EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SERVANT, TRANSFORMATIONAL, AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP: SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCES, AND CORRELATIONS WITH JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. ________________________________________________________ Rynetta R. Washington Certificate of Approval: __________________________________ Howard R. Clayton Associate Professor Management __________________________________ William I. Sauser, Jr. Professor Management _______________________________ Charlotte D. Sutton, Chair Associate Professor Management _______________________________ George T. Flowers Interim Dean Graduate School EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SERVANT, TRANSFORMATIONAL, AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP: SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCES, AND CORRELATIONS WITH JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Rynetta R. Washington A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements or the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama May 10, 2007 iii EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SERVANT, TRANSFORMATIONAL, AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP: SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCES, AND CORRELATIONS WITH JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Rynetta R. Washington Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. _____________________________________ Signature of Author _____________________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA Rynetta R. Washington, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. David and Clotee Washington, was on born September 13, 1979, in Cleveland, Mississippi. She graduated with honors from Cleveland High School in 1997. She attended Mississippi State University in Starkville, Mississippi, for five years and graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology and Minors in Communication and Business Management in May 2002. In August 2002 she entered Graduate School at Auburn University and graduated with a Master of Science degree in Human Resource Management in August 2005. v DISSERTATION ABSTRACT EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SERVANT, TRANSFORMATIONAL, AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP: SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCES, AND CORRELATIONS WITH JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Rynetta Rochelle Washington Doctor of Philosophy, May 10, 2007 (M.S., Auburn University, 2005) (B.S., Mississippi State University, 2002) 112 Typed Pages Directed by Charlotte Sutton Servant leadership is espoused as a valid theory of organizational leadership but lacks crucial empirical support. Therefore, the current study endeavored to advance empirical support for this emerging approach to leadership by investigating servant leadership?s relationship with transformational leadership, transactional leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Using questionnaire data from a sample of 207 employees, this study found employees? perceptions of their supervisors? servant leadership to be positively related not only to employees? perceptions of their vi supervisors? transformational leadership but also their supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership and transactional active management-by-exception leadership. However, perceived servant leadership was negatively related to perceived transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership was also positively related to employee- reported job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Yet, employee-reported job satisfaction and organizational commitment did not relate differently with servant leadership than with transformational leadership or transactional contingent reward leadership. Nevertheless, both employee-reported job satisfaction and organizational commitment related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership and passive management-by-exception leadership. Specifically, employee-reported job satisfaction and organizational commitment were positively related to supervisors? perceived servant leadership but were not related to perceived transactional active management-by- exception leadership and negatively related to perceived transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. Implications and opportunities for future research are discussed. vii ACKOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Dr. Charlotte Sutton, Dr. Howard Clayton, and Dr. William Sauser for their diligent efforts as committee members, as well as Dr. Donald Mulvaney for his gracious efforts as the outside reader. Thanks are also due to Dr. James Buford for his financial support of the research, as well as to all organizational leaders who so graciously permitted data collection at their sites. Many additional thanks are due to the author?s wonderful parents, Mr. and Mrs. David and Clotee Washington, four dear siblings and their families, and all other precious family, friends, loved ones, mentors, advisors, and colleagues for their generous support, prayers, and encouragement throughout the course of the doctoral program. Last but not least, the utmost appreciation is to due to God for His exceedingly abundant patience, mercy, and grace that brought this research to its completion. viii Style manual used: American Psychological Association (APA) Computer software used: Microsoft Word, SPSS 11.0, and Assistat ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.................................................................................. xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................1 Problem ................................................................................................................................2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................5 Significance of the Problem .................................................................................................6 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ...........7 Background of Servant, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership ...............7 Servant Leadership ...........................................................................................7 Evolution of Servant Leadership ...........................................................7 Theoretical Development of Servant Leadership ..................................9 History of Servant Leadership .............................................................13 Transformational and Transactional Leadership ...........................................15 Transformational Leadership ...............................................................15 Transactional Leadership .....................................................................18 Servant Leadership versus Transformational Leadership ........................................19 Servant Leadership versus Transactional Leadership ..............................................21 Servant Leadership versus Transactional Contingent Reward Leadership ....22 Servant Leadership versus Transactional Management-by- Exception Leadership...........................................................................23 Servant Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment ................24 Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction .............................................24 Servant Leadership and Organizational Commitment .........................26 Correlates among Servant, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership .........27 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................31 Sample and Setting ..................................................................................................31 Procedure .................................................................................................................32 Measures ..................................................................................................................33 Servant Leadership .........................................................................................33 Transformational Leadership .........................................................................34 x Transactional Leadership ...............................................................................35 Job Satisfaction ..............................................................................................36 Organizational Commitment ..........................................................................36 Measures included for Future Studies......................................................................37 Laissez Faire Leadership................................................................................37 Organizational Citizenship Behavior .............................................................38 Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................40 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .....................................................................................41 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .....................................................................................45 Implications..............................................................................................................50 Limitations ...............................................................................................................51 Directions for Future Research ................................................................................52 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................54 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................55 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................73 Appendix A: IRB-Approved Employer Script to Notify Employees of Study ......74 Appendix B: IRB-Approved Letter of Informed Consent for Participants.............75 Appendix C: IRB-Approved Information Letter for Participants ...........................77 Appendix D: Servant Leadership Items ..................................................................79 Appendix E: Transformational and Transactional Leadership Items .....................82 Appendix F: Job Satisfaction Items .......................................................................85 Appendix G: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Items ......................................88 Appendix H: Organizational Commitment Items ...................................................90 Appendix I: Demographic Items ...........................................................................92 Appendix J: Copy of Time 1 Questionnaire .........................................................94 Appendix K: Copy of Time 2 Questionnaire .........................................................98 xi LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Page Figure 1: Diagram of Hypothesized Relationships ...........................................................68 Table 1: Demographic Information by Sample ...............................................................69 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among Study Variables ......................................................................................70 Table 3: Fisher z Transformations of Pearson Product-Moment Correlations to Test Hypothesis 7a through Hypothesis 8d...............................71 Table 4: Summary of Findings for Hypotheses Proposed in the Study ...........................72 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Overview The topic of leadership has received substantial attention by researchers over the past 20 years (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). A subject of growing interest in the leadership literature is servant leadership, which is a leadership paradigm first introduced by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1977. According to Patterson (2003), servant leadership is defined as leadership focused on followers, whereby followers are leaders? primary concern and organizational concerns are peripheral. Characteristics ascribed to this emerging approach to leadership include building community in the workplace, listening receptively to others, demonstrating empathy for others, using highly developed powers of persuasion, and being able to clearly conceptualize and communicate concepts. Servant leaders also exert a ?healing? influence upon individuals and institutions by utilizing foresight, intuition, awareness, perception, the art of contemplation, and deep-seated recognition that servant-leadership begins with a leader?s desire to change himself or herself (Spears, 1994). Since its conceptual inception, servant leadership has been espoused by a growing number of researchers as a ?valid theory? of organizational leadership (Russell & Stone, 2002) with great promise for both theoretical and practical development (Bass, 2000). 2 Greenleaf?s idea of servant leadership has influenced many prominent, mainstream leadership thinkers, including but not limited to Stephen Covey, author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic (1989); Morgan Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values, and Spiritual Growth (1978); Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline (1990), a work on the development of the learning organization; and Margaret Wheatley, author of Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (1999). Practitioners have also given due attention to servant leadership over the past 40 years, particularly as practiced by companies such as Southwest Airlines, TD- Industries, Synovus Financial Corporation, Starbucks, Men's Wearhouse, The Toro Company, ServiceMaster Company, and others in public and social sectors (Hamilton & Nord, 2005). Problem Despite the increased attention practitioners have provided toward servant leadership (Sendjaya & Sorros, 2002), academicians have given little empirical support for the theory in the literature (Bowman, 1997). Although servant leadership is now included in many management textbooks, the emerging approach to leadership is generally missing from the academic literature (Hamilton & Nord, 2005). As a result, the study of servant leadership is shifting from an anecdotal phase to an empirical validation phase (Nwogu, 2004). The surge of empirical and practical interest in servant leadership can be attributed to a movement away from traditional hierarchical and patriarchical leadership (Crippen, 2005; Nwogu, 2004). Servant leadership is considered an age-old idea slowly 3 being resurrected and promoted as a revolutionary, ideal way of addressing the fast-paced change and desire for human development at work (Laub, 1999). Spears explained: There is a revolution underway. In corporate boardrooms, university classes, community leadership groups, not-for-profit organizations and elsewhere, change is occurring around the ways in which we, as a society, approach the subject of work and leadership. Many people are seeking new and better ways of integrating work with their own personal and spiritual growth. They are seeking to combine the best elements of leadership, based upon service to others, as part of an exciting concept called "servant-leadership." It has been, to be sure, a slow-growing revolution?but one which is now sending deep roots throughout society. In the last few years, many people have begun to recognize the profound influence of the thinking of Robert K. Greenleaf, a man who has come to be known as the Grandfather of this movement. (Spears, 1994, p. 9) Kotter (1990) stated changes in the workplace require more leadership versus management for organizational employees and stakeholders. According to Kotter, the business world is now more volatile, more competitive, tougher, and increasingly inclusive of greater international competition, faster technology, and a demographically changing workforce. In the past 25 years, organizations have witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of female employees (Laub, 1999), as well as a growing ethnic diversity and a desire to see the workplace as a learning environment for personal development and fulfillment. Furthermore, the changing workplace has prompted both 4 academicians and practitioners to reevaluate the efficacy of the traditional leadership model of hierarchical power and authority. Traditional hierarchical leadership is often represented by a ?pyramid? model characterized by a top-down authority structure with leaders located at the top and all decisions flowing from the top down to organizational members (Magoni, 2003). Such a traditional model of leadership shows organizational members serving their leaders, while an ?inverted pyramid? model shows leaders as serving the enterprise (see Sergiovanni, 2000). In direct opposition to the pyramid model, the inverted pyramid calls for leaders to be located at the bottom of the organizational pyramid in order to serve the organization. Consequently, the inverted pyramid model is the essence of servant leadership?that is, leadership emphasizing the good of followers over the self-interest of the leader (Laub, 1999). According to Laub, servant leadership promotes the development of followers and other stakeholders, as well as the good for organizations through the sharing of power, community building, the practice of authenticity in leadership, and the provision of leadership for the good of followers, the organization, and those served by the organization. The emergence of this approach to leadership was further articulated by Spears (1995), who explained that as the end of the twentieth century approached, traditional autocratic and hierarchical modes of leadership were slowly yielding to a newer model of leadership?a model that attempted to enhance the personal growth of workers and improve the quality of organizations through personal involvement in decision making, a combination of teamwork and community, and ethical and caring behavior. Like many other leadership thinkers, Spears referred to this emerging approach to leadership and service as servant-leadership. 