Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 1

Relationship between Servant Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors:

Review of Literature and Future Research Directions
By
Abdu Jaafaru Bambale (PhD)
Bayero Business School (BBS)
Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria
Email: abdujafarubambale@yahoo.com
Abstract
This is a literature based paper aimed at providing an up-to-date review of the literature on the
relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).
Literature revealed that the two constructs, servant leadership and OCB were significant
contributors to effective functioning of human organizations. Different databases including
EBSCOhost, JStor, ScienceDirect, and Emerald were searched exhaustively, but limited numbers
of studies were found to be relevant regarding the servant leadership-OCB relationship. The
search results indicated that six variables including procedural justice climate, regulatory focus,
affective commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural justice climate, and service
climate were found as significant mediators on the relationship between servant leadership and
OCB. Similarly, the search results indicated that two variables including person-organization
fit, and organizational identification were found to be significant moderators on the relationship
between servant leadership and OCB. Furthermore, search results revealed trust, commitment,
and identity models as potential factors for enhancing servant leadership and OCB relationship
through mediating roles. Moreover, group cohesiveness, collective trust, task interdependence,
and affective tone (positive affectivity/ negative affectivity) were suggested to be potential
moderators on the relationship between servant leadership and OCB.
Key words: Servant leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Supervisor, Justice

Introduction
Organizational citizenship behavior is a form of job performance. Orthodox definitions of job
performance have restricted the construct to the simple coverage of task-related behaviors
(Devonish & Greenidge, 2010). Broadly speaking, three categories of employee job
performance have been identified: task performance, extra-role performance, and
counterproductive work behavior (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Task
performance is concerned with the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities
that contribute to the organizations technical core (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Task
performance usually refers to in-role behavior, which is defined as fulfillment of tasks that are
required by the formal job description (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Extra-role performance,
1

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 2

often referred to as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) or contextual performance is

defined as behavior that is beneficial to the organization and goes beyond formal job
requirements such as helping colleagues at work, working extra hours, making suggestions for
improvement(Organ, 1988). OCB is traditionally defined as individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the
aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988,
p. 4). Finally, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is defined as intentional employee
behavior that is harmful to the legitimate interests of an organization (Gruys & Sackett, 2003).
Based on the definitions, therefore, OCB and CWB are opposites as the former benefits the
organization while the latter harms it (Riketta, 2008).

Explicit in the definition of OCB is the notion of discretion, which means that engagement in
OCB is completely voluntary since a person cannot be punished for failing to engage in it
(Organ, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie, 2006). In other words, OCB is a voluntary behavior that
cannot be enforced by supervisors, or superiors. However, it does not mean that it is
altruistically driven. Although OCB is expressed in the form of altruism, the two concepts
cannot be considered the same. This is because the motives are quite different. Altruism is about
selflessness while OCB is performed due to several motives. Performance of OCB is sometimes
believed to be driven by ego-centric motives, which may be often unconscious. Hence, to
decide whether OCB is altruistic or not, determining the motive is important (Organ, et al.,
2006). Secondly, individuals who perform OCB will not be formally rewarded. Behavior that
goes beyond in-role is voluntary and, therefore, not directly recognized by the organizational
formal reward system. Even though, theoretically speaking, formal reward for OCB is not
formally recognized, in some situations sophisticated modern evaluation and reward systems
may take into consideration some kinds of OCB (Zheng, Zhang, & Li, 2012). Depending on
the context, some OCB might provide some future reward promises. However, the fact remains
that benefits for performing OCB are not contractually guaranteed in advance (Organ, et al.,
2006). Thirdly, OCB should be able to produce positive outcomes in the context they are
performed. The performance of OCB must have direct or indirect effects on improving the
organizations efficiency and effectiveness.

