the effect of servant leadership on the psychological well...

The effect of Servant Leadership on the Psychological Well -Being of

employees: A Descriptive Study of MSME automation Company

Dr. Suman Pathak

Professor, MATS Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship

Bangalore,

Devpriya Dey

Research Scholar – Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu,

ABSTRACT The study of Servant Leadership and its associated outcomes have been of recent interest ever

since Greenleaf’s new contribution to the theories of Leadership. This research investigated if,

and whether, any relationship exists between servant leadership and psychological well being of

employees in an organization. The Servant Leadership Questionnaire developed by Barbuto and

Wheeler (2006) was used to measure Servant Leadership and The Oxford Happiness

Questionnaire by Argyle, Martin and Crossland (1989) was used to study Psychological Well-

being. Recent issues of many scandals in business, government, banks, nonprofit organizations,

and other organizations create a kind of mistrust on leadership of the organization. Many

researchers are working on leadership models and redefining those models of ethical leadership.

These models of ethical leadership can answer to the burdens of a deeply interdependent global

society. The study has been conducted on the employees in a micro, small and medium

manufacturing enterprise located in India. Pearson Correlation tests, ANOVA and use of t-tests

found a statistically significant p< 0.001 value. A positive relationship between Servant

Leadership and Psychological Well-Being r =0.63: 63%. On the basis of factors hypothesis was

developed and tested. By using all statistical tool the significant relationship proved between

servant leadership and psychological wellbeing

Keywords: Servant Leadership, Psychological Well Being, Automation, MSME

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology

Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019

Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 950

Introduction

Recent issues of many scandals in business government, banks, nonprofit organizations, created

mistrust on the leadership of the organization. Many researchers are working on redefining

leadership models of ethics that can be an answer to the demands of a deeply interdependent

global society. The new paradigm shift of existing leadership models to alternative leadership

model of organizational leadership moves beyond the ‘competency efforts’, ‘performance and

productivity’ usually used to measure leader effectiveness– highlighting in its place to the

ethical, sensitive and interpersonal dimensions of leadership behaviors. Such a model was

brought about by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970’s.Employees who endorse to an organization

beyond their required day today jobs have been the theme of growing interest among scholars

and managers alike (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, &Woehr, 2007; Ilies,

Nahrgang, &Morgeson, 2007).

Servant leaders are those who manage organizational Issues by replacing individual interests to

those of organizational stakeholders and the leader for whom leadership as an opening for

service to persons, organization, and community rather than a method to achieve private

authority and respect. Greenleaf and Spears (2002).

According to Hale and Fields (2007) servant leadership is “an understanding and practice of

leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader, emphasizing

leader behaviors that focus on follower development and de-emphasizing glorification of the

leader”. Spears (2004) outlined 11features of servant leaders: Calling, listening, empathy,

healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, growth, and building

community.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 951

Characteristics of Servant Leadership

Calling: It is a wish to oblige and having an inclination to sacrifice self-interest for the

advantage of others.

Listening: It is the Leaders who are willingly ready to listen even the most unusual ideas

from their followers, this nature of behavior enhance follower commitment.

Empathy: Empathy means understanding others problems as it is their own problem.

That’s give an better understanding of their follower which build trusts.

Healing: When people expectations of optimisms, thoughts, or relationships fail or

converted into distress, that time healing can solve shattered confidences and emotional

pain

Awareness: Awareness is the leader’s knowledge of understanding of environment

Persuasion: To inspiration people without using legitimate power or authority.

Conceptualization: Conceptualization encourages people to apply and developmental

models with creativity.

Foresight: To anticipate the future for the organization and its members.

Stewardship: Stewardship involves making the organization and its people to contribute

in to the society.

Growth: Greenleaf et al (1996) reminded us that the outcome of servant leadership is To

provide their followers a positive direction for their development.

Community building: Servant leadership develops committed people and organizes them

as a community to provide a platform to share their issues.

Servant leadership includes an ethical factor, the factor which was not very prominent in the

other leadership theories. Some research evidence clearly mentioned the uniqueness of servant



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 952

leadership from other leadership theories. For example, Ehrhart (2004) reported that servant

leadership significantly predicted employee commitment, satisfaction with supervisor, perceived

supervisor support, procedural justice much more than available in the leader–member exchange

and transformational leadership. Liden (2008) explained that servant leadership behavior have

inconsistency in organizational citizenship behavior and in the performance beyond that forecast

by transformational leadership and most of other leadership styles.

Psychological wellbeing broadly defined as “happiness, life satisfaction, and self growth”-

Bradburn (1969), represents one of the most important aspects of efficient psychological

functioning. Psychological well-being is usually abstracted as some blend of positive affective

states such as happiness and operative with maximum effectiveness in individual and social life.

Huppert(2009) defined psychological well being as, “Psychological well-being is about lives

going well. It is the combination of feeling good and functioning effectively.”It was proved

through researches that psychological well-being occurs as a result of positive feelings and most

importantly happiness. Many researchers believe that wellbeing is not just about being happy or

gratified, but also about being vigorously engaged with life and connecting with other people

(Black et al., 2015).Maintaining a sense of psychological wellbeing and continuing to be socially

engaged in life and in organizations is an important part of growth of an individual in a healthy

way.

