The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Linking servant leadership to individual performance:

Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy,
competence and relatedness need satisfaction
Myriam Chiniara a,⁎, Kathleen Bentein b,⁎
a
Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), Canada
b
School of Business Administration (ESG), University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: How can a servant leader focusing primarily on followers' growth and well-being influence
Received 15 January 2014 the achievement of organizational outcomes? Despite a growing stream of academic studies
Received in revised form 11 August 2015 exploring positive outcomes of servant leadership practice, little is known empirically about the
Accepted 24 August 2015
underlying psychological processes that are activated to enhance individual performance at
Available online 26 September 2015
work. Using the autonomous motivational framework of Self-Determination Theory's (SDT)
Handling Editor: Stephanie Castro basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000), we propose that a servant leader's attentive
focus on employees' development helps fulfill employees' three basic psychological needs, namely
for autonomy, competence and relatedness. In turn, satisfaction of each of these three needs
Keywords:
fuels employees in a distinct way, either producing an increase in task performance, organization-
Servant leadership
Self-determination theory al citizenship behaviors (OCBs) or both. We collected information from 247 supervisor–employee
Basic psychological needs dyads from a large Canadian technology design and manufacturing company. Structural equation
Task performance modeling results indicate that servant leadership strongly predicted all three needs' satisfaction;
OCB autonomy need satisfaction mediated servant leadership's effect on task performance, OCB-
Individual (OCB-I) and OCB-Organization (OCB-O); competence need satisfaction mediated ser-
vant leadership's effect on task performance only; and relatedness need satisfaction mediated ser-
vant leadership's effect on both OCB-I and OCB-O.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

In the last decade, in response to recent challenges for leadership, an emerging stream of academic studies has focused on
leadership types rooted in ethical, pro-social or people-centered behaviors, and in particular on servant leadership (van
Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leadership is characterized by a focus on followers' growth and empowerment, and on leaders'
altruism, empathy, sense of ethics and community stewardship (Greenleaf, 1977, 1998; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson,
2008). Compared with related leadership styles, servant leadership is unique in that the leader is viewed as a ‘servant’ attending
to followers' needs (van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leadership's central premise is that servant leaders influence organiza-
tional outcomes by fostering followers' growth and well-being, specifically through the process of satisfying followers' needs
(Liden et al., 2008; Mayer, 2010). Servant leadership research is still in its early stages and to gain legitimacy as a mainstream
leadership theory, research must clarify the processes explaining how a leadership style with such an explicit focus on followers'

⁎ Corresponding authors at: School of Business Administration (ESG), University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada H3C 3P8.
E-mail addresses: chiniara.myriam@courrier.uqam.ca (M. Chiniara), bentein.kathleen@uqam.ca (K. Bentein).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004
1048-9843/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 125

needs and inducing positive individual outcomes can help achieve organizational objectives (Mayer, 2010). The purpose of this
article is to address this challenge.
Although the concept of servant leader was introduced in the 1970s in Greenleaf's seminal essays, it is only in the last decade that
empirical studies have started to define this construct and develop psychometrically sound measures (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al.,
2008; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Empirical studies have begun to contribute to our understanding of the impact of servant
leadership on employees' attitudes and behaviors. Research has found support for a relationship between servant leadership and im-
portant outcomes such as job satisfaction (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008); organizational commitment
(Liden et al., 2008); follower disengagement and turnover intentions (Hunter et al., 2013); creative behaviors (Neubert, Kacmar,
Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008); and task performance or organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Hu &
Liden, 2011; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011).
While researchers are beginning to find support for the relationship between servant leadership and individual task performance
or OCBs (Liden et al., 2008; Neubert et al., 2008), little is known about the mechanisms that could explain the link between these var-
iables (Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, 2014). Although a handful of studies have shown servant leaders' relationships to task
performance or OCBs to be mediated by mechanisms such as promotion focus (Neubert et al., 2008) and procedural justice climate
(Ehrhart, 2004), research has yet to explore the intra-psychological processes presumably underlying some of these mechanisms
and favorably influencing performance-related behaviors. Further, no studies have examined yet the mediating links between servant
leadership and the three components of individual job performance concurrently: employee task performance, organizational citizen-
ship behaviors toward specific individuals (OCB-I) and organizational citizenship behaviors that benefit the organization in general
(OCB-O). Distinguishing these three performance constructs is important because prior research has clearly demonstrated that
these three components of performance can have different antecedents (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Organ & Konovsky, 1989;
Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Williams & Anderson, 1991) and different consequences (e.g., Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000).
Thus, the present work explicitly proposes to deepen our understanding of the servant leadership model by exploring and refining
our comprehension of the distinctiveness of this model: servant leaders' focus on satisfying followers' needs as the underlying psycho-
logical mechanism to enhance individual performance. The concept of need satisfaction has a long history in social psychology (Deci &
Ryan, 2000) and in work and organizational psychology (Gagné, 2003; Latham & Budworth, 2006). Among the various human need
theories (e.g., Maslow, 1943; Murray, 1938), Self-Determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) is one of the most established in the
work field. In contrast to early need theories, SDT does not rely on need hierarchies (Alderfer, 1972; Maslow, 1943; Murray, 1938) or
drive hypotheses (Adler, 1964; Freud, 1961; Jung, 1959). SDT postulates an innate and universal tendency of organisms to develop by
integrating their experiences into a coherent sense of self (Ryan, 1995). More specifically, SDT posits that individuals are naturally ac-
tive, curious and interested, and that fulfilling their innate psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness is deemed
essential for effective functioning and for actualizing their full potential and growth (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Because one distinguishing
and fundamental characteristic of the servant leader is the explicit focus of the servant leader's attention on followers' need satisfac-
tion, research should expect to find a link between servant leadership and satisfaction of employees' specific basic psychological
needs. So far, two empirical studies have investigated this link, but regrettably, both have gone no further than establishing a link be-
tween servant leadership and overall need satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema,
2014), an aggregate of the three basic psychological needs. First, Mayer et al. (2008) found that servant leadership was only related
to overall need satisfaction through the mediating effect of justice perception, and that servant leadership did not directly predict
overall need satisfaction. Second, Van Dierendonck et al.'s field study showed a strong direct link between servant leadership and
overall psychological need satisfaction (β = .60, p b .001). Notably, none of these two studies attempted to predict an effect on em-
ployee performance and all variables were self-reported, thus increasing the risk of common-rater bias. Hence, although these studies
do provide a preliminary demonstration of the existence of the expected link between servant leadership and satisfaction of em-
ployees' needs, there is a need for empirical research to dig beyond this global link and further investigate what we still do not
know about servant leadership: which of employees' specific and distinct basic psychological needs are satisfied by servant leadership,
and what impact does satisfaction of each need have on employees' performance?
By investigating how servant leadership is linked to employees' performance through the mediating effects of satisfaction of the
three basic psychological needs, the current study aims to contribute to the servant leadership literature and SDT literature in several
ways. First, this study is the first that aims to support servant leadership's central premise that servant leaders influence organizational
outcomes through the process of satisfying followers' needs. Second, it proposes to advance our knowledge of servant leadership's
unique feature of servicing followers' needs, because contrary to previous studies, we distinguish the three needs and we propose
how servant leaders help satisfy each need and in turn demonstrate the unique contribution of each form of need satisfaction in
predicting specific individual performance components. Third, this study intends to contribute to the SDT literature by developing
one of its basic theoretical assumptions, namely that satisfaction of each of the three psychological needs — for autonomy, competence
and relatedness — possesses different and unique explanatory powers in predicting three critical individual performance outcomes:
task performance, OCB-I and OCB-O. Fourth, as a side contribution, this study brings additional empirical support to the job perfor-
mance literature by continuing to demonstrate the distinction between task performance and OCBs. Globally, this study contributes
to theoretical development by integrating the servant leadership literature into the SDT and performance literature, and should help
servant leadership gain legitimacy as an important and relevant leadership theory. Additionally, from a practical standpoint, linking
servant leadership to performance outcomes through followers' need satisfaction would be useful to managers who want to become
more effective servant leaders. Understanding which specific followers' needs servant leaders would need to fulfill to be effective
could be useful in the training, selecting, hiring or promoting processes of servant leaders, and would benefit followers by contributing
to the actualization of their growth and potential.
126 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