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 3

Having understood the concept of OCB, understanding the other underlining variable of this
study (i.e. servant leadership) becomes important. The servant leadership concept is rooted on
the belief that to motivate followers to perform at the fullest potential, leaders must rely on oneon-one communication to understand their needs, desires, abilities, goals and potentials. Then
the knowledge about the follower is used by the leader to assist them toward achieving their
potential. Servant leaders also help the followers to achieve their potential through building
their self-confidence, inspiring trusts, providing information, feedback and resources.
Importantly, servant leaders serve as role models for their followers (Lord & Brown, 2001).
Greenleaf (1977) argued that servant leaders achieve trust with employees, customers and
communities through selfless service to all of them. Therefore, servant leadership differs from
most other leadership approaches for its focus on personal integrity and forming of strong longterm relationships with employees. Self-interest is not motivating force for servant leadership,
instead, self interest serves to raise motivation to a higher level (Greenleaf, 1977; Pollard,
1996). Similarly, the development of others (Graham, 1991), as well as seeking to serve them
and meeting their needs (Covey, 2006; Russell & Stone, 2002) are the real motivating forces
of servant leaders. Servant leaders are considered as stewards of the organization who are
devoted to empowering the potential of their followers (Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya &
Sarros, 2002).

This critically reviewed the related literature on the relationship between servant leadership and
OCB. In addition, this paper discusses recommendations made by previous studies for future
research. This study would be important for management practitioners and theorists because it provides
comprehensive and up to date theoretical knowledge and future research directions to enhance
significant positive relationship between servant leadership and OCB. The paper is made up of five
sections. First section discusses the general background of topic dwelling on conceptual analysis of

servant leadership and OCB. Second section presents the methodology of this study. Third
section presents the critical review of the literature. Fourth section discusses future research
directions regarding the servant leadership and OCB domain. Finally, section five presents
conclusion of the study.

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 4

Methodology
Literature materials for this study were obtained from different databases including
EBSCOhost, JStor, ScienceDirect, and Emerald. Servant leadership and organizational
citizenship were used as specific key words on the library databases to find the relevant
scholarly articles. A total of three hundred and fifty five scholarly articles containing the key
word servant leadership or organizational citizenship were downloaded and screened, but only
nine (9) were found to have direct relevance to the objective of this study. The relevant
downloaded scholarly articles were reported and critically analyzed to show developments so
far achieved in servant leadership and OCB studies. All the relevant servant leadership and
OCB studies were summarized and presented in tabular form in order to aid easy understanding
and analysis of provided information.

Review of Servant Leadership-OCB Literature

A few studies have investigated the relationships between servant leadership and OCB (Ehrhart,
2004; Gel & Bege, 2012; Hu & Liden, 2011; Hunter et al., 2013; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, &
Henderson, 2008). The first to empirically examine servant leadership and OCB relationship
was Ehrhart (2004), who surveyed 298 employees of grocery departmental stores in the USA.
He has tested a model in which perception of procedural justice climate was hypothesized as a
mediator between servant leadership and OCB. He revealed an indirect significant relationship
between servant leadership and OCB through the mediating effect of procedural justice climate.

Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, and Roberts (2008) also conducted another servant
leadership-OCB study by examining the mediating effects of regulatory focus on the
relationship between servant leadership and OCB among 229 full time US workers including
loan underwriters, first-grade teachers, and accountants. They examined two leadership styles
(i.e. initiating structure and servant leadership), and their relationship with OCB through the
influence of regulatory focus. Among other things, the results demonstrated that servant
leadership through regulatory focus has significant positive effects on OCB. Furthermore, the
results showed significant differential effects on OCB, where servant leadership influences
helping and creative behaviors more than initiating structure.

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 5

Liden et al. (2008) provided additional empirical evidence about the relationship between
servant leadership and employee citizenship behaviors by using a sample of 298 students from
a Midwestern university in the USA. They demonstrated that servant leadership at individual
level makes a unique contribution beyond transformational leadership and leader-member
exchange (LMX) in explaining community citizenship behaviors. The results confirmed
Grahams (1991) claim on the difference between servant leadership, transformational
leadership and LMX. Servant leadership uniquely explained community citizenship, in-role
performance and organizational commitment, suggesting that such leadership exhibits an active
concern for the well-being of broader organizational constituencies and the community at large.

