Need an assistant writing Servant leadership

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325771008

Servant leadership, commitment, and participatory behaviors in Korean

Catholic church

Article  in  Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion · June 2018

DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2018.1479654

CITATIONS

11 READS

2,138

4 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Examining the Intersections of CSR and HR View project

Antecedents and outcome of Servant Leadership, and the moderation effect of power distance View project

Baek-Kyoo Joo

Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania

44 PUBLICATIONS   2,891 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Sang-won Byun

Towson University

5 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Soebin Jang

Augsburg University

12 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Soebin Jang on 15 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmsr20

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion

ISSN: 1476-6086 (Print) 1942-258X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmsr20

Servant leadership, commitment, and participatory behaviors in Korean Catholic church

Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo, Sangwon Byun, Soebin Jang & Insuk Lee

To cite this article: Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo, Sangwon Byun, Soebin Jang & Insuk Lee (2018): Servant leadership, commitment, and participatory behaviors in Korean Catholic church, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2018.1479654

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1479654

Published online: 14 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Servant leadership, commitment, and participatory behaviors in Korean Catholic church Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Jooa, Sangwon Byunb, Soebin Jang b and Insuk Leec

aSchool of Business, Georgia Southwestern State University, Americus, GA, USA; bOrganizational Leadership, Policy, and Development (OLPD), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; cDepartment of Business Administration, Sogang University, Seoul, Korea

ABSTRACT This study aimed to investigate the effects of servant leadership on leader commitment and organizational commitment, and mem- bers’ participatory behaviors in church service and events, based on 1232 members in 28 Catholic churches in South Korea. We found that those who perceived a high level of servant leadership from their priest(s) tended to commit more to the priest (i.e., leader) and to the church (i.e., organization). Members attended in weekday worships in addition to Sunday Mass more often, and participated in church activities and services, when highly com- mitted to the church. Based on structural equation modeling, we found a linear relationship from servant leadership to leader com- mitment, to organizational commitment, and eventually to mem- bers’ participatory behaviors. A potential contribution lies in that this study confirmed the mediating roles of leader commitment and organizational commitment on the relationship between ser- vant leadership and participatory behaviors in the context of Korean Catholic church.

Abbreviation: SL: servant leadership; LC: leader commitment; OC: organizational commitment; PB: participatory behaviors

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 4 February 2017 Accepted 13 May 2018

KEYWORDS Servant leadership; spiritual leadership; organizational commitment; leader commitment; Catholic church; South Korea

Introduction

Leadership as a topic has generated a wealth of research over the past several decades (Bass 1985; Day et al. 2014). Effective leadership is imperative to achieving long-term organizational success; and more importantly, leaders are central to fostering a healthy work environment and providing support for the continuous development of organizational members (Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000; Lowe and Gardner 2001). As a branch of leadership research, increased attention has been given to spiritual qualities of leadership (Fairholm 1996; Mitroff and Denton 1999), which emphasize personal and workplace virtues, such as ethics, caring, humility, and service to others (Greenleaf 1977; Spears 1995). Spiritual leadership is viewed as the conscious incorporation of work and personal life, in such a way that leaders perceive each employee as a whole person (Fry 2003), and is seen to contribute to

CONTACT Soebin Jang [email protected] Present affiliation for Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1479654

© 2018 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion

employee and organizational effectiveness (Liden et al. 2014). In this regard, research on spiritual leadership and workplace spirituality have seen increased scholarly interests and publications, among numerous leading journals in leadership, psychology and management studies (e.g., Cowan 2005; Dehler and Neal 2000; Ehrhart 2004; Fry 2003; Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy 2005; Van Dierendonck 2011).

Despite increased scholarly attention on spiritual leadership, studies examining such leadership behaviors in a religious context are scant. Religion can bring value and substance to the understanding of spiritual leadership and workplace spirituality (Houghton, Neck, and Krishnakumar 2016). In this vein, we believe that Catholic church can provide a unique context to investigate the effects of servant leadership behaviors, because religious leaders exercise normative influence rather than economic or remunerative power (Andersen 2004). Christian priests are believed to authentically serve their parishioners, while transforming their own lives in accordance to the teachings of Christ (Catholic Answers 2016). These spiritual characteristics of Catholic priests may also have a considerable influence on their parishioners’ behaviors.