5 Purpose With servant leadership research shifting from primarily anecdotal support to empirical validation (Nwogu, 2004), the purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between servant leadership and two of the most popular leadership theories currently being discussed by researchers?transformational leadership and transactional leadership (Smith et al., 2004). The concept of servant leadership shares similarities with the concept of transformational leadership (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003), which occurs when a leader empowers followers to achieve organizational goals. Servant leadership shares fewer similarities with transactional leadership, which is a process of social exchange between leaders and followers that involves reward-based transactions (Smith et al., 2004). The present research helps to empirically validate managerial benefits of servant leadership by also investigating the relationships between servant leadership and two well-researched employee attitudes consistently found to be positively correlated with each other and desirable work outcomes?job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Ostroff, 1992). Since limited research has studied how servant leadership relates to the two workplace attitudes, the current research investigated how employees? job satisfaction and organizational commitment vary according to employees? perceptions of their leaders? leadership. Several studies document correlations between transformational leadership and transactional leadership and organizational members? job satisfaction and organizational commitment (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). However, no study to date has compared and contrasted 6 correlates of perceived servant leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership, as was endeavored in the present study. Significance of the Problem Currently, more anecdotal evidence than empirical evidence exists in the literature to support servant leadership (Bowman, 1997). As a result, Bass (2000) argued the concept of servant leadership theory requires substantial empirical research. According to Sendjaya and Sarros (2002), a reason for the scarcity of research in servant leadership is that the notion of ?servant as leader? may be perceived as an oxymoron. That is, it may be challenging to think and behave as a servant and leader simultaneously. Yet, the philosophical foundation of servant leadership sets a grand stage for its theoretical development. Bass (2000) further explained that the strength of the servant leadership movement, as well as its multiple associations with follower learning, growth, and autonomy, suggests the untested theory will play a valuable, critical role in the future leadership of organizations. This dissertation provides a test of the emerging theory of servant leadership. 7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Background of Servant, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership Servant Leadership Evolution of servant leadership. Early twentieth century scientific research in organizational behavior helped to set the stage for leadership theories such as Greenleaf?s servant leadership. Frederick Taylor, the ?Father of Scientific Management,? began the application of science to organizational dynamics in the early 1900s by designing time and motion studies to develop efficient methods of performing routine work. In Taylor?s scientific management, employees were perceived as management tools in need of refinement in order to improve an organization?s productivity (see Boddy, 2002; Jaffe, 1957; Kanigel, 1997; Nelson, 1980). This mechanistic perception of employees would help to provide the basis for new thinking towards leadership that viewed employees as more than mere tools. New thinking towards leadership later arose with the Hawthorne Experiments (conducted from 1924-1932) that established the ?Hawthorne effect??the thought that one?s behavior will change to meet the expectations of one?s observer if one is aware that his or her behavior is being observed. In their studies of the effect of lighting on employees? productivity, researchers discovered that regardless of lighting conditions introduced, the productivity of the employees improved (see Franke & Kaul, 1978; 8 Gillespie, 1991; Jones, 1992; Landsberger, 1958; Mayo, 1944; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). A number of later studies failed to support Mayo?s Hawthorne effect, and in the 1970s, serious flaws were revealed in the original Hawthorne studies. Yet, the Hawthorne studies suggested employees respond positively to respect and attention (Laub, 1999). Thus, for the first time in scientific organizational research, employees were considered as real people versus tools utilized to meet supervisory and organizational needs. This new perception of employees would ultimately call for novel approaches to leadership that would require a leader?s desire to help others to take priority over the desire for a formal leadership position (see Greenleaf, 1977). Empathetic leadership styles such as servant leadership that did not advocate viewing people as tools would embrace characteristics key to valuing and developing employees as real people versus instruments. For example, according to Greenleaf, optimal (servant) leaders: (a) foster regular participative decision-making in order to enhance the self-confidence of followers; (b) share all information?positive and negative?to ensure decisions optimize the welfare of the group; (c) enhance followers? trust in the leaders through free trust of others, as well as through delegation of control, power, and rewards; and (d) help followers become more self-actualized via self-disclosure and openness in order to achieve a shared vision. Ultimately, followers of a servant leader perceive the leader to kindle the human spirit in and among followers by any means necessary, even to a point of vulnerability (Birkenmeier, Carson, & Carson, 2003). In his 1960 book The Human Side of Enterprise, American social psychologist Douglas McGregor introduced Theory X and Theory Y, which further drew a distinction 9 between a negative view of employees as needing to be controlled and a positive view of employees as needing to be empowered (McGregor, 1960). According to McGregor, many a manager subscribed to Theory X in that many managers held a relatively pessimistic view of employees. A Theory X manager believed that employees were inherently lazy, disliked work, would avoid work whenever possible, and, therefore, required control and close supervision. On the other hand, McGregor stated enlightened leaders used Theory Y, which focused on followers? development. Such leadership was thought to help to meet organizational goals based on several assumptions similar to tenets of servant leadership: (a) Employees have potential and are capable of accepting responsibility and using abilities to solve problems at work; (b) abilities such as creativity and ingenuity are widely distributed among the population; (c) employees are not lazy but, instead, will exercise self-direction if they are committed to organizational goals; (d) employees? commitment to organizational goals is a function of rewards associated with the achievement of the goals; and (e) work can be as natural as play and rest. Like servant leadership, Theory Y implied employees needed to be made free to become the responsible, creative workers that they could be (Laub, 1999). Such revolutionary thinking toward leadership helped to pave the way for the theoretical development of the notion of servant leadership. Theoretical development of servant leadership. In his essay The Servant as Leader, Greenleaf (1977) coined the term ?servant leadership? and envisioned a servant leader as one who facilitates achievement of a shared vision via the personal development and empowerment of followers. Greenleaf suggested a first-among-equals approach to leadership as ?key to [a servant leader?s] greatness? (p. 21). Greenleaf further explained: 10 The servant-leader is servant first? It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. He or she is sharply different from the person who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve ? after leadership is established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people?s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or, at least, will they not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13-14) Greenleaf constructed his notion of servant leadership through his reading of Nobel Laureate Herman Hesse's (1956) Journey to the East, a story written about a spiritual pilgrimage of a band of men on a mythical journey. The story is written from the point view of man who becomes a member of the ?League,? a fictional religious sect whose members include characters such as Plato, Mozart, Pythagoras, and Don Quixote. A branch of the group goes on a pilgrimage to "the East" in search of the "ultimate Truth." Central to the story of the pilgrimage is Leo, a servant who accompanies the band of men in order to perform the men?s menial chores and to encourage them with his 11 spirit and songs. Leo is described as person of extraordinary presence: He is pleasant, happy, beloved by everyone, pleasing to the eye, and even establishes rapport with animals. All goes well on the men?s journey until Leo disappears, resulting in the group falling into anxiety, dissension, and disarray. The group ultimately abandons the journey for fear of not being able to successfully complete the journey without Leo. Years later, Leo surprisingly appears in the narrator's home and tells the narrator that he (Leo) must appear before the ?Order? that had sponsored the men?s spiritual pilgrimage. At the appearance before the Order, the narrator is very surprised to learn that Leo, who was known by the narrator as servant, was in fact a great and noble leader who was actually the head of the Order. Greenleaf?s concept of servant leadership places the leader in a non-focal position within a group such that resources and support are provided to followers without expectation of acknowledgement (Smith et al., 2004). Unlike traditional leaders who are primarily motivated by aspirations to lead, servant leaders are motivated more by a desire to serve than to lead (Greenleaf, 1977). Furthermore, the motivation of servant leaders arises from an underlying attitude of egalitarianism (Smith et al, 2004). That is, servant leaders sincerely believe they are no better than the organizational members they lead. By sharing leadership and displaying authenticity in leadership, servant leaders function as ?trustees? who facilitate the development of community among organizational members. Patterson (2003) designed a working theory of Greenleaf?s notion of servant leadership by first defining values upon which servant leadership is based. According to Patterson, these values are follower-focused and, as a result, are not adequately explained 12 by popular leadership theories such as transformational leadership. Transformational leadership theory shows leaders focused on their organizations and, as a result, do not explain altruistic, follower-focused virtues and behaviors as well as is explained by follower-focused theories such as servant leadership (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003). Patterson went on to define servant leadership as follows: Servant leaders are those who serve with a focus on the followers, whereby the followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. The servant leader constructs are virtues, which are defined as the good, moral quality in a person, or the general quality of goodness, or moral excellence. (Dennis, 2004, p. 3) Other researchers have suggested primary values of servant leaders to include values of empathy (Spears, 1998), integrity (Russell, 2001), and the ability to lead with competence (Greenleaf, 1977; Russell & Stone, 2002; Washington, Sutton, & Feild, 2006). A leader?s ability to visibly appreciate, consider, and care for followers is considered a valuable attribute of servant leaders (Batten, 1997; Greenleaf, 1977; Kouzes & Posner, 1995, 1993; Pollard, 1996; Russell, 2001). Servant leaders are thought to value integrity and competence in order to foster interpersonal trust?an essential ingredient in servant leadership (Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone, 2002). Spears (1998) also described 10 key servant leader characteristics that have been confirmed in multiple studies (Contee-Borders, 2003; Taylor-Gillham, 1998). First, servant leaders reinforce their decision making and communication with a sincere commitment to listening intently to others. Second, servant leaders endeavor to understand and empathize with others and recognize their special and unique qualities. 13 Third, servant leaders seek opportunities to help followers who suffer from emotional hurt and other factors detracting from achievement of shared goals. Fourth, servant leaders are committed to fostering self-awareness and awareness of others in order to develop more integrated, holistic perspectives. Fifth, servant leaders rely on persuasion versus personal authority in decision making?that is, the servant leader seeks to convince followers instead of coercing their compliance. Sixth, servant leaders view issues in terms of a balanced day-to-day and long-term conceptual perspective. Seventh, servant leaders foresee likely outcomes based on past experiences, present realities, and likely consequences of decisions for the future. Eighth, servant leaders are stewards in that they assume first and foremost a commitment to serving the needs of others with openness and persuasion. Ninth, servant leaders are committed to the growth of followers and believe they have intrinsic value beyond their tangible day-to-day contributions. Thus, servant leaders nurture both the personal and professional growth of followers by encouraging the involvement of followers in decision making, taking personal interest in followers? ideas, and making available funds for development. Lastly, servant leaders seek to build community, shifting from the trend of large institutions to small, local communities primarily shaping human lives. History of servant leadership. The concept of servant leadership originates as early as the days of Jesus Christ, who taught and embraced the attributes of servant leadership (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Several passages of scripture exemplify Jesus as a servant leader. For example, John 13: 3-5, 12-15 states: ?Jesus, knowing (fully aware) that the Father had put everything into His hands, and that He had come from God and was [now] returning 14 to God, got up from supper, took off His garments, and taking a [servant's] towel, He fastened it around His waist. Then He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the [servant's] towel with which He was girded. ? So when He had finished washing their feet and had put on His garments and had sat down again, He said to them, ?Do you understand what I have done to you?? You call Me the Teacher (Master) and the Lord, and you are right in doing so, for that is what I am. If I then your Lord and Teacher (Master) has washed your feet, you ought [it is your duty, you are under obligation, you owe it] to wash one another's feet. For I have given you this as an example, so that you should do [in your turn] what I have done to you. To fully grasp how Jesus demonstrated servant leadership by washing the feet of His disciples, it is perhaps helpful to consider background information on foot-washing at the time of Jesus Christ. Foot-washing was necessary upon entry into a home at that time because it was easy for people?s feet to get dirty and smelly, given the use of animals for transportation at that time. As a result, the washing of people?s feet was regarded as a very demeaning task (Ford, 1991). Neither Jesus nor his disciples had their feet washed when they entered a house for dinner. Thus, John 13 records that Jesus surprisingly washed the feet of his disciples. As a result, Jesus redefined the meaning of the power of leadership from ?power over? to ?power to??that is, power that moves a leader to choose to serve others (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). 15 Transformational and Transactional Leadership Unlike servant leadership, transformational leadership and transactional leadership have been investigated in numerous empirical studies since Burns (1978) first introduced the concepts in his discussion of political leadership. Burns considered leaders to be either transformational or transactional, while others such as Bass (1985) viewed leadership as a continuum with transformational leadership on one end and transactional leadership on the other end. The following sections offer a brief background of the two leadership models. Transformational leadership. According to Judge and Piccolo (2004), transformational leadership has proven to be a most popular research topic in leadership literature, given that more studies have been conducted on transformational leadership than on all other popular leadership theories combined. The most widely researched version of transformational leadership theory was developed by Bass (1985), who stated that transformational leadership: occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their self-interest for the good of the group. (Bass, 1990, p. 21) In essence, transformational leaders build commitment to organizational objectives and empower followers to accomplish objectives (Yukl, 2006) by: (a) making followers aware of the importance of task outcomes, (b) orienting followers toward performance beyond established organizational standards, (c) activating higher-order intrinsic needs, 16 and (d) focusing on follower empowerment instead of dependence (Bass, 1985; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994). According to Burns (1978), transformational leadership occurs when leaders and followers engage each other in such a way that they raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. A transformational leader is one who arouses followers? interest and awareness in the group or organization, increases the confidence of followers, and endeavors to shift concerns of followers from mere existence to achievement and growth (Bass, 1985). As a result, followers of transformational leaders are motivated to perform more than they originally expected to perform because of feelings of admiration, respect, trust, and loyalty toward leaders. The most recent version of transformational leadership theory includes four dimensions? individualized consideration, idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Individualized consideration involves leaders providing mentorship, coaching, support, and encouragement to followers in order to attend to followers? concerns and needs. These leaders both recognize and demonstrate acceptance of differences in followers? needs and desires. The leaders develop and empower followers by maintaining two-way communication (Avolio & Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998), delegating tasks, and unobtrusively monitoring completion of tasks in order to see if and/or when additional support is needed (Behling & McFillen, 1996). Idealized influence is the charismatic component of transformational leadership in which leaders are respected, admired, and ultimately emulated by followers (Avolio & Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994). These charismatic leaders appeal to 17 followers? emotions and arouse identification with the leaders by displaying convictions (Judge & Piccolo, 1994) such as value of integrity and ethical and moral conduct (Tracey & Hinkin, 1998). Furthermore, a key component of idealized influence is the development and communication of a shared vision (Jung & Avolio, 2000). The vision inspires followers to accept an ideal futuristic state via the alignment of individual interests and values with the collective interests of the leaders and the organization. Akin to idealized influence is inspirational motivation, which emphasizes passionate communication of an appealing and inspiring organizational vision that can be shared (Hater & Bass, 1988). By modeling appropriate behaviors and using symbols to focus followers? efforts (Bass & Avolio, 1990), leaders with inspirational motivation provide meaning for tasks, challenge followers with high standards, and communicate optimism about future goal attainment (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Leaders with inspirational motivation demonstrate commitment to goals and a shared vision in order to inspire followers to view an attractive future state (Stone et al., 2003). The leaders build relationships with followers through two-way communication, which forms bonds between leaders and followers and leads to the shifting of personal values toward a common ground. Intellectual stimulation is a transformational leadership behavior that increases follower awareness of problems and encourages followers to view old and familiar issues from new perspectives (Bass, 1985). Leaders who utilize intellectual stimulation solicit followers? ideas, challenge assumptions, take risks, and stimulate creativity in followers (Avoilio & Bass, 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). These leaders do not publicly criticize followers? mistakes but, instead, encourage creativity in problem solving while 18 emphasizing rationality in decision-making (Bass, 1990). Given the potential similarities between components of transformational leadership and servant leadership (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003), later sections of this chapter develop propositions about potential association between the two leadership approaches. Transactional leadership. On the leadership continuum, transactional leadership is located on the end opposite transformational leadership. Viewed as more commonplace than transformational leadership (Burns, 1978), transactional leadership is described as an exchange process in which leaders recognize followers? needs and then define appropriate exchange processes to meet both the needs of the followers and leaders? expectations (Bass, 1985). Such leadership is characterized by risk avoidance (Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993) and relies on hierarchical authority, task completion, and rewards and punishments (Tracey & Hinkin, 1998). Transactional leadership can result in follower compliance; however, since the transactional leader primarily emphasizes giving followers something they want in return for something the leader wants, transactional leadership is not likely to generate great enthusiasm and commitment among followers (Bass, 1985). The two dimensions of transactional leadership are contingent reward and management-by-exception that is active or passive (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Bass (1985) differentiated the two types of transactional leadership according to the leader?s level of activity and engagement with followers. Contingent reward behavior involves clarification of expectations and tasks required to obtain rewards, as well as the use of incentives to influence followers? motivation. In contingent reward leadership, the leader and follower negotiate an agreement regarding recognition and/or rewards to be issued to 19 the follower in exchange for a specific level of performance. In essence, transactional leaders use contingent reward behavior to set up constructive transactions with followers in order to achieve work goals. Management-by-exception behavior is the degree to which leaders enforce rules to avoid mistakes and take corrective action on the basis of results of leader-follower transactions (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transactional leaders who practice management- by-exception focus on followers? mistakes and intervene only after work standards have not been met. Active management-by-exception involves leaders actively monitoring follower performance in order to anticipate deviations from standards prior to their becoming problems (Hater & Bass, 1988). On the other hand, leaders who practice passive management-by-exception wait until followers? behaviors have created problems before they take corrective action against obvious deviations from performance standards. In either of the two cases of management-by-exception, leaders emphasize the use of tactics such as discipline, punishment, and negative feedback to foster desirable performance (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Given the potential differences between the dimensions of transactional leadership and servant leadership (Smith et al., 2004), later sections of this chapter develop propositions about prospective relationships between these two approaches to leadership. Servant Leadership versus Transformational Leadership Researchers have raised questions about whether or not servant leadership and transformational leadership are related. For example, one researcher asked: ...[W]hat is the real difference, if any, between transformational leadership and servant leadership? Is servant leadership just a subset of transformational 20 leadership or vice versa? Are transformational leadership and servant leadership the same theory, except for their use of different names? (Stone et al., 2003, p. 353). These questions may stem from the thought that both theories describe people-oriented, moral, and inspirational approaches to leadership (Graham, 1991) that emphasize the importance of valuing, mentoring, and empowering followers (Smith et al., 2004). In fact, Graham (1991) and Smith and colleagues (2004) argued both approaches are rooted in charismatic leadership theory, which calls for leaders to exercise power through followers? belief in and identification with the personalities of the leaders. Thus, it is possible for several behaviors of one of the two leadership theories to correspond with behaviors of the other leadership theory. According to the tenets of servant leadership and transformational leadership, both models incorporate characteristics such as respect, vision, influence, modeling, trust, integrity, and delegation (Stone et al., 2003). Stone and colleagues noted servant leadership and transformational leadership are likely to be most similar in their emphasis on individualized appreciation and consideration of followers. Likewise, in their development of a conceptual matrix comparing theoretical components of servant leadership and transformational leadership, Smith and colleagues (2004) found that at the level of theoretical dimensions, transformational leadership?s idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration corresponded with components of servant leadership. The researchers also found both leadership models to embrace and encourage innovation and creativity (though for different purposes as explicated in earlier sections of this manuscript). 21 Hypothesis 1: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be positively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. Servant Leadership versus Transactional Leadership Servant leadership and transactional leadership are distinguishable in a number of ways. Servant leaders emphasize activities that demonstrate concern about followers? well-being, while transactional leaders focus on the routine maintenance activities of allocating resources and monitoring and directing followers in order to achieve organizational goals (Kanungo, 2001). Servant leaders gain influence in a nontraditional manner that originates from servanthood (Russell & Stone, 2002); as a result, followers are given a measure of freedom to exercise their own abilities. Unlike the servant leader who influences followers through personal development and empowerment, the transactional leader influences followers through the use of rewards, sanctions, and formal authority and position to induce compliant behavior. Since theoretical dimensions of servant leadership correspond with several components of transformational leadership (Graham, 1991; Smith et al., 2004; Stone et al., 2003), servant leadership is likely to differ from transactional leadership in a manner similar to transformational leadership. That is, both servant leadership and transformational leadership work in various ways to uplift the morale and motivation of followers, whereas transactional leaders cater primarily to short-term self-interests of followers (see Bass, 1999). Servant leaders and transformational leaders use influence strategies that consider followers values, norms, and attitudes and that empower 22 followers, while transactional leaders utilize rewards, punishments, and formal authority to induce compliant behavior. Unlike servant and transformational leadership, transactional leadership is ?grounded in a worldview of self-interest? (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 185). Transactional leaders serve their personal interests?material benefits, status, gain in power, etc.?by requiring followers to demonstrate behaviors compliant with the leaders? expectations (Kanungo, 2001). The control strategies used by transactional leaders do not permit follower empowerment, autonomy, and development (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996) as afforded by servant leadership and transformational leadership. Moreover, although followers can benefit from transactional leaders? exchange of rewards for compliance, followers can ultimately behave as robots when leaders fail to consider followers? interests. Instead of creating an environment in which followers can participate in vision development and implementation, transactional leaders operate according to a vision that may or may not represent the shared perspective advocated by servant and transformational leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Servant Leadership versus Transactional Contingent Reward Leadership Leaders who practice transactional contingent reward leadership reflect behavior further distinguishing transactional leadership from servant leadership. According to Blanchard and Johnson (1985), transactional leaders create strong expectations for employee work behaviors, along with clear indications of rewards employees will receive in exchange for meeting transactional leaders? expectations. Thus, transactional leaders use contingent reward behavior to set up transactions with followers in order to achieve work goals (Bass, 1985). Transactional leaders work to induce compliant behavior by 23 not only using rewards but also sanctions and formal authority?all influence strategies contradicting the empowerment strategies emphasized by servant leaders. Hypothesis 2: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be negatively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. Servant Leadership versus Transactional Management-by-Exception Leadership Leaders who practice transactional active or passive management-by-exception also demonstrate behavior that distinguishes transactional leadership from servant leadership. Transactional leaders who practice management-by-exception do not involve themselves with followers until deviations from work standards occur (Bass, 1985; 1990). Such leaders intervene only when corrective action is necessary, and the leaders arrange actions to correct specific failures. Here, passive leaders wait until followers? behaviors have created problems before they take corrective action against obvious deviations from performance standards. On the other hand, active leaders monitor follower performance in order to anticipate deviations from standards prior to their becoming problems (Hater & Bass, 1988). Both active and passive management-by- exception emphasize the use of tactics such as discipline, punishment, negative feedback (Bass & Avolio, 1993) and other influence strategies that oppose the empowerment tactics embraced in servant leadership. Hypothesis 3: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be negatively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? active transactional management-by- exception leadership. 24 Hypothesis 4: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be negatively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? passive transactional management-by- exception leadership. Servant Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment Throughout the leadership literature, researchers have attempted to explain various organizational, group, and individual outcomes by analyzing leader behaviors and associating those behaviors with those outcomes (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Multiple studies document significant correlations between various leadership styles and follower outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which are consistently found to be positively related with each other and high performance (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988, Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Ostroff, 1992). Though very limited research has studied how servant leadership may be related to the two outcomes, some research suggests relationships between servant leadership and job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction Servant leaders recognize their moral responsibility not only to the success of their organizations but also to their followers (Ehrhart, 2004; Greenleaf, 1977). By enabling followers to become more self-actualized in order to achieve a shared vision, servant leaders work to enhance the well-being of their followers and the overall organization. In a study of the effects of employee affective disposition on job satisfaction, Judge and Hulin (1993) found employee well-being to be positively related to job satisfaction. Servant leadership is, hence, likely to contribute to employees? job 25 satisfaction, particularly since job satisfaction is developed through an assessment of the match among employees? expectations, needs, and work situations (Bussing, Bissels, Fuchs, & Perrar, 1999). Based on this assessment, employees build up satisfaction?that is, a steady feeling of relaxation resulting from met expectations and needs. Servant leaders work to meet employees? expectations and needs through their trustworthiness, which is established by: (a) genuinely empowering followers, (b) honoring commitments, (c) being consistent in decisionmaking, (d) establishing trust that is built on integrity and competence, and (e) developing coaching skills (Joseph & Winston, 2003). Laub (1999), therefore, suggested servant leadership would likely be positively correlated with employee job satisfaction, as was later supported by studies conducted by Girard (2000), Thompson (2003), and Drury (2004). Drury found a statistically significant and positive relationship between servant leadership and employee job satisfaction. Drury explained that the participants?170 senior leaders, managers and supervisors, faculty, and hourly workers in a university?liked their jobs and work environment to the same extent that they perceived servant leadership in the organization. However, faculty participants reported the highest scores of their job satisfaction and perception of their leaders? servant leadership, whereas hourly workers scored lowest in each. Thus, as suggested by Drury, support for servant leadership?s relationship with job satisfaction should be extended via replication in different types of organizations with different scales in order to enhance generalizability. Hypothesis 5: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be positively related to employee-reported job satisfaction. 26 Servant Leadership and Organizational Commitment Not only is servant leadership likely to contribute to followers? job satisfaction but also to their organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is characterized by the congruency of individual and organizational goals and a willingness to remain and exert considerable effort in an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Followers with such strong affective commitment remain with their organization because they desire to do so and not necessarily by force. The resulting psychological bond between the follower and the organization may manifest as what is referred to as internalization, which occurs when commitment is established because induced attitudes and beliefs are congruent with followers? own values (O?Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Accordingly, servant leaders likely foster followers? organizational commitment through the leaders? own commitment to the demonstration of genuine interest in followers? ideas and suggestions, the involvement of followers in decisionmaking, and the nurture of personal and professional growth of followers. In addition to finding servant leadership to be positively related to job satisfaction, Drury (2004) found servant leadership to be significantly related to organizational commitment. However, contrary to what research suggests, organizational commitment was inversely related to servant leadership. The finding is surprising, given job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been consistently correlated in the literature, and job satisfaction and servant leadership were positively correlated. Drury explained it may be possible that employees with longer organizational tenure (as measured by organizational commitment) may perceive less servant leadership, because they are more acquainted the faults of their leaders. Also, the inverse correlation may 27 suggest servant leaders foster an environment of growth that contributes to followers? enhanced self-efficacy, subsequent resignation from their jobs, and entry into other organizations into promoted positions. As a result, Drury stated employees in servant leadership organizations may be more committed to the job itself and not necessarily the organization. Drury exhorted servant leaders to consider helping workers gain a sense of ?family? while highlighting the mission of the organization. Drury further recommended that researchers replicate the study in several types of organizations using different instruments in order to gauge the reliability of the inverse relationship found between servant leadership and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 6: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be positively related to employee-reported organizational commitment. Correlates among Servant, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership Other (and substantially more) researchers have studied the relationships between job satisfaction and organizational commitment and transformational leadership and transactional leadership (Barling et al., 1996). Followers? satisfaction and commitment are associated with transformational leadership and, to a lesser degree, transactional leadership (Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995). However, follower effects associated with transformational and transactional leadership have yet to be empirically compared and contrasted with the same follower effects associated with servant leadership. Researchers suggest further empirical support for servant leadership theory can be garnered by examining how employees? job satisfaction and organizational commitment may correlate with employees? perceptions of servant leadership differently than with 28 employees? perceptions of transformational leadership and transactional leadership (see Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Primary differences in focus among servant, transformational, and transactional leaders may likely be associated with differences in their followers? job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Servant leaders focus on followers by serving with a primary focus on service itself and not organizational results (Stone et al., 2003). Transformational leaders, however, direct their focus toward the organization and build commitment toward organizational objectives through empowering followers to accomplish organizational objectives (Yukl, 2006). Transactional leaders are distinguished from both servant leaders and transformational leaders by transactional leaders? focus on exchanges with followers in order to simply meet work standards. Therefore, given the follower-focus of servant leaders, organizational focus of transformational leaders, and exchange-focus of transactional leaders, the following hypotheses were investigated: Hypothesis 7a: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. Hypothesis 7b: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. 