Objective of Study

Since Servant Leadership is an emerging concept most researchers are trying to identify its

importance and the strength of relationship it has with many factors like organization citizenship

behavior and employee attitudes (Walumbwa et. al., 2010), organization commitment (Drury,

2004), effectiveness of teams(Irving, 2005) and so on.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 953

The primary objective of this research dissertation is to investigate this relationship between

Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being in a MSME.

Literature Review

The concept of servant Leadership was coined by Greenleaf in 1970 and ever since then it has

been added as one of the styles of Leadership. Even if Servant Leadership is same as

transformational Leadership, it has been proved that servant leadership stands alone as a single

type of leadership and has few similar characteristics to share with other leadership styles. Some

of the researches that are central to this study are given below. Donghong Ding, Haiyan Lu, Yi

Song and Qing Lu (2012) tested the influence of servant leadership on 2 group climates -

employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. The study was done by Fred O.

Walumbwa, Chad A. Hartnell, and AdegokeOke (2010) and the focus is on the study of servant

leadership and other organizational concepts. Sharon L. Drury, Indiana Wesleyan University,

(August 2004). Organizational commitment was measured with the Meyer, Allen, and Smith

(1993) commitment scales. Organizational Leadership Assessment (Laub, 1999).Measured the

servant leadership perception and job satisfaction and found a significant and positive

relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction.

Positive affectivity (PA) describes that how individuals practice positive emotions and interact

with others and with their environment. Those with high positive affectivity are typically

confident, active, enthusiastic, energetic, and alert.

Negative affectivity (NA) it means the understanding of negative emotions and poor self-

concept. Negative emotions are irritation, dislike, disgust, onus, anxiety and helplessness. Low

negative affectivity is characterized by peace and serenity, along with states of self-reliance,



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 954

liveliness, and great eagerness. Life satisfaction (LS) is not the expression of a moment in-fact it

is actually the valuation of life as a whole.

Psychological Well Being: Components

The Psychological Well-being model of Carol Ryff’s is very different then the past available

models especially on the well-being is multidimensional, not only about happiness, or positive

feelings. And according to Velleman (1991), a good life is composed and complete, fetching

each aspects of well-being, instead of being barely focused. Ryff et al (2008) convey this

principle in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, where the goal of life isn’t just be happy or feeling

good, but also about living honorably.

It was proved through researches that psychological well-being occurs as a result of positive

feelings and most importantly happiness. Social wellbeing is a type of participation with people

and society. When people try to meet the rising demands of the society or the construct in which

they are present it leads to stress as a result of demanding situations which will eventually lessen

the psychological well being of employees.

Since Servant Leadership is an emerging concept most researchers are trying to identify its

importance and the strength of relationship it has with many factors like organization citizenship

behavior and employee attitudes (Walumbwa et. al., 2010), organization commitment (Drury,

2004), effectiveness of teams(Irving, 2005) and so on.

Donghong Ding, Haiyan Lu, Yi Song and Qing Lu (2012) tested the influence of servant

leadership on 2 group climates - employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior.

The Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) develop commitment scales to measure Organizational

commitment. The servant leadership perception and job satisfaction were measured with the

Organizational Leadership Assessment (Laub, 1999). The Pearson correlation tests found a



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 955

significant and positive relationship between that the organizational commitment and servant

leadership had a statistically significant contrary relationship.Justin A. Irving (2005) focused on

investigating the relationship between servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams. A study

by Saundra J. Reinke (2004)determines the relationship between perceptions of servant

leadership and the level of trust between employees and supervisors. Jia Hu and Robert C. Liden

(2011)examined goal and process clarity and servant leadership as the background of team

potency and subsequent team effectiveness, operationalized as team performance and

organizational citizenship behavior. A study was conducted by Errol E.Joseph (2005). The aim

was to explore the relationship between servant leadership and leader trust, and employee

perceptions the results proposed that perceptions of servant leadership correlated positively with

both leader trust and organizational trust. The study by Oris Guillaume, Andrew Honeycutt and

Amy R. Savage-Austin USA (2013) was focused on to observe the influence of Servant

Leadership on job satisfaction. The features of Servant Leadership recognized in past researches

by Greenleaf (1977) and Spears (1998) have an important role in job satisfaction. Servant

Leadership was also studied in a hospital setting in a study called by Jack Thomas McCann,

Daniel Graves & Lieven Cox (2014).A study was conducted to prove that servant leadership led

to a decrease in job burnout by Wally Rude(2004).Psychological well being is the most

important factor or variable that most researches try to examine due to extreme work stress and

lack of life satisfaction among people today. In most of the researches psychological well being

is studied as an independent variable rather than as a dependent variable mainly due to the effect

of other factors like job satisfaction, organization culture, supervisor involvement and so that

leads to an individual’s psychological well being. A study by Cynthia A. Thompson and David J.