Among leadership theories which emphasize spiritual aspects, servant leadership theory is believed to be more relevant to Catholic priests. Servant leadership explicitly focuses on spiritual values and serving others (Greenleaf 1977; Mitroff and Denton 1999; Reave 2005), by leading by example, fostering self-awareness, and promoting behaviors that serve the greater good of the organization and broader communities (Beazley and Gemmill 2006; Fairholm and Gronan 2015; Spears 1995). According to Mulreany (2010), the servant leader model is one of the most prevailing and self-understanding models of priests, which acknowl- edges the priest as a leader who works closely with church members. In this regard, examining the roles of servant leadership of Catholic church priests may provide important implications for research in the intersections of spirituality, leadership, and workplace outcomes.

An important work attitude closely related to spirituality is commitment (Fry 2003; Krishnakumar and Neck 2002), and previous studies have found support for the relationship between different aspects of workplace spirituality and commitment (e.g., Pawar 2009; Rego and Pina e Cunha 2008). Reichers (1985) proposed that a multiple commitments approach may provide more precise and meaningful findings than a mere focus on global conceptions of organizational commitment. Organizational commitment researchers have also acknowl- edged the multi-focal characteristics of the construct, for example, adopting multiple inter- personal foci (e.g., coworkers, supervisors, work teams, top management, and customers) of commitment (Becker 2016), and distinguishing between leader commitment and organiza- tional commitment (Becker et al. 1996; Meyer, Morin, and Vandenberghe 2015). Further, different forms of leadership, in this case servant leadership, may elicit different leader foci (Stone,Russell, and Patterson 2004) and distinct mechanisms through which leaders influence follower outcomes (Liden et al. 2014). We extend this line of research, by taking a multiple commitments view and investigating the relationship among servant leadership, two types of commitment, and members’ behavioral outcomes in a Catholic church context.

The purpose of this study is to explore the distinct role of servant leadership in the South Korean Catholic church context, and therefore to extend the applicability of spiritual leadership to different organizational contexts. Specifically, we examined the perceived effects of Catholic priests’ servant leadership on several attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of the followers, including commitment to leader, organizational commitment, and two participatory behaviors. This study reflects the distinctive

2 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

context of South Korea, and unique characteristics of South Korean Catholic churches (Jeon et al. 2013). South Korea is known to be highly influenced by Confucianism, and emphasizes values such as harmony, trust, and obedience (Dorfman et al. 1997). The national culture of South Korea has been characterized as being collectivistic and high in power distance, compared to Western cultures (Hofstede 1984). Further, South Korea’s contemporary spiritual identity has been characterized as an eclectic mixture of traditional religions (i.e., Buddhism and Confucianism) and Christianity (Hunsaker 2014). One of the unique characteristics of the organizational structure of the Korean Catholic parish is that priests periodically move from one parish to another (Catholic Answers 2016), which in turn may lead parishioners to develop their commitment to the leader (i.e., priest) and the organization (i.e., church), in a different and independent manner.

Literature review

Servant leadership

Servant leadership was first coined by Greenleaf (1970), inspired by Herman Hesse’s novel The Journey to the East; since then, the notion gained wide recognition in the contemporary leadership literature. Greenleaf (1977) believed that servant leadership was a way of life and a lifelong journey, and referred to it as “the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. . .tomakesurethatotherpeople’s highestpriorityneedsarebeing served(27).This entails a genuine concern to serve followers (Greenleaf 1977), in which leaders are committed to promoting development and growth, creating a healthy organization, and producing positive impact in the broader society (Graham 1991; Spears 1995).

Following Greenleaf, numerous efforts have been made to conceptualize and model servant leadership. An early contribution was made by Spears (1995) and Laub (1999), and these authors identified several characteristics of servant leadership. Spears (1995), drawing from Greenleaf’s writings, distinguished 10 characteristics regarded as funda- mental to a servant leader. These include listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, philosophy, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. Laub (1999) viewed the practice of servant leadership as “places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader” (81). Based on an extensive literature review and a Delphi study, Laub determined six representative clusters of servant leadership – values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership.

Further, Russell and Gregory Stone (2002) proposed nine functional character- istics of servant leadership, including vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, mod- eling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. The authors also identified 11 supplementary attributes that support the nine characteristics. More recently, Van Dierendonck (2011) reviewed the extant research on servant leader- ship, and developed a conceptual model that identified six characteristics, including empowering and developing people, humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship. As noted by these authors and others, servant leadership starts from an explicit focus on serving followers (Greenleaf 1977; Stone, Russell, and Patterson 2004), and reflects altruistic, virtuous, and caring values that

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 3

promote participatory decision-making and follower development (Hunter et al. 2013; Russell and Gregory Stone 2002; Spears 1995).