Servant leadership

In his seminal essays, Greenleaf (1977, 1998) describes servant leadership not as a management technique but a way of life, which
starts with a “natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (p.14). By conscious choice, one then aspires to lead, while em-
bodying ethical imperatives and a deep commitment to put one's subordinates' “highest priority needs” before one's own. Greenleaf
articulates his vision of how servant leaders act as role models, inspire trust, and communicate on a one-to-one basis to understand
followers' abilities, goals, desires and potential (Liden et al., 2008). Servant leaders use that knowledge to actively try to satisfy their
followers' needs in order to bring out the best in their followers and allow them to achieve their potential. Servant leaders provide
direction and challenging responsibilities, while offering empathy, emotional support, feedback and resources. Most importantly,
servant leaders place satisfaction of followers' needs at the center of their efforts, before their own needs, creating a climate in
which followers feel important and empowered to do more and create more. Furthermore, they instill in followers the desire to
become servant leaders. Greenleaf (1998, p. 7) argues that the ultimate test for recognizing a servant leader is: “Do those served
grow healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous and more likely themselves to become servants?”
However intuitively appealing Greenleaf's vision of this service-oriented philosophy may have been, it was only in the last decade
that servant leadership models and measurements emerged (e.g., Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Among the servant leadership models available, Liden et al.'s (2008) multi-dimensional model
appeared to be the most widely used (e.g., Hu & Liden, 2011; Meuser, Liden, Wayne, & Henderson, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2011)
and the most psychometrically robust (van Dierendonck, 2011). Liden et al. (2008) identify seven dimensions that effectively capture
the essential characteristics of a servant leader: emotional healing, empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting sub-
ordinates first, creating value for the community, having conceptual skills, and behaving ethically. The first dimension, emotional
healing, emphasizes caring and showing sensitivity to followers' personal well-being. The second dimension, empowering, entails
encouraging and facilitating others' ability to take on responsibilities and handle difficult situations in their own way. Third, servant
leaders help subordinates grow and succeed by demonstrating genuine interest in their subordinates' career development and goals
and giving subordinates the opportunities to enhance their skills. Fourth, servant leaders put subordinates first. They demonstrate
concretely that they place subordinates' best interests and success ahead of their own. The fifth dimension, creating value for the
community, reflects how servant leaders are involved in helping those in the community outside the organization, and encourage
others to do the same. Sixth, the servant leader also demonstrates conceptual skills by being fully knowledgeable about the organiza-
tion, its goals and the task at hand, and can therefore provide effective support to subordinates. Finally, servant leaders behave ethically
in that they act and interact openly, fairly and honestly with others. Van Dierendonck's (2011) theoretical review on servant leader-
ship concludes that although servant leadership has some similarities with other leadership constructs, none of these others incorpo-
rate the key characteristics that place servant leadership in a unique position in that it combines a drive to be a leader with an explicit
and central focus on serving followers' needs. Empirically, studies are also providing increasing evidence that servant leadership is
distinct from other leadership styles. First, these studies show that servant leadership explains unique variance in outcomes, such
as follower in-role performance or follower commitment, beyond that accounted for by transformational leadership (TL: Bass,
1985; Burns, 1978) and leader-member exchange models (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Parolini, Patterson, & Winston,
2009; van Dierendonck et al., 2014). Second, two comparative studies demonstrated how servant leadership influences outcomes
through distinctive mediating mechanisms (Neubert et al., 2008; van Dierendonck et al., 2014). Van Dierendonck et al. (2014) specif-
ically addressed the theoretical conceptual overlap between servant leadership and transformational leadership (e.g., individualized
consideration dimension of TL) and found that the mechanism underlying the effect of each leadership style was unique; servant
leadership mediated its effect through overall basic need satisfaction whereas TL did not. This supports the idea that the theoretical
basis of servant and transformational leadership is different, and more importantly it brings the first concrete support for the notion
that servant leadership is directly related to basic need satisfaction, although we do not know yet to which needs specifically.
Although servant leadership has been empirically associated with several important organizational outcomes and individual
attitudinal outcomes presented above, studies have only recently begun to find support for a relationship between servant leadership
and OCBs and individual task performance (e.g., Liden et al., 2008; Neubert et al., 2008). In this study, we expect to demonstrate how
servant leadership positively influences both employees' task performance and employees' organizational citizenship behaviors
toward individuals and organization (OCB-I and OCB-O), through the positive influence of servant leadership on satisfaction of
SDT's basic psychological needs.

Self-determination theory

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a general theory of human motivation that has been applied successfully to investigate and
predict human behavior in several domains, such as education, health, sports and organizations (for a review see Vansteenkiste,
Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010). To explain how SDT could support servant leadership's effects in a working environment, we present
the fundamental premises of the organismic-dialectical metatheory underlying SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).
First, SDT is based on the premise that human beings are proactive organisms that have an inherent tendency to shape and optimize
their own life conditions in order to develop and grow toward their fullest potential by integrating their experiences and inner psychic
structures into a coherent sense of self and by enhancing their integration into their social context (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste
& Ryan, 2013). Second, SDT specifies that this natural growth tendency requires specific nutriments, in the form of satisfaction of three
basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008). Basic psychological needs can be viewed as innate and universal psychological
nutriments that are essential for optimal and ongoing psychological development, integrity (i.e., coherence with sense of self) and
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 127

well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These three needs are the need for autonomy, the need for competence and the need for relatedness.
Applied to a work environment, the underlying operating principle of these needs is that their satisfaction induces a subjective feeling
that one's work-related behaviors are congruent and meaningful to one's true self. Third, satisfaction of the three basic psychological
needs stems from the dialectic between the active organism and its social context. Social contexts that are supportive, congruent with
and validate an individual's true self (e.g., values, interests and potential) are particularly likely to facilitate need fulfillment (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). In contrast, social contexts that impede need satisfaction thwart growth, functioning and well-
being. Two studies provide preliminary support for this perspective (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels,
2015). Greguras and Diefendorff find that employees who experience a high level of fit with their work environment, namely
person-environment fit, person-group fit and demands-ability fit, reported higher levels of basic need satisfaction. Leroy et al. contend
that the interplay of authenticity of both follower and leader provides the contextual conditions that validate the follower's true self,
positively influencing satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Notably, SDT acknowledges that individual dispositional differences
exist in terms of strength of needs; however, it asserts that it is the extent to which psychological needs are satisfied, rather than
their strength, that determines and influences growth, integrity and well-being (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Hence, according to the SDT framework, satisfaction of these basic psychological needs is deemed “necessary for effective healthy
functioning” (Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996, p. 172). In work settings, optimal functioning would occur to the extent that the organi-
zational environment conditions would support fulfillment of basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Research has shown that
when basic psychological needs, measured as a global construct, were satisfied, this was positively associated with outcomes such as
job satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2008); general self-esteem (Deci et al., 2001); work engagement (Deci et al., 2001; Gagné, 2003); and
psychological adjustment (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004), and was negatively related to exhaustion (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste,
De Witte, & Lens, 2008) and anxiety (Deci et al., 2001).
Given that research has provided empirical support for SDT's premise that satisfying basic psychological needs is essential to obtain
positive outcomes at work, it is important to understand the contextual conditions required to fulfill these needs. Leaders are
considered an integral and central part of followers' organizational context, and, as such, should play a significant role in providing
the necessary conditions to support satisfaction of basic psychological needs at work.

Servant leadership and SDT's basic psychological need satisfaction

We contend in this study that servant leaders' distinctive focus on meeting followers' needs will naturally lead them to recognize
SDT's three distinct basic psychological needs and contribute to their fulfillment. In line with SDT's framework, as leaders are
considered an integral part of followers' organizational context and play a central role in the construction of an individual's work
experiences, they are pivotal in providing the necessary conditions to support satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Empirical
studies have shown that leaders do play a particularly important role in providing followers with support. Baard et al.'s (2004)
study of investment banking companies concludes that managers' support led to employees' experiencing greater basic psychological
need satisfaction and higher levels of engagement in their work. More recently, two studies suggest that leaders' behaviors and
attitudes are positively associated with satisfying followers' basic needs (Leroy et al., 2015; Kovjanic, Schuh, & Jonas, 2013).

Servant leadership and autonomy need satisfaction

The satisfaction of the need for autonomy refers to the experience of having choices and of initiating action oneself (Ryan & Deci, 2002).
The need for autonomy is considered the most salient need and a requirement to be fulfilled in order for intrinsic motivation to emerge
(Gagné & Deci, 2005; Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2006). This sense of volition can be achieved when em-
ployees perceive that they can make personal choices or when fully endorsing an externally induced request (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Greenleaf (1998) articulates how servant leaders' belief in the intrinsic value and potential of each individual is at the core of
servant leader recognition, acknowledgement and respect for each person's feelings, interests, views and opinions, and suggests
that servant leaders provide the environmental conditions necessary to liberate individuals' potential and creativity. Liden et al.
(2008) explicitly capture this notion of promoting followers' choice to initiate and regulate actions within the empowerment dimen-
sion of their servant leadership model. Specifically, servant leaders empower their followers by giving them important responsibilities
and the freedom to handle situations as they feel best, and by actively encouraging them to make important decisions on their own.
By enabling and supporting followers to take initiatives, be creative, learn from mistakes, assume responsibilities and handle difficult
situations in their own way, servant leaders help followers satisfy their need for autonomy. Therefore we propose that:

Hypothesis 1. Servant leadership is positively related to autonomy need satisfaction.

Servant leadership and competence need satisfaction

The satisfaction of the need for competence refers to feeling effective in ongoing interactions with one's social environment and
experiencing opportunities to exercise and master one's capacities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002; White, 1959).
According to Greenleaf (1998), servant leaders invest a great deal of time and energy in understanding follower's interests,
capabilities, and career goals, as they are genuinely concerned and consider subordinates' growth a priority. In line with this
reasoning, Liden et al. (2008) argue, within the helping subordinates grow and succeed dimension of the servant leadership model,
128 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

that servant leaders want to know precisely about followers' career goals, provide followers with opportunities to enhance their skills
or develop new ones, and assist them in achieving their goals. Servant leaders' attentive focus on followers' growth and development
has been found to enhance perception of efficacy at the group-level (Hu & Liden, 2011). We expect to find at the individual-level that
servant leaders help satisfy followers' need for competence. Therefore, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2. Servant leadership is positively related to competence need satisfaction.

Servant leadership and relatedness need satisfaction

The satisfaction of the need for relatedness refers to the feeling of being connected to others, to caring for and being cared for by
others as well as having a sense of belongingness in groups, organizations, or communities (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan &
Deci, 2002). Experiencing satisfaction of relatedness need plays an important role in the internalization of work-related requests,
rules and regulations (Gagné & Deci, 2005). The theory suggests that this internalization process will more likely emerge in contexts
characterized by secure relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Servant leaders care and show an altruistic sensitivity to followers' personal well-being, thus building meaningful trustworthy
dyadic relationships with followers and cultivating a psychologically safe and fair climate (Ehrhart, 2004; Schaubroeck et al., 2011).
They consequently help fulfill followers' need for relatedness. We therefore postulate:

Hypothesis 3. Servant leadership is positively related to relatedness need satisfaction.