Prottas (2002 was done to examine relationships among availability of job autonomy, informal



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 956

organizational support, perceived support, employee attitudes and employee psychological well

being. The result proved availability of family benefits was associated with pressure, lifetime

satisfaction, and turnover purposes, Job autonomy and relaxed organizational support were

associated with job satisfaction, A study was done by Thomas A. Wright and Reno Russell

Cropanzano (2000) about a comparative test of relative contribution of job satisfaction and

psychological well being as predictors of employee performance. The findings showed that it

was the psychological well being of individuals rather than the job satisfaction that led to job

performance. A Study on the “Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well-Being as Non-additive

Predictors of Workplace Turnover”by Thomas A. Wright and Douglas G. Bonett (2007) was

done and Psychological well-being was found to rational the relation between job satisfaction

and job separation, such that job satisfaction was an strong reason of turnover in the availability

of low psychological well-being. Aaron Cohen and Orit Shamai (2009) focus on the trend by

examining the relationship between individual values and psychological well-being (PWB) and

affective organizational commitment. Brad Shuck and Thomas G.Reio (2014) were focused on

how poor workforce engagement can be detrimental to organizations because of the ensuing

decrease in employee well-being and productivity. Farida Rasulzada and Ingrid Dackert (2009)

showed a significant relationship between perceived organizational creativity and innovation and

individual psychological well-being. Zulkarnain Amin and KharissaPratiwi Akbar (2013). This

article indicated that how the turnover intentions can be reduced if the employees believe that the

organization will fulfill their needs, through improving of psychological well-being. Morgan

Wilkinson (2013) outcome of the research showed that there was a significant correlation

between work life balance and Psychological well-being. Alexander Panaccio and Christian

Vandenberghe (2009).they analyze the involvement of four mindsets of organizational support



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 957

and the perceived organizational commitment. Carol D. Ryff (1989) highlights what

psychological wellbeing is and its importance in a real world context. Nielsen, K., Randall, R.,

Yarker, J. & Brenner (2008) designed theory-driven model and was tested using Structural

Equation Modelling about the relationships between work characteristics, well-being and

leadership. James K Harter, Frank L and Corey L.M Keyes (2003) focuses on the well-being

approach to understand the benefits of promoting the well being of workers.

Research Design

Figure 1- Framework of Research

The Independent variable is the “Servant Leadership” (SL). The SL variable is a multi-

dimensional variable comprising of 5 dimensions-Altruistic Calling, Emotional Healing,

Wisdom, Persuasive Mapping and Organizational Stewardship. All the 5 dimensions of SL have

been collectively measured as a single scale by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) by using 23

Servant Leadership Psychological

Well-being

Altruistic

Calling

Emotional

Healing

Wisdom Persuasive

Mapping

Organizational

Stewardship

Positive

Affectivity Negative

Affectivity Life

Satisfaction

Dimensions of Servant Leadership Dimensions of Psychological

Well-being



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 958

question items. The Servant Leader (SL) scale (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006) was employed to

measure the display of Servant Leader attributes and dimensions by a supervisor towards his /

her subordinates. The dependent variable is Psychological Well-being (PWB) comprising of 3

dimensions -Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity and Life Satisfaction. All the 3

dimensions have been collectively measured in the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (Argyle,

Martin and Crossland, 1989) by using 29 question items. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire

(OHQ) scale was employed to measure the levels of Psychological Well-being of all the

employees. The Demographic Variables are Age and Grade.

Hypothesis

1. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no correlation between Servant Leadership and Psychological

Well-Being of employees

Alternate Hypothesis (H1): A significant correlation between Servant Leadership and

Psychological Well-being of employees.

2. Null Hypotheses (H02): No relation between the two Age groups’ display of Psychological

well being

Alternate Hypothesis (H2a): There is a statistical difference between the 2 Age groups’ display of

Psychological well being

3. Null Hypotheses (H03): There is no difference between the 2 Age groups’ perception of

Servant Leadership

Alternate Hypothesis (H3a): There is a statistical difference between the 2 Age groups’

perception of Servant Leadership



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 959

4. Null Hypotheses (H04): There is no difference between the two Employee Grades’ (Levels)

display of Psychological well being

Alternate Hypothesis (H4a): There is a statistical difference between the 2 Employee Grades’

(Levels) display of Psychological well being

5. Null Hypotheses (H05): There is no difference between the two Employee Grades’ (Levels)

perception of Servant Leadership

Alternate Hypothesis (H5a): There is a statistical difference between the two Employee Grades’

(Levels) perception of Servant Leadership

Data Analysis

Demographic data profile of the respondents

The profile of these participants, according to their Age and Grade Levels are as shown

below.The percentage ratio between male and female was 80% and 20%. The average age of the

respondents was 33. The age ranged between 22 and 58. Respondents fell in the category of Age

Group (22 – 34) and (34 and above). The Grade Levels of employees were categorized into 2

primary levels – Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 employees corresponded to those employees who

were at a rank (grade) of a Top Management or Senior Management levels, whilst Level 2

employees corresponded to those employees who were at a rank (grade) of a Middle Level or

Junior Level employee.

Statistical Analyses to ascertain and analyze the data

(i)Inferential Statistics:



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 960

The aim of the inferential statistics was to try to infer from the sample data what the population

might think. Or, we use inferential statistics to make judgments of the probability that an

observed difference between groups is a dependable one or one that might have happened by

chance in this study.