Numerous variations of servant leadership models and measurement tools have been introduced (Ehrhart 2004; Liden et al. 2008; Parris and Peachey 2013), and the extant literature points to six fundamental dimensions pertinent to the notion and practice of servant leadership (Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008; Van Dierendonck 2011). These reflect earlier conceptualizations of servant leadership provided by Laub (1999), and include develops people, shares leadership, displays authenticity, values people, provides leadership, and builds community. In the following, we briefly outline the six dimen- sions, and synthesize previous work that supports these characteristics.

Develops people A leader’s role in developing employees focuses on fostering personal and collective development (Bass 1985; Conger and Kanungo 1988), through the respect and acknowl- edgement of each individual’s ability and learning potential (Greenleaf 1977; Spears 1995). In this regard, servant leaders are viewed to provide support and mentoring for career growth and development as a central dimension (Liden et al. 2008), and support organizational members with opportunities for growth, learning environment, and motivation to excel (Laub 1999; Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008).

Shares leadership Sharing leadership points to the leader’s role in empowering and sharing of power and responsibilities, as an essential part of leadership practice (Kouzes and Posner 1993; Wilkes 1996). Laub (1999) characterized this aspect in terms of sharing power, using persuasion over coercion, being humble, and leading by personal influence. Van Dierendonck (2011) emphasized the notion of humility, and argued that “a leader puts the interest of others first, facilitates their performance, and provides them with essential support” (1233). In this regard, servant leaders are seen to influence organiza- tional members, by empowering and role-modeling behaviors to promote positive change (Dennis and Bocarnea 2005; Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008).

Displays authenticity Authenticity refers to being true to one’s self and acting in a consistent manner with one’s commitments and beliefs (Avolio and Gardner 2005; Kouzes and Posner 1993). For servant leaders, display of authenticity underlines the importance of demonstrating high integrity and honesty (Russell and Gregory Stone 2002), and being nonjudgmental, open to criticism, and accountable to others (Laub 1999). Closely related notions are spiritual values and calling, through which servant leaders promote work meaningful- ness and a sense of purpose in the lives of others (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Fry 2003; Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008).

Values people Valuing people concerns with the extent to which organizational leaders listen, respect, and believe in others (Greenleaf 1977; Spears 1995; Wilkes 1996), and encompasses the concepts of interpersonal acceptance and emotional healing (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Van Dierendonck 2011). Laub (1999) described these characteristics in terms of

4 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

respecting and trusting others, showing love and compassion, and being receptive listeners. Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora (2008) posited that this voluntary act focuses on the “being a servant” rather than the “doing service” aspect of servant leadership (406). Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) suggested that emotional healing was a distinct aspect of servant leadership, and that servant leaders need to “recognize when and how to foster the healing process” (306).

Provides leadership Providing a sense of direction and vision for organizational members is essential for effective leadership (De Pree 1997; Greenleaf 1977; Kouzes and Posner 1993; Spears 1995). In this respect, Greenleaf (1977) referred to the notion of foresight and discussed the importance of servant leaders’ ability to foresee the unforeseeable (22). Laub (1999) suggested several aspects – envisioning the future, initiating action, and clarifying goals – as vital in providing direction and leadership. Establishing a clear vision and direction has also been underscored by the importance of promoting shared values (Russell and Gregory Stone 2002), and institutionalizing such values within the organizational culture (Schein 1983).

Builds community Building community entails fostering collaboration, valuing diversity, and promoting stewardship (De Pree 1997; Laub 1999; Russell and Gregory Stone 2002; Spears 1995). Laub (1999) suggested building community as one of the key characteristics of servant leadership, and emphasized aspects such as enhancing relationships, fostering team- work, and valuing different viewpoints. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) suggested the role of servant leaders as meeting the needs of society and embedding a sense of community spirit (309). In a similar vein, Van Dierendonck (2011) pointed to stewardship through which “leaders can stimulate others to act in the common interest. . .closely related to social responsibility, loyalty, and team work” (1234).