Important to this study is the work of (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010), who conducted a
dyadic servant leadership-OCB study among 815 employees of seven multinational companies
in Kenya. They examined the extent to which employee attitudes including affective
commitment to the supervisor and self-efficacy and two specific group climates namely
procedural justice climate and service climate, mediate the relationship between servant
leadership and OCB. Results demonstrated support for indirect significant positive effect of
servant leadership on OCB. Their study represents a significant contribution to the literature by
demonstrating the ability of servant leadership to influence commitment to the supervisor, selfefficacy, procedural justice climate and service climate, which ultimately motivate employee
OCBs. However, the study, like other servant leadership-OCB studies, is not without some
limitations. A major weakness of the study is limited generalization as all the samples used
were drawn from multinational companies. So, the findings may not be relevant to explain the
relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in
indigenous and public organizations. Thus, similar studies are needed in different work settings
and cultural contexts. Against this background, Walumbwa et al. (2010) stressed the need for a
similar study in different organizational and cultural settings for better understanding of the
processes and conditions in which servant leaders are more or less effective in influencing
employee OCB.

Another servant leadership-OCB study was conducted by Vondey (2010) with a sample of 114
that cut across various industries in the United States to investigate the moderating role of
5

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 6

person-organization fit and organizational identification on the relationship between servant

leadership and OCB. The findings revealed a direct but partial effect of servant leadership on
employee OCB. Furthermore, the findings demonstrated positive moderating effects of personorganization fit and organizational identification on the relationship between servant leadership
and OCB. One of Vondeys (2010) limitation is the use of only four items (4) of the Liden et
al.s (2008) servant leadership instrument. In order to address this weakness, Vondey (2010)
suggested that future studies apply the Liden et al.s (2008) instrument holistically.

Hu and Liden (2011) studied the moderating strength of servant leadership on the relationship
between goal, process clarity and team potency, team performance, and team OCB. They
demonstrated that servant leadership moderates the relationships between goal, process clarity
and team potency, team performance and team OCB. This study is important to both practice
and research because it provides a new critical role of servant leadership for building effective
team OCBs.

Furthermore, Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) conducted an open online servant
leadership survey among 135 participants from the Netherlands with a view to develop a new
servant leadership instrument as well as testing its psychometric power to predict some follower
outcomes. Findings revealed eight dimensions with a total of 30 items. The dimensions include
standing back, empowerment, accountability, forgiveness, courage, authenticity, humility and
stewardship. More importantly, the result demonstrated that servant leadership significantly
predicts follower OCB. Specifically, the accountability dimension of the servant leadership
showed a moderately strong relationship with civic virtue dimension of OCB. In addition,
humility dimension of servant leadership showed a moderately strong effect on civic virtue,
altruism and taking charge dimensions of the OCB constructs. Interestingly, the results further
demonstrated that as the leader becomes more forgiving, the followers decrease their
engagements in political activities of the organization. Additionally, Gel and Bege (2012)
investigated 67 administrative and faculty members of a private university in Turkey with the
aim of finding the effects of servant leadership on OCBs. The results demonstrated that vision
and serve dimensions of the servant leadership construct have positive significant effect on
sportsmanship and civic virtue dimensions of OCB.
6

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 7

Similar with Gel and Bege (2012) study that was conducted within the setting of Turkeys
educational sector, Zehiri, Akyuz, Eren, and Turhan (2013) sampled a total of 300 college
principals and teachers and found positive effects of principals servant leadership on teachers
OCB and job performance. Critically, these Turkish based servant leadership-OCB studies were
limited in their strength for generalization because each one of them was conducted within a
smaller sample of either a private university or private colleges within Turkey. It is against this
background that Zehiri, et al. (2013) suggested future research to expand the sample size
beyond private colleges to include teachers and schools from different parts of Turkey; and to
test the effect of servant leadership on OCB through trust, commitment, silence, and identity.

Recently, Hunter et al. (2013) investigated 337 employees from US based retail stores to find
the effect of agreeableness, extraversion, servant leadership and service climate at both the
individual and group level, on followers helping behavior, and turnover intentions. Results
demonstrated both direct and indirect significant positive effect of servant leadership on taskfocused organizational citizenship behavior directed at individuals (OCB-I). Specifically, the
results demonstrated the impact of unit-level servant leadership on promoting helping behavior
among subordinates through the positive effect of service climate. Contextually, Hunters et al.
(2013) study offered a useful contribution to the literature because their finding has
demonstrated significant effect of servant leadership on OCB through service climate. In
addition, their study could still be considered important because it has provided additional
validation evidence about the indirect effect of servant leadership on OCB in a newer context.

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 8

Moderating Variables
1.

Personorganization fit

2.