29 Hypothesis 7c: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership. Hypothesis 7d: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. Hypothesis 8a: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. Hypothesis 8b: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. Hypothesis 8c: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership. 30 Hypothesis 8d: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. See Figure 1 for a diagram of all the proposed relationships in the current study. -------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here ------------------------------- 31 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Sample and Setting Survey responses were obtained from 207 employees in five profit and not-for- profit organizations in the Southern U.S. The organizations included a daycare, a community foundation, a newspaper, and two municipal public works facilities (each public works facility was located in a different state). A multiorganizational sample was sought to enhance variation and generalizability. Analyses of variance revealed that scores on measures did not differ among the organizations (p > .05). Therefore, all organizations were combined for all further analyses. Table 1 summarizes the subsample sizes, response rates, and demographic information. -------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here ------------------------------- On average, participants had worked in their current jobs for 5.2 years and worked in their current organizations 10.5 years. Seventy-nine percent were male, 44% were European American, and 52% were African American. The average age was 45. Of the 473 employees invited to participate in the study, 207 (44%) completed both Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires. The few missing values in the data were imputed by a regression method, which replaces a missing value with the linear trend (predicted value) 32 for that point. The imputed estimated values were based on regression analyses of the existing values. Since a small percentage of missing values were imputed, the variances in the sample should not underestimate population variance. Procedure The data were collected in two phases. To measure servant leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership at Time 1, a questionnaire was administered to all employees in order to capture employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership. Approximately one month later at Time 2, a second and final questionnaire was administered to all employees to capture employees? own job satisfaction and organizational commitment. All questionnaires were administered to respondents via personal delivery by the researcher and/or designated personnel. A labeled box or folder was placed in the buildings in which completed questionnaires were dropped by the given deadlines. All questionnaires were administered in a similar manner in order to minimize variance that could be attributable to measurement methods rather than constructs of interest. Such measurement error would threaten the validity of conclusions about relationships between measures, since error would produce alternative explanations for observed relationships between measures that would be independent of actual hypothesized explanations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2004). All participants were asked to write no identifying information on the questionnaires. Respondents were assured by both the investigator and administrators in the sample organizations that responses would remain confidential with the investigator. Furthermore, Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires were matched using a random 33 identification number assigned to each employee by the researcher. Participation was subsequently encouraged by the incorporation of questionnaire completion into regular organizational assessments by administrators in the sampled organizations. See Appendices A-C for an IRB-approved script for use by employers to notify employees of the study, as well as a letter of consent and a letter of information for participants in the study. Measures Servant leadership. Servant leadership was measured using Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson?s (2005) 28-item servant leadership instrument. The scale measures employee perceptions of seven dimensions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership: (a) emotional healing, which is the act of showing sensitivity to others? personal concerns; (b) creating value for the community, or demonstrating consciously genuine concern for helping the community; (c) conceptual skills, which include knowledge of the organization and tasks at hand so as to be in a position to effectively support followers; (d) empowering, or encouraging and facilitating followers in problem- solving and in determining when and how to complete work tasks; (e) helping subordinates grow and succeed, which involves the demonstration of genuine concern for followers? career development by providing mentorship and support; (f) putting subordinates first, or clarifying to followers that satisfying followers? work needs is a priority; and (g) behaving ethically, which involves interacting openly, fairly, and honestly with followers. Respondents rated agreement with each of the 28 items on a 7- point Likert scale, with 1 representing ?strongly disagree? and 7 representing ?strongly agree.? The items were altered slightly to fit the specific context of the study. Sample 34 items are, ?My immediate supervisor cares about my personal well-being.? ?My immediate supervisor gives me the freedom to handle difficult situations in the way that I feel is best.? ?My immediate supervisor puts my best interests ahead of his/her own.? Since overall servant leadership was tested in the current study, each servant leadership score represented the average response across all 28 items. Cronbach?s alpha for each dimension are: conceptual skills (? = .80); empowerment (? = .79); helping subordinates grow and succeed (? = .82); putting subordinates first (? = .86); behaving ethically (? = .83); emotional healing (? = .76); creating value for the community (? = .83) (Liden et al., 2005). Cronbach?s alpha for the overall servant leadership measure in the current study is .97. See Appendices D-E for Time 1 questionnaire items, Appendices F-I for Time 2 questionnaire items, and Appendices J-K for copies of the Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires. Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was measured using 20 items from Avolio and Bass? (2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ? Form 5X). The MLQ is one of the most widely utilized instruments used to measure transformational leadership (Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001), as indicated by the instrument?s use in numerous empirical investigations, doctoral dissertations, and theses throughout the U.S. and other continents such as Europe, Asia, and Africa (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Each item rates how frequently specific behaviors are demonstrated by managers, supervisors, and top leaders in the organization. The items measure the four dimensions of transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. A 5-point Likert scale was used for rating the frequency of the observed leader behaviors, with 0 representing ?not at 35 all? and 4 representing ?frequently, if not always.? The items were altered slightly to fit the specific context of the study. Example items are, ?My immediate supervisor: (a) talks about his or her most important values and beliefs, (b) talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished, and (c) re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.? Since overall transformational leadership was tested in the current study, each transformational leadership score represented the average response across all 20 items. Cronbach?s alpha is .73 for eight idealized influence items, .83 for four inspirational motivation items, .75 for five intellectual stimulation items, and .77 for three individualized consideration items (Avolio & Bass, 2004). In the current study, Cronbach?s alpha is .92 for the idealized influence items, .87 for the inspirational motivation items, .90 for the intellectual stimulation items, and .77 for the individualized consideration items. Cronbach?s alpha for the overall transformational leadership measure in the current study is .96. Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership was measured using 12 items from Avolio and Bass? (2004) MLQ?Form 5X, which is also commonly used to measure transactional leadership (Tejeda et al., 2001). Each item rates how frequently specific behaviors are demonstrated by managers, supervisors, and top leaders in the organization. The items measure the three dimensions of transactional leadership: contingent reward, active management-by-exception, and passive management-by- exception. A 5-point Likert scale was used for rating the frequency of the observed leader behaviors, with 0 representing ?not at all? and 4 representing ?frequently, if not always.? The items were altered slightly to fit the specific context of the study. Sample items are, ?My immediate supervisor: (a) provides me with assistance in exchange for 36 my efforts, (b) waits for things to go wrong before taking action, and (c) focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards.? Since each dimension of transactional leadership was tested in the current study, each transactional leadership score represented the average responses across items for each of the three dimensions. Cronbach?s alpha is .69 for four contingent reward items, .75 for four active management-by-exception items, and .70 for four passive management-by-exception items (Avolio & Bass, 2004). In the current study, Cronbach?s alpha is .85 for the contingent reward items, .74 for the active management-by-exception items, and .66 for the passive management-by-exception items. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using a 36-item scale developed by Spector (1997). The scale measures nine components of job satisfaction: pay satisfaction, promotion satisfaction, supervision satisfaction, benefits satisfaction, rewards satisfaction, operating procedure satisfaction, co-workers satisfaction, work itself satisfaction, and communication satisfaction. Respondents rated agreement with each item on a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 representing ?disagree very much? and 6 representing ?agree very much.? Example items are: ?I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.? ?I like my supervisor.? ?I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.? Since overall job satisfaction was tested in the current study, each job satisfaction score represented the average response across all 36 items. Cronbach?s alpha is .89 (Spector, 1997). Cronbach?s alpha for overall job satisfaction in the current study is .87. Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured using a 15-item scale developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). (The instrument is not comprised of multiple dimensions.) Respondents rated agreement with each item on a 7- 37 point Likert scale, with 1 representing ?strongly disagree? and 7 representing ?strongly agree.? Example items are: ?I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.? ?I find that my values and the organization?s values are very similar.? ?This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.? Each organizational commitment score represented the average response across all 15 items. Cronbach?s alpha ranges from .81 to .93 (e.g., Hochwater, Perrewe, Ferris, & Gercio, 1999; Kacmar, Carlson, & Brymer, 1999; Millward & Hopkins, 1998). In the current study, Cronbach?s alpha is .85. Measures Included for Future Studies Laissez faire leadership. Bradford and Lippit (1945) described laissez faire leadership as a leader?s lack of guidance to followers and disregard of supervisory duties. According to Bass (1985), such non-leadership involves the leader taking no initiative to meet followers? needs and withdrawing when deviations occur. As a result, laissez faire leadership is referred to as the most inactive and least effective leadership style (Barbuto, 2005). Given laissez faire leaders? lack of involvement with followers, future studies will likely investigate the hypothesis that servant leadership is negatively related to laissez faire leadership. Laissez faire leadership was measured using 4 items from Avolio and Bass? (2004) MLQ?Form 5X. (The instrument is not comprised of multiple dimensions.) Each item rates how frequently specific behaviors are demonstrated by managers, supervisors, and top leaders in the organization. A 5-point Likert scale was used for rating the frequency of the observed leader behaviors, with 0 representing ?not at all? and 38 4 representing ?frequently, if not always.? The items were slightly altered to fit the specific context of the study. The four items are, ?My immediate supervisor: (a) avoids getting involved when important issues arise, (b) is absent when needed, (c) avoids making decisions, and (d) delays responding to urgent questions.? Each laissez faire leadership score represented the average response across all four items. Cronbach?s alpha is .71 (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Cronbach?s alpha is .83 in the current study. Organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was originally defined as ?individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization? (Organ, 1988, p. 4). OCB was later redefined as behaviors that enhance and maintain both the psychological and social environment that supports task performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). According to Williams and Anderson (1991), three types of organizational citizenship behavior are behaviors directed at specific individuals (OCBI), behaviors directed at the organization (OCBO), and employee in-role behaviors (IRB). OCBI includes behaviors of immediate benefit to certain people and that indirectly contribute to the organization, e.g., taking personal interest in co-workers, helping employees who have been absent. OCBO includes such behaviors as adherence to informal rules and giving advance notice of inability to come to work. IRB includes behaviors that are job requirements and are recognized by formal reward systems. OCB is related to multiple desirable outcomes. For instance, Williams and Anderson (1991) found OCBI to positively relate with affective organizational commitment and negatively relate with turnover intentions. OCBO also negatively 39 related with turnover intentions, and IRB positively related to job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Therefore, given the importance of OCB and the current lack of research comparing correlates of servant leadership and laissez faire leadership, future studies will examine servant leadership theory by studying how employee-reported OCB, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment differ according to employees? perceptions of servant leadership and laissez faire leadership. That is, does employee-reported OCB, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment correlate with employees? perceptions of servant leadership differently than with employees? perceptions of laissez faire leadership? Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using a 21-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). The items measure the three dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior, and respondents rated agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing ?strongly disagree? and 5 representing ?strongly agree.? The items were slightly altered to fit the specific context of this study. Example items are: ?I help others who have heavy work loads.? ?My attendance at work is above the norm.? ?I fulfill responsibilities specified in my job description.? Since overall organizational citizenship behavior will likely be tested in future studies, each organizational citizenship behavior score represented the average response across all 21 items. Cronbach?s alpha ranges from .61 to .88 for OCBI, .70 to .75 for OCBO, and .80 to .94 for IRB (e.g., Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Cronbach?s alpha in the current study is .87 for OCBI, .80 for OCBO, and .82 for IRB. Cronbach?s alpha for overall organizational citizenship behavior in the current study is .76. 