Leader commitment

Leader commitment is a type of employee commitment, and refers to the psychological attachment of employees to the leader (Becker et al. 1996). According to Becker et al. (1996), employee commitment reflects multiple foci – there are multiple individuals and groups to whom an employee can be attached. Accordingly, research indicates that employees can develop commitment to different individuals and groups, such as super- visors (e.g., Clugston, Howell, and Dorfman 2000), work groups (e.g., Snape, Chan, and Redman 2006), and customers (e.g., Siders, George, and Dharwadkar 2001). Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2011) showed that commitment to supervisor had a larger influ- ence on employees’ performance among others, and this was mainly due to the responsibility and authority given to supervisors, in regard to employee performance evaluations and other important decisions such as pay and promotion. Hence, distin- guishing among individual foci, especially leader commitment from other individuals and the organization, can be helpful in understanding the effects of employee commit- ment on workplace outcomes (Becker et al. 1996).

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 5

Several studies have explored antecedents of employees’ commitment to leader. Among many factors likely to contribute to the development of leader commitment, positive support of supervisor was reported as one of the most important predictors of employees’ affective commitment to supervisors (Meyer, Morin, and Vandenberghe 2015). Becker and Billings (1993) examined employee commitment to four different targets, including the organization, top management, supervisor, and work group. The study results indicated that employees who were more committed to their supervisor and work group, in turn, were more engaged in prosocial behaviors. Becker et al. (1996) differentiated commitment to supervisor from commitment to the organization, and found that commitment to supervisor was significantly and positively related to per- formance. Further, in a longitudinal study, Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe (2003) also found that perceived supervisor support was positively associated with affective com- mitment to supervisor, and the effect of supervisor support on turnover was fully mediated by commitment to supervisor.

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is widely recognized as an important construct in under- standing employee work outcomes (Allen and Meyer 1990; Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979), defined as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1982, 27). This entails that employees’ commitment to an organization involves a process, through which the goals of an individual and an organization gradually integrate and become congruent (Hall, Schneider, and Nygren 1970).

Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) proposed three important characteristics: (1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization. Meyer and Allen (1991) identified the three dimensions of organizational commitment as affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Affective commitment denotes an employee’s positive emotional attachment to and identification with an organization. Continuance commitment refers to an employee’s will and need to stay with an organization, and normative commitment is the moral obligation to stay with the organization (Meyer and Allen 1991). Employee’s organiza- tional commitment therefore implies an “active relationship” between an individual and an organization, and can be inferred by both an individual’s beliefs and feelings toward an organization and through one’s actions (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979).

As a multifaceted construct (Meyer and Allen 1991; O’Reilly and Chatman 1986), previous research has found a variety of individual and organizational factors contri- buting to increased organizational commitment. These include individual characteris- tics, job roles and experience, relationship among leaders and employees/groups, and the organizational context (Allen and Meyer 1990; Eby et al. 1999). Research suggests, for example, that employees’ perception of support is a strong predictor of increased organizational commitment (e.g., Mottaz 1988). Joo (2010) reported that organizational learning culture and leader-member exchange quality were strong predictors for knowl- edge workers in Korea. Personal importance and competence are also regard as important antecedents, as these are closely related to employees’ perceptions of the

6 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

extent to which they are able to contribute to the organization (Meyer and Allen 1991). Others have found that organizational commitment was negatively related to with- drawal behaviors, such as absenteeism, turnover intentions, and intents to search for an alternative job (e.g., Bartlett 2001; Mathieu and Zajac 1990).

Participatory behaviors in church

Participation in Mass and voluntary services are core to the religious beliefs of Catholics (Cieslak 1984). According to the New Testament of the Bible, the most important commandment is the love for God and the neighbor. Mass participation, as a repre- sentative behavior of loving God, lies at the center of the whole Christian life (U.S. Catholic Conference, Inc 2003). Participation in voluntary services, which fulfills the commandment of loving neighbors, is also regarded as a Christian religious imperative (Ozorak 2003).

The Catholic Mass is defined as “a community of believers gathering to hear the word of God and participating in the celebration of the Eucharis” (Wade 2013, 1138). It is known, for example, that church attendance is related to various demographic variables, such as age, gender, years of education, and marital status (Taylor, Chatters, and Brown 2014). According to Cieslak (1984), the rate of Mass attendance is positively correlated with the quality and quantity of programs in a parish, of which respond to their parishioners’ needs. Hong (2001) demonstrated that leadership style of pastors can impact the rate of church attendance. According to the cannon law of the Catholic Church, all Catholics have an obligation to participate in Mass every Sunday, while participation in weekday Mass and worship is not (USCCB 2016). Therefore, the participation rate in weekday worship and Mass, adopted in this study, can be con- sidered as a more representative measure of the religiosity of Catholic church members.