Organizational
identification

1.
2.
3.
Servant Leadership

Independent Variable

Procedural justice climate

Regulatory focus
Affective commitment to the
supervisor
4. Self-efficacy
5. Procedural justice climate
6. Service climate
Mediating Variables

OCB

Dependent Variable

Figure 1: Previous Servant Leadership-OCB Frameworks

Figure 1 presents summary of servant leadership-OCB investigated frameworks. The Figure 1

indicated that six variables including procedural justice climate, regulatory focus, affective
commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural justice climate, and service climate
have significantly mediated the relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Ehrhart,
2004; Hunter, et al., 2013; Zehiri, et al., 2013). Similarly, the Figure also indicated that only
two variables including person-organization fit, and organizational identification have
significantly moderated the relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Vondey, 2010).

Additionally, the summary of all servant leadership-OCB studies was also presented in tabular
form as could be seen in Table 1. The table has captured information regarding authors, contexts
and settings of the studies, methods of data analysis, major findings and suggestions for future
research. Essentially, Table 1 provides important pieces of information that would be useful to
theory and practice.

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 9

Table 1: Summary of Servant Leadership-OCB Studies

Author

Country

Industry

Methods

Major Findings

Future research

Ehrhart (2004)

United
States

Grocery
departmental
stores

Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM).

1) Positive effect between servant

leadership and unit-level OCB; (2)
indirect significant relationship between
SL and unit-level OCB through
procedural justice climate.

Neubert,
Kacmar,
Carlson,
Chonko,
Roberts,
(2008)

United
States

Variety
occupations

SEM LISREL

Initiating structure and SLp significantly

influence OCB through regulatory focus.

To
discover
additional
antecedents of unit level-OCB
such as group cohesiveness, and
collective
trust,
task
interdependence, affective tone positive affectivity, or negative
affectivity.
To explore more leadership styles
with respect to regulatory focus
theory (RFT).

Liden,
Wayne,
Zhao
and
Henderson (2008)

United States

Production
and
distribution
company,
&
university students

Hierarchical
linear
modeling & structural
Equation
Modelling
(SEM).

(1) Validated a 28-item servant leadership

measurement scale; (2) reinforced the
significant relationship existing between
servant leadership and OCB.

(1) To use larger samples to detect

group-level effects present in the
study population; (2) To revalidate
their findings in different contexts,
and settings; (3) To construct a
supervisor type of the servant
leadership

Vondey (2010)

United
States

Variety
of
organizations.

Multiple
analysis

(1) direct and partial effect of SL on

OCB; (2) positive moderating effects of
person-organization
fit
and
organizational identification on the
relationship between SL and OCB.

(1) To fully apply Liden et al.s

28-item SL instrument; (2) Use
interaction of subordinates with
each other and the interaction of
subordinates as a group with the
leader.

Walumbwa, F.
O., Hartnell, C.
A., & Oke, A.
(2010)

Kenya

Multina-tional
companies

Hierarchical
Modeling

Commitment to the supervisor, selfefficacy, procedural justice climate, and

service climate partially mediate the
relationship between servant leadership,
and OCB.

To undertake SL and OCB

integrative studies in different
work settings, and cultural
contexts
using
different
mediators.

M. J.,
K. M.,
D. S.,
L. B. &
J. A.

of

regression

Linear

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 10

Table 1 Continued
Author

Country

Industry

Methods

Major Findings

Future research

Hu, J., & Liden, R.

C. (2011)

China

Banking

Structural
Equation
Modelling (SEM).

Servant leadership strongly moderates the

relationships between goal, process clarity
and team potency as independent variables
and team performance and team OCB as
dependent variables.

To improve generalization of findings

by conducting similar research in
settings other than the banking
industry.

Gel and Bege

(2012)

Turkey

University

Regression Analysis

Vision and serve dimensions of the servant

leadership construct have positive significant
effect on sportsmanship and civic virtue
dimensions of OCB.

To extend study beyond a single

private university in Turkey by
including more sample from public
universities.

Hunter, Neuberta,
Perry,
Witt,
Penney,
&
Weinberger (2013)

United States

Retail stores

Regression analysis

The significant impact of unit-level servant

leadership on helping behavior is mediated by
service climate.

To examine servant leadership

practices
using
additional
demographic and relationship data
different industries that place different
emphases on servant leadership
values.

