through CFA. The CFA results showed that all the

instruments were valid and good to use for this research. In the following sections the

researcher discussed all the hypotheses of the current study.

Impact of Servant Leadership on Organizational Performance. Empirical data has

supported the hypothesis of the relationship of servant leadership with organizational

performance. The data also supported the previous research on servant leadership and

organizational performance (Amadeo & Carol, 2008; Ding, Lu, Song & Lu, 2012;

Koesmono, 2014; Riketta, 2008; Sokoll, 2014; Tajammal & Wajid, 2012). The data

analysis has provided sufficient evidence that all the faculty members believe that

characteristics of servant leadership (see Table 9) increase organizational performance in

terms of development, quality, efficiency and innovation in universities of Peshawar. The

leader effected the development, quality effectiveness and innovation of the universities.

Studies have shown that servant leader behavior of the academic directors, head of

departments, and voice chancellor did have an effect on faculty members (Ding et al.,

2012). The data supported the research question and hypotheses H1.

It was also hypothesized that altruistic calling and emotional healing have positive

influence on organizational performance. The empirical data has supported H1a. The data

analysis has provided sufficient evidence that there was a positive relationship between the

university leader‟s altruistic calling, emotional healing behavior and university

performance. The altruistic calling behavior is to be more generous in behavior while

emotional healing is the ability to use healing process to recover employees from hardship

and mental shocks (McCann et al., 2014). These behaviors of the leader directly affect the

faculty ability to work and the notion of reciprocity.

It was also hypothesized that persuasive mapping, wisdom and organizational

stewardship have significant positive influence on organizational performance. The

127

empirical data has supported H1b. The data analysis has provided sufficient evidence that

showed a positive impact between the university leader‟s persuasive mapping, wisdom

and organizational stewardship behaviors and university performance. Wisdom is the

ability and sense of awareness to get cues from the observation (Sternberg, 2003).

Persuasive mapping is the ability to develop skills of logical reasoning (Barbuto &

Wheeler, 2006), while organizational stewardship is the ability of the servant leaders that

they enable the organization and its system to make a contribution and play its part in the

society (Travis, Searle & Barbuto, 2010). The findings revealed that servant leadership

style of leadership in universities did have positive impact on faculty perception, and this

positive perception prompt faculty to reciprocate with their job-related outcomes and thus

improve university performance.

Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Loyalty. Empirical evidence

supported the hypothesized link of servant leadership with employees‟ loyalty. The direct

positive influence of Servant leadership was found on faculty loyalty. It is an emotional

state that affects employees‟ relationship, identification and attachment with organization

and helps them in decision to continue or discontinue membership in the organization

(Rehman, 2012; Rimes, 2012). The data also supported the previous researches on servant

leadership and employees‟ loyalty (Chang, Chiu and Chen 2010; Ding, Lu, Song & Lu,

2012; Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014; Riketta & Dick 2005). Employees‟ have assorted

desires in job perspective and addressing them all is not possible. Nevertheless,

organization inquisitiveness is always reciprocated. When administration articulates their

assurance to the training and development, motivation and career need, the faculty in turn

feel esteemed and become part of the organization (Rehman, 2012). Therefore,

commitment to the employees‟ development needs will affect their loyalty to the

organization. The data supported the research question and hypothesis H2 related to

servant leadership and employees‟ loyalty.

128

The results of the hypothesis H2a reveal that there is statistically significant positive

relationship between emotional healing, altruistic calling and employees‟ loyalty to the

universities. Emotional healing promotes the healing process and enables the faculty to

express their apprehensions (Rimes, 2012). The altruistic calling behavior accentuates to

make distinction in others‟ lives, while putting other interest before his/her own. It is a

philanthropic in nature (Rimes, 2012). The data analysis has provided sufficient evidence

that there was a positive relationship between the university leader‟s altruistic calling,

emotional healing behaviors and faculty loyalty to the university. The data supported the

research question and hypothesis H2a related to altruistic calling, emotional healing and

employees‟ loyalty.

Empirical data has supported the hypothesis H2b that there is positive relationship

between persuasive mapping, wisdom, organizational stewardship and employees‟ loyalty.

The findings supported the previous research Ding et al. (2012). Commitment and

motivation are the results if employees‟ are provided more chances for training and career

development. They will behave positively and will be more loyal to their jobs (Rehman,

2012). Persuasive mapping is that ability of servant leadership, due to which he gives

confidence to faculty to look ahead and make positive decision. Wisdom is the capability

of servant leader to predict and to see future in advance and learn from the observation of

surroundings, while organizational stewardship is the ability of the servant leader to affect

the society through the university (Rimes, 2102). The data has supported that there was

significant positive relationship between wisdom, persuasive mapping, organizational

stewardship and employees‟ loyalty to universities.

Impact of Servant Leadership on Job Satisfaction. It was assumed as

hypothesis that the relationship between servant leadership positively impact on the job

satisfaction. Empirically, data supported the hypothesis. The results also supported past

129

study (Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). Some of the researchers have mentioned job

satisfaction as an important factor in job performance, and leadership styles are important

antecedent in job satisfaction (Ding et al., 2012). Data analysis has been provided

sufficient evidence that universities of Peshawar faculty perceive that servant leadership

facets such as emotional healing, wisdom, altruistic calling, persuasive mapping and

organizational stewardship bring faculty satisfaction in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic

satisfaction and it has a central importance in their contentment.

Intrinsic satisfaction is that when employees‟ consider only the kind of work they

do. In simple words it means that the tasks that make up the job. The extrinsic satisfaction

is presents when they consider not only the kind of work they do but also consider

working conditions such as the supervisor, the pay and coworkers etc.

When faculty feel unjustly treated, they are expected to respond by changing their job

attitude (Rehman, 2012). Faculty tends to be more contented with results they anticipate.

Faculty may evaluate the volume of the compensation they receive to their anticipation.

Consequently, if faculty feels dissatisfied, the behavior would be affected. Therefore, if

faculty is endowed with more chances for development they would behave positively. The

data has supported that faculty tend to be more satisfied when led in the university with

servant leadership style of leadership. The data supported the research question and

hypotheses H3 related to servant leadership and job satisfaction.

Empirical data has supported hypothesis H3a that there is significant positive

impact of emotional healing and altruistic calling on job satisfaction. Altruistic calling and

emotional healing behaviors of the university leader affect faculty intrinsic and extrinsic

satisfaction to university. The results supported the previous studies (Ding et al., 2012;

McCann et al., 2014). The data supported the research question and hypothesis H3a

related to altruistic calling, emotional healing and job satisfaction.

130

It was also hypothesized that there was significant relationship between wisdom,

persuasive mapping, organizational stewardship and job satisfaction. These behaviors of

university leader impact faculty job satisfaction in university. A leader with high value of

these behaviors can influence faculty to be more satisfied and responsive. The data

supported the research question and hypothesis H3b related to wisdom, persuasive

mapping, organizational stewardship and job satisfaction.

Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational

Performance. Organizational performance, employees‟ loyalty and job satisfaction have

been found interrelated as it was assumed by the hypothesis. Job satisfaction has direct

role and salutary effect on employees‟ loyalty and organizational output. The findings also

supported past studies (Anderson & Kelly, 2005; Arnold, Jones & Reynolds, 2006; Babin,

Griffin, Lee & Kim, 2005; Ding et al., 2012; McCann, Graves, & Cox, 2014; Lisbijanto &

Budiyanto, 2014). The data analysis provides statistically significant evidence that faculty

members in universities of Peshawar perceive that job satisfaction characteristics such as

intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction make sense of organization commitment behavior which

in return make faculty more loyal to their universities. Job satisfaction builds employees‟

Loyalty in terms of career development, commitment, motivation and belongingness and

universities performance in terms of development, quality, efficiency and innovation. The

data supported the research question and hypotheses H4, H5 related to job satisfaction,

employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.