In sum, we expect to find in the current study that servant leadership satisfies each of the SDT's three basic psychological needs.
Next, we examine how satisfaction of these three needs contributes to individual performance.

Job performance and basic psychological need satisfaction

Task performance, organizational citizenship performance targeted toward individuals (OCB-I) and organizational citizenship
performance targeted toward the organization (OCB-O) are three critical dimensions of job performance that have been a prominent
domain of investigation for decades because of their undeniable but distinct contribution to organizational goal achievement (Borman
& Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Task performance typically refers to the category of behaviors necessary to
complete duties and tasks that contribute to the (a) core products or services produced by the organization (line functions), or
(b) servicing and maintenance of the technical core of the organization (staff functions) (Motowidlo et al., 1997). In contrast, citizen-
ship performance is defined as the category of behaviors that are discretionary in nature and that maintain or improve the social and
psychological context within which core tasks are completed (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Citizenship performance is categorized
here according to the target of the behavior: organizational citizenship behaviors toward specific individuals, like co-workers or
leaders (OCB-I), and organizational citizenship behaviors that benefit the organization in general (OCB-O) (Williams & Anderson,
1991). OCB-Is are described as helping behaviors that involve voluntary cooperating and helping colleagues in need, preventing
work-related problems, and taking an interest in others (Williams & Anderson, 1991). OCB-Os are described as generalized com-
pliance behaviors that involve being conscientious, consistent attendance, not complaining and respecting organizational rules
and property (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Task performance, OCB-I and OCB-O are well established and distinct, although re-
lated, behavioral constructs known for their positive influence on organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, &
Bachrach, 2000; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Distinguishing these three perfor-
mance constructs is important because prior research has clearly demonstrated that these three components of performance
can have different antecedents (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Smith et al., 1983; Williams &
Anderson, 1991) and different consequences (e.g., Conway, 1999; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Podsakoff et al., 2009;
Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Van Scotter et al., 2000).
Only recently have scholars begun to investigate the link between SDT's basic psychological needs and performance constructs.
Two of these studies have found that basic psychological need satisfaction, measured as a combined construct of the three needs,
was positively related to individual task performance (Baard et al., 2004; Leroy et al., 2015). Only two other studies investigated
the effects of the three distinct psychological needs on individual task performance (Brien, Hass, & Savoie, 2012; Greguras &
Diefendorff, 2009). These studies both found that only the need for competence predicted task performance. Notably, no studies
have yet examined the link between the three distinct psychological needs and OCBs.
Hence, considering the scarcity of empirical research on need satisfaction's ability to predict performance, and given the methodolog-
ical issues of measurement consistency for performance and need satisfaction constructs (some studies capture a combination of the
three needs and others measure them separately), it seems that the importance of one of SDT's original premises has been overlooked,
namely that the three basic psychological needs are all essential for optimal functioning and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Although no studies have so far investigated the distinct predictive capability of the satisfaction of three basic psychological
needs on task performance, OCB-I and OCB-O simultaneously, we believe there are conceptual and empirical reasons to expect
such relationships. We hypothesize below that satisfaction of each of the three needs has a distinctive impact on each component
of performance: task performance, OCB-I and OCB-O.
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 129

Linking autonomy need satisfaction to task performance, OCB-O and OCB-I

In the SDT framework, autonomy need satisfaction is considered a psychological necessity and a requirement for
self-regulation, which determines the extent to which employees are willing to invest themselves in tasks and work roles
(Gagné & Deci, 2005; Humphrey et al., 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2006). Indeed, the need for autonomy is viewed as the most influential
of the three psychological needs in determining the degree of integration of motivation, thereby internalizing work rules, standards
and non-explicit requirements that impart meaning to work-related activities (Gagné & Deci, 2005). We first expect to find support
for the link between the need for autonomy satisfaction and task performance. This is because the more one experiences the feeling of
freely making work-related decisions and the feeling that work-related activities are meaningful and in accordance with one's inter-
est, the greater is the will to engage in one's work, to take initiatives and to be creative, leading to increased performance at work. This
is supported by Hackman and Oldham's (1980) seminal work on job design, which finds that employees who perceive greater job
autonomy show increased performance. Further support for this rationale can be found because the need for autonomy satisfaction
is conceptually close to empowerment, particularly to empowerment's dimensions of choice and meaningfulness (Conger & Kanungo,
1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), which respectively comprise the notions of self-decision and making sense.
Empowerment has been empirically linked to increased job performance (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997) and innovative behaviors
(Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011). Even more specifically, choice and meaningfulness, as dimensions of empowerment,
were found to relate to job performance (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000).
Second, autonomy need satisfaction is expected to be positively related to OCB-I and OCB-O. Drawing upon the organismic-dialectical
meta-theory, SDT suggests that the more individuals satisfy their natural need for autonomy, meaning they feel they can act and decide
autonomously, the more this feeling induces a mindset of wanting to preserve and strengthen the growth, advancement and success of
the social and organizational contexts that provided the feeling of autonomy (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Spreitzer, 1995). This mindset is likely
to manifest itself in the form of pro-organizational behaviors directed toward both the proximal social context, such as co-workers, and
toward the more distal social context, such as the organization. Specifically, within the proximal social context of a work team, the
dialectic between the individual and co-workers is key in providing the conditions necessary for autonomy needs to be satisfied. Indeed,
for individuals to feel they can act and decide autonomously, they should perceive they have support from co-workers to do so. Thus, the
more the autonomy need is satisfied, the more likely it is that voluntary helping behaviors toward co-workers (i.e., OCB-Is) would emerge
to preserve and reinforce the growth and advancement of the social context providing the feeling of autonomy. Therefore, consistent with
past research showing that perceived autonomy is positively related to teamwork-type behaviors (Chen et al., 2011), and associated with
volunteerism (Gagné & Deci, 2005) and less controlling attitudes toward patients (Lynch, Plant, & Ryan, 2005), we expect to find a pos-
itive relationship between autonomy need satisfaction and OCB-I. Analogously, employees are also embedded in the wider and more dis-
tal social context of an organization and are engaged in a dialectic with this context. This dialectic also serves to provide the contextual
conditions required for autonomy need satisfaction. For instance, an organizational culture that secures and supports employees' initia-
tives and creativity helps provide the contextual conditions allowing employees to feel they can act and decide autonomously. Hence,
the more one's need for autonomy is fulfilled, the more conscientious behaviors toward organizational matters would be likely to emerge
(i.e. OCB-Os) to help preserve and support the growth and success of the organization. Empirical evidence shows that perceived
autonomy is related to OCB directed to both helping co-workers and benefiting the organization in general (e.g., Zhang & Chen, 2013).
Based on the above rationale and supporting evidence, we postulate the following:

Hypothesis 4. Autonomy need satisfaction is positively related to a) task performance, b) OCB-O and c) OCB-I.

Linking competence need satisfaction to task performance

According to SDT, individuals who perceive that their need for competence is satisfied, feel that they can be effective and feel
confident that they possess the internal resources to undertake and achieve desirable outcomes and adapt to new environments,
thus leading to improved job performance. Support is found for this reasoning in prior research, as the need for competence satisfac-
tion is conceptually close to Bandura's (1986) concept of self-efficacy and Vroom's (1964) concept of outcome expectancies. Specif-
ically, both relate to one's capacity to successfully accomplish specific future tasks. Self-efficacy (Judge & Bono, 2001; Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1998) and outcome expectancy (Feather, 1992; Lynd-Stevenson, 1999) have predicted job performance and goal achieve-
ment respectively. Relatedly, the performance and leadership research domain has empirically shown that performance depends
upon employees' possessing appropriate skills and competencies (e.g., Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). Two recent studies
have indeed observed a positive relation between competence need satisfaction and task performance (e.g., Greguras & Diefendorff,
2009; Brien et al., 2012). Given this rationale and supporting findings, we expect to find a positive relationship between competence
need satisfaction and task performance. Note that we do not hypothesize a link between competence need satisfaction and OCB-I, nor
a link between competence need satisfaction and OCB-Os. Competence need satisfaction, although included in the dialectic between
the employee and the external social environment, flows less from interactions with that external social environment than autonomy
and relatedness need satisfaction, because competence need satisfaction is more contingent upon possession of internal resources
(i.e., feeling confident about possessing the skills and competencies necessary to achieve desirable outcomes). Hence, satisfaction
of the competency need is less likely to generate discretionary behaviors toward the proximal or distal social environment
(i.e., OCB-Is and OCB-Os). Given this rationale and supporting findings, we postulate that:

Hypothesis 5. Competence need satisfaction is positively related to task performance.