40 Data Analysis To test Hypothesis 1 through Hypothesis 6, Pearson's r product-moment correlations were used to compute the strength of relationships between designated variables. Pearson?s r is a commonly used method of measuring the degree of linear relationship between two variables that are based on at least interval data. Unlike in regression where the emphasis is on predicting one variable from another variable in a directional manner, correlation analysis emphasizes the degree to which a linear model describes the relationship between two variables without specification of relational direction. Since only correlational hypotheses are proposed in the current study, correlation analysis is necessary to test Hypotheses 1 through Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 7a through Hypothesis 8d were tested using Fisher Z transformations to normalize the Pearson product-moment correlations and test for significant differences between the correlations. Factors that can limit Pearson?s r include use of a homogenous sample and/or unreliable measures, as well as the presence of nonlinearity and/or outliers. Therefore, the researcher used established, reliable measures (see the previous ?Measures? section) to collect interval data from demographically diverse participants in multiple organizations. 41 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the study variables. Hypothesis 1 predicted employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be positively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. Results found servant leadership to be positively related to transformational leadership (r = .86, p < .01). Hypothesis 2 stated employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be negatively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. However, servant leadership had a surprisingly positive relationship with transactional contingent reward leadership (r = .80, p < .01). Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be negatively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? active or passive transactional management-by-exception leadership. Servant leadership was negatively related to transactional passive management-by-exception leadership (r = -.23, p < .01) but had a surprisingly positive relationship with transactional active management-by-exception leadership (r = .38, p < .01). Supporting Hypotheses 5 and 6, employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership were positively related to employee-reported job satisfaction (r = .52, p < .01) and organizational commitment (r = .40, p < .01). 42 --------------------------------------------- Insert Table 2 about here --------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 7a through Hypothesis 8d were tested using Fisher Z transformations to normalize the Pearson product-moment correlations and t-tests to then test for significant differences between the correlations. Table 3 reports the z-values used to test Hypothesis 7a through Hypothesis 8d. Hypothesis 7a and Hypothesis 7b predicted employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership and transactional contingent reward leadership respectively. However, job satisfaction did not relate differently with servant leadership than with transformational leadership (z = 0.60, p > .05) or with transactional contingent reward leadership (z = 1.95, p > .05). Hypothesis 7c was supported: Employee-reported job satisfaction related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership (z = 5.32, p < .01). Specifically, job satisfaction was positively related to servant leadership (r = .59, p < .01) but was not related to transactional active management-by-exception leadership (r = .15, p > .05). Hypothesis 7d was also supported: Employee-reported job satisfaction related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional passive management-by-exception leadership (z = 10.65, p < .01). That is, job satisfaction was positively related to servant leadership (r = .59, p < .01) but was 43 negatively related to transactional passive management-by-exception leadership (r = -.36, p < .01). --------------------------------------------- Insert Table 3 about here --------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 8a and Hypothesis 8b predicted employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership and transactional contingent reward leadership respectively. However, similar to the findings for job satisfaction, organizational commitment did not relate differently with servant leadership than with transformational leadership (z = 0.61, p > .05) or with transactional contingent reward leadership (z = 1.08, p > .05). Yet, Hypothesis 8c was supported: Employee-reported organizational commitment related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership (z = 2.93, p < .01). Like the findings for job satisfaction, organizational commitment was positively related to servant leadership (r = 0.44, p < .01) but was not related to transactional active management-by-exception leadership (r = 0.18, p > .05). Hypothesis 8d was also supported: Employee-reported organizational commitment related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional passive management-by-exception leadership (z = 6.92, p < .01). That is, organizational 44 commitment was positively related to servant leadership (r = 0.44, p < .01) but was negatively related to transactional passive management-by-exception leadership (r = - 0.21, p < .01). See Table 4 for a summary of all findings. --------------------------------------------- Insert Table 4 about here --------------------------------------------- 45 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION Summary The purpose of this study was to strengthen empirical support for servant leadership by investigating its relationship with the well-supported leadership theories of transformational leadership, transactional contingent reward leadership, and transactional active/passive management-by-exception leadership. The study also endeavored to offer empirical support for benefits of servant leadership by investigating relationships between servant leadership and the work outcomes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. As attention to servant leadership increases among researchers and practitioners (Sendjaya & Sorros, 2002), empirical development such as is offered in this study aids in servant leadership?s shift from its anecdotal phase to its empirical validation phase (see Nwogu, 2004). As predicted, perceived servant leadership was positively related to perceived transformational leadership (r = .85). In other words, supervisors perceived as servant leaders were likely to also be perceived as transformational leaders. The finding supports previously suggested similarities between the theories, e.g., both theories prescribe to people-oriented, moral, and inspirational leadership (Graham, 1991) and to the valuing, mentoring, and empowering of followers (Smith et al., 2004). 46 As also expected, perceived servant leadership was negatively related to perceived transactional passive management-by-exception leadership (r = .28). Supervisors reported as demonstrating servant leadership were not likely to be reported as demonstrating behaviors associated with transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. For leaders to intervene in employee work only when corrective action is necessary involves use of influence strategies such as discipline, punishment, negative feedback (Bass & Avolio, 1993) and other tactics that oppose the empowerment tactics embraced in servant leadership. Surprisingly, perceived servant leadership was positively related to perceived transactional contingent reward leadership (r = .75) and perceived transactional active management-by-exception leadership (r = .41). That is, supervisors perceived to practice servant leadership were likely to also be perceived to practice both transactional contingent reward leadership and transactional active management-by-exception leadership. These findings were somewhat unexpected, given transactional leadership?s primary emphasis on the fulfillment of leaders? personal needs by requiring followers to demonstrate behaviors compliant with the leaders? expectations (Kanungo, 2001). However, according to Conger and Kanungo (1998), transactional leaders operate according to a vision that may or may not represent the shared perspective advocated by servant leaders. Thus, there may be the possibility that transactional leaders share some decision-making with followers such that followers? interests are considered in the development of the transactional leaders? exchange of rewards for compliance. As a result, transactional contingent reward leadership may resemble servant leadership when transactional leaders create work expectations agreed upon by followers. Contingent 47 reward behavior may then be used to set up transactions with employees in order to achieve both work goals (Bass, 1985) and personal employee goals. Likewise, perceived transactional active management-by-exception may also appear akin to servant leadership in some respects. Although an active management-by- exception leader monitors a follower?s performance in order to anticipate deviations from standards prior to their becoming problems (Hater & Bass, 1988), active management-by- exception leadership may appear as a form of servant leadership when the imposed standards are embraced by both the transactional leader and his/her follower. Such a rationale may help to explain why perceived servant leadership was found to be positively related to perceived transactional active management-by-exception leadership in the present study. Supervisors? perceived servant leadership was positively related to employee- reported job satisfaction as expected (r = .59). In other words, the greater the tendency for employees to report their supervisors as primarily servant leaders, the greater the tendency for these employees to be satisfied with their jobs. By enabling employees to become more self-actualized in order to accomplish shared goals, supervisors who are servant leaders likely work to enhance employees? job satisfaction by meeting employees? needs through empowerment and the establishment of trust built on integrity and competence (Joseph & Winston, 2003). Perceived servant leadership was also positively related to employee-reported organizational commitment as predicted (r = .44). The greater the tendency for employees to report their supervisors as primarily servant leaders, the greater the tendency for these employees to be committed to their organizations. An employee?s 48 organizational commitment can be viewed as an alignment of individual and organizational goals, as well as an employee?s willingness to remain and exert considerable effort in an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). A supervisor operating as a servant leader likely enhances his or her employee?s organizational commitment by consistently demonstrating genuine interest in the employee?s goals and ideas, involving the employee in decision-making, and nurturing both the personal and professional growth of the employee. Employee-reported job satisfaction and organizational commitment did not relate differently as predicted with supervisors? perceived servant leadership than with supervisors? perceived transformational leadership. An explanation may be the similarity existing between the two leadership styles. Both approaches seem rooted in charismatic leadership theory, which would call for a supervisor to exercise his or her power through his or her employee?s belief in and identification with the supervisor (Graham, 1991; Smith, et al., 2004). As a result, employees of supervisors who embrace charismatic leadership styles such as servant leadership and transformational leadership may share similar work attitudes. Surprisingly, employee-reported job satisfaction and organizational commitment did not relate differently with supervisors? servant leadership than with supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. Again, an explanation may be similarities between leadership styles. As previously noted, transactional contingent reward leadership may resemble servant leadership when transactional leaders establish standards that are well-received by followers. Therefore, employees of supervisors who are perceived by employees to practice both servant leadership and transactional 49 contingent reward leadership may at times share similar work attitudes such as high job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Both employee-reported job satisfaction and organizational commitment related as predicted to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional management-by-exception leadership. Perceived servant leadership was positively related to employee-reported job satisfaction (r = .59) and organizational commitment (r = .44). On the other hand, transactional passive management-by- exception leadership was negatively related to employee-reported job satisfaction (r = .36) and organizational commitment (r = .20), while transactional active management-by- exception leadership was not related to job satisfaction (r = .15, p > .05) or organizational commitment (r = 0.18, p > .05). Differences in focus between servant and transactional leaders are likely associated with differences in their followers? job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Servant leaders work with a primary focus on service itself and not organizational results (Stone et al., 2003). Transactional leaders, on the other hand, primarily focus more on exchanges versus service in order to meet work standards (Bass, 1985). Transactional supervisors who practice management-by-exception emphasize discipline, punishment, and negative feedback (Bass & Avolio, 1993), which may not foster positive work attitudes associated with servant leadership?job satisfaction and organizational commitment. 50 Implications The findings in the current study offer several implications for management practitioners. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment are desirable workplace attitudes and behaviors associated with desirable work outcomes (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982; Ostroff, 1992; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Job attitudes have been associated with low absenteeism and low turnover (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006, Mowday et al., 1982) and organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Organ, 1988; Ostroff, 1992). Thus, the results of the present research suggest servant leadership may be helpful to organizational leaders in their attempts to enhance the performance of organizational members by fostering members? workplace attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The results may also help to explain the role of managerial leadership in varying levels of job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational commitment in the workplace. Variations in employees? work attitudes and behaviors have merited a number of studies of how leadership styles are associated with the various work attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Overall, the findings suggest transactional leaders who practice management-by-exception leadership should possibly consider a more follower-focused approach such as servant leadership, which is generally associated with more positive work attitudes and behaviors than management-by-exception and laissez faire leaders. Such reevaluation and consideration of alternative leadership styles may ultimately help to foster higher morale and performance by individuals and the organization as a whole. 51 Limitations Common method bias due to self-reporting and respondent social desirability is a potential limitation in the current study. Self-report data are susceptible to systematic error variance related to methodology rather than the actual constructs (Keeping & Levee, 2000). To the extent that measures are administered at the same time, the measures may share covariance because the context may increase the likelihood that responses will co-exist in respondents? short term memory (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, as encouraged by Avolio, Yammarino, and Bass (1991), a time delay was adopted in the current study between data collection points for different constructs from the same sources in order to reduce the potential for inflated relationships. In addition, to minimize perceived socially desirable responses to questionnaire items, respondent confidentiality was assured to participants. Respondents were also assured that there were no right or wrong answers to questionnaire items. These steps helped to make respondents less likely to edit responses to be more socially desirable or even consistent with how they think the researcher may have wanted them to respond. Another limitation of the present study may be the sample being predominately male (79%). Given that a significant positive correlation was found between gender and servant leadership (r = .17) (female participants were more likely to report their leaders as servant leaders), it may be fitting to replicate the present study with more even distributions of gender in order to prevent bias in results. Also, to further enhance generalizability, future samples should consist of more organizational diversity, given that the majority of participants in the current study were from primarily one organization. 