The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction. The primary purpose of understanding

exogenous variable (servant leadership) is the prediction of certain outcomes. The

exogenous variable has direct and indirect effect on employees‟ loyalty, job satisfaction

organizational performance. The path analysis results showed that job satisfaction partially

mediates between faculty loyalty and organizational performance. Members perceived that

servant leadership behaviors (see Table 9) strongly impacts faculty loyalty in terms of

131

motivation, commitment, belongingness and career development and organizational

performance in terms of development, quality, efficiency and innovation when job

satisfaction mediates. These relationships accentuate the importance of job satisfaction and

the notion of reciprocity. Faculty members who believe that they lead by university leader

with servant leadership style of leadership and provide development opportunities are

expected to behave reciprocally (Rehman, 2012). Reciprocity is instinctive human

quality. When the faculty members feel that they are treated as assets of the organization,

they reciprocate. Universities will be more effective if faculty members are satisfied

(Ostroff, 1992; cited by Rehman, 2012).

Satisfaction usually depends on the social exchange theory ---- You cannot clap

with one hand, but if you combine both, then you can clap (Rahman, 2012). Thus servant

leadership affects employees' perception of satisfaction, and this attitude prompts workers

to react with the job-related result. Though, very limited literature is available on servant

leadership, job satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance but the

results of this study were consistent with the studies of Ding et al. (2012), Koesmono

(2014), Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014). Thus, servant leadership affects faculty

perception of job satisfaction and this perception prompts faculty members to reciprocate.

The data supported the research question and hypothesis H6 related to job satisfaction

mediation between servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty, and organizational

performance.

Servant Leadership, Job Satisfaction, Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational

Performance. The present study also examines the overall relationship of servant

leadership with employees‟ loyalty, job satisfaction, and organizational performance. The

results showed partial mediation role of job satisfaction in the association between the

servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. It is worth

mentioning that servant leadership facets had a direct and indirect effect on employees‟

132

loyalty and organizational performance. The findings show that a servant leadership

behavior imparts satisfaction in faculty members which further plays positive role in

making them loyal, remain committed and dedicated to the same university. Similarly, job

satisfaction plays an important contribution in making the universities performance better

in terms of development, quality, efficiency and innovation. The data also supported

previous studies of Ding et al. (2012), Koesmono (2014), Lisbijanto and Budiyanto,

(2014), McCann, Graves, and Cox, (2014) and Tajammal and Wajid, (2012).

Contribution to Knowledge

Before conducting the research study, few research studies were available on

servant leadership and particularly on servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and

organizational performance with mediating effect of job satisfaction in education sector

especially in universities. There were studies available on servant leadership but all were

separate studies (Ding et al., 2012; Lisbijanto & Budiyanto, 2014). No single study was

found by the researcher that examines the impact of servant leadership on all such

combinations. This study will provide a framework that link servant leadership with

organizational performance and employees‟ loyalty with mediating role of job satisfaction.

This study also elucidates the importance of job satisfaction in the relationship of servant

leadership, employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance. This study will also

contribute in the field of management and will assist the administration in required

literature.

Research Implications

This study has analyzed job satisfaction as the mediator between servant

leadership, employees‟ loyalty, and organizational performance. The results presented in

the preceding chapters provide both practical and theoretical implication.

133

Theoretical Implications. First, this study would contribute to theory in the form

of servant leadership and to the literature by providing more information on servant

leadership and other variables such as employees‟ loyalty, job satisfaction and

organizational performance. Second, the research has designed a new model to show that

how the relationship between the endogenous and exogenous variables is intervened by a

third variable i.e., job satisfaction. Higher educational institutions today face the challenge

of formulating strategies for achieving organizational performance, employees‟ loyalty

and team effectiveness. Implementation of servant leadership style is desirable to promote

individual development and to achieve productive results.

Third, this study provides theoretical support concerning the antecedents and

outcomes of job satisfaction in universities of Peshawar, KPK. Fourth, the current study

also provides detail of empirical research on servant leadership behavior of leadership

styles in universities of Peshawar.

Fifth, In Pakistan, the field of servant leadership is being researched. Therefore,

there is lack of research in educational institutions especially the universities of Peshawar.

This study revealed the importance and effects of servant leadership behavior in

comprehending the faculty views of job satisfaction and added to our knowledge of job

satisfaction factors which are crucial in the field as per the empirical results of the target

population reflect. The research therefore, supply a base the researchers for testing further

the relationship among these variables.

Practical Implications. This study will be significant in the sense because it will

provide the administrative management an understanding to foster new leadership

practices like servant leadership, to enhance employees‟ commitment and organizational

performance through job satisfaction. This study will also provide insight into

134

management and practitioners about the servant leadership approach that can help

developing competitive advantages and reduced costs.

Second, this study will not only provide information on the importance of servant

leadership but will exactly show the consequences of job satisfaction in public and private

sector universities. This study will also facilitate the future researcher in their further study

on servant leadership in other different areas of interest. The leaders would know exactly

how the servant leadership dimensions (see Table 9) affect employees‟ loyalty and

organizational performance positively or negatively with the mediation of job satisfaction.

This work will be the first attempt in this area of leadership, especially in the education

sector.

Third, the impact of the study reflects that servant leadership style has a strong

indirect relation with employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance through job

satisfaction. As universities are responsible for providing higher education, they must take

care of faculty members in terms of leadership behavior or style, and satisfaction should

be given key importance in the formulation of policies. The administration should

understand the importance of servant leadership and job satisfaction for universities as

well as for faculty members.

Further, servant leadership had a direct positive effect on job satisfaction. Thus,

identifying the faculty potential through the excellence of this leadership style might be

valuable in making their perceptions of job satisfaction in the outcome and their

performance. Servant leadership principles have been used in different areas such as

profit, non-profit organizations, and universities and churches, and health care institutions.

Group oriented approach is the main feature of servant leadership; as such an approach

enhances decision-making ability, thereby strengthening an organization which improves

135

the community and society. The other good feature of servant leadership is that it

accentuates persuasion power and looking for consensus.

Many corporations have adopted servant leadership as a guiding philosophy. Even

the supervisor of those organizations instructs their employees‟ who are supervisors that

one person must go for servant leadership training (Carter, 2012). Many business

organizations have adopted servant leadership philosophy as an imperative structure that is

useful (Carter, 2012; Rimes, 2011). Spears (2005), mentioned that the servant leadership

concept is extending into educational institutions by giving training and courses on servant

leadership. He said that servant leadership experiential programs (learning by doing) have

now been introduced in every college and university and this should be the case for

universities in Peshawar, the high-level executives should follow the servant leadership

behaviors to implement policies more effectively and efficiently at the universities.

If the Peshawar universities administration needs a faculty member to be more

industrious, they should consider promoting servant leadership behavior and provide good

working conditions, pay, environment, promotion, development and encourage them to

take more responsibility (Adeniji, 2011; Ding et al., 2012). This could improve faculty

satisfaction and enhance employees‟ loyalty and organizational (University) performance.