130 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

Linking need for relatedness satisfaction to OCB-O and OCB-I

Drawing upon SDT's underlying organismic-dialectical meta-theory, the dialectic premise states that human beings, interacting
with their social environment, will naturally have the tendency to seek to integrate not only their own psychic elements into a coher-
ent self (i.e., values, interests, beliefs), but also to enhance their integration in the social matrix (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste &
Ryan, 2013). Further, SDT postulates that satisfaction of relational needs plays a crucial role in these integration processes. Satisfaction
of relational needs thus facilitates the internalization process of work-related rules and regulations (Dysvik, Kuvaas, & Gagné, 2013;
Gagné & Deci, 2005), which leads to positive work-related attitudes and behaviors toward the social context, which in turn provides
the enabling conditions for these integration processes (Gagné & Deci, 2005). The need for relatedness aligns with Baumeister
and Leary's (1995) need to feel belongingness to a relationship or to a group. This need is for the kind of frequent, non-aversive
interactions with ongoing relational bonds that people naturally tend to invest considerable time and effort in fostering. Belong-
ing in a positive relationship appears to affect emotional, cognitive and identification processes, which demonstrates the impor-
tance of this relationship. Indeed, evidence suggests that being accepted, included, and welcomed leads to a variety of positive
emotions (e.g., happiness, elation, contentment, and calmness) associated with individuals who trigger these positive emotions,
and influences the level of activity of cognitive processes (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and social identification processes (Tajfel,
1978). Another stream of studies finds that people who form positive social bonds tend to actively resist the dissolution of these
relationships and seek to preserve and enhance these positive-response relationships, prompting the production of helping be-
haviors like OCB-I (for a review, see Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Thus, we first expect to find that when employees' relatedness
need is satisfied by valuable interpersonal relationships with co-workers, the relationships are bound to generate positive emo-
tions and increased activity in cognitive processing, which will naturally induce and augment the will to enact what is required
to preserve these valuable ties and act in favor of them, namely being helpful and caring toward co-workers (OCB-Is). Empirical
support for this proposal can be found in studies carried out on the quality of relationships with supervisors or among co-
workers, which was found to relate to OCB-I (Farmer, Van Dyne, & Kamdar, 2014; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).
We also expect to find that relatedness need satisfaction is linked to production of OCB-Os in the workplace. In addition to
establishing valuable interpersonal relationships, individuals tend to identify with their organization and feel that they belong
to and are part of a larger collective entity, thereby constructing their social identity and thus directly contributing to satisfying
the relatedness need. One may also belong to more than one collective entity and thus possess more than one social identity at
once, for instance having a social identity attached to a team, a department and a company in parallel. Hence, we expect to find
that when employees' relatedness need is satisfied, they will also want to preserve their multiple social identities and act in
favor of their social entity and organization in general by being compliant and respectful of organizational rules and property,
and thus perform OCB-Os. Indeed, research finds support for the notion that when individuals define themselves as belonging
to a group within their organization or the organization itself, they tend to engage in OCB-O (e.g., Christ, van Dick, Wagner, &
Stellmacher, 2003; Tse & Chiu, 2014). Notably, a link between relatedness need satisfaction and task performance was not
hypothesized herein. Task performance is less dependent on the relational or emotional aspects of a job than OCB-O and
OCB-I (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007) and, as mentioned above, is more dependent on possessing the appropriate skills and
competencies (Campbell et al., 1993; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009).
In sum, when employees feel they identify with and are part of an organization, a team or a significant relationship with their
leader for example, we can expect that they will naturally want to enact what is required to mutually preserve positive interpersonal
ties along with the collective social identities stemming from belonging to a team or an organization, and act in favor of the proximal
context (i.e., co-workers or leader) or the distal social context (i.e., the organization) and produce both OCB-Is and OCB-Os. Therefore
we postulate:

Hypothesis 6. Relatedness need satisfaction is positively related to a) OCB-O and b) OCB-I.

Basic psychological need satisfaction mediates servant leadership's effects on performance

The above hypotheses combine to form a mediation model. We propose that servant leaders possess the characteristics that
are likely to increase task performance and OCB performance via their influence on each of the three basic psychological needs:
autonomy, competence and relatedness. Consistent with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), which holds that the receipt of benefits incurs an
obligation to repay the donor, servant leaders' fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs should create an obligation
to reciprocate. This exchange process occurs within two contexts: the dyadic context and the wider social-organizational context.
First, within the dyadic context, employees who see their innate psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness ful-
filled by servant leaders would be expected to compensate these leaders and contribute to their well-being and goal achievement
with higher levels of OCBs and task performance. Empirical research suggests that via social exchange mechanisms, when one part
of a dyad trusts the other individual, the dyadic partner tends to feel the same sense of trust (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005). Studies
have also shown that servant leaders gain employees' trust (Joseph & Winston, 2005) and build long-term relationships with them
(Liden et al., 2008), thus demonstrating an exchange relationship between leader and employee. Second, servant leaders demonstrate
and encourage a higher level of moral reasoning within a wider social-organizational context (Graham, 1991) because they are inclu-
sive and oriented toward fulfilling all followers' psychological needs. Servant leaders thus create a pervasive social context inducing a
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 131

climate that employees perceive as fair (Ehrhart, 2004) and psychologically safe (Schaubroeck et al., 2011), and that builds em-
ployees' confidence in their collective ability to be effective (Hu & Liden, 2011). This positive climate leads employees to coop-
erate with and care about each other within the unit, and with stakeholders outside the unit, increasing employees' OCBs
benefiting individuals (OCB-I) and the organization (OCB-O) as a general form of exchange for servant leaders' high level of ser-
vice orientation.
Based on the above theoretical rationale and related empirical support, we first propose that servant leaders contribute to increas-
ing task performance by helping to fulfill employees' psychological needs for autonomy and competence, because servant leaders pri-
oritize followers' development, growth and success, and actively encourage and enable them to assume new responsibilities, develop
new skills, take initiatives and handle difficult situations in their own way. For example, constructive and sensitive verbal feedback
from a servant leader is likely to increase feelings of competence and self-confidence that are personally satisfying, which in turn in-
spires effective task production.
Second, we propose that servant leaders contribute to increased production of OCBs by helping employees satisfy their need for
autonomy and relatedness, because servant leaders build trustworthy dyadic relationships with followers and create a
psychologically safe and fair climate where employees can truly be themselves and feel emotionally and cognitively connected to
others, which naturally activates the drive to help colleagues (OCB-I) and to act in the organization's best interest (OCB-O). We there-
fore postulate:

Hypothesis 7. Autonomy need satisfaction mediates the relationship between servant leadership and a) task performance, b) OCB-O
and c) OCB-I.

Hypothesis 8. Competence need satisfaction mediates the relationship between servant leadership and task performance.

Hypothesis 9. Relatedness need satisfaction mediates the relationship between servant leadership and a) OCB-O and b) OCB-I.

Method and measures

Sample and procedures

The study was conducted in a large company based in Canada that designs and produces high technology products, and
which has over 3000 employees in North America. It was announced on the company's local intranet, and management
sent a letter to each employee to encourage participation. Human resources representatives provided us with work e-mail
addresses for all employees. We sent an electronic message with a link to the web-based survey inviting 2508 first-level em-
ployees to fill in the team member questionnaire, which included demographic information, the assessment of their
supervisor's servant leadership and need satisfaction at work survey. Two months later we invited 287 supervisors to fill
in a questionnaire on their employees' task and OCB performance. Participants were entered in a draw for a bookstore gift
certificate. To match the dyads, we asked employees to provide the name of their supervisor on the questionnaire, and also
asked supervisor to identify each employee they assessed. Once dyads were matched, they were number coded and names
were deleted to ensure anonymity.
In all, 821 first-level employees responded, for a response rate of 33%, and 157 supervisors responded, for a response rate of 55%.
Supervisors provided work performance information on 567 employees, and a total of 279 employee-supervisor dyads were matched.
Only dyads with complete data and dyads for which both the employee and supervisor had a relationship with each other lasting
more than two months were included, for a final sample of 247 dyads.
The first-level employees in the dyads studied are mostly Caucasian (96.5%) and Asian (3.3%). They are mostly male (70.7%) and
are, on average, 41.8 years old (SD = 8.95); 23.5% have been reporting to their current supervisor for 2 to 12 months, 49.8% for 1 to
3 years, 17% for 3 to 5 years, 6.9% for 5 to 10 years and 2.8% for over 10 years. Regarding tenure, 6.9% of the employees have been with
the company for 2 to 12 months, 17% for 1 to 3 years, 15% from 3 to 5 years, 20.2% from 5 to 10 years and 40.9% for over 10 years.
Consistent with being a technology-driven company, first-level employees have received advanced formal education: 65% hold a uni-
versity degree and 27% hold a trade school or college diploma.
Supervisors of the dyads are also mostly Caucasian (97%), male (85%) and are on average 44.5 years old (SD = 7.81). They have
held their current position for 2 to 12 months (4%), 1 to 3 years (44.1%), 3 to 5 years (24.7%), 5 to 10 years (12.6%), 10 to 15 years
(10.1%) and over 15 years (4.5%). Overall, supervisors have been with the company longer than first-level employees: 47% have
over 15 years' experience with the company, 21% have 10 to 15 years' experience, 17.4% have 5 to 10 years' experience, 8.9% have
3 to 5 years' experience, 5.3% have one to three years' experience and only 0.4% (one individual) has 2 to 12 months' experience.
Supervisors have also received advanced formal education: 83% hold a university degree and 15.7% hold a trade school or college
diploma.

Measures

Servant leadership
Employees assessed their supervisor's servant leadership with Liden et al.'s (2008) 28-item, 7-dimension Servant Leadership scale.
A sample item is, “My supervisor seems to care more about my success than his/her own success” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree). Following Hu and Liden (2011), we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a seven-factor model. Results
132 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

show that the dimensions are distinct and fall under a second-order servant leadership construct, χ2 (343) = 1393.24, comparative
fit index (CFI) = .98, normed fit index (NFI) = .98, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) = .064 and root-mean-square
error of approximation (RMSEA) = .072. The factor loading range of the seven dimensions onto servant leadership construct is .54 to
.91. Therefore, overall servant-leadership was used as a latent factor (α = .94).