TABLE A

Summary output of ANOVA, t-test, Regression Analysis and Correlation Analysis

PWB SLQ

PWB 1

SLQ 0.625787487 1

df SS MS F

Significance

P values

Regression 1 1.550253371 1.550253371 18.02310861 0.000216943

Residual 28 2.408413295 0.086014761

Total 29 3.958666667

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

Intercept 0.862929457 0.551534623 1.564597075 0.128910555 -0.266838003 1.992696917 -0.266838003 1.992696917

OHQ 0.486176052 0.114519307 4.245363189 0.000216943 0.251593885 0.720758219 0.251593885 0.720758219

Multiple R 0.625787487

R Square 0.391609979

Adjusted R Square 0.369881764

Standard Error 0.293282731

Observations 30

PWB SLQ

Mean 4.793333333 3.193333333

Variance 0.22616092 0.136505747

Observations 30 30

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 55

t Stat 14.5521375

P(T<=t) one-tail 8.28664E-21

t Critical one-tail 1.673033965

P(T<=t) two-tail 1.65733E-20

t Critical two-tail 2.004044783

SUMMARY OUTPUT of ANOVA, 't' test, Regression Analysis and Correlations Analysis

Regression Statistics

ANOVA

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Research Dissertation: The effects of Servant Leadership (SL) on Psychological Well being (PWB) - An MSME Study

Interpretation of Analysis:1) A total of 30 Samples (questionnaires) shown in the analysis as 'Observations'

were administered

2) 2 questionnaires - SLQ (measuring Servant Leadership) and OHQ (Oxford

Happiness Questionnaire measuring Psychological Well being) were consolidated

and administered through a Survey Questionnaire for all the 30 respondents

3) All the 30 respondents are Employees of an MSME - Micro, Small, Medium

Enterprise - and an Environmental Simulation Manufacturing company in Bangalore

4) SLQ comprised of 23 questions and OHQ comprised of 29 questions

5) The respondents' individual scores to all the questions for both SLQ and OHQ were

summated and averaged.

6) The Mean of scores for PWB and SLQ (Average of all respondents' scores for PWB

and SLQ) are 4.7933 and 3.1933

7) Written Results: There is a significant positive relationship between Servant

Leadership and the Psychological Well Being, with Pearson's co-efficient 'r' = 0.63

(63%), that means that the Independent Variable (Servant Leadership) explains 63%

of the variation in the response or dependent variable (Psychological Well Being)

and this value is statistically significant at p < 0.0001

8) We can cross check the significance by looking at t Stat values being greater than t

Critical one-tail values

Pearsons Correlations between PWB and SLQ

The Pearsons Correlations Co-efficient r = 0.6257

between PWB and SLQ meaning that SL fully

explains roughly 63% (0.63) of the variances that

occur in the PWB variable. As such PWB and SL are

significantly correlated. The significance level p is

shown below in the table. P-value = 0.0002, that

means significance is at P < 0.001 levels



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 961

Interpretation of Analysis:

From Table A we can understand that all respondents are Employees of an MSME - Micro,

Small, Medium Enterprise - and an Environmental Simulation Manufacturing company in

Bangalore. The respondents' individual scores to all the questions for both SLQ and OHQ were

summated and averaged. The Mean of scores for PWB and SLQ (Average of all respondents'

scores for PWB and SLQ) are 4.7933 and 3.1933

Inferential Results: There is a positive and significant relationship between Psychological Well

Beingand Servant Leadership, with Pearson's co-efficient 'r' = 0.63 (63%), that means that the

Independent Variable (Servant Leadership) explains 63% of the variation in the response or

dependent variable (Psychological Well Being) and this value is statistically significant at p <

0.0001

We can cross check the significance by looking at t Stat values being greater than t-Critical one-

tail values. T-Stat value stands at 14.55 and t critical 2 tail value stands at 2.004.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are well-known from inferential statistics (or inductive statistics), in

that descriptive statistics objective is to précis a sample, not to use the data to study about the

population it is assumed that the sample of data is a true representation of the population .In the

descriptive statistics for the present research study, the demographic data of Employee’s Age

group and Employees’ Grade (Level) or rank was used as the sample to summarize the findings.

As we can see from the Tables B1 through B4, we use and summarize samples of Age group 1

(employees falling into the Age category 22 to 34), Age group 2 (employees falling into the Age



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 962

category of 34 years and above), Grade or Level 1 (employees falling into the Employee Rank of

Top Management and Senior Management) and Grade or Level 2 (employees falling into the

Employee Rank of Middle Level and Junior Level Management).

Table -B

Descriptive Statistics for Age groups and Employee Grade Levels

Age group 1

(22 – 34)

Age group 2

(>=35)

Grade level 1

(TM and SM)

Grade level 2

(MM and JM)

Mean Scores of PWB 4.56 5.22 4.82 4.77

Standard Deviation of PWB 0.41 0.44 0.54 0.51

Median Scores of PWB 4.5 5.3 4.7 4.6

Mean Scores of SL 3.32 3.72 3.35 3.44

Standard Deviation of SL 0.29 0.28 0.46 0.40

Median Scores of SL 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.7


t-Stat values (PWB) -0.419 0.27

t-critical values (PWB) 2.04 2.04

t-Stat values (SL) -3.73 -0.54

t-critical values (SL) 2.04 2.04

Interpretation of the Scores – Descriptive Details pertaining to the Demographics

Table -B1

Descriptive Statistical Analysis involving Employees’ Age (Groups) and Servant Leadership

(SL)