This study outcome can also be useful in other public sectors of Pakistan such as in

railways, police, civil sectors, air lines, manufacturing industries and other educational and

business institutions.

Research Recommendations

The following further research recommendations are suggested:

The universities management should encourage new management practices (servant

leadership) to improve organizational performance. They must identify which factors of

136

servant leadership are more effective than others to improve job satisfaction and build

employees‟ loyalty. Servant leadership implementation in universities did not strongly

affect employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance, but it was through job

satisfaction. Thus servant leadership would impact both. Therefore, leaders of the

universities should provide better consideration. Similar findings that servant leader

behavior improves job satisfaction, were made by Ding et al. (2012), and it would bring

good performance, and the employees‟ will be more committed and loyal to the

organization, and it would increase organizational performance (McCann et al., 2014;

Rimes, 2012)

The current research is quantitative in nature and therefore, it is recommended to have

qualitative research on the same variables to get additional results. This study has proved

that servant leadership made a significant effect on the faculty members in universities.

The leaders of universities who desire that the faculty stay with the institution, and who

want to have the organizational commitment, organizational loyalty, organizational

performance, and satisfied staff searching for goals, should think of further improvement

of servant leadership behavior.

The current study also recommends a longitudinal research with the same variables as

it would be a contribution to the knowledge. The sample size should be enlarged as much

as possible, and it would be better to analyze the sample according to different industries

and regions to know the difference. More variables may be taken for further research such

as changing the factors of servant leadership, organizational trust, organizational

citizenship, employees‟ empowerment, employees‟ commitment, organizational image

and effect of employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance with each other to

provide further literature on variables.

137

Limitations of the Study

This study results have some limitations. The sample size could be the one. The

sample size comprised only public and private universities in the city of Peshawar, KPK

with total faculty members of 2000 or more. This study sample size was adequate

(N= 308), although a large number of sample population of universities in Peshawar could

have changed the results.

Another limitation could be that servant leadership only five dimensions were

taken to measure in study survey. Therefore, this study was limited to servant leadership

five dimensions such as; altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping

and organizational stewardship.

The instruments choice for job satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and organizational

performance could be another limitation. The researcher used these instruments due to the

detail of their available measures. However, the instruments were not designed for

education institutions.

The study employed cross-sectional data without any regard to the longitudinal

approach and drew its conclusions accordingly. Therefore, the study should be classified

in the field of leadership especially the servant leadership with the mentioned limitations.

Alongside the limitations the generalization made over here can only be applied to the

universities in the Peshawar city.

Conclusion of the Research

This study main purpose was to develop a model in the existing literature, wherein

the mediating role of job satisfaction that links servant leadership, employees‟ loyalty and

organizational performance among academicians in universities of Peshawar is examined.

The study revealed that servant leadership positively influences organizational

138

performance and employees‟ loyalty and that this relation was stronger when it measured

through job satisfaction as mediator. This reflects that the servant leadership relationship

with employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance is stronger when job satisfaction

is high among the organizational members. Findings also indicated a significant positive

direct influence of job satisfaction on employees‟ loyalty and organizational performance.

It is assumed that this study would provide a course of action to the management

for better understanding of servant leadership and its outcomes. It is also assumed that this

study would be useful for universities leaders who want to make appropriate decisions for

faculty members. In short, academicians‟ perception of servant leadership behaviors such

as altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational

stewardship should be given more attention as these are significant predictors of job

satisfaction, employees‟ loyalty and universities performance.

139

References

Adeniji, A. A. (2011). Organizational climate and job satisfaction among academic staff

in some selected private universities in southwest Nigeria. Doctoral dissertation,

Covenant University.

Afridi, A. S. (2017). The impact of service quality on customers’ loyalty and

advocacy; Mediating role of trust: A comparative study of public and private

sectors hospitals. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Preston University Islmabad, Pakistan.

Alfonso, S., & Andres, S.P. (2007). The effect of job satisfaction on labor turnover by

gender: An analysis for Switzerland. Journal of Socioeconomics, 3 (6), 859-913

Ali, W., & Hussain, T.(2012). Effects on servant leadership on follower‟s job

performance. Sci., Tech. and Dev., 31 (4): 359-368

Ali, S.S. (1986). Principles of Management (5th ed.). Kifayat Academy Karachi, Pakistan.

Al-Omari, A. (2008). The relationship between leadership styles of Hashemite University

department chairs and job satisfaction as reported by department faculty members

the University of Sharjah. Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 5 (2),101-

124.

Alam, S.S., Talha, M., Sivan, C.N., & Ahsan, M.N. (2005). Job satisfaction of university

woman teachers in Bangladesh. Journal of Social Sciences, 1 (2), 88-9.

Amin, M., Amin, H., Tatlah, I.A., Islam, M., Lodhi, S.A., & Khan, M.A. (2015). Faculty

job satisfaction and leader‟s Influence: A case of a public university of Pakistan.

International Journal of AYER, 1, 29-46.

Amin, M., Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail, W., Zaleha Abdul Rasid, S., & Daverson Andrew

140

Selemani, R. (2014). The impact of human resource management practices on

performance: Evidence from a public university. The TQM Journal, 26 (2), 125-

142.

Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing

faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46 (7), 803-830.

Amadeo, & Carol. (2008). A co- relational study of servant leadership and registered

nurse job satisfaction in acute health-care settings. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Phoenix, USA.

Anderson, P. (2005). A Co-relational analysis of servant leadership and job satisfaction

in a religious educational organization. School of Advanced Studies, University

of Phoenix, USA.

Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (1998). Performance management. London: Institute of

Personnel and Development.

Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism versus

Egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13,169-191.

Babbie, E. R. (1998). The practice of social research: Belmont, MA: Wadsworth Pub.

Babin, B.J., Lee, Y.K., Kim, E.J., & Griffin, M. (2005). Modeling consumer satisfaction

and word-of-mouth: Restaurant patronage in Korea. Journal of Services Marketing

19 (3),133-139.

Barbuto, J. E. Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification

of servant leadership. Group and Organization Management,31 (3), 300-326.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology,51(6), 1173.

Bashir, M., Jianqiao, L. Zhang, Y, J., Ghazanfar, F. & Abrar, M. (2011). The relationship

141

between high performance work system, organizational commitment and

demographic factors in public sector universities of Pakistan. International Journal

of Research in Business, 1(62), 71-75

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. 2000. The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics 3, (3), 26-40

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:

The Free Press.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership 1992 and

beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training 14, (5), 21-27.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:

Harper & Row Publisher.

Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1994). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a leader.

Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Bettercoure, Lance A., Kevin, P., Gwinner, Mathew, L., & Meuter.(2001). A comparison

of attitude, personality and knowledge predictors of service oriented organization

citizen ship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29-41.

Bezy, K. G. (2011). An operational definition of spiritual leadership. Doctoral dissertation

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning

knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 595-

618.

142

Blake, R. R., Shepherd, H.A., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). Managing intergroup conflict

industry. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Blanchard, K. (2002). Forward: The heart of a servant. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence

(Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century. New York,

NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Blanchard, K. (2007). Leading at a higher level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating

high performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Blanchard Management

Corporation.

Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A

phenomenological approach to the social sciences. Wiley-Interscience Publication.

Bolden, R. (2004). What is leadership? Leadership South West, Research Report.