Need satisfaction at work

An adapted version of the 18-item Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale (W-BNS scale; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste,
De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010) was used to assess the satisfaction of employees' work-related basic needs as defined in the Self
Determination Theory (SDT) literature (see Deci & Ryan, 2008). The W-BNS scale shows a psychometrically sound, three-factor struc-
ture that distinctly measures satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs with six items for each need: autonomy, competence
and relatedness (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). To respond to the company's management request for a shorter questionnaire, we
adapted the scale by selecting four of the six items for each need. In doing so, we considered our population's profile, which presented
a strong technical background. We consequently favored more tangible than abstract items. For example, the autonomy need
satisfaction item “I feel I can be myself at the job” was excluded. To minimize the risk of mistakes and confusion, we suppressed or
reversed negative items. Finally, to emphasize that we were interested in measuring the level of satisfaction of the need and not
the importance of the need (i.e. need strength), we added the following introductory question: “In your current job, how satisfied
are you with the following aspect of your work?” For each item, we asked participants to position themselves on a 5-point Likert
scale of satisfaction (1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied). We therefore adapted the
wording of the items to tie into the introductory question and answering options. For example, item 5 from the original W-BNS
autonomy need scale: “I feel free to do my job the way I think it can be done best” was modified to link with “How satisfied are
you with: The degree of freedom I have to do my job the way I think it can be done best.”
Hence, for our autonomy need satisfaction subscale we included the above modified item 5. We also reversed and adapted items 2,
3 and 6 from the W-BNS autonomy need satisfaction subscale. They became: “The opportunities to take personal initiatives in my
work”, “The level of autonomy I have in my job” and “The opportunities to exercise my own judgment and my own actions.” Together
these four items capture the sense that an employee has the opportunity to make personal choices. For our competence need
satisfaction subscale we used items 2, 3, 4 and 6 from the W-BNS competence need satisfaction subscale: “The feeling of being
competent at doing my job”, “The level of mastery I can achieve at my task”, “The level of confidence about my ability to execute
my job properly” and “The sense that I can accomplish the most difficult tasks”. For our relatedness need satisfaction subscale we
used items 1, 2, 4 and 6 from the W-BNS relatedness need satisfaction subscale: “The positive social interactions I have at work
with other people”, “The feeling of being part of a group at work”, “The close friends I have at work” and “The opportunities to talk
with people about things that really matter to me”.
This shorter, adapted version of the W-BNS was pre-tested on a separate sample of 209 employees within the same company
(79% male) with an average age of 40 and an average tenure with the company of 5 to 10 years. CFA results confirmed the presence
of three distinct needs constructs, χ2 (51) = 77.8, comparative fit index (CFI) = .975, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .968, standardized
root-mean-square residual (SRMR) = .058 and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05. The factor-loading range
for autonomy items is .82 to .90; 71 to .87 for competence; and .69 to .83 for relatedness. Cronbach's alphas (α) are .92 for autonomy,
.87 for competence, and .83 for relatedness. We used this adapted 12-item scale to measure the satisfaction of work-related basic
needs on our 247-dyad sample: autonomy (α = .88), competence (α = .79) and relatedness (α = .80).

Individual employee performance

Three classes of employee behaviors were assessed by the supervisor: task performance, OCB-I and OCB-O.
Task performance was measured using an adapted version of Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, and Sparrowe's (2006) 4-item individual
performance measure that was designed and validated in three types of organizations. Two items, capability to meet deadlines and
speed of solving problems, replaced the original technical competence item because they are more suitable dimensions of performance
in a high-technology products industry. We also added an initiative taken item, which corresponded to recognized value of employees'
performance within the company culture. Hence, supervisors rated individual performance in terms of six items: quality of
work, quantity of work, problem-solving speed, initiatives taken, capability to complete work on time and overall performance
(α = .94). Supervisors were asked to use a seven-point scale (1 = unacceptable to 7 = outstanding).
OCB-O and OCB-I were assessed using Williams and Anderson's (1991) Organizational Citizenship Behaviors scales. Supervisors
completed the 6-item measure for OCB-O (e.g., “Attendance at work is above the norm”) and the 7-item measure for OCB-I
(e.g., “Helps others who have heavy workloads”) to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the statement about their direct
reports on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach's alphas (α) are .76 for OCB-O and .84 for OCB-I.

Control variables
Previous research on leadership has identified that age, gender and tenure may be related to employees' attitudes and
work-related outcomes (e.g., Riordan, Griffith, & Weatherly, 2003). Researchers investigating the specific effects of leadership
on performance have also suggested that tenure with the organization may influence performance (e.g., Schaubroeck, Lam, &
Cha, 2007). Consequently, we chose to include age, gender, tenure with supervisor, and tenure with organization within our analysis.
Participants provided their gender and their year of birth directly. For tenure with supervisor and tenure with organization, they
selected one of the following seven tenure categories: 1 — less than two months, 2 — two months to twelve months, 3 — one year
to three years, 4 — three years to five years, 5 — five years to ten years, 6 — ten years to fifteen years, 7 — fifteen years and more.
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 133

Statistical analysis strategy

The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) in the MPlus 7.3 package (Muthén & Muthén,
1998-2012) using maximum-likelihood estimation (MLM). We used items as indicators for each variable in the study except for
the servant leadership construct, for which we averaged the four items by dimension to create seven indicators representing the
seven dimensions.
To assess for mediation in hypotheses H7, H8 and H9, we followed the bias-corrected (BC) bootstrapping procedures strongly
advocated by Preacher and Hayes (2008) and MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams (2004) for multiple-mediator model testing to
estimate the size of indirect effects and their confidence intervals (Preacher & Kelley, 2011). This procedure is well suited to our
study because it directly tests indirect effects, has higher power, better Type I error control, and does not rely on normal distribution
assumptions like the Sobel test or the causal steps approach might (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Results

Measurement model and descriptive statistics

In preliminary analyses we tested a measurement model with all seven latent variables related to their respective indicators. This
seven-factor measurement model fits the data well with χ2 (634) = 962.852, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .046 and SRMR = .059
(Hu & Bentler, 1999).1 All indicators loaded significantly onto their corresponding latent constructs (p b .001). The factor loading
range for servant leadership was .64 to .84, with the community dimension at .43; .74 to .86 for autonomy need satisfaction; .62
to .78 for competency need satisfaction; .69 to .75, for related need satisfaction; .76 to .91 for task performance; .37 to .71 for
OCBO; and .62 to .79 for OCBI.
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and attenuated correlations among control variables and latent constructs from the
measurement model, showing satisfactory scale score reliability values (.76 ≤ α ≤ .94). As theoretically supported and expected,
the three needs' satisfaction (mediators) are inter-correlated, .34 ≤ r ≤ .57, which is consistent with the range of correlation obtained
in Van den Broeck et al. (2008), .28 ≤ r ≤ .58. As anticipated, servant leadership is significantly correlated to all three components of
performance: task performance (r = .24, p b .001), OCB-O (r = .43, p b .001), and OCB-I (r = .34, p b .001). Servant leadership is
also, as expected, significantly correlated to satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs: autonomy (r = .49, p b .001), compe-
tence (r = .29, p b .01), and relatedness (r = .43, p b .001). As anticipated, satisfaction of each need is correlated with its correspond-
ing hypothesized outcomes.
Finally, to complete our preliminary analyses, we investigated whether demographic variables (age, gender, tenure with
leader and tenure with organization) were associated with servant leadership (independent variable), basic psychological
needs (mediators) and performance variables (outcomes) (Becker, 2005). Correlations are reported in Table 1. Age was uncor-
related to all variables. Gender was found to correlate with satisfaction of the need for autonomy only (r = .19, p b .01). Tenure
with the organization also correlated only with satisfaction of the need for autonomy (r = .20, p b .01). Tenure with leader was
found to correlate with the independent variable, the mediators, task performance and OCB-I. Therefore, analyses were run,
controlling for gender, tenure with organization and tenure with leader, and repeated without the controls. Because the results
were identical, we present them without the control variables below (Becker, 2005).

Structural model

As shown in Table 2, the hypothesized model shows an acceptable fit to the data, with χ2 (643) = 1072.486, CFI = .91, TLI = .90,
RMSEA = .05 and SRMR = .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).2
To support our model as the best fitting model, we also tested alternate models that even if not theoretically hypothesized, remain
plausible. Indeed, one might postulate based on the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) that when one feels cared for and connected to
others (satisfaction of relatedness need), one might feel obligated to reciprocate in the form of putting more effort into one's own task
responsibilities, contributing indirectly to the common overall organizational objectives (Banks et al., 2014). Note that we had found a
small but significant bivariate correlation between satisfaction of relatedness needs and task performance (r = .16, p b .05).
Next, drawing on regulatory focus theory (RFT; Higgins, 1998) another reasonable hypothesis would be that when one feels com-
petent and masters task-related work, this feeling could induce a promotion focus that directs energy toward pursuing opportunities
to grow and gain, and manifest itself in cooperative behaviors (Neubert et al., 2008). Considering that cooperative behaviors can target

1
In our 7-factor measurement model, we allowed ten pairs of item residuals to correlate within the same construct. Based on Byrne (2012) and Reddy (1992), we
argue that because seven of these pairs of items had a high degree of overlap in content and because three others shared the same item characteristic (in this case being
negatively worded), the residual errors between items are not random but rather systematic and therefore should be modeled. The paired items are as follows. Two
pairs for competency need satisfaction construct. The first pair pertains to feeling capable to do the job: “The feeling of being competent at doing my job” and “The level
of confidence about my ability to do my job”. The second pair is centered on mastering job tasks: “The level of mastery I can achieve at my tasks” and “The sense that I can
accomplish the most difficult tasks”. Then, four pairs of items within the OCBI construct (see Williams & Anderson, 1991 for item content): 11 and 13, on the theme of
being personally interested in others; 10 and 14, on cooperates without being asked; 8 and 9, on helping colleagues in need; 11 and 12, on demonstrating strong interest to
help. Lastly, one pair for OCBO items 15 and 21, on the respect of informal rules. Finally, the three items that are negatively worded and that we paired are 17, 18 and 19.
2
The structural model was tested using the same correlated residuals that were detailed in Footnote 1. Congruent with Reddy's (2012) assessment, this procedure
did not affect the estimates of structural parameters.
134 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alphas and attenuated zero-order correlations of studied variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Age (employee) 41.8 8.9 –