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 963

The Mean Scores for Servant Leadership for Age group 1 stood at 3.32 whilst for Age group 2 it

stood at 3.72. The standard deviation, means how much the members of a group differ from the

mean value for the group, stood at 0.29 for Age group 1 and 0.28 for Age group 2, so the

dispersion and spread was quite low

Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Age groups 1 and 2 are the same, and if

so then how, we do a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical

two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between Age groups 1 and 2

Age Group 1 - Ages

between 22 and 34

Age Group 1 - Ages

above 35

3.9 3.9

3.3 3.7

3.3 3.7 Mean 3.326666667 Mean 3.72

3.3 3.9 Standard Error 0.075886298 Standard Error 0.073159968

2.9 3.7 Median 3.3 Median 3.7

3.3 2.9 Mode 3.3 Mode 3.9

3 4 Standard Deviation 0.293906367 Standard Deviation 0.283347339

3.2 3.9 Sample Variance 0.086380952 Sample Variance 0.080285714

3.9 3.9 Kurtosis 0.436821031 Kurtosis 4.681371427

3.3 3.9 Skewness 0.94458152 Skewness -2.059865008

3.7 3.7 Range 1 Range 1.1

3.3 3.7 Minimum 2.9 Minimum 2.9

3.3 3.9 Maximum 3.9 Maximum 4

3.1 3.7 Sum 49.9 Sum 55.8

3.1 3.3 Count 15 Count 15

Statistical Analysis

Age Group 1 -

Ages b/n 22 and 34

Age Group 1 -

Ages above 35

Mean 3.326666667 3.72

Variance 0.086380952 0.080285714

Observations 15 15


df 28

t Stat -3.731487639

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000429529


P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000859058



between Age Group 1 and Age Group 2's scores for

Servant Leadership Scores

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES' AGE (GROUPS) AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP (SL)

Descriptive Analysis

1) Age Groups 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Group 1 comprising of

employees belonging to the Ages between 22 and 34, whilst Group 2 comprises

of employees belonging to the Ages above 35

2) The Mean Scores for Servant Leadership for Age group 1 stood at 3.32 whilst

for Age group 2 it stood at 3.72

3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity expressing by how much the

members of a group differ from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.29 for

Age group 1 and 0.28 for Age group 2, so the dispersion and spread was quite low

4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Age groups 1 and 2

are the same, and if so then how, We do a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t

Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption

that the Mean values between Age groups 1 and 2 are the same, else we accept

it. Here as we see, it is definitely the case, -3.73 is lesser than -2.04 or -3.73 is not

greater than 2.04. Therefore, we DO NOT accept the assumption that 'Means of

the values for Age groups 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2

groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean

values for Servant Leadership

Summary Statistics - Age Group 1 Summary Statistics - Age Group 2

Age Group 1 - Ages between 22 and 34 Age Group 1 - Ages above 35



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 964

are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is definitely the case, -3.73 is lesser than -2.04

or -3.73 is not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we DO NOT accept the assumption that 'Means of

the values for Age groups 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups of

Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean values for Servant Leadership.

It further indicates that lower age group (22 – 34) feels that they receive lower levels of Servant

Leadership

Table-B2

Descriptive Statistical Analysis involving Employees’ Age (Groups) and Psychological Well

being (PWB)

The Mean Scores for Psychological Well being for Age group 1 stood at 4.56 whilst for Age

group 2 it stood at 5.22. The standard deviation, meaning the quantity articulating by how much

Age Group 1 - Ages between 22 and

34

Age Group 1 - Ages

above 35

4.7 4.4

5.4 4.5

4.3 5.4 Mean 4.566666667 Mean 5.226666667



4.6 5.3 Mode 4.3 Mode 5.7

3.9 5 Standard Deviation 0.418614495 Standard Deviation 0.443148905


5.1 5.2 Kurtosis -0.419591573 Kurtosis -0.56609682

4.4 5.7 Skewness 0.466131969 Skewness -0.68777388

4.1 5.3 Range 1.5 Range 1.3


4.3 5.6 Maximum 5.4 Maximum 5.7

4.3 5.7 Sum 68.5 Sum 78.4


Statistical Analysis

Age Group 1 -

Ages b/n 22 and 34

Age Group 1 -

Ages above 35

Mean 4.566666667 5.226666667

Variance 0.175238095 0.196380952

Observations 15 15


df 28

t Stat -4.193151772

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000124919


P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000249837



between Age Group 1 and Age Group 2's scores for Psychological Well being

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES' AGE (GROUPS) AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING (PWB)


1) Age Groups 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Group 1 comprising

of employees belonging to the Ages between 22 and 34, whilst Group 2

comprises of employees belonging to the Ages above 35

2) The Mean Scores for Psychological Well being for Age group 1 stood at 4.56

whilst for Age group 2 it stood at 5.22

3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity expressing by how much the

members of a group differ from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.41

for Age group 1 and 0.44 for Age group 2, so the dispersion and spread was

quite moderate

4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Age groups 1 and 2

are the same, and if so then how, We do a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -

t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the

assumption that the Mean values between Age groups 1 and 2 are the same,

else we accept it. Here as we see, it is definitely the case, -4.19 is lesser than -

2.04 or -4.19 is not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we DO NOT accept the

assumption that 'Means of the values for Age groups 1 and 2 are statistically

the same', meaning that the 2 groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have

statistically different mean values for Psychological Well being

Psychological Well Being Scores Descriptive Statistical Analysis for Age Groups v/s Psychological Well being