Retrieved from http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/research/abstract.php?id=43

Brewer, C. (2010). Servant leadership: A Review of the literature. Online Journal of Work

Force Education and Development, 4(2), 1-8.

Bryant, S.R. (2003). Servant leadership and public managers. Regent University.

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review.

Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710.

Buchen, I.H. (1998). Servant leadership: A model for future faculty and future institutions.

The Journal of Leadership Studies 5 (1), 125- 134.

143

Buhler, P. (1995). Leaders vs. managers. Supervision 56 (5), 24-26.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (2004). Marketing Research (6th ed.). Chicago: Mosby.

Carter, D.R.(2012). The influence of servant leadership on employee engagement: A

qualitative phenomenological study of restaurant employees. Doctoral dissertation

the University of Phoenix.

Castillo, J.X., & Cano, J. (2004). Factors explaining job satisfaction among the faculty.

Journal of Agricultural Education, 45 (3), 65-74.

Cerit, Y. (2009).The effects of servant leadership behavior of school principals on

teachers‟ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,

37 (5), 600-623.

Cerit, Y.(2010). The effect of servant leadership on teachers‟ performance measures.

European Management Journal 25(4), 266–282.

Chang, C. C., Chiu, C. M., & Chen, C. A. (2010). The effect of TQM practices on

employee satisfaction and loyalty in government. Total Quality Management,

21(12),1299-1314.

Chee, C., Haddad, K., & Singh, G. (2007). Human resource management, job satisfaction,

morale, optimism, and turnover. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Administration,8 (2), 73-88.

Cheng, E. W. L. (2001). SEM being more effective than multiple regressions in

parsimonious model testing for management development research. Journal of

Management Development, 20(7), 650-667.

Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2007). Multiple perspectives on performance

144

measures. European Management Journal 25(4), 266–282.

Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis. Cassell Educational.

Christina, R. (2011). Servant leadership practice among student affairs professional.

The Bulletin, 79 (6).

Chughtai, A. A. (2016). Servant leadership and follower outcomes: mediating effects

of organizational identification and psychological safety. The Journal of

Psychology, 1-15.

Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The Functions of a

Servant Leader. Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 5-10.

Contee-Borders, A.K. (2002). A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace.

Regent University.

Crabtree, S. (2004). Getting personal in the workplace: Are negative relationships

squelching productivity in your company. The Gallup Management Journal.

Crosby, P.B. (1996). The Absolutes of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dacher, E. S. (1999). Loving openness and the healing relationship. Advances in Mind-

Body Medicine, 15(1), 32-43.

Daft, R.L. (1994). Management. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.

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

leadership with in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior & Human

Performance (13), 46-78.

Darcy, K. T. (2010, Aug). Ethical leadership: The past, present and future. International

Journal of Disclosure & Governance, 7(3), 198-212.

Dennis, R., & B.E. Winston. (2003). A factor analysis of page and Wong‟s servant

145

leadership instrument. Leadership &Organization Development Journal,

24(8),455-459.

Dennis, R.S. & M. Bocarnea. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment

instrument. Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600-615.

Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.

Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development

and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and

Psychology,26(3), 249-267

Ding, D., Lu, H., Song, Y., & Lu, Q. (2012). Relationship of Servant Leadership and

Employee Loyalty; the mediating role of employee satisfaction. iBusiness

Scientific Research, 4, 208-215.

Drury, S. (2005). Teacher as servant leader: A faculty model for effectiveness with students.

School of Leadership Studies Regent University.

Dusitsutirat, A. (2009). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction of Teachers in Rajamangala

University of Technology Krung. The Paper presented at the International

Conference on the Role of Universities in Hands-On Education, Rajamangala

University of Technology Lanna, Chiang-Mai.

Endrissat, N., Müller, W. R., & Fontana, A. J. (2006). In search of charismatic leaders,

or, you get what you ask for. Wirtschafts wissenschaftliches Zentrum (WWZ) der

Universität Basel.

Erdurmazlı, E. (2018). Satisfaction and Commitment in Voluntary Organizations: A

Cultural Analysis Along with Servant Leadership. VOLUNTAS: International

Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-18.

146

Fairholm, G.W. (1991). Values leadership: Toward a new philosophy of leadership

New York: Praeger Publishers.

Fajana, Sola (2002). Human resource management: An introduction. Lagos:

Labofin and Company.

Falkenburg, K., & Schyns, B. (2007). Work satisfaction, organizational commitment

and withdrawal behavior. Management Research News, 30(10), 708-723.

Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G., & Winston, B.E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage

for empirical research. The Journal of Leadership Studies (6), 49-72.

Fisher, J.R. (1999). What will it take to transform your organization in the 21st century?

Journal for Quality & Participation, 22 (6), 7-14.

Fleishman, E.A., & Hunt, G. (1973). Current development in the study of leadership.

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Fosam, E.B., Grimsley, M.F.J., & Wisher, S.J. (1998). Exploring models for employee

satisfaction with particular reference to a police force. Total Quality

Management,9 ( 2), 235-247.

Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Gatignon, H. (2010). Confirmatory Factor Analysis in Statistical analysis of management

data. Springer, New York, NY.

Gaur, A. S., & Gaur, S. S. (2006). Statistical methods for practice and research: A guide

to data analysis using SPSS: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple study guide

and reference (10a.ed.). Boston: Pearson.

147

Gerber, P.D., Nel, P.S., & Van Dyk, P.S. (1996). Human Resource Management

Johannesburg International Thompson Publishing.

Giacometti, K.S.M. (2005). Factors affecting job satisfaction and retention of beginning

teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University.

Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M. & Donnelly, J. H. (1997). Organization behavior structure

process (9th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Gomez, G.(2014, December,13). Integrated psychological theory of leadership. Retrieved

from www. linkedin.com

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral.

Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1970). The servant as a leader. The Robert K Greenleaf Center.

Indianapolis.

Greenleaf, R.K., & Spears, L.C. (1998). The power of servant leadership :Essays.

Barrett-Koehler.

Griffeth, R.W., & Hom, P.W. (1995). The employee turnover process. Research in

Personnel and Human Resource Management (13), 245-9.

Grimm, R. (2018). The Link between Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction in the DON

Civilian Workforce. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects.

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1637

Guidelines for Cooperative Rankings (2007). Regulation of minister of cooperatives and

148

Small, medium enterprises of Indonesia. No. 22/PER/M.KUKM/IV.

Guidelines for Cooperative Rankings Review (2008). Regulation of Minister of

Cooperatives and Small Medium Enterprises of Indonesia No.

06/PER/M.KUKM/III/.

Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E (1971). Employee reaction to job characteristics. Journal

of Applied Psychology,55, 259-286.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R (1976). Motivation through the design of work.

Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,16, 250-279.

Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate

data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.(2006).

Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Pearson Education. Inc.

Hart, D. W., & Thompson, J. A. (2007). Untangling employee loyalty: A psychological

contract perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly,17(2), 297-323.

Hashim, M. (2013). Understanding organizational behavior. Academic Press Corporation,

salt lake city United States.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & D.E. Johnson (1996). Management of organizational

behavior: Utilizing human resource. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Herzberg, F., & Grigaliuma, B. J. (1971). Relevancy in the test of motivator – hygiene

theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(1), 73 – 79.

Herzberg, F. (1967). Work and the Nature of Man . Cleveland: OH. World Book.

Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2016). Do ethical, authentic, and

149

servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership?

A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 0149206316665461.

House, R.J. (1994). Global perspectives for local action. Washington, DC: National

Academic Press.