Zehiri,
Eren, &
(2013)

Turkey

College Principals
and Teachers

SEM LISREL

The positive effects of SL of private college

principals on teachers OCB and job
performance.

(1) To expand the sample size beyond

private colleges to include teachers
and schools from different parts of
Turkey; (2) To test effect of servant
leadership on trust, commitment,
silence, and identity.

Akyuz,
Turhan

Source: The Researcher

10

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 11

Therefore, this study has used the information in the Table 1 to highlight importance of servant
leadership to management practice. Additionally, this study has useful suggestions for future
research and theoretical development in servant leadership and OCB domains.

4.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Having presented and discussed the literature regarding servant leadership-OCB studies, this
section concentrates on critical evaluation of the literature. It discusses limitations and
implications of previous reviewed servant leadership-OCB studies. Specifically, three
limitations and implications for future research were discussed in the following sections.

First, one of the important limitations of servant leadership and OCB research is that most of
the studies were conducted in the US contexts. Despite the fact that the previous studies have
provided useful clues and explanations about the relationship between servant leadership and
OCB, the research could be considered as lop-sided. To date, with exception of Walumbwa et
al. (2010), all the studies on this relationship were concentrated in the US (Hunter, et al., 2013;
Liden, et al., 2008; Vondey, 2010). Therefore, the servant leadership and OCB literature is not
rich enough to explain and generalize with high level reliability the positive relationship
between servant leadership and OCB across different contexts, cultures, and settings. Literature
revealed that from the year 2004 when actual servant leadership and OCB studies started to the
year 2013 only nine (9) studies were conducted, indicating the need for more similar studies
across different contexts and settings for improved validity and generalization.

Against this background, extension of research to newer contexts becomes more appropriate.
Essentially, some previous studies as indicated in Table 1 suggested future research to explore
different contexts (Liden, et al., 2008; Walumbwa, et al., 2010). Similarly, another important
limitation of servant leadership and OCB research is that most of the studies were conducted in
a few industries. This also limits the ability to generalize findings across various industries.
Specifically, literature reveals that the servant leadership/OCB studies were mostly conducted
among employees of retail stores (Ehrhart, 2004; Hunter, et al., 2013; Liden, et al., 2008),
educational institutions (Gel & Bege, 2012; Zehiri, et al., 2013), banking industry (Hu &
Liden, 2011), and multinational corporations (Walumbwa, et al., 2010).
11

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 12

Second, another observed limitation of previous servant leadership and OCB research is the
narrow use of methodological techniques of analysis. The previous studies about relationship
between servant leadership and OCB have applied limited and less robust methodological
techniques of data analysis. While most of the studies used multiple regression analysis
(Hunter, et al., 2013; Liden, et al., 2008; Vondey, 2010; Walumbwa, et al., 2010), others have
used AMOS and LISEREL structural equation modeling (Ehrhart, 2004; Hu & Liden, 2011;
Neubert, et al., 2008). Exploring and using different analytical tools to analyze a particular
quantitative data could be critical in assessing relationships among variables and evaluation of
the analytical tools.

Third, another limitation of previous servant leadership and OCB research is the use of limited
research variables. Literature revealed that variables including procedural justice climate,
regulatory focus, affective commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural justice
climate, and service climate significantly mediated the relationship between servant leadership
and organizational citizenship behavior (Ehrhart, 2004; Hunter, et al., 2013; Walumbwa, et al.,
2010). Although, some of the previous studies have examined a few mediating effects regarding
to servant leadership and OCB research, more empirical studies are needed to explain the
influencing effect of other mediating mechanisms for enhanced OCB. Specifically, Walumbwa
et al. (2010) recommended for further servant leadership-OCB research to consider the
processes and conditions under which servant leadership would be more effective. Similarly,
Vondey (2010) called for continuous research on leader-follower relationship that could lead
to broadening of peoples understanding of the unique and valuable contribution followers
could make to organizations. In view of the few mediating and potentialities for more
significant mediating variables, this study concurs with initial recommendation of Organ et al.
(2006) who stated that future research on the mechanism through which servant leadership
influences organizational citizenship behavior is warranted (p. 107).
Moreover, as could be seen in Table 1 Ehrhart (2004) suggested for future servant leadershipOCB research to investigate additional antecedents of unit level-OCB including group
cohesiveness, collective trust, task interdependence, affective tone (positive affectivity, or
negative affectivity). Therefore, Ehrhart (2004) suggested that future research were required to
12

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 13

test whether group cohesiveness, collective trust, task interdependence, affective tone mediate
the relationship between servant leadership and OCB. Similarly, Zehiri et al. (2013) suggested
for future servant leadership-OCB research to test the mediating effects of trust, commitment
and organizational identity. Invariably, literature revealed that servant leadership and OCB
research would be enhanced by incorporating the mediating (trust, commitment and
organizational identity) and moderating (group cohesiveness, collective trust, task
interdependence, affective tone) variables.