2. Gender (employee) – – .01 –
3. Tenure with leader – – .26*** .08 –
4. Tenure with organization (employee) – – .52*** .07 .42*** –
5. Servant leadership 3.40 0.53 .03 .09 .12 .01 .94
6. Autonomy need satisfaction 3.81 0.67 .12 .19** .17** .20** .49*** .88
7. Competence need satisfaction 3.99 0.55 .08 .09 .21** .10 .29** .57*** .79
8. Relatedness need satisfaction 3.68 0.63 −.06 .06 .17 .09 .43*** .34*** .34*** .80
9. Follower task performance 5.48 0.85 −.06 .01 .14* .02 .24** .22*** .18** .16* .94
10. Follower OCB — organization 5.68 0.83 −.03 .01 .07 .02 .43*** .17** .03 .22*** .54*** .76
11. Follower OCB — individual 5.35 0.89 −.03 −.04 .21** .04 .34*** .20** .13* .32*** .59*** .49*** .84

Note. Individual level of analysis, N = 247 leader–employee dyads; Cronbach's alpha coefficients are presented on the diagonal in bold.
*p b .05, **p b .01, ***p b .001.

not only other colleagues (OCB-I), but also the organization (e.g., by being conscientious), we extended the above rationale to OCB-O,
and examined the possible link between competence need satisfaction and OCB-O. Relatedly, we also found in our study a small but
significant bivariate correlation between satisfaction of competence needs and OCB-I (r = .13, p b .05). Therefore, to investigate the
link between relatedness need satisfaction and task performance, we tested an alternative 1 model against our hypothesized model by
adding a path between relatedness need satisfaction and employee task performance, Δχ2 (1) = 1.345 ns and the added path was not
significant, p = .11. To investigate the possible link between competence need satisfaction and OCB-I, we tested alternative 2 model
against our hypothesized model by adding a path between competence need satisfaction and OCB-I, Δχ2 (1) = .54 ns, the added
path was not significant, p = .92. We then tested alternative 3 model against our hypothesized model by adding a path between
competence need satisfaction and OCB-O, Δχ2 (1) = 1.117 ns and the added path was marginally significant, p = .08. As presented
in Table 2, none of the alternate models showed a significant improvement of fit when compared with the hypothesized model.
We therefore retained as our final model, our hypothesized model as the most parsimonious model to fit the data.
The first three hypotheses in our final model predicted that servant leadership would positively influence satisfaction of all three
basic psychological needs. Supporting H1, H2 and H3, servant leadership significantly and positively influences satisfaction of: need
for autonomy (β = .56, p b .001), need for competence (β = .40, p b .001), and need for relatedness (β = .53, p b .001). Our next
three hypotheses predicted specific links between satisfaction of each of the three basic needs and components of performance. In
support of H4, autonomy need satisfaction significantly and positively predicted the three components of performance: a) task
performance (β = .18, p b .01), b) OCB-O (β = .16, p b .01), and c) OCB-I (β = .13, p = .01). Supporting H5, satisfaction of the
need for competence significantly and positively predicted task performance (β = .15, p b .001). In support of H6, relatedness
need satisfaction significantly and positively predicted the two components of extra-role performance: a) OCB-O (β = .21,
p b .001), and b) OCB-I (β = .30, p b .001).
Standardized coefficient estimates associated with H1 to H6 are presented in Fig. 1. This model accounted for 31% of the variance
of autonomy need satisfaction, 16% of the variance of competence need satisfaction and 28% of the variance of relatedness need
satisfaction. This model also accounted for 6.5% of the variance of task performance, 9% of the variance of OCB-O and 13% of the
variance of OCB-I.3
Turning to the three mediation hypotheses H7, H8 and H9, we report the size of the indirect (i.e. mediated) effects in Table 3,
reflecting the product of the estimated Independent Variable → Mediator effect and the estimated Mediator → Dependent Variable
effect, as well as their respective BC bootstrapped (n = 5000) confidence intervals (CIs). As shown in Table 3, all six indirect effects
are significant. Specifically, as hypothesized in H7, satisfaction of the need for autonomy mediated the effect of servant leadership
on task performance, OCB-O and OCB-I. As proposed in H8, satisfaction of the need for competence mediated the effect of servant
leadership on task performance. Finally, as suggested in H9, satisfaction of the need for relatedness mediated the effect of servant
leadership on OCB-O and OCB-I.
To extend our understanding of the mediation process, we ran supplementary analyses and tested three alternative models against
the hypothesized model. Each alternative model included a direct path between servant leadership and one of the three performance
outcomes. The first two alternative models, which included either a direct path between servant leadership and task performance or a
direct path between servant leadership and OCB-I, showed no significant difference of fit with the hypothesized model: respectively
Δχ2(1) = .51, ns and Δχ2(1) = .69, ns. Only the alternative model with a direct path between servant leadership and OCB-O showed a

3
Although beyond the scope of this study, following a reviewer's recommendation, we further investigated how each dimension of servant leadership behaved in our
final model. We retested our hypothesized model, still using SEM, each time taking a single dimension of servant leadership as the independent latent construct with
items as indicators. Results indicate that all seven structural models present satisfactory fit, with all hypothesized relationships positive and significant, thereby
supporting the positive effect of all seven dimensions on the entire model. However, comparing the magnitude of the regression coefficients across the seven dimen-
sions shows that the dimensions of empowerment, follower's development and emotional healing exert the greatest influence on satisfaction of both the autonomy
need and the competence need. Further, relatedness need satisfaction is influenced the most by the following three servant leadership dimensions: follower's develop-
ment, behaving ethically and emotional healing. The community stewardship dimension is consistently the dimension that predicts all three needs the least strongly.
Altogether, this suggests that even if the servant leadership dimensions do not all have the same level of influence on dependent variables, they all contribute to sat-
isfying the three basic psychological needs and mediate their influence on the three types of individual performance constructs, namely, task, OCB-I and OCB-O.
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 135

Table 2
Summary of fit statistics for measurement, hypothesized and alternate models.

Model χ2 df SRMR CFI TLI RMSEA

1. Measurement model 962.85 634 .06 .93 .92 .05

2. Hypothesized structural model 1072.49 643 .08 .91 .90 .05
3. Alt.1: Hyp + Relatedness need sat. → Task performance 1071.14 642 .08 .91 .90 .05
4. Alt.2: Hyp + Competence need sat. → OCB-I 1071.95 642 .08 .91 .90 .05
5. Alt.3: Hyp + Competence need sat. → OCB-O 1071.31 642 .09 .91 .90 .05

Note. SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.

significant difference of fit, Δχ2(1) = 17.05, p b .001 with the hypothesized model. These results therefore suggest that the links
between servant leadership and task performance and OCB-I are being fully mediated by satisfaction of the three needs, and that
the links between servant leadership and OCB-O are partially mediated by satisfaction of the need for autonomy and relatedness.
Hence, these results imply that other variables are most likely involved in the mediating process between servant leadership and
citizenship behaviors toward the organization. This will be discussed further in the next section.

Discussion

This study was designed to advance our understanding of the fairly young servant leadership research domain, and to specifically
investigate servant leadership's unmapped central premise that servant leaders influence organizational outcomes by fostering
followers' growth and well-being, specifically by the process of satisfying followers' needs (Liden et al., 2008; Mayer, 2010). Our
goal was to examine in a representative working environment, how servant leadership could influence performance, hypothesizing
a model that differentiates the mediating role of satisfaction of each of the three basic psychological needs specified in SDT. Overall,
we observed solid support for our hypothesized model.
Our study makes two contributions to the servant leadership literature. First, we found strong evidence for a positive relationship
between servant leadership and satisfaction of each of the three needs: autonomy, competency and relatedness. Undeniably, our
results demonstrate that the more a leader behaves as a servant leader, the more followers feel that their basic psychological needs
for autonomy, competence and relatedness are being met. Second, our results demonstrate that servant leadership's influence on
individual performance is mediated through satisfaction of followers' needs (Mayer et al., 2008; Mayer, 2010). These are important
findings in that they help clarify and confirm servant leadership's theoretical central premise that servant leadership's influence
on performance outcomes flows through followers' need satisfaction. Moreover, our study serves to extend recent work on servant
leadership and need satisfaction (van Dierendonck et al., 2014) and on servant leadership and individual performance (e.g., Liden
et al., 2008), by determining which basic psychological needs servant leadership meet, and by investigating the distinct mediating
role of each form of need satisfaction in the concurrent prediction of three performance outcomes.
Our study also strengthens and expands our knowledge of the SDT literature. Consistent with our expectations, we found that
satisfaction of needs is related to performance in more than one way. The satisfaction of all three needs is involved in the achievement
of the three dimensions of performance, and each need satisfaction plays a distinct role in predicting performance. Autonomy need
satisfaction predicted all three aspects of performance (i.e., task performance, OCB-I and OCB-O); relatedness need satisfaction pre-
dicted both types of citizenship behaviors (OCB-I and OCB-O); and competency need satisfaction predicted task performance only.
From an outcome perspective, our results demonstrate that each type of performance behavior (task, OCB-I, OCB-O) is predicted by

Autonomy
.18** Employee Task
Need
Satisfaction Performance
.16**
.13**
.56***

Competency
Servant .40*** Need .15*** OCB - Organization
Leadership
Satisfaction

.21***
.53***
Relatedness
Need OCB - Individual
Satisfaction .30***

Fig. 1. Hypothesized mediation model with SEM standardized parameter estimates. N = 247 leader-supervisor dyads, ** = p b .01, *** = p b .001.
136 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

Table 3
Structural equation modeling results of unstandardized indirect effects and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) using a bias-corrected (BC) bootstrapping procedure.