House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. In decision making:

An organizational behavior approach . Markus Wiener Publishing Inc.

Hunter, J. C. (2004). The world’s most powerful leadership principle: How to become a

servant -leader. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

Igharia, M., & Greenhaus, J.H. (1992). Determinants of MIS employee turnover

intentions: A structural equation model. Association for Computing Machinery

Communications, 359 (2), 34-45.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2004). An experience sampling measure of job satisfaction:

It‟s relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job belief, and general job

satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3),

367-389.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational

analysis. American educational research journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Ingram,T.N., Laforge, R.W., Locander,W.B., Mackenzie,S.B., & Podsakoff, P.M.

(2005). New directions in sales leadership research. Journal of Personal Selling &

Sales Management, 25(2) , 137-154.

150

Irving, J.A. (2005). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams.Regent University.

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the

impact of servant leadership on salesperson‟s turnover intention. Journal of

Personal Selling & Sales Management,29(4) , 351-365.

Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2008). Enhancing nurse job satisfaction: The importance

of servant leader orientation in health care management. Academy of Management

Proceedings (1),1-6.

Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2006). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping

value: Investigating differential effect on retail outcome. Journal of Business

Research,59 (9), 974-981.

Johnson, P., & Clark, M. (Eds.). (2006). Business and management research

methodologies. Sage Publications Ltd.

Jonker, J., & Pennink, B. (2010). The essence of research methodology: A concise guide

for master and Ph.D. students in management science: Springer Heidelberg

Dordrecht: London, New York

Joseph, E. E., & B.E. Winston. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust,

and organizational trust. Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 26(1),

6-22.

Jose, G., & Mampilly, S. R. (2012). Satisfaction with HR practices and employee

engagement: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Economics and Behavioral

Studies, 4(7), 423.

Karimi, S. (2008). Factors affecting job satisfaction of faculty members of Bu-Ali

Sina University. Scientific & Research Quarterly Journal of Mazandaran

151

University, 23 (6), 89-104.

Kasun, R. (2009). The application of servant leadership by selected New Jersey public

school principals. Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University.

Katou, A. (2002). The link between business strategies, human resource management

and business performance: The case of the Greek manufacturing

sector. Management Research News, 25(8/10), 99-101.

Katou, A. A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2010). Causal relationship between HRM policies

and organizational performance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing

sector. European Management Journal, 28(1), 25-39.

Keban, YT. (1995). Performance of public organizations. One day seminar, Faculty of

Social Politic, UGM Yogyakarta.

Keith, M., K. (2017). To serve first: The servant leadership journey. www.toservefirst.com

Khan, I., Farhatulla, Khan,H., Nawaz,& Yar,N.B. (2013). The Demographic Impact on

the organizational commitment of academicians in the HEIs of DC like Pakistan.

European Journal of Sustainable Development,2 (4), 117-130.

Khan, S. N. (2010). Impact of authentic leaders on organization performance.

International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 167-76.

Koesmono, H.T.(2014). The influence of organizational culture, servant leadership, and

job satisfaction toward organizational commitment and job performance through

work motivation as moderating variables for lecturers in economics and

management of private universities in East Surabaya. Educational Research

International, 3(4), 25-39.

Koopman, P. L. (1991). Between control and commitment: management and change as

the art of balancing. Leadership and OD Journal, 12, 3 – 7.

152

Kotter, J.P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: The Free Press.

Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.

Education and pshychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.

Kumar,S.(2014). Structural Equation Modeling [online] available at Ytpak.com

Laub, J. A. (1998). Organizational leadership assessment. Wellington, FL: Organizational

Leadership Assess.

Laub, J. (2003). From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the

Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) model. In Proceedings of the

Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.

Laub, J.A. (2004). Defining servant leadership: A recommended typology for

servant leadership studies. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable Proceedings,

Regent University, School of Leadership Studies. Virginia Beach.

Lichtenwalner, B. (2011). Fortune’s best companies to work for with Servant leadership.

Retrieved from http://modernservantleader.com/servant leadership/fortunes-best-

companies-to-work-for-with-servant leadership.

Lichtenwalner, B. (2011). Servant leader companies list. Retrieved from

http://modernservantleader.com/featured/servant leadership-companies-list.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Development of

multi-dimensional measures and multilevel assessment. The Leadership Quarterly,

19(2), 161-177.

Life of Muhammad. (2014, November 21). The Dialy Qudrat. Retrieved from

http://www.Dailyqudrat.com/

Lisbijanto, H., & Budiyanto. (2014). Influence of servant leadership on organization

153

performance through job satisfaction in employees cooperative Surabaya.

International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 3( 4), 01-06.

Locke, E.A (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 4, 309-336.

Locke, E.A (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Luekens, M.T., Lyter, D.M., & Fox, E.E. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility results

from the teacher follow-up survey, 2000-01 (NCES 2004-301). Washington:

National Centre for Education Statistics.

Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2004). Leadership theory application skill development

(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson South-Western.

Luthans, F. (2002). Organizational Behavior (8th ed.). Chicago: Mosby.

MacArthur, J. (2004). The book on leadership. Nelson Books.

Machumu, H. J., & Kaitila, M. M. (2014). Influence of leadership styles on teachers

job satisfaction: A case of selected primary schools in Songea and Morogoro

districts, Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Administration and

Policy Studies, 6(4), 56-61.

Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2014). The relationship between servant leadership,

organizational citizenship behavior and team effectiveness. SA Journal of

Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 01-10.

Majauskaitė,M.(2013). The impact of leadership style on job satisfaction of faculty in

higher education institutions in Lithuania. Master thesis. ISM University of

Management and Economics International Marketing and Management Program.

Malhota, B.R., Jackofsky, E.F.,& Indik, B.P (1996). A longitudinal study of climates.

154

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(3), 319-334.

Mango, E. (2018). Beyond Leadership. Open Journal of Leadership, 7(01), 117.

Marriner-Tomey, A. (1996). Guide to nursing management and leadership (5th ed.).

Chicago: Mosby.

Marriner-Tomey, A. (2000). Guide to nursing management and leadership (6th ed.).

Chicago: Mosby.

Marturano, A., & Gosling, J. (2008). Leadership: The key concepts. New York, NY:

Rutledge,Taylor & Francis Group

McCann, J. T., Graves, D., & Cox, L. (2014). Servant leadership, employee satisfaction

and organizational performance in rural community hospitals. International

Journal of Business and Management, 9(10), 28-38.

McCaslin, M. (2001). The landscape of leadership building relationships. Journal of

Leadership Studies (8), 21.

McFarland, L.J., Senn, L.E., & Childress, J.R. (1993). 21st century leadership: Dialogues

with 100 top leaders. New York: Leadership Press.

McGregor, D. (1976). An analysis of leadership. Lassey and Fernandez.

Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011). Revisiting servant leadership: An empirical study in Indian

context. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 5(2) 24-30

Melchar, D., and Susan B. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through

servant leadership. The International Journal of Business Enquirer, 9(1), 74-88.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (2004). TCM employee commitment survey academic users

guide London: Univerity of Western Ontario.

Moday,R. T., Richard, M., Steers & Layman,W. P. (1979). The measurement of

155

organizational commitment . Journal of vocational behavior, 14, 244-247.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-227.

Mulki,J.P., Jaramillo, F., and Locander, W.B. (2006). Effects of ethical climate and

supervisory trust on salesperson‟s job attitudes and intentions to quit. Journal of

Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26(1),19-26.

Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Person Prentice Hall.

Needham, M. R. (2018). Relationship Between Servant Leadership Characteristics and

Turnover in Fast-Casual Restaurants. Doctoral Dissertation.

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006) .Transformational and transactional

leadership effects on teachers‟ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (2),145-177.

Northouse, Peter G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Obisi, C (2003). Organizational Behavior: Concepts and applications. Lagos: Malt House

Press Limited.

Ololube, N. P. (2006). Teachers job satisfaction and motivation for school effectiveness:

An assessment. Online Submission.

Oshagbemi, T. (1997). Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education. Education

and Training, 39 (9), 354-359.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers.

156

Women in Management Review, 15, 331-343.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Is the length of service related to the level of job satisfaction?

International Journal of Social Economics, 27, 213-226.

Osseo-Asare, A.E., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W.D. (2005). Leadership best practices

for sustaining quality in UK higher education from perspective of the EFQM

excellence model. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(2), 148-170.

Ostroff, O.R., Kinicki, S.N., & Tamkins, U.O.(2007). Relationships between

psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta analytic review.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389-416.

Page R, Jagger N, Tamkin P., & Henwood N. (2006). The measurement of organizational

performance, Research Report, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Pandy C., & Khare R.( 2012). Impact of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment on employee loyalty. International Journal of Social Science &

Interdisciplinary Research,1 (8),26-41.

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership

theory in organizational context. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393.

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Regent

University. Dissertation Abstracts, UMI, 3082719.

Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (1991). Essentials of nursing research methods, appraisal

and utilization (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Rahman, W. (2012). The relationship of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes with

employee development in the context of performance appraisal in public

universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, National

University of Modern Languages, Islamabad.

157

Ramli, A., & Desa, N.M. (2014). The relationship between servant leadership and

organizational commitment: The Malaysian perspectives. International Journal of

Management and Sustainability,3(2), 111-123.

Reisinger, Y., Mavondo, F., Moutinho, L., & Rita, P. (2006). Structural equation

modeling:Critical issues and new developments. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 21(4), 41-71.

Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: A meta-

analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472.

Rimes, W. D. (2011). The relationship between servant leadership and organizational

commitment .Doctoral dissertation, Temple University.

Russell, R.F. (1999). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &

Organizational Development Journal,22 (2), 76-83.

Ryckman, O. J. (2017). Retention, mentorship, and servant leadership: An analysis for

retaining 2050‟s Generals in Today‟s Army. M.A. in Leadership Studies Capstone

Project Paper. http://digital.sandiego.edu/solesmalscap/4

Saifuddin, Nawaz, A., & Jan, F. (2012). Predicting job satisfaction among the

academicians of universities in Peshawar, Pakistan. IEL, 2(2), 34-45.

Sanders, J. O. (2007). Spiritual leadership. Chicago: Moody Publishers.

Sargent, T. and Hannum, E. (2005). Keeping teachers happy: Job satisfaction among

primary school teachers in rural Northwest China. Comparative Education Review,

49 (2), 173-204.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Understanding research philosophies and

approaches. Research Methods for Business Students, 4, 106-135.

Scardino, A. J. (2012). Servant leadership in higher education: The influence of servant-

158

led faculty on student engagement. Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University.

Schermerhorn, John, Jr. (1997). Situational leadership: Conversations with Paul Hersey.

Mid-American Journal of Business, 12 (2), 5-11.

Schleicher, D., Watt, J., & Greguras, G. (2004). Re- examining the job satisfaction

performanceship. The complexity of attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

89(1), 165-177.

Schneider, S. K., & George, W. M. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational

leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 32(1), 60-77.

Scouller, J. (2011). The three levels of leadership: How to develop your leadership

presence, knowhow, and skill. Management Books.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (5th ed. ).

Wiley, India.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant

leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-

424.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1993). Frames of leadership. International Journal of Educational Reform,

2 (1), 19-26.

Seseer, B. (2007). Perceived presidential leadership styles and faculty job satisfaction at

Mongolian public universities. Unpublished dissertation, Purdue University,

Educational Studies.

Shekari, H., & Nikooparvar, M. Z. (2012). Promoting leadership effectiveness in

organizations: A case study on the involved factors of servant leadership.

International Journal of Business Administration, 3(1), 54-65

159

Shirbagi, N. ( 2007). Exploring organizational commitment and leadership frames

within Indian and Iranian higher education institutions. Bulletin of Education

Research , 29 (1), 17-32.

Siripak, S. (2006). Job satisfaction of academic staff in Mahidol University. Unpublished

Thesis, Mahidol University, Faculty of Graduates Studies.

Smith, Brien N., Montagno, R.V., & Kuzmenko, T.N.( 2004). Transformational and

servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies, 10 (4), 80-91.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in

work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. The Handbook of

Psychology, 406-417.

Solomon, C.M. (1992). The loyalty factor, Personnel Journal, 52-62.

Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and

performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership

perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367-390.

Spears, L.C. (1994). Servant leadership: Quest for caring leadership. Inner Quest , (2), 1-4.

Spears, L.C. (2004). Practicing servant leadership. Leader to Leader (34), 7-11.

Spears, L.C.(2005). The understanding and practice of servant leadership. Servant

Leadership Research Roundtable. School of Leadership studies, Regent University.

Spears, L.C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2004). Practicing servant-leadership: Succeeding

through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spears, Larry C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective,

160

caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1 (1), 25-30.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS: A model of leadership in organizations. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 2,386-401.

Steyn, G.M., & Van Wyk, J.N. ( 1999). Job satisfaction of teachers. South African

Journal of Education, 19 (1), 37-44.

Stogdill, R.M. (1973). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research.

NewYork: Free Press.

Stone, A.G., & Patterson, K.A. (2005). The history of leadership focus. Servant

Leadership Research Roundtable Proceedings.

Stone, G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant

leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 25(4), 349-361.

Stum, D. L. (1999). Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid.

Strategy and Leadership,29(4),4 -9

Sturnick, J. A. (1998). Healing leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on Leadership

185-193. New York, NY: Wiley.

Subandi, S. (2008). Cooperative strategies in the face of the less conducive business

climate Infokop,16,102 -125.

Tahira, S. S., Hussain, A., & Saadi, A. M. (2015). Compromising the quality: Role of

chairs in improving the quality of education in higher education institutions in

Pakistan. The AYER, 3, 1-10.

Tajammal, & Wajid (2012). Effect of servant leadership on followers‟ job performance.

Sci., Tech. and Dev., 31 (4), 359-368.

Tasnim, S. (2006). Job satisfaction among female teachers: A study on primary schools

161

in Bangladesh, Unpublished thesis for the Master of Philosophy program,

University of Bergen.

Theron, A, S., & Dodd, M, N. (2011). Organizational commitment in a Post-merger

situation. SAJEMSNS,14(3), 333-345.

Thompson, K. N. (2010). Servant-leadership: An effective model for project management.

Doctoral dissertation, Capella University.

Toker, B. (2011). Job satisfaction of academic staff: An empirical study on Turkey.

Quality Assurance in Education, 19 (2), 156-169.

Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full

range leadership model, employee outcome, and organizational culture. Journal of

Business Ethics, 90(4), 533-547.

Travis P. Searle, & Barbuto, Jr. (2010). Servant leadership, hope, and organizational

virtuousness: A framework exploring positive micro and macro behavior and

performance impact. Journal of leadership and organization studies, 18(1), 107–

117.