52 Directions for Future Research The present research extends our understanding of servant leadership by offering empirical support for its relationships with leadership styles and work attitudes frequently investigated and discussed in the literature. As previously indicated, no study to date has compared and contrasted correlates of perceived servant leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership, as was endeavored in the current study. This study also widens an avenue for the development and testing of theory regarding potential moderating effects of demographic variables on relationships between servant leadership and work outcomes. For example, supervisor servant leadership was positively related to employee gender (r = .17). That is, female participants were more likely to report their leaders as servant leaders. One explanation may be differing dispositions between female and male employees such that women may work with a more personable disposition than males in the workplace. Future studies should confirm the association between supervisor servant leadership and employee gender, as well as test for a moderating effect of gender on relationships between servant leadership and other variables. This research found servant leadership to be negatively related to job tenure (r = .24) such that participants with longer job tenure were less likely to report their leaders as servant leaders than participants with shorter job tenure. One explanation may be employees with longer job tenure are more familiar with the faults of their supervisors. Also, supervisors of more tenured employees may at times empower their employees less than supervisors of more tenured employees whose performance or lack thereof has consistently demonstrated a need for more autocratic (e.g., transactional) versus 53 democratic (e.g., servant) leadership. Future research should confirm the job tenure- servant leadership association and consider potential moderating effects of job tenure on other servant leadership relationships. Empirical support for servant leadership can be further enhanced by exploring how servant leadership is associated with other leadership styles such as laissez faire leadership (a form of transactional leadership), or ?non-leadership.? Given laissez faire leaders? lack of involvement with followers, it would be interesting to confirm an untested assumption that servant leadership would be negatively related to laissez faire leadership. Future research should also explore relationships between servant leadership and other desirable work outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). OCB is related to multiple desirable work attitudes such as high job satisfaction, high organizational commitment, and low turnover intention (Williams & Anderson, 1991). As a result, empirical support for servant leadership can be expanded by studying how employee-reported OCB is associated with servant leadership. There is also a need to investigate servant leadership?s relationships with more outcomes such as fairness perceptions, motivation, performance, and quality of leader-member exchanges. In addition, future research could explore how the outcomes vary among servant leadership, transformational, and transactional leadership. Potential contextual moderators of relationships between servant leadership and work outcomes should also be investigated, e.g., goal clarity, resource availability. Investigating contextual moderators may help to account for the unexpected positive relationships in the current study between servant leadership and transactional contingent reward leadership and servant leadership and transactional active management-by- 54 exception leadership. Such associations may only exist in certain work environments, e.g., contexts in which goal clarity and resource availability are less than desirable. Future research is also necessary to test whether the present study?s findings generalize to other types of organizations, industries, cultures, and settings. In addition, collecting data over time would permit researchers to trace the potential evolution of various servant leadership-work outcome relationships. Conclusion Burns (2005) stated one solution to problems of leader-follower relations lies in leaders? abilities to motivate and raise their followers to higher levels. The current study indicates servant leadership may help with relational problems between leaders and followers, given servant leadership?s associations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Thus, the present research represents an initial attempt to identify positive work outcomes related to servant leadership, as well as to compare and contrast how the work outcomes vary among servant leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership. Such comparisons and contrasts are needed in the academic literature, as implied by Bass and Avolio (1993), who stated ?we have only scratched the surface in terms of connecting [leadership models such as]?transformational leadership to other [leadership] models? (p. 75). Bass (2000) went on to say servant leadership?s profound conceptual foundation offers great opportunity for development. Accordingly, the current study offers steps toward development of the notion of servant leadership, given its potential to foster follower learning and growth such that ?the untested theory will play a role in the future leadership of the?organization" (Bass, 2000, p. 31). 55 REFERENCES Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Lincoln, NE: Mindgarden, Inc. Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.) (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Amsterdam: JAI-Elsevier Science. Avolio, B.J., Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17, 571-587. Bagozzi, R. P., & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94. Barbuto, Jr., J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 4, 26-40. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 6, 827-832. 56 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Basic Books. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership; Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 3, 19-31. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 1, 9- 32. Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 3, 18-40. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 21-27. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chambers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Introduction. In B. M. Bass and B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 1-9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217. Bateman, R. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-112. 57 Batten, J. (1997). Servant-leadership: A passion to serve. In Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Behling, O., & McFillen, J. M. (1996). A syncretical model of charismatic/transformational leadership. Group and Organizational Management, 21, 2, 163-191. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: HarperCollins. Birkenmeier, B., Carson, P. P., & Carson, K. D. (2003). The father of Europe: An analysis of the supranational servant leadership of Jean Monnet. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 5, 3, 374-400. Blanchard, H., & Johnson, S. (1985). The one-minute manager. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Publishing Company. Boddy, D. (2002). Management: An introduction. New York: Pearson Education. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, and Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bowman, M.A. (1997). Popular approaches to leadership. In P.G. Northouse (Ed.), Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bradford, L. P., & Lippitt, R. (1945). Building a democratic work group. Personnel, 22, 3, 142-148. 58 Brandt, R. (1992). On rethinking leadership: A conversation with Tom Sergiovanni. Educational Leadership, 49, 5, 46-49. Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 2, 139-146. Burns, J. M. (2005). Leadership. Leadership, 1, 11-12. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Bussing, A., Bissels, T., Fuchs, V., & Perrar, K. M. (1999). A dynamic model of work satisfaction: Qualitative approaches. Human Relations, 52, 8, 999-1028. Carmines, E., & Zellar, R. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Contee-Borders, A. K. (2003). A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University. Covey, S. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster. Covey, S. (1992). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York : Simon and Schuster. Crippen, C. (2005). Servant leadership as an effective model for educational leadership and management: First to serve, then to lead. Management in Education, 18, 5, 11-16. Dennis, R. S. (2004). Servant leadership theory: Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University. 59 Drury, S. L. (2004). Servant leadership and organizational commitment: Empirical findings and workplace implications. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit- level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 1, 61-94. Feldman, J. M. & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421-435. Ford, L. (1991). Transforming leadership: Jesus' way of creating vision, shaping values, and empowering change. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Franke, R.H., & Kaul, J.D. (1978). The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation. American Sociological Review, 43, 623-643. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press. Gillespie, R. (1991). Manufacturing knowledge: A history of the Hawthorne experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Girard, S. H. (2000). Servant leadership qualities exhibited by Illinois public school district superintendents. Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI Number 9973347. Graham, J.W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119. 60 Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hamilton, F., & Nord, W. R. (2005). Practicing servant-leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. Academy of Management Review, 30, 4, 875- 877. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). Comparisons of integrative outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 2, 305-325. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors? evaluations and subordinates? perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 4, 695-702. Hesse, Herman. (1956). Journey to the east. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Hochwater, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Brymer, R. A. (1999). Job satisfaction and performance: The moderating effects of value attainment and affective disposition. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 296-313. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891- 902. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader- member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 5, 680-694. Jaffe, W. (1957). L.P. Alford and the evolution of modern industrial management. New York: New York University Press. 61 Jones, S. R. G. (1992). Was there a Hawthorne Effect? The American Journal of Sociology, 98, 3, 451-468. Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2003). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26, 1, 6-22. Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 388-421. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 5, 755-768. Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 8, 949-964. Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., & Brymer, R. A. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment: A comparison of two scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 6, 976-994. Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. New York: Viking. Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18, 4, 257-265. 62 Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measuring, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 5, 708-723. Keeping, L. M., Makiney, J. D., Levy, P. E., Moon, M. & Gillette, L. M. (1999). Self- ratings and reactions to feedback: It's not how you finish but where you start. In R. A. Noe (Chair), New approaches to understanding employees' affective and behavioral responses to multi-rater feedback systems. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Landsberger, H. A. (1958). Hawthorne revisited. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University. 63 Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2005). Development of a multidimensional measure of servant leadership. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Management Association, Charleston, SC. Little, R.J.A., & Rubin, D.B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley. Magoni, F. (2003). Pyramids and paradigms. Pastoral Forum, 20, 1, 14. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 2, 171-194. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: MacMillan. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L., J. (1998). Psychological contracts and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 16, 1530-1556. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. , & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. 64 Nelson, D. (1980). Frederick W. Taylor and the rise of scientific management. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Nwogu, O. G. (2004). Servant leadership model: The role of follower self-esteem, emotional intelligence, and attributions on organizational effectiveness. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University. O?Reilly, C., III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro- social behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington books. Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-974. Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University. Peck, M. S. (1978). The road less traveled: A new psychology of love, traditional values, and spiritual growth. New York: Simon and Schuster. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5, 879-903. Pollard, C.W. (1996). The leader who serves. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, and R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leader of the future: New visions, strategies, and practices for the next era (pp. 241-248). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pollard, C. W. (1996). The soul of the firm. New York: Harper Business. 65 Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22, 2, 76-85. Russell, R. F., & Stone, A.G. (2002). A review of servant leadership: Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 3/4, 145-157. Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 2, 57-64. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York : Doubleday. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). Leadership as stewardship. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10, 4, 80-91. Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 66 Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf?s theory of servant leadership influenced today?s top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Spears, L. C. (1994). Servant leadership: Quest for caring leadership. Inner Quest, 2, 9- 13. Spector, P. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-392. Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2003). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 4, 349-361. Taylor-Gillham, D. J. (1998). Images of servant leadership in education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52. Thompson, R. S. (2003). The perception of servant leadership characteristics and job satisfaction in a church-related college. Unpublished dissertation, Indiana State University. Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group & Organization Management, 23, 220-236. Van Engen, M. L., Van der Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context, and leadership styles: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 5, pp. 581-599. 67 Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Values and personality: Correlates of servant leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27, 9, 700-716. . Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323-331. 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. Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787-811. Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W.D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81-102. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 68 Servant Leadership Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership Contingent Reward Active Mngt. by Exception Passive Mngt. by Exception Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment H1 1 H2, H3, H4 H5 H6 H7a H7b, H7c, H7d H8a H8b, H8c, H8d Figure 1. Diagram of hypothesized relationships among supervisors? servant leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership styles and employees? job satisfaction and organizational commitment. 69 70 71 Table 3 Fisher z Transformations of Pearson Product-Moment Correlations to Test Hypothesis 7a through Hypothesis 8d Hypothesis z H7a: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. .60 H7b: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. 1.95 H7c: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership. 5.32** H7d: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. 10.65** H8a: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. .61 H8b: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. 1.08 H8c: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership. 2.93** H8d: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. 6.92** Note. N = 270 **p < .01. 72 Table 4 Summary of Findings for Hypotheses Proposed in the Study Hypothesis Result H1: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be positively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. Supported H2: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be negatively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. Not Supported H3: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be negatively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? active transactional management-by-exception leadership. Not Supported H4: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be negatively related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? passive transactional management-by-exception leadership. Supported H5: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be positively related to employee-reported job satisfaction. Supported H6: Employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership will be positively related to employee-reported organizational commitment. Supported H7a: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. Not supported H7b: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. Not supported H7c: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership. Supported H7d: Employee-reported job satisfaction will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. Supported H8a: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transformational leadership. Not supported H8b: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional contingent reward leadership. Not supported H8c: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional active management-by-exception leadership. Supported H8d: Employee-reported organizational commitment will be related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? servant leadership differently than it is related to employees? perceptions of their immediate supervisors? transactional passive management-by-exception leadership. Supported 73 APPENDICES 74 Appendix A: IRB-Approved Employer Script to Notify Employees of Study Auburn University Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5222 Department of Management Telephone: (334) 844-6539 451 Lowder Business Building Fax: (334) 844-5159 West Magnolia Avenue Script for Employee Notification of Study You are invited to participate in an assessment of your perceptions of various aspects of your job. This assessment is being conducted by me, Rynetta Washington, a current Ph.D. candidate under the supervision of Charlotte Sutton, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Management at Auburn University. I hope to learn how employees feel about the nature and supervision of their work, as well areas of potential improvement. You were selected as a possible participant because you were identified by our human resources director as an employee in our organization. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. None of the information you provide will be made available to your employer. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete two questionnaires this summer. Each questionnaire should take no longer than 10-15 minutes to complete. The questionnaires, along with consent and information letters, will be distributed to you at work, and you will be asked to submit the materials according to very easy instructions to be given. Your full participation in this study provides an opportunity for you to express, in complete confidence, your feelings about your work, as well as areas of potential improvement. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may withdraw from participation in this study, without penalty, at any time before submitting your completed questionnaires, and you may withdraw any data which has been collected, as long as that data is identifiable. Your decision whether to participate in this study will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University, the Auburn University Department of Management, or your organization. Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact me, Rynetta Washington, at (334) 332- 1975 or washirr@auburn.edu. 75 Appendix B: IRB-Approved Letter of Informed Consent for Participants Auburn University Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5222 Department of Management Telephone: (334) 844-6539 451 Lowder Business Building Fax: (334) 844-5159 West Magnolia Avenue INFORMED CONSENT for Research Study Entitled ?Employee Work Attitudes? for Phase I Employee Participants You are invited to participate in a research study designed to investigate employees' perceptions of various aspects of their jobs. This study is being conducted by Rynetta Washington, a current Ph.D. candidate under the supervision of Charlotte Sutton, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Management at Auburn University. I hope to learn how employees feel about the nature and supervision of their work, as well areas of potential improvement. You were selected as a possible participant because you were identified by your human resources director as an employee in your organization. Participants must be age 19 or older, or a parental consent/minor assent document must be submitted for participants who are younger than 19. Your participation in the study is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete two questionnaires. Your agreement to participate in the study will serve as consent to have the second questionnaire distributed to you in the near future. Therefore, please first discard the attached cover sheet with your name and work information printed on it, as well as plan to discard the cover sheet to be attached to the second questionnaire to come. This protects your confidentiality. Please then complete and return to the investigator the first enclosed questionnaire, as well as the second questionnaire you will receive approximately one month from now. Each questionnaire should take no longer than 10-15 minutes to complete. After you have completed the enclosed questionnaire, please return this signed letter and your completed survey to Rynetta Washington in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. Please mail your completed questionnaire and signed consent form on or before the end of the business day on ______________. IMPORTANT: In order for your responses to remain confidential, please DO NOT put your name or any other identifying information on either of the questionnaires. Your full participation in this study provides an opportunity for you to express, in complete confidence, your feelings about your work, as well as areas of potential improvement. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. ________________________________________ Participant?s Initials Page 1 of 2 Please Continue on the Next Page 76 Information collected through your participation will be used to fulfill the dissertation requirements of the Management degree of Doctor of Philosophy for Rynetta Washington. Also, the information may be published in a professional journal or book, and/or it may be presented as group data only with no personally identifiable data. Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. No information you provide in this study will shared with anyone associated with your organization. All identifying information will be kept on a secure disk in a secure cabinet in the office of Rynetta Washington at Auburn University, and only I will have access to the cabinet. All collected information will be protected, and all identifying data will be destroyed upon completion of the study. You may withdraw from participation in this study, without penalty, at any time before submitting your completed questionnaires, and you may withdraw any data which has been collected, as long as that data is identifiable. Your decision whether to participate in this study will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University, the Auburn University Department of Management, or your organization. If you have any questions, I invite you to ask them now by contacting me, Rynetta Washington, at (334) 332-1975 or washirr@auburn.edu. If you have questions later, please contact me via the same information, or contact my faculty advisor, Charlotte Sutton, Ph.D., at (334) 844-6507 or csutton@business.auburn.edu. Dr. Sutton and I will be happy to answer your questions. You will be provided a copy of this form to keep. For more information regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)- 844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE. _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Participant's signature Date Investigator's signature Date _____________________________ ____ _______________________________________ Print Name Print Name Page 2 of 2 77 Appendix C: IRB-Approved Information Letter for Participants Auburn University Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5222 Department of Management Telephone: (334) 844-6539 451 Lowder Business Building Fax: (334) 844-5159 West Magnolia Avenue INFORMATION LETTER for Research Study Entitled ?Employee Work Attitudes? for Phase II Employee Participants You are invited to complete your participation in a research study designed to investigate employees' perceptions of various aspects of their jobs. This study is being conducted by Rynetta Washington, a current Ph.D. candidate under the supervision of Charlotte Sutton, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Management at Auburn University. I hope to learn how employees feel about the nature and supervision of their work, as well areas of potential improvement. Recall that you were selected as a possible participant because you were identified by your human resources director as an employee in your organization. Your participation in the study is completely voluntary. To complete your participation in the study, please complete and return to the investigator the enclosed questionnaire, which should take no longer than 10-15 minutes to complete. After you have completed the enclosed questionnaire, please return it to Rynetta Washington in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. Please mail your completed questionnaire on or before the end of the business day on _________. IMPORTANT: In order for your responses to remain confidential, please DO NOT put your name or any other identifying information on either of the questionnaires. Recall that your participation in this study provides an opportunity for you to express, in complete confidence, your feelings about your work, as well as areas of potential improvement. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Recall that information collected through your participation will be used to fulfill the dissertation requirements of the Management degree of Doctor of Philosophy for Rynetta Washington. Also, the information may be published in a professional journal or book, and/or it may be presented as group data only with no personally identifiable data. Your responses will not be provided to any of your organization's administrators, supervisors, employees, etc. In addition, please know that any information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. No information you provide in this study will shared with anyone associated with your organization. All identifying information will be kept on a secure disk in a secure cabinet in the office of Rynetta Washington at Auburn University, and only I will have access to the cabinet. All collected information will be protected, and all identifying data will be destroyed upon completion of the study. Page 1 of 2 Please Continue on the Next Page 78 Recall that you may withdraw from participation in this study, without penalty, at any time before submitting your completed questionnaires, and you may withdraw any data which has been collected, as long as that data is identifiable. Your decision whether to participate in this study will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University, the Auburn University Department of Management, or your organization. If you have any questions, I invite you to ask them now by contacting me, Rynetta Washington, at (334) 332-1975 or washirr@auburn.edu. If you have questions later, please contact me via the same information, or contact my faculty advisor, Charlotte Sutton, Ph.D., at (334) 844-6507 or csutton@business.auburn.edu. Dr. Sutton and I will be happy to answer your questions. This form is yours to keep. For more information regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)- 844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, THE DATA YOU PROVIDE WILL SERVE AS YOUR AGREEMENT TO DO SO. THIS LETTER IS YOURS TO KEEP. ______________________________________ Investigator's signature Date Page 2 of 2 79 Appendix D: Servant Leadership Items Emotional Healing: 1. I would seek help from my immediate supervisor if I had a personal problem. 2. My immediate supervisor cares about my personal well-being 3. My manger takes time to talk to me on a personal level. 4. My immediate supervisor can recognize when I'm down without asking me. Creating Value for the Community: 5. My immediate supervisor emphasizes the importance of giving back to the community. 6. My immediate supervisor is always interested in helping people in our community. 7. My immediate supervisor is involved in community activities 8. I am encouraged by my immediate supervisor to volunteer in the community. Conceptual Skills: 9. My immediate supervisor can tell if something is going wrong 10. My immediate supervisor is able to effectively think through complex problems. 11. My immediate supervisor has a thorough understanding of our organization and its goals. 12. My immediate supervisor can solve work problems with new or creative ideas. 80 Servant Leadership Items Continued Empowering: 13. My immediate supervisor gives me the responsibility to make important decisions about my job. 14. My immediate supervisor encourages me to handle important work decisions on my own. 15. My immediate supervisor gives me the freedom to handle difficult situations in the way that I feel is best. 16. When I have to make an important decision at work, I do not have to consult my immediate supervisor first. Helping Subordinates Grow and Succeed: 17. My immediate supervisor makes my career development a priority 18. My immediate supervisor is interested in making sure that I achieve my career goals. 19. My immediate supervisor provides me with work experiences that enable me to develop new skills. 20. My immediate supervisor wants to know about my career goals. Putting Subordinates First: 21. My immediate supervisor seems to care more about my success than his/her own. 22. My immediate supervisor puts my best interests ahead of his/her own. 23. My immediate supervisor sacrifices his/her own interests to meet my needs. 24. My immediate supervisor does what she/he can do to make my job easier. 81 Servant Leadership Items Continued Behaving Ethically 25. My immediate supervisor holds high ethical standards. 26. My immediate supervisor is always honest 27. My immediate supervisor would not compromise ethical principles in order to achieve success. 28. My immediate supervisor values honesty more than profits. 82 Appendix E: Transformational and Transactional Leadership Items My immediate supervisor: 1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts. (contingent reward) 2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate. (intellectual stimulation) 3. Fails to interfere until problems become serious. (passive management-by- exception) 4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards. (active management-by-exception) 5. Talks about his or her most important values and beliefs. (idealized influence) 6. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems. (intellectual stimulation) 7. Talks optimistically about the future. (inspirational motivation) 8. Instills pride in me for being associated with him or her. (idealized influence) 9. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets. (contingent reward) 10. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action. (passive management-by- exception) 11. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. (inspirational motivation) 12. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. (idealized influence) 13. Spends time teaching and coaching. (intellectual stimulation) 83 Transformational and Transactional Leadership Items Continued My immediate supervisor: 14. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved. (contingent reward) 15. Shows that he or she is a firm believer in, ?If it ain?t broke, don?t fix it.? (passive management-by-exception) 16. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group. (idealized influence) 17. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group. (individualized consideration) 18. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action. (passive management-by-exception) 19. Acts in ways that build my respect. (idealized influence) 20. Concentrates his or her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures. (active management-by-exception) 21. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. (idealized influence) 22. Keeps track of all mistakes. (active management-by-exception) 23. Displays a sense of power and confidence. (idealized influence) 24. Articulates a compelling vision of the future. (inspirational motivation) 25. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards. (active management-by- exception) 26. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others. (individualized consideration) 27. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles. (intellectual stimulation) 84 Transformational and Transactional Leadership Items Continued My immediate supervisor: 28. Helps me to develop my strengths. (individualized consideration) 29. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. (intellectual stimulation) 30. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. (idealized influence) 31. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations. (contingent reward) 32. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved. (inspirational motivation) 85 Appendix F: Job Satisfaction Items Note: Items denoted with ?(r)? should be reverse coded. Pay satisfaction: 1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 2. Raises are too few and far between. (r) 3. I am unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. (r) 4. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. Promotion satisfaction: 5. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. (r) 6. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 7. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 8. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. Supervision satisfaction: 9. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 10. My supervisor is unfair to me. (r) 11. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feeling of subordinates. (r) 12. I like my supervisor. Benefits satisfaction: 13. I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. (r) 14. The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 15. The benefit package we have is equitable. 86 Job Satisfaction Items Continued Benefits satisfaction: 16. There are benefits we do not have which we should have. (r) Rewards satisfaction: 17. When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. 18. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. (r) 19. There are few rewards for those who work here. (r) 20. I don?t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. (r) Operating procedure satisfaction: 21. Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. (r) 22. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 23. I have too much to do at work. (r) 24. I have too much paperwork. (r) Co-workers satisfaction: 25. I like the people I work with. 26. I find I have to work harder at my job than I should because of the incompetence of people I work with. (r) 27. I enjoy my co-workers. 28. There is too much bickering and fighting at work. (r) Work itself: 29. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. (r) 30. I like doing the things I do at work. 31. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 87 Job Satisfaction Items Continued Work itself: 32. My job is enjoyable. Communication satisfaction: 33. Communications seem good within this organization. 34. The goals of this organization are not clear to me. (r) 35. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. (r) 36. Work assignments are often not fully explained. (r) 88 Appendix G: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Items Note: Items denoted with ?(r)? should be reverse coded. OCBI (organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals): 1. I help others who have been absent. 2. I help others who have heavy work loads. 3. I assist my supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 4. I take time to listen to co-workers? problems and worries. 5. I go out of my way to help new employees. 6. I take a personal interest in other employees. 7. I pass along information to co-workers. OCBO (organizational citizenship behaviors directed at the organization): 8. My attendance at work is above the norm. 9. I give advance notice when I am unable to come to work. 10. I take undeserved work breaks. (r) 11. A great deal of my time at work is spent in personal phone conversations. (r) 12. I complain about insignificant things at work. (r) 13. I conserve and protect organizational property. 14. I adhere to informal rules devised to maintain order. IRB (employee in-role behaviors): 15. I adequately complete assigned duties. 16. I fulfill responsibilities specified in my job description. 17. I perform tasks that are expected of me. 89 Organizational Citizenship Behavior Items Continued IRB (employee in-role behaviors) Continued: 18. I meet formal performance requirements of the job. 19. I engage in activities that will directly affect my performance. 20. I neglect aspects of the job I am obligated to perform. (r) 21. I fail to perform essential duties. (r) 90 Appendix H: Organizational Commitment Items Note: Items denoted with ?(r)? should be reverse coded. 