Summary Statistics - Age Group 1 Summary Statistics - Age Group 2

Age Group 1 - Ages between 22 and 34 Age Group 1 - Ages above 35



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 965

the members of a group vary from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.41 for Age group 1

and 0.44 for Age group 2, so the dispersion and spread was quite moderate

Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Age groups 1 and 2 are the same, and if

so then how, Weprepare a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t

Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between Age groups 1

and 2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is definitely the case, -4.19 is lesser than

-2.04 or -4.19 is not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we DO NOT accept the assumption that 'Means

of the values for Age groups 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups of

Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean values for Psychological Well

being. It further indicates that the higher age group (Above 34 years of age) feels that they

receive higher levels of Psychological Well being

Inference from Tables B1 and B2: It clearly indicates that low levels of perceived Servant

Leadership amongst the younger age group (22-34) also reflects lower levels of Psychological

Well being, whilst higher levels of perceived Servant Leadership amongst the older age group

(Equal to or Above 35 years of age) also reflects higher levels of Psychological Well being



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 966

Table -B3

Descriptive Statistical Analysis involving Employees’ Grade Level and Servant Leadership (SL)

The Mean Scores for Servant Leadership for Level 1 stood at 3.35 whilst for Level 2 it stood at

3.44. The standard deviation, meaning the quantity stating by how much the members of a group

vary from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.46 for Level 1 and 0.40 for Level 2, so the

dispersion and spread was quite moderate

Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Levels 1 and 2 are the same, and if so

then how, We prepare a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t

Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between Levels 1 and

2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is not the case, -0.54 is not < -2.01 or -0.54 is

not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we accept the assumption that 'Means of the values for Levels 1

and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups of Analysis - Levels 1 and 2 - have

similar mean values for Servant Leadership

Level 1 - comprising employees

of TMT and SMT

Level 2 comprising

MMT and JMT

3.7 3

3.7 3.3 Mean 3.353333333 Mean 3.44

2.3 3 Standard Error 0.119070474 Standard Error 0.104562581


2.8 3.3 Mode 3.7 Mode 3.7

3.5 3.7 Standard Deviation 0.461157963 Standard Deviation 0.404969135


4 3.7 Kurtosis 0.310765335 Kurtosis 3.592935916

3.1 3.6 Skewness -0.919910499 Skewness -1.87691126

3.3 3.5 Range 1.7 Range 1.4


3 3.7 Maximum 4 Maximum 3.7

3.6 3.7 Sum 50.3 Sum 51.6


3.7 3.7

Statistical Analysis Level 1 Level 2

Mean 3.353333333 3.44

Variance 0.212666667 0.164

Observations 15 15


df 28

t Stat -0.54691411

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.294385203


P(T<=t) two-tail 0.588770405


Servant Leadership Scores

Level 1 Level 2


between Employee Level 1 and Employee Level 2's scores for Servant

Leadership

Statistical Analysis Statistical Analysis


1) Levels 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Level 1

comprising of employees belonging to the Top Management Team

and Senior Management, whilst Level2 comprises of employees

belonging to the Middle and Junior Levels of Management

2) The Mean Scores for Servant Leadership for Level 1 stood at 3.35

whilst for Level 2 it stood at 3.44

3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity expressing by how

much the members of a group differ from the mean value for the

group, stood at 0.46 for Level 1 and 0.40 for Level 2, so the dispersion

and spread was quite moderate

4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Levels 1

and 2 are the same, and if so then how, We do a two-tail test

(inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail,

we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between

Levels 1 and 2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is

not the case, -0.54 is not < -2.01 or -0.54 is not greater than 2.04.

Therefore, we accept the assumption that 'Means of the values for

Levels 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups

of Analysis - Levels 1 and 2 - have similar mean values for Servant

Leadership

Descriptive Statistical Analysis Employee Grade Levels v/s SL

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES' GRADE (LEVEL) AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP (SL)



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 967

Table-B4

Descriptive Statistical Analysis involving Employees’ Grade Level and Psychological Well

being

1) Levels 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Level 1 comprising of employees belonging

to the Top Management Team and Senior Management, whilst Level2 comprises of employees


2) The Mean Scores for Psychological Well being for Level 1 stood at 4.82 whilst for Level 2 it

stood at 4.77

3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity stating by how much the members of a group

vary from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.54 for Level 1 and 0.51 for Level 2, so the