Treece, E. W., & Treece, J. W. (1986). Elements of research in nursing (4th ed.).Toronto:

Mosby.

Van Dierendonck, D., Sousa, M., Gunnarsdóttir, S., Bobbio, A., Hakanen, J., Pircher

Verdorfer, A., ... & Rodriguez-Carvajal, R. (2017). The Cross-Cultural Invariance

of the Servant Leadership Survey: A Comparative Study across Eight

Countries. Administrative Sciences, 7(2), 1-11.

Van Kuik, A. (1998). The meaning of servant leadership. Doctoral dissertation, University

of Manitoba.

162

Vondy, M.(2010). The relationships among servant leadership, organizational citizenship

behavior, person-organization fit, and organizational identification. International

Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 3-27.

Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Pittsburgh Press.

Vroom, V.H., & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburg

University of Pittsburgh Press.

Waldman, D.A., Bass ,B.M., & Einstein, W.O. (1987). Leadership and outcome of

performance appraisal process. Journal of occupational psychology, 60,177-186.

Walker, K., & Scharf, M. (2001). Servant-leadership review. Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan, Canada: SELU, University of Saskatchewan.

Walker, R.M., & Boyne, G.A. (2005). Public management reform and organizational

performance: An empirical assessment of the UK labor government’s public

service improvement strategy. Working Paper, Center for Local and Regional

Government Research, Cardiff University.

Wallace, J. R. (2007). Servant leadership: A worldview perspective. International Journal

of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 114-132.

Wang, C. X., Ling, Q., & Zhang, X. J. (2009). The servant leadership scale, design, and

inspection in a Chinese enterprise. Nankai Business Review,3, 94-103.

Wagner, C. M. (2007). Organizational commitment as a predictor variable in nursing

turnover research: Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60 (3), 235-

247.

Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,

Industrial Relations Center.

163

Wong, Paul, T.P., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and

the revised servant leadership profile. Servant Leadership Roundtable, 3, 1-13.

Yao, T., Huang, W. B.,& Fan, X. C. (2008). Research about employee loyalty of the

services sector based on the organizational commitment mechanism. Management

World Magazine, 5, 102-123.

YIN, C. S. (2012). A study of employee satisfaction and its effects toward loyalty in the

Hotel industry. Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:

Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 9 (1), 15-32.

Zembylas, M.,& Papanastasiou, E. (2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in

Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (3), 357-374.

Zembylas, M.,& Papanastasiou, E. (2006). Teacher job satisfaction in Cyprus: The results

of a mixed-methods approach. Paper presented at the Commonwealth Council for

Educational Administration and Management Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.

164

Appendices

Appendix A

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

Department of Management Sciences

Preston University

No 85, Street 3, Sector H-8/1,

Islamabad, Pakistan.

Dear Respondent,

I am doctoral degree student conducting research in Management Sciences- Human

Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant

Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and Organizational Performance in Universities of

Peshawar.” This questionnaire is designed to get information and to assist me in this

regard. You are requested to take 10 minutes out of your busy schedule to fill this

questionnaire. I would appreciate your efforts in completing the attached questionnaire.

The information you provide will help the researcher to understand about the Servant

leadership and its impact. The purpose of the study is purely academic and research

oriented.

I assure you that all information received in this association shall be treated and held in

strict confidence.

Thank you.

Yours Faithfully,

Muhammad Hashim

PhD. Scholar,

Address:

GT Road Haji Camp Sethi Town,

Pahari Pura Road Master Street

House No: 03, Peshawar.

Email: mhashimpk001@gmail.com

Cell No. 0321-9008943

165

QUESTIONNAIRE

MEDIATIONAL ROLE OF JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN SERVANT

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEES‟ LOYALTY AND ORGANIZATIONAL

PERFORMANCE IN UNIVERSITIES OF PESHAWAR

SECTION A

Respondent Bio Data/Information

Instruction: Please mark the correct answer in the Tables and box given.

1. What is your Title/Position in the University? 2. What is your highest

qualification?

Professor 1 Bachelors 1

Associate Professor 2 Masters 2

Assistant Professor 3 M.Phil./MS 3

Lecturer 4 Doctoral 4

Junior Lecturer/Research Assistant 5 Others 5

3. What is your native language? 4. What is your marital status?

5. What is your Gender?

6. How many years have you been in existing university?

___________________________________ (Days, Month, Years etc)

7. Length of service in the university? _________________________________.

8. Organization: ________________________________ Public Private

9. Age: 22-27 28-38 39-45 46-60 61-above

10. Nationality: _______________________________

Urdu 1

English 2

Panjabi 3

Pashto 4

Sindhi 5

Balochi 6

Others 7

Married 1

Un-married 2

Male 1

Female 2

166

SECTION B

Questions directed to higher-ranking and low-ranking Academic Staff. Please indicate on

a scale of 1 to 5; if you Strongly Agree, for instance, mark 5, or if you Strongly Disagree,

please mark 1. We are concerned in the digit that best demonstrates your views on the

expectation of the study.

Name of Leader: ______________________ (Optional)

This questionnaire is to describe the leader behaviors and attitudes of the above-mentioned

individual as you perceive it. Please answer all of the questions describe this person.

Please indicate how well each of the following statements describes this person. Please

answer the questionnaire anonymously.

1. Servant Leadership

Altruistic Calling 1 2 3 4 5

1. This person puts my interests ahead of his/her own

2. This person does everything he/she can to serve me

3. This person sacrifices his/her own interests to meet my

needs

4. This person goes above and beyond the call of duty to meet

my needs

Emotional Healing 1 2 3 4 5

1. This person is one I would turn to if I had a personal trauma

2. This person is good at helping me with my emotional issues

3. This person is talented at helping me to heal emotionally

4. This person is one that could help me mend my hard

feelings

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

167

Wisdom 1 2 3 4 5

1. This person seems alert to what's happening

2. This person is good at anticipating the consequences of

decisions

3. This person has great awareness of what is going on

4. This person seems very in touch with what is going on

5. This person seems to know what's going to happen

Persuasive Mapping 1 2 3 4 5

1. This person offers compelling reasons to get me to do things

2. This person encourages me to dream "big dreams" about the

organization

3. This person is very persuasive

4. This person is good at convincing me to do things

5. This person is gifted when it comes to persuading me

Organizational Stewardship 1 2 3 4 5

1. This person believes that the organization needs to play a

moral role in society

2. This person believes that our organization needs to function

as a community

3. This person sees the organization for its potential to

contribute to society

4. This person encourages me to have a community spirit in

the workplace

5. This person is preparing the organization to make a positive

difference in the future

168

Job Satisfaction

Ask yourself: How satisfied am I with this aspect of my job?

Please use the above scale for indicating a statement as 1 for

Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Neutral, 4 for Agree

and 5 for Strongly Agree.

Intrinsic Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5

1. Being able to keep busy all the time

2. The chance to be “somebody” in the community

3. The way my job provides for steady employment

4. The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities

Extrinsic Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5

1. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions.