1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful. 2. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. 3. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (r) 4. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization. 5. I find that my values and the organization?s values are very similar. 6. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 7. I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was similar. (r) 8. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. 9. It would take very little change in my present circumstance to cause me to leave this organization. (r) 10. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined. 11. There?s not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely. (r) 12. Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization?s policies on important matters relating to its employees. (r) 91 Organizational Commitment Items Continued 13. I really care about the fate of this organization. 14. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. 15. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part. (r) 92 Appendix I: Demographic Items 1. What is your gender? ______Male ______Female 2. What is your ethnicity? 1?African-American (Black) 2?Asian-American 3?European-American or Caucasian (White) 4?Hispanic-American 5?Native American (American Indian) 6?Pacific Islander 7?Other____________________________ 3. What is your age? Select one of the following: 1?18-24 2?25-31 3?31-35 4?36-40 5?41-45 6?46-50 7?51-55 8?56-60 9?61-65 10?66 or older 93 Demographic Items Continued 4. What is your highest level of education? Select one of the following: 1?Less than a high school degree 2?High school degree 3?Some college but no college degree 4?Junior college or associate degree 5?Bachelor?s or undergraduate college degree 6?Bachelor?s degree and some graduate work 7?Master?s or graduate degree 8?Master?s degree and some doctorate work 9?Doctorate 5. How long have you worked under your current immediate supervisor? _____Year(s) _____Month(s) 6. How long have you been with your current employer? _____Year(s) _____Month(s) 94 Auburn University Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5222 Department of Management Telephone: (334) 844-6539 451 Lowder Business Building Fax: (334) 844-5159 West Magnolia Avenue Employee Work Attitude Survey I Purpose This survey contains two parts of statements intended to measure employee attitudes about the nature and supervision of their work. You are asked to rate your agreement with each statement in Part I, and rate the extent to which you see your immediate supervisor demonstrate behaviors given in Part II. In order for your responses to be useful, all responses to the items contained in this survey must accurately reflect your true opinions. The number in the upper-right hand corner of this booklet will be used only to match this survey with a second and final survey you will receive in a few weeks. ALL YOUR RESPONSES WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. WITH THIS IN MIND, PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO PROVIDE YOUR HONEST OPINION ABOUT EACH STATEMENT. YOUR HONEST OPINION IS VERY VALUABLE TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS STUDY. Part I Directions Using the scale given below, please circle the number by each statement that best represents the extent to which you agree with the given statements. Before you start, quickly read through the entire list to get a feel for how to rate each statement. Remember there are no right or wrong answers, and your honest opinion is critical to the success of this study. All your responses will be kept confidential. 1?Strongly disagree 2?Disagree 3?Somewhat disagree 4?Neither disagree nor agree 5?Somewhat agree 6?Agree 7?Strongly agree 1. I would seek help from my immediate supervisor if I had a personal problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. My immediate supervisor cares about my personal well-being. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. My manger takes time to talk to me on a personal level. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. My immediate supervisor can recognize when I'm down without asking me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. My immediate supervisor emphasizes the importance of giving back to the community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. My immediate supervisor is always interested in helping people in our community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. My immediate supervisor is involved in community activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I am encouraged by my immediate supervisor to volunteer in the community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page 1 of 4 Please Continue on the Next Page Appendix J: Copy of Time 1 Questionnaire 95 9. My immediate supervisor can tell if something is going wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. My immediate supervisor is able to effectively think through hard problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. My immediate supervisor has a very good understanding of our organization and its goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. My immediate supervisor can solve work problems with new or creative ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. My immediate supervisor gives me the responsibility to make important decisions about my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. My immediate supervisor encourages me to handle important work decisions on my own. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. My immediate supervisor gives me the freedom to handle hard situations in the way that I feel is best. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. When I have to make an important decision at work, I do not have to consult my immediate supervisor first. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. My career development (my improving and progressing in my career) is very important to my immediate supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. My immediate supervisor is interested in making sure that I achieve (reach) my career goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. My immediate supervisor provides me with work experiences that enable me to develop new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. My immediate supervisor wants to know about my career goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. My immediate supervisor seems to care more about my success than his/her own. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. My immediate supervisor puts my best interests ahead of his/her own. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. My immediate supervisor sacrifices his/her own interests to meet my needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. My immediate supervisor does what she/he can do to make my job easier. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. My immediate supervisor holds high ethical (moral) standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. My immediate supervisor is always honest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. My immediate supervisor would not compromise ethical (moral) principles (standards/values) (give in to wrong values or behavior) in order to achieve (reach) success. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. My immediate supervisor values honesty (telling the truth) more than profits (money). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page 2 of 4 Please Continue on the Next Page 96 Part II Directions Using the scale given below, please circle the number by each statement that best represents the extent to which you see your immediate supervisor demonstrate the given behaviors. Before you start, quickly read through the entire list to get a feel for how to rate each statement. Remember there are no right or wrong answers, and your honest opinion is very valuable to the success of this study. All your responses will be kept confidential. 0?Not at All 1?Once in a While 2?Sometimes 3?Fairly Often 4?Frequently, if Not Always My immediate supervisor: 29. Provides me with assistance (help) in exchange (return) for my efforts. 0 1 2 3 4 30. Re-examines critical assumptions (commonly accepted values and behaviors at work) to question whether they are appropriate. 0 1 2 3 4 31. Fails to interfere until problems become serious. 0 1 2 3 4 32. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards. 0 1 2 3 4 33. Talks about his or her most important values and beliefs. 0 1 2 3 4 34. Seeks different perspectives (views) when solving problems. 0 1 2 3 4 35. Talks optimistically (positively) about the future. 0 1 2 3 4 36. Instills pride in me for being associated (joined or partnered) with him or her. 0 1 2 3 4 37. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving (reaching) performance targets (goals). 0 1 2 3 4 38. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action. 0 1 2 3 4 39. Talks enthusiastically (with excitement) about what needs to be accomplished. 0 1 2 3 4 40. Specifies (makes clear) the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 0 1 2 3 4 41. Spends time teaching and coaching (supporting/encouraging). 0 1 2 3 4 42. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved (reached). 0 1 2 3 4 43. Shows that he or she is a firm believer in, ?If it ain?t broke, don?t fix it.? 0 1 2 3 4 44. Goes beyond his/her own self-interest for the good of the group. 0 1 2 3 4 45. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group. 0 1 2 3 4 Page 3 of 4 Please Continue on the Next Page 97 46. Demonstrates (shows) that problems must become chronic (must happen over and over again) before taking action. 0 1 2 3 4 47. Acts in ways that build my respect. 0 1 2 3 4 48. Concentrates his or her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures. 0 1 2 3 4 49. Considers the moral and ethical consequences (results/outcomes) of decisions. 0 1 2 3 4 50. Keeps track of all mistakes. 0 1 2 3 4 51. Displays (shows) a sense of power and confidence. 0 1 2 3 4 52. Articulates (clearly states) a compelling vision of the future. 0 1 2 3 4 53. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards. 0 1 2 3 4 54. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and Aspirations (desires/goals) from others. 0 1 2 3 4 55. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles (views). 0 1 2 3 4 56. Helps me to develop my strengths (things I?m good at). 0 1 2 3 4 57. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete (finish) assignments (work or tasks). 0 1 2 3 4 58. Emphasizes (focuses on) the importance of having a collective sense of mission (as a group). 0 1 2 3 4 59. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations. 0 1 2 3 4 60. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved (reached). 0 1 2 3 4 61. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise. 0 1 2 3 4 62. Is absent (not available) when needed. 0 1 2 3 4 63. Avoids making decisions. 0 1 2 3 4 64. Delays (postpones/puts off/waits in) responding to urgent (emergency) questions. 0 1 2 3 4 Page 4 of 4 98 Auburn University Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5222 Department of Management Telephone: (334) 844-6539 451 Lowder Business Building Fax: (334) 844-5159 West Magnolia Avenue Employee Work Attitude Survey II Purpose This survey contains additional statements intended to measure employee attitudes about the nature and supervision of their work. You are asked to rate your agreement with each statement. In order for your responses to be useful, all responses to the items contained in this survey must accurately reflect your true opinions. Recall that the number in the upper-right hand corner of this booklet will be used only to match this survey with the first survey you were recently asked to complete. ALL YOUR RESPONSES WILL BE KEPT COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL. WITH THIS IN MIND, PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO PROVIDE YOUR HONEST OPINION ABOUT EACH STATEMENT. YOUR HONEST OPINION IS VERY VALUABLE TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS STUDY. Directions Using the scale given below, please circle the number by each statement that best represents the extent to which you agree with the given statements. Before you start, quickly read through the entire list to get a feel for how to rate each statement. Remember there are no right or wrong answers, and your honest opinion is critical to the success of this study. 1?Strongly disagree 2?Disagree 3?Somewhat disagree 4?Neither disagree nor agree 5?Somewhat agree 6?Agree 7?Strongly agree 1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount of money for the work I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Pay raises are too few and far between (don?t happen often). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I am unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary (pay) increases (raises). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. My supervisor is quite competent (skilled) in doing his/her job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appendix K: Copy of Time 2 Questionnaire 99 10. My supervisor is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feeling of subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I like my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. The benefit package we have is equitable (fair). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. There are benefits we do not have which we should have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. There are few rewards for those who work here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I don?t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult (hard). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. My efforts to do a good job are seldom (hardly ever) blocked by red tape. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. I have too much to do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. I have too much paperwork. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. I find I have to work harder at my job than I should because of the incompetence (lack of skill) of people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. I enjoy my co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. There is too much bickering (arguing) and fighting at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. I like doing the things I do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Communications seem good within this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 100 34. The goals of this organization are not clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. Work assignments (tasks/work) are often not fully explained. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. I would accept almost any type of job assignment (task/work) in order to keep working for this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. I find that my values and the organization?s values are very similar (the same). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was similar. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. It would take very little change in my present (current) circumstance (work situation) to cause me to leave this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. There?s not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely (possibly forever). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization?s policies on important matters relating to its employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. I really care about the fate (future) of this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. I help others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53. I help others who have heavy work loads. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54. I assist my supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 101 55. I take time to listen to co-workers? problems and worries. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56. I go out of my way to help new employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57. I take a personal interest in other employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 58. I pass along information to co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 59. My attendance at work is above the norm (above average). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60. I give advance notice when I am unable to come to work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61. I take undeserved work breaks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 62. A great deal of my time at work is spent in personal phone conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. I complain about insignificant (unimportant) things at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64. I conserve and protect organizational property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 65. I adhere to (follow) informal rules devised (made) to maintain order. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 66. I adequately (sufficiently/appropriately) complete assigned duties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 67. I fulfill responsibilities specified (clearly given) in my job description. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 68. I perform tasks that are expected of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 69. I meet formal performance requirements of the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 70. I engage (participate/take part) in activities that will directly affect my performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 71. I neglect aspects of the job I am obligated (or have) to perform. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 72. I fail to perform essential (needed/necessary) duties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Demographic Information: Instructions?Please circle or write your responses below. 73. What is your gender? ____Male ____Female 74. What is your ethnicity? 1?African-American (Black) 2?Asian-American 3?European-American or Caucasian (White) 4?Hispanic-American 5?Native American (American Indian) 6?Pacific Islander 7?Other____________________________ 75. What is your age? Select one of the following: 1?18-24 2?25-31 3?31-35 4?36-40 5?41-45 6?46-50 7?51-55 8?56-60 9?61-65 10?66 or older 76. What is your highest level of education? Select one of the following: 1?Less than a high school degree 2?High school degree 3?Some college but no college degree 4?Junior college or associate degree 5?Bachelor?s or undergraduate college degree 6?Bachelor?s degree and some graduate work 7?Master?s or graduate degree 8?Master?s degree and some doctorate work 9?Doctorate 77. How long have you worked under your current immediate supervisor? _____Year(s) _____Month(s) 78. How long have you been with your current employer? _____Year(s) _____Month(s) Page 4 of 4