Indirect effect Hypothesis Estimate SE 90% CI

1. SL → Autonomy need sat. → Task performance H7a .10** .03 [.01, .19]
2. SL → Competence need sat. → Task performance H8 .06*** .02 [.01, .13]
3. SL → Autonomy need sat. → OCB-O H7b .08** .03 [.00, .20]
4. SL → Relatedness need sat. → OCB-O H9a .11** .03 [.02, .23]
5. SL → Autonomy need sat. → OCB-I H7c .08* .03 [.00, .18]
6. SL → Relatedness need sat. → OCB-I H9b .17*** .04 [.07, .33]

Note. Standardized and unstandardized values of indirect effects are almost identical; it is recommended that bootstrapping results be unstandardized (Preacher &
Hayes, 2008); bootstrapping sample size = 5000; SL = servant leader; SE = standard error; *p b .05, **p b .01, and *** p b .001.

a combination of two basic psychological needs' satisfaction. Task performance was predicted by satisfaction of the competency and
autonomy needs; OCB-I was predicted by satisfaction of the need for autonomy and the need for relatedness; and OCB-O was also pre-
dicted by satisfaction of the autonomy and relatedness needs. SDT suggests that autonomy need satisfaction is the most salient and the
most influential of the three psychological needs. It is also a psychological necessity and requirement for self-regulation, determining
the extent to which employees are willing to invest themselves in tasks and work roles (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Humphrey et al., 2007;
Ryan & Deci, 2006). We found that fulfilling the need for autonomy was indeed positively associated with all three dimensions of per-
formance (task, OCB-I, OCB-O). In other words, the more an individual feels satisfied with the opportunities to make work-related
choices and endorses others' requests, the more that individual is invested in accomplishing the behaviors required to perform
work effectively (task performance), to help others (OCB-I), and to act conscientiously in fulfilling organizational requirements
(OCB-O). This finding is also consistent with a recent investigation of the relationship between the three basic needs and intrinsic mo-
tivation, which finds that the three needs satisfaction are not related in the same way to intrinsic motivation, and that satisfaction of
the need for autonomy plays a particularly important role in the process of intrinsic motivation (Dysvik et al., 2013). We also observed
that satisfaction of the need for competence is related to task performance. This result suggests that individuals who feel they can be
effective and who feel confident they possess the internal resources to undertake and achieve desirable outcomes and adapt to new
environments tend to show superior task performance. This is consistent with recent SDT studies that found that satisfaction of the
need for competence is positively and directly related to task performance (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Brien et al., 2012). Our re-
sults also show that satisfaction of the need for relatedness is a predictor of both OCB-I and OCB-O. Thus, feeling connected to others
and caring or being cared for plays an important role in eliciting citizenship behaviors toward individuals within the proximal social
context, such as co-workers and leaders (OCB-I). Further, having a sense of belongingness and identifying with groups, organizations
or communities also influences the generation of citizenship behaviors toward more distal social contexts, such as groups or organi-
zations (OCB-O). This provides an interesting implication for SDT because it follows that the need for relatedness plays a more central
role than initially believed in earlier theorizations of the work domain (Dysvik et al., 2013).
Additionally, and most interestingly, we found that the three basic psychological needs mediate the relationship between
servant leadership and performance. First, as postulated, we found that servant leaders contribute to increasing task
performance by satisfying employees' innate psychological need for autonomy and competency, because servant leaders
prioritize followers' development, growth and success, and actively encourage and enable them to take on new responsibilities,
develop new skills, take initiatives and handle difficult situations on their own. Second, as hypothesized, our study shows
that servant leaders contribute to increasing production of OCB-O and OCB-I by facilitating fulfillment of employees' needs
for autonomy and relatedness. Servant leaders tend to build trustworthy dyadic relationships with followers and create a
psychologically safe and fair climate where employees strongly feel they can be themselves, make their own decisions
and feel connected to others, which naturally leads to the adoption of helpful behaviors toward colleagues (OCB-I) and
conscientious behaviors in favor of the organization (OCB-O).
In the supplementary analyses we showed that satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs described above not only
mediates, but fully mediates the influence of servant leadership on task performance and OCB-I. However, satisfaction of autonomy
and relatedness needs seems to only partially mediate the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-O. This suggests that
other mediators might also play a role in this relationship. An interesting potential theoretical explanation might be that besides social
exchange theory, which we drew upon to support our hypothesized model, a modeling process (Bandura, 1977) could also be
involved in the mediation process between servant leadership and OCB-Os. Given that the organization is usually perceived as a
more distant target for a social exchange process than co-workers are, it would be pertinent to suggest that employees also perform
OCB-Os because they learn by emulating servant leaders' positive attitudes and behaviors toward the organization. This explanation is
consistent with recent scholars' suggestions that servant leaders are likely to be viewed as credible role models (Hunter et al., 2013;
Liden et al., 2008).
Consequently, these results also contribute to the job performance literature by providing additional support for and
clarification of the distinction between task and OCB performance (Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007; Moorman,
Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002). They also deepen our understanding
of the distinctive mechanisms that seem to influence achievement of task or OCB performances. Further, although our results
demonstrated that OCB-I and OCB-O were predicted by the same two needs' satisfaction (autonomy and relatedness), our
theoretical rationales underlying these predictions were different yet related. Our study also allowed us to highlight that
these two needs did not mediate the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-I and OCB-O in the same way. The fact
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 137

that autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-O,
and fully mediated the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-I implies that other mechanisms come into play in
the prediction of OCB-O, mechanisms which could become subjects of future investigation.
Overall, these findings make several important contributions to the servant leadership domain. First, even though some studies
had examined the relationship between servant leadership and task performance (Liden et al., 2008) and OCBs at the individual
level (Neubert et al., 2008), our research is the first to investigate concurrent relationships between servant leadership and the
three dimensions of individual performance: task performance, OCB-O and OCB-I. This reinforces and expands our knowledge of
the span of positive influence a servant leader can truly have on organizational outcomes and helps us further appreciate how servant
leaders are not only servants but are also leaders because they actually do get things done. Second, our results shed light on the specific
psychological mechanisms through which servant leaders may influence their followers: our study was the first to find strong and
positive relationships between servant leadership and all three basic psychological needs.
Moreover, our findings make several important contributions to the SDT domain. Most of the research on SDT's basic psychological
needs has been performed using a global measure of the three needs. Interest in investigating the distinctive role of each psychological
need has emerged only recently; our study is the first to simultaneously investigate the distinct predictive capabilities of satisfaction of
the three basic psychological needs on both in-role performance (task performance) and extra-role performance (OCB-I and OCB-O).
As expected, our study indicates that basic psychological needs are important mediators between servant leadership and perfor-
mance. This finding reinforces and expands upon one of SDT's premises and related research about the importance of leadership as
a crucial component of the environmental conditions required to satisfy basic psychological needs (e.g., Leroy et al., 2015; Kovjanic
et al., 2013), leading to optimal functioning (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Finally, our findings provide insight into the similar and complementary nature of the literature on servant leadership and on SDT.
Both the servant leadership and on SDT literatures are grounded in the belief that individual growth and development are worthy ob-
jectives in themselves, objectives that likely engender a number of desirable collateral outcomes for both the individual and the
organization. These literatures are also complementary because SDT is based on the premise that human beings have an inherent
tendency to develop and grow toward their fullest potential when their three basic psychological needs are satisfied, and servant
leaders are most likely to harness that tendency because they are driven by an exceptionally strong belief in the importance
of their followers' growth and empowerment. They therefore naturally fulfill followers' basic psychological needs for autonomy,
competence and relatedness, thus aiding organizational growth and effectiveness.

Practical implications

We believe our results make a concrete contribution to the organizational field because they offer insight into how servant leaders
can help an organization perform better and grow through satisfaction of the psychological needs of the individuals working for it.
Our results indicate that organizations would benefit by developing their current leaders into servant leaders and
promoting/hiring servant leaders in key influential positions. Accordingly, training programs, hiring and selection profiles
and processes would need to be aligned and communicated inside and outside the organization.
Further, this study provides valuable insight into a potentially important focus and indicator of leadership development progress.
It suggests that satisfying followers' basic psychological needs is a concrete target that can be used as a focus of servant leaders' skills
development and as a concrete way to evaluate a leadership development program's effectiveness.
Finally, as noted earlier and consistent with servant leadership philosophy, our results also suggest that it would be advantageous
to create or reinforce a culture that positively promotes the satisfaction of psychological needs. For example, designing, structuring
and organizing work and the work environment to enhance interdependency, facilitating relationship building, promoting skills
development and paying attention to autonomy levels can all be beneficial for the individual's growth and well-being and the
organization's growth, innovation and effectiveness.