2. The way organization policies are put into practice

3. My pay and the amount of work I do.

4. The chances for advancement on this job.

3. Employees’ Loyalty

Commitment 1 2 3 4 5

1. Would not change organization if got an offer

2. Enjoy discussing my organization to others

3. Will work for this organization for ever

4. Not emotionally attached to this organization

5. Organization is of great personal meaning to me

Motivation 1 2 3 4 5

1. Would recommend this organization to a friend

2. Will recommend my employer to other employees

3. Like part of family at this organization

4. Will enhance the organization image to the public.

169

Belongingness 1 2 3 4 5

1. Organization‟s problems are my own

2. Strong belonging to my organization

3. Devoted to my organization

4. Committed to organization‟s success

Career Development 1 2 3 4 5

1. Take pride in my work

2. Can further fulfill my career goals

3. Look ways to improve organizational efficiency

4. Like to stay with this organization in the future

4. Organizational Performance

How would you rate the overall university performance over the

past years? Please use the above scale for indicating a statement as

1 for Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Neutral, 4 for

Agree and 5 for Strongly Agree.

Development

1

2

3

4

5

1. The organization is developing in its capacity to meet future

opportunities and challenges

2. Plans for career and development for me as an employee

3. Introduces new executive and professional development

program

Quality 1 2 3 4 5

1. Percentage of Products of High Quality

2. Programs are accredited by professional bodies

3. Adequate and best infrastructure and facilities compared to

other universities

170

4. Good reputation to attract students

Innovation 1 2 3 4 5

1. Improvement for products and Processes

2. Produces scholarly publication and citation

3. Invest many funds in research and development

Efficiency 1 2 3 4 5

1. The organization uses the fewest possible resources to meet

its objectives

Thank you very much for your co-operation

171

Appendix B

Permission to Use the Servant Leadership Questionnaire

12/23/2014

Dear Dr. Barbuto and Wheeler,

I am doctoral degree student of Preston University in Islamabad, Pakistan conducting

research in Management Sciences- Human Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational

Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and

Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar.” I would like to use the

Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) survey in my dissertation. The purpose of the

study is to determine the relationship between servant leadership behavior, job

satisfaction, the loyalty of the faculty and organization performance. The staff will consist

of faculty only.

My plan is to have the faculty of 17 Universities in the district of Peshawar, 308 faculty

members were selected to participate in this study. I am hoping that you can direct me in

how to purchase the survey for use in my study or give me permission to use it at no cost.

I look forward to hearing from you.

12/24/14

Dear Hashim,

You are certainly welcome to use the SLQ. Is your study using the self-assessment or the

other rater version or both? Thank you and good luck with your research.

Jay Barbuto

***************************************************************

John E. Barbuto, Jr., Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Leadership

Coordinator, Leadership Studies Doctoral Specialization

University of Nebraska – Lincoln

172

Appendix C

Permission to Use the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

06/02/2015

Dear Sir/Madam

I am doctoral degree student of Preston University in Islamabad, Pakistan, conducting

research in Management Sciences- Human Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational

Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and

Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar.” I would like to use the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) survey in my dissertation. The purpose of

the study is to determine the relationship between servant leadership behavior, job

satisfaction, the loyalty of the faculty and organization performance. The staff will consist

of faculty only.

My plan is to have the faculty of 17 Universities in the district of Peshawar, 308 faculty

members were selected to participate in this study. I am hoping that you can direct me in

how to purchase the survey for use in my study or give me permission to use it at no cost.

I look forward to hearing from you.

02/03/2015

Hello Muhammad,

Thank you for your interest in using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire in your

research. You‟ll find instructions for ordering the measure on our website:

www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/vpr. Please complete the qualifications form and the order form,

and mail them with your payment to the address listed. We also offer the option for

researchers to reproduce the measure on their own secure website, as opposed to ordering the

forms themselves [note: this is the only option for international customers]. The royalty

charge for this option is $.20 per participant for the short form MSQ and $.45 per participant

for the long form MSQ. With the royalty only option there is no shipping charge.

Best,

********************************************************** Vocational Psychology Research University of Minnesota N612 Elliott Hall 75 East River Road

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Phone. 612 626 9884

Fax. 612 625 4051

Email vpr@umn.edu

Website

173

Appendix D

Permission to Use the Employee Loyalty Questionnaire

22/02/2015

Dear MS. Chetna Pandey and Mrs. Rajni Khare

I am doctoral degree student of Preston University in Islamabad, Pakistan, conducting

research in Management Sciences- Human Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational

Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and

Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar.” I would like to use the

Employee loyalty questionnaire in my dissertation. The purpose of the study is to

determine the relationship between servant leadership behavior, job satisfaction, the

loyalty of the faculty and organization performance. The staff will consist of faculty only.

My plan is to have the faculty of 17 Universities in the district of Peshawar, 308 faculty

members were selected to participate in this study. I am hoping that you can direct me in

how to purchase the survey for use in my study or give me permission to use it at no cost.

I look forward to hearing from you.

26/02/2015

Dear Hashim,

Yes you are welcome to use employee loyalty questionnaire and keep up update with

result of your study. Best of luck

MS. Chetna Pandey Mrs. Rajni Khare

Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor,

Aditya College, BVM College of Management Education,

Gwalior. Gwalior.

174

Appendix E

Permission to Use the Organizational Performance Questionnaire

22/02/2015

Dear Dr. Anastasia Katou.

I am doctoral degree student of Preston University in Islamabad, Pakistan, conducting

research in Management Sciences- Human Resource Management, Titled: “Mediational

Role of Job Satisfaction between Servant Leadership and Employees’ Loyalty and

Organizational Performance in Universities of Peshawar.” I would like to use the

Organizational Performance Questionnaire in my dissertation. The purpose of the study is

to determine the relationship between servant leadership behavior, job satisfaction, the

loyalty of the faculty and organization performance. The staff will consist of faculty only.

My plan is to have the faculty of 17 Universities in the district of Peshawar, 308 faculty

members were selected to participate in this study. I am hoping that you can direct me in

how to purchase the survey for use in my study or give me permission to use it at no cost.

I look forward to hearing from you.

2/23/15

Dear Hashim,

Please find attached a general questionnaire I am often use in my

publications.

Best Wishes,

**********************************************

Anastasia Katou.

Assistant Professor of Organizational Strategy

at the Department of Business Administration,

University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

175

Appendix F

Path Analysis details for Direct and Indirect Effect

Total Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)

Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction .581 .000

Org. Performance .574 .584

Employees‟ Loyalty .508 .652

Total Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)

Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction .001 ...

Org. Performance .002 .001

Employees‟ Loyalty .001 .001

Standardized Direct Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)

Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction .636 .000

Org. Performance .254 .580

Employees‟ Loyalty .153 .706

Standardized Direct Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)

Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction .001 ...

Org Performance .001 .001

Employees‟ Loyalty .001 .002

Standardized Indirect Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)

Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction .000 .000

Org. Performance .369 .000

Employees‟ Loyalty .449 .000

Standardized Indirect Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)

Servant Leadership Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction ... ...

Org. Performance .001 ...

Employees‟ Loyalty .001 ...

176

Appendix G

Universities Faculty List

# Name of Universities Campus Faculty

1. Agricultural University Peshawar Peshawar 480

2. Abasyn University Peshawar PEW 124

3. City University PEW 85

4. CECOS University PEW 300

5. Frontier Women University PEW 94

6. Gandhara University PEW 75

7. Islamia College University PEW 430

8. Iqra National University PEW 80

9. Khyber Medical University PEW 100

10.

National University Of Modern

Languages PEW 65

11. National University (FAST) PEW 62

12. Preston University PEW 62

13. Qurtuba University PEW 65

14. Sarhad University PEW 70

15. University of Engineering & Tech. PEW 215

16. University of Peshawar PEW 599

Degree Awarding Institute

17. IMSciences Peshawar 63