dispersion and spread was quite moderate

Level 1 - comprising

TMT and SMT

Level 2 -

MMT & JMT

5 3.9 Statistical Analysis Level 1 Statistical Analysis Level 2

4.6 5.1 Mean 4.826666667 Mean 4.773333333



5.7 4.5 Mode 4.3 Mode 5.1

5.3 4.6 Standard Deviation 0.540458359 Standard Deviation 0.509154294


5.4 4.5 Kurtosis -1.181567688 Kurtosis -1.22432696

4.3 5.4 Skewness 0.313542189 Skewness 0.017877626

4.7 5.2 Range 1.6 Range 1.7


4.9 5.1 Maximum 5.7 Maximum 5.6

4.3 5.6 Sum 72.4 Sum 71.6


4.2 4.2

Statistical Analysis Level 1 Level 2

Mean 4.826666667 4.773333333

Variance 0.292095238 0.259238095

Observations 15 15


df 28

t Stat 0.278187257

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.391456318


P(T<=t) two-tail 0.782912637



between Employee Level 1 and Employee Level 2's scores

for Psychological Well Being

Psychological Well Being Scores


1) Levels 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Level 1

comprising of employees belonging to the Top Management Team

and Senior Management, whilst Level2 comprises of employees


2) The Mean Scores for Psychological Well being for Level 1 stood at

4.82 whilst for Level 2 it stood at 4.77

3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity expressing by how

much the members of a group differ from the mean value for the

group, stood at 0.54 for Level 1 and 0.51 for Level 2, so the dispersion

and spread was quite moderate

4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Levels 1

and 2 are the same, and if so then how, We do a two-tail test

(inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail,

we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between

Levels 1 and 2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is

not the case, 0.27 is not lesser than -2.04 or -0.27 is not greater than

2.04. Therefore, we accept the assumption that 'Means of the values

for Levels 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2

groups of Analysis - Levels 1 and 2 - have similar mean values for

Psychological Well being

Summary Statistics - Level 1 Summary Statistics - Level 2

Descriptive Statistical Analysis for Employee Grade Levels v/s PWB

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES' GRADE (LEVEL) AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING (PWB)



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 968

4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Levels 1 and 2 are the same, and if so

then how, We prepare a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t

Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between Levels 1 and

2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is not the case, 0.27 is not lesser than -2.04 or

-0.27 is not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we accept the assumption that 'Means of the values for

Levels 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups of Analysis - Levels 1 and 2

- have similar mean values for Psychological well being

VII Discussion of Research Results

Presentation of each hypothesis test

1. As we have seen from the Analysis above as well as Table 1A, and the subsequent

interpretation, There is a noteworthy positive relationship between Servant Leadership and the

Psychological Well Being, with Pearson's co-efficient 'r' = 0.63 (63%), that means that the

Independent Variable (Servant Leadership) explains 63% of the variation in the response or

dependent variable (Psychological Well Being) and this value is statistically significant at p <

0.0001

So we have not accepted the Null hypothesis (Ho) whilst at the same time we have accepted the

Alternate Hypothesis (H1)

Similarly we look at the hypothesis concerning the demographic variables of Age and Grade

Level and see, based on our analysis and results, how they pan out on their relationship with

Psychological Well being and Servant Leadership. We look at each of the hypotheses as follows:



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 969

2. As seen in the analysis and results from the above tables, we see that both the groups of

Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean values for Psychological Well-

being, the Null hypothesis (Ho2) rejected and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis (H2a)

3. As both the groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean values

for Servant Leadership, we rejected the Null hypothesis (Ho3) and accepted the Alternate

Hypothesis (H3a)

4. As both the groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically similar mean values

for Psychological well being we accept the Null hypothesis (Ho4) and rejected the Alternate

Hypothesis (H4a)

5. As both the groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically similar mean values

for Servant Leadership, we accept the Null hypothesis (Ho5) and rejected the Alternate

Hypothesis (H5a)

VIII Research Suggestions

It is vitally important for the employees to display high levels of Psychological well being

(PWB), as PWB is seen to be linked to Job Satisfaction, Motivation as well as Employee Health.

There are several ways to promote PWB in organizations and organizations of the day will do

well to implement Human Resources interventions, with motivational techniques and programs

to inculcate higher levels of PWB.

This research has shown, the presence of Servant Leadership will suffice for an employee’s

PWB levels to be higher, and thereby increase the motivation and satisfaction levels too. In the

backdrop of this research, the suggestions from the research will be then to promote Servant



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 970

Leaders, as well and this may involve having or designing Leadership programs, Leadership

Development and fostering a culture wherein Servant Leaders are recognized and honored.

So the organizations across the world have to promote this kind of Servant Leadership so that

subordinates get a feeling of togetherness and a collective sense of purpose, which will then

promote their PWB.

In the organization regardless of the persons’ positions, each one (whether a leader or a sub-

ordinate) has to be trained for awareness, acceptance, appreciation and recognition of both

Servant Leadership attributes as well as Psychological Well being.

Companies should create a new or change existing corporate/organizational culture that is

appropriate for fostering Servant Leadership styles with its values, norms, beliefs and operational

practices. This will be a win-win situation, particularly as the Servant Leader dimensions that we

have measured in this research do promote the leaders (who may reinforce their behavior by

further embracing Servant attributes) as well as the sub-ordinates who have a reason to go well

above and beyond their stated mandate. As such the employees and the organization would

benefit from it largely too.

Next, in order to increase Servant Leadership practices, organizations should try to make policies

and regulations and organizational bylaws as clear and transparent as possible along with

comprehensive job descriptions and clear reinforcement and regulatory mechanisms thereby

reducing the volatility of a consequence of a particular ‘Unservant’ like behavior. Empowerment

and supportive environment where subordinates feel comfortable expressing opinions and

disagreements may lead them to go beyond their organizationally defined roles and feel higher

sense of PWB, without dithering from ambiguous and uncertain consequences of it.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 971

In a nutshell, organizations should embrace aspects aimed towards promoting Servant

Leadership, and also recognize the mechanisms which will ascertain the PWB feelings of the

sub-ordinates, as a reason for the Servant Leaders’ behaviors. Currently globalization, increased

subcontracting, outsourcing, strategic alliance from all over the world, and other inter-and intra-

corporate networking, has brought forth what is called “synthesized approach”, is taking the

place of conventional outlook of two dimensional continuum between a Supervisor and a Sub-

ordinate. As such it is vital that there is a relook on this Servant Leader – Psychological Well

being continuum by the organizations to add value to its people practices, not only from a

psychological perspective but also from a pragmatic perspective.