Strength, limitations and future research

There are two important strengths in our study that are worth mentioning. First, we took several steps in designing our study to
ensure its internal validity. We collected employees' performance information from direct supervisors two months after employees
filled in servant leadership and need satisfaction questionnaires, thereby reducing potential same-source bias. We used well-
validated scales with strong reliabilities for servant leadership (Liden et al., 2008) and performance (Williams & Anderson, 1991).
Our shorter, adapted version of the work-related basic psychological need satisfaction scale (W-BNS) was pre-tested on a large
separate sample of employees within the same company and showed a high degree of reliability. Second, our study advances the
leadership literature by theoretically integrating the motivation literature into the more recent servant leadership domain. Given
that leaders bear the critical responsibility to influence and mobilize followers (Hogg, 2006; Northouse, 2007), this integration
represents a valuable theoretical and practical contribution.
Our study also has some limitations that highlight areas of future research. First, ratings of servant leadership and satisfaction of
basic psychological needs were assessed by employees, suggesting a potential common-method bias. Future research might aggregate
servant leadership ratings from team members to reduce common-method bias. It might also be interesting to adopt a longitudinal
and experimental design integrating a servant leadership development program and measuring the evolution of satisfaction of
followers' basic psychological needs.
138 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

Second, participants in this study were well educated and worked in the private sector, representing a population of individuals
that may naturally be more open to continuously growing and achieving their full potential, and consequently more open to a
servant-leadership-type influence. To increase the generalizability of our results, future studies should investigate different
populations (i.e. education levels and industries) and cultural environments.
Further, although the data presented are time lagged in their collection and although theories we drew upon support the direction
of the relationships in our hypothesized model, this study is cross-sectional by design, and cannot make any causal claims regarding
the relationship among servant leadership, need satisfaction and performance. It is therefore possible that some of the relationships
may exist in the opposite direction. For example, because a supervisor tends to have a more positive view of follower's performance,
this may positively influence follower's perception of their need satisfaction. Further research and theorizing would be valuable to
deepen our understanding of the evolution of these relationships in time.
Relatedly, although this study was centered on SDT's three basic psychological needs, other human need theories recognize the
existence of other needs. Examining the effect of servant leadership on needs such as the need for achievement, for power
(McClelland, 1978) or for meaning (e.g., McGregor & Little, 1998), could provide a deeper understanding of the mechanism that
allows servant leadership to successfully influence follower's outcomes. Ryan and Deci (2000) do argue that the need for meaning
underlies the three basic psychological needs. Likewise, this study finds that autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction partially me-
diated the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-O, which opens the door to investigate the presence of other mechanisms
that could explain the influence of servant leaders on OCB-Os.
Similarly, it might be worth investigating how other positive outcomes of servant leadership may be mediated through satisfaction
of basic psychological needs, such as creative behaviors or adaptive performance. These outcomes are considered important and are
identified as natural outcomes of satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Another possible extension of this research involves investigating the multi-dimensionality of the servant leadership style and
differentiating the influence of each dimension. The fact that recent studies have found a link between satisfaction of basic psycholog-
ical needs and other types of leadership, such as authentic leadership (Leroy and al., 2015) and transformational leadership (van
Dierendonck et al., 2014; Kovjanic et al., 2013), both of which have some dimensions in common with servant leadership (van
Dierendonck, 2011), foregrounds the interest and possibility to explore the differential effects of leadership dimensions. Furthermore,
our additional analysis of each of servant leadership's seven dimensions within our hypothesized model (see Footnote 3) provides
initial support to further investigate the differential impact of servant leadership dimensions on basic psychological need satisfaction.
Finally, research is needed to further examine the conditions under which servant leadership may or may not be effective.
Individual differences such as values, personality traits, or leadership prototype preference may constitute powerful moderators of
follower's attitudes and behaviors related to servant leadership (Liden et al., 2014).
Many academics and practitioners foresee that servant leadership theory will play a role in the future of learning in organizations
not only in the western world but also in organizations operating in different national cultures (Hu & Liden, 2011; Pekerti & Sendjaya,
2010). Therefore scholars should expand research on the mediating processes between servant leadership and important outcomes
(van Dierendonck, 2011; Liden et al., 2014).

Conclusion

Leadership continues to be an exciting focus of research given that leaders bear the responsibility for influencing their employees'
adoption of evolving organizational values, attitudes and goals. Yet with the increase in distrust in leaders in our political and
corporate worlds, it is timely and stimulating to focus on a form of leadership that is not power-driven and self-serving. Indeed,
servant leadership is a form of leadership unique in its explicit people-centered focus on attending to followers' needs and develop-
ment. This study sheds light on the underlying processes through which a servant leader can influence followers and provides essen-
tial support for it's central premise, that servant leadership does in fact influence organizational outcomes by the process of satisfying
followers' SDT needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. This study also demonstrates how satisfaction of each need
possesses a unique predictive power because the three forms of need satisfaction combine in distinct ways to elicit attitudes and
behaviors that predict either employees' individual task performance, OCB performance or both. Hence, our study strengthens
Greenleaf's original assertion and fundamental belief that being a truly effective leader requires one to focus on serving others,
particularly one's followers (Greenleaf, 1977, 1998), and our results reinforce recognition of servant leadership's legitimacy as a
mainstream leadership theory (Mayer, 2010).

References

Adler, A. (1964). In H. L. Ansbacher, & R. R. Ansbacher (Eds.), The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York, NY, US: Free Press.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 34, 2045–2068.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O'Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014). What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of
team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 273–295.
Barbuto, J. E. J., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Organizational Management, 31, 300–326.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considérations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 139

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance: Beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–529.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational
Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance,
10(2), 99–109.
Brien, M., Hass, C., & Savoie, A. (2012). Psychological health as a mediator between need satisfaction at work and teachers' self-perceptions of performance. Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 44(4), 288–299.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Oxford, England: Harper & Row.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Routledge: New York, NY.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations
(pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. -L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership
and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557.
Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra mile: Foci of organisational identification as determinants of different forms of
organisational citizenship behaviour among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 329–341.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.
Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 3–13.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–23.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 165–183.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in work organizations of a former
eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942.
Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Gagné, M. (2013). An investigation of the unique, synergistic and balanced relationships between basic psychological needs and intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 1050–1064.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.
Farmer, S. M., Van Dyne, L., & Kamdar, D. (2014). The contextualized self: How team–member exchange leads to coworker identification and helping OCB. Journal of
Applied Psychology (No Pagination Specified).
Feather, N. T. (1992). Expectancy-value theory and unemployment effects. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(4), 315–330.
Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. New York, NY: W W Norton & Co.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in the engagement of prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105–119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant-leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person–environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-
determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465–477.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1),
93–106.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). From expectancies to worldviews: Regulatory focus in socialization and cognition. In J. M. Darley, & J. Cooper (Eds.), Attribution and social
interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 243–309).
Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(2), 555–566.
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
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), 851–862.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and
theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356.
Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for
employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(1), 269–277.
Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
26(1), 6–22.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job
satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92.
Jung, C. G. (1959). The basic writings of C. G. Jung. Oxford, England: Modern Library.
Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs
satisfaction and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 543–555.
Latham, G. P., & Budworth, M. -H. (2006). The effect of training in verbal self-guidance on the self-efficacy and performance of native north Americans in the selection
interview. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 516–523.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level
study. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1677–1697.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal
relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407–416.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation and task interdependence: Implications for individual and
group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723–746.
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(2), 161–177.
140 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141

Liden, R. C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S. J. (2014). Servant leadership: antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
leadership and organizations. Oxford library of psychology (pp. 357–379). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Lynch, M. F. J., Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2005). Psychological needs and threat to safety: Implications for staff and patients in a psychiatric hospital for youth.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4), 415–425.
Lynd-Stevenson, R. M. (1999). Expectancy-value theory and predicting future employment status in the young unemployed. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 72(1), 101–106.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Mayer, D. M. (2010). Servant leadership and follower need satisfaction: Where do we go from here? In D. V. Dierendonck, & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership.
Developments in theory and practice (pp. 147–154). Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire, UK.
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 180–197.
McClelland, D. C. (1978). Managing motivation to expand human freedom. American Psychologist, 33(3), 201–210.
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2),
494–512.
Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Henderson, D. J. (2011, August). Is servant leadership always a good thing? The moderating influence of servant leadership
prototype? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the academy of management, San Antonio, Texas.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3), 209–225.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79(4), 475–480.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71–83.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality Oxford. England: Oxford Univ. Press.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
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), 1220–1233.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157–164.
Parolini, J., Patterson, K., & Winston, B. (2009). Distinguishing between transformational and servant leadership. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 30, 274–291.
Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(5), 754–780.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature
and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods,
16(2), 93–115.
Reddy, S. (1992). Effects of ignoring correlated measurement error in structural equation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(3), 549–570.
Riordan, C. M., Griffith, R. W., & Weatherly, E. W. (2003). Age and work-related outcomes: The moderating effects of status characteristics. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33(1), 37–57.
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), 66–80.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist,
55(1), 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of
self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of
Personality, 74(6), 1557–1585.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020–1030.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affective-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influence on team performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76(3), 482–497.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader–member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50(4), 505–535.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction,
and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679–704.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–76). London:
Academic Press.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,
15(4), 666–681.
Tse, H. H. M., & Chiu, W. C. K. (2014). Transformational leadership and job performance: A social identity perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2827–2835.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout and engagement: The role of
basic psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22(3), 277–294.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial
validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981–1002.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.
van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 26(3), 249–267.
Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and
transformational leadership to followers outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544–562.
 M. Chiniara, K. Bentein / The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2016) 124–141 141

Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(4), 526–535.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of five mini-theories of self-determination theory: A historical overview, emerging
trends and future directions. In T. Urdan, & S. Karabenick (Eds.), The decade ahead: Advances in motivation and achievement. Vol. 16. (pp. 105–166). Yorkshire,
UK: Emerald Publishing.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member
exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590–598.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered —The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297–333.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17(3), 601–617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305.
Zhang, Y., & Chen, C. C. (2013). Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating effects of self-determination, supervisor identification,
and organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 534–543.