Moderating Variables
1.
2.
3.
4.

Servant
Leadership

Independent Variable

1. Trust
2. Commitment
3. Identity

Mediating Variables

Group cohesiveness
Collective trust
Task interdependence
Affective tone positive affectivity/
negative affectivity

OCB

Dependent Variable

Figure 2: Suggested Servant leadership-OCB Frameworks

Importantly, Figure 2 presents proposed models for future servant leadership-OCB research.
The Figure indicated that three variables including trust, commitment, and identity could
significantly mediate the relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Zehiri, et al., 2013).
Similarly, the Figure also indicated that four variables including group cohesiveness, collective
trust, task interdependence, and affective tone - positive affectivity/ negative affectivity could
significantly moderate the relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Ehrhart, 2004).

5.

Conclusion
13

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 14

This paper was able to comprehensively review the literature regarding servant leadership and
OCB relationship. Literature shows only a few numbers of servant leadership and OCB studies,
which suggest that studies about the relationship, are still new. Specifically, the literature
indicated that six variables including procedural justice climate, regulatory focus, affective
commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural justice climate, and service climate
were used as mediators on the relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Ehrhart, 2004;
Hunter, et al., 2013; Zehiri, et al., 2013). Similarly, the literature also indicated that two
variables including person-organization fit, and organizational identification were used as
moderators on the relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Vondey, 2010).
Importantly, the literature also revealed models for future servant leadership-OCB research. It
was indicated that three variables including trust, commitment, and identity would serve as
mediators on the relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Zehiri, et al., 2013), while
four variables including group cohesiveness, collective trust, task interdependence, and
affective tone - positive affectivity/ negative affectivity would serve as moderators on the
relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Ehrhart, 2004). However, because servant
leadership has demonstrated to be a significant predictor of OCB, continuous studies about how
to enhance the relationship between the servant leadership and OCB become important and
most appropriate.

References
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2), 99-109.
Covey, S. R. (2006). Servant leadership: Use your voice to serve others. Leadership Excellence, 23(12),
5-6.
14

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 15

Devonish, D., & Greenidge, D. (2010). The Effect of Organizational Justice on Contextual Performance,
Counterproductive Work Behaviors, and Task Performance: Investigating the moderating role
of abilitybased emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
18(1), 75-86.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(7), 61-94.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 4(4), 249-270.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into legitimate power and greatness. New York:
Paulist Press.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work
behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30-42.
Gel, C., & Bege, S. (2012). The effect of the servant leadership on organizational citizenship
behavior: Case study of a university. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity
Studies., 4, 107-116.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of
goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851.
Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant
leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the
organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 316331.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12(2), 133-152.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus
as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (2006). Organization citizenship behavior: Its
nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks. California: Sage Publication, Inc.
Pollard, C. W. (1996). The soul of the firm. Grand Rapids, MI: Harper Business & Zondervan Publishing
House.
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panel
studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66.
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical
model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157.
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in
organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57-64.

15

Journal of Marketing and Management, 5 (1), 1-16, May 2014 16

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation
of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249-267.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216-226.
Vondey, M. (2010). The relationships among servant leadership, organizational citizenship behavior,
person-organization fit, and organizational identification. International Journal of Leadership
Studies, 6, 3-27.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate,
service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level
investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517.
Zehiri, C., Akyuz, B., Eren, M. S., & Turhan, G. (2013). The indirect effects of servant leadership
behavior on organizational citizenship behavior and job performance: Organizational justice as
a mediator. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 2(3), 2147-4478.
Zheng, W., Zhang, M., & Li, H. (2012). Performance appraisal process and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 732-752.

16