REFERENCES

1) Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality

and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas, & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social

psychology: An international perspective (pp. 189–203). North-Holland: Elsevier.

2) Barbuto, J.E. and Wheeler, D.W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of

servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), pp.300-326.

3) Bass, B.M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), pp.19-31.

4) Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (pp. 43-44). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

5) Bass, B.M. and Stogdill, R.M. (1990). Bass &Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory,

research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.

6) Black, S. V., Cooper, R., Martin, K. R., Brage, S., Kuh, D., & Stafford, M. (2015).

Physical activity and mental well-being in a cohort aged 60–64 years. American journal

of preventive medicine, 49(2), 172-180.

7) Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being.

8) Cohen, W.A. (1990). The art of the leader. Prentice Hall Press.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 972

9) Cohen, A., &Shamai, O. (2009). The relationship between individual values,

psychological well-being, and organizational commitment among Israeli police

officers. Policing-an International Journal of Police Strategies & Management -

POLICING , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 30-51, 2010

10) Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap ... and others

don't. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

11) Ding, D., Lu, H., Song, Y., & Lu, Q. (2012). Relationship of servant leadership and

employee loyalty: The mediating role of employee satisfaction. I Business, 4(03), 208.

12) Drury, S. L. (2004). Servant Leadership and Organizational Commitment. In Servant

Leadership Research Roundtable (pp. 1-14).

13) Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of

unit‐level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 57(1), 61-94.

14) Grant, A.M. and Mayer, D.M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and

impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), p.900.

15) Greenleaf, R.K. (1974). Trustees as servants. Center for Applied Studies.

16) Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of

legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

17) Greenleaf, R. K., Fraker, A. T., & Spears, L. C. (1996). Seeker and servant: Reflections

on religious leadership (Vol. 157). Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers

18) Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership.

19) Guillaume, O., Honeycutt, A., & Savage-Austin, A. R. (2012). The Impact Of Servant

Leadership On Job Satisfaction.

20) Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study

of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417.

21) Harter, James K., Schmidt, Frank L., & Keyes, Corey L. M (2003). Well-being in the

workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies.

Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. , (pp. 205-224). Washington,

DC, US: American Psychological Association.

22) Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior (p. 65).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 973

23) Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., &Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion

domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied

psychology, 92(2), 555.

24) Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological Well‐being: Evidence Regarding its Causes and

Consequences†. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 1(2), 137-164.

25) Hu, J., &Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: an

examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96(4), 851.

26) Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., &Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and

citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 269.

27) Irving, J. A. (2005). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams(Doctoral

dissertation, Regent University).

28) Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust,

and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22.

29) Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:

Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The leadership

quarterly, 19(2), 161-177.

30) Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization (Doctoral dissertation, Florida

Atlantic University).

31) McCann, J. T., Graves, D., & Cox, L. (2014). Servant leadership, employee satisfaction,

and organizational performance in rural community hospitals. International Journal of

Business and Management, 9(10), 28.

32) Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of

applied psychology, 78(4), 538.

33) Monroe, M. (2005). Spirit Of Leadership. Whitaker House.

34) Nielsen, K, Randall, R, Yarker, J, & Brenner, S.O (2008). The effects of transformational

leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and well-being: A longitudinal

study.,Work and Stress, 22, pp.16-32.

35) Northouse, P.G. (2007). Transformational leadership. Leadership: Theory and practice, 4,

pp.175-206.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 974

36) Panaccio, A. &Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Perceived organizational support,

organizational commitment and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study.

Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings 75(2):224-236.

37) Rasulzada, F. &Dackert, I., (2009). Organizational Creativity and Innovation in Relation

to Psychological Well-Being and Organizational Factors. Creativity Research Journal,

21(2-3), pp.191 – 198.

38) Reinke, S. J. (2004). Service before self: Towards a theory of servant - leadership. Global

Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 30.

39) Riggio, R.E. and Bass, B.M. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

40) Rude, W. (2004). The connection between servant leadership and job burnout (Doctoral

dissertation, TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY).

41) Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being

revisited. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(4), 719.

42) Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic

approach to psychological well-being. Journal of happiness studies, 9(1), 13-39.

43) Ryff, Carol D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 57(6), 1069-

1081.

44) Shlafer, R., Hergenroeder, A.C., Emans, S.J., Rickert, V.I., Adger Jr, H., Spear, B., Irwin

Jr, C.E., Kreipe, R.E., Walker, L.R. and Resnick, M.D. (2014). Adolescence as a critical

stage in the MCH Life Course Model: commentary for the Leadership Education in

Adolescent Health (LEAH) interdisciplinary training program projects. Maternal and child

health journal,18(2), pp.462-466.

45)



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 975

the effect of servant leadership on the psychological well...

Documents