Participation in church activities and services is also regarded as an important religious behavior of church members. Several studies demonstrated a positive relation- ship between religious involvement and voluntary services (e.g., Chaves 2011). For example, Ozorak (2003) found that Christians participate in voluntary services in order to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick, according to the teaching of the Bible. The study found that intentions to repeat voluntary services were positively associated with intrinsic motivation, which in turn increased members’ personal rela- tionship with and beliefs toward God. Polson (2016) also reported that individuals who attend congregations, in which there is a strong emphasis on community care, are more likely than others to be involved in civic activities.

These participatory behaviors in Church have unique characteristics, as compared to other helping behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), prosocial behavior, and contextual performance. Helping behaviors are known for playing a significant role in the successful functioning of organizations (Hunsaker 2016; LePine, Erez, and Johnson 2002; Vondey 2010); however, they also share a connotation of an ancillary work behavior rather than a main work task – such behaviors are often likened to the lubrication of the social machinery of the organization (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983). This entails that, for example, managers may encourage their employees’ OCB not because it is a good or right thing to do, but because it can contribute to the organization’s performance and competitiveness. In this view, it is difficult to separate

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 7

out managers’ pure motivations or intentions in promoting OCB, from instrumental or self-interest-driven motivations. Further, since helping behaviors such as OCB reflect altruistic characteristics and go beyond formal role requirements (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983), managers may be seen to exploit employees’ altruistic motivations, when they consider such behaviors as a mere means to meet organizational goals.

In contrast, participatory behaviors exhibited in Church (i.e., participation in week- day worship and voluntary services) are not considered obligatory; yet, they are central to Catholic Church membership, rather than ancillary (Catholic Culture.org 2016). Participating in Church services are regarded as a fundamental and ultimate purpose of the Catholic Church (Ozorak 2003), and Catholic priests are seen to promote members’ participation absent of extrinsic motivations or needs (Hong 2001). Such distinct characteristics and nature of participatory behaviors differ from helping beha- viors, and therefore allow us to investigate the role of servant leadership as enacted by Catholic Church priests and its effect on members’ participatory behaviors.

Research model and hypotheses

In the following, we present our research model and develop eight hypotheses based on previous research. Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized model in this study.

Servant leadership and leader commitment

The definition and key characteristics of servant leaders imply the relationship between servant leadership and leader commitment (Greenleaf 1970). Central to the notion of servant leadership is serving and supporting its followers (Spears 1995; Wong and

Figure 1. Hypothesized model

8 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

Davey 2007), and this support provided by leaders is argued to be critical in increasing followers’ leader commitment (Becker et al. 1996; Meyer, Morin, and Vandenberghe 2015). Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe (2003) reported, in a longitudinal study, that employees’ perceived supervisor support led to increased commitment to supervisors. Perceived supervisor support further fully mediated the relationship between job con- ditions and supervisor commitment. Liden et al. (2014) contended that followers may be affectively and normatively committed to the servant leader, as servant leaders provide followers with emotional healing and positive work experiences in support of their growth and success.

Hypothesis 1: Servant leadership will be positively related to leader commitment.

Servant leadership and organizational commitment

Prior studies have demonstrated the influence of servant leadership on important followers’ attitudes and behaviors, with particular interest in organizational commit- ment (e.g., Liden et al. 2008; Schneider and George 2011). Schneider and George (2011) found that the president’s servant leadership behaviors led to club members’ organiza- tional commitment, satisfaction, and intentions to stay. In a study of hospital employ- ees, Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy (2005) showed that servant leadership had a direct causal relationship with spirituality and organizational commitment. Further, Liden et al. (2008) also reported that servant leadership was significantly and positively related to community citizenship behaviors, in-role performance, and organizational commit- ment. As evidenced from these studies, it is likely that followers’ perceptions of servant leadership will lead to higher organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 2: Servant leadership will be positively related to organizational commitment.

Leader commitment and organizational commitment

Several studies demonstrated the relationship between leader commitment and organi- zational commitment. For example, Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2011) found a sig- nificant and positive relationship between commitment to supervisor and organizational commitment. The authors further explained that since local constitu- encies including leaders are part of the larger organization, employees’ commitment to their leader can shape overall organizational commitment (Panaccio and Vandenberghe 2011). Liden et al. (2014) also argued that followers who experience favorable treatment from their leader may develop a more positive view of the organization, resulting in increased organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 3: Leader commitment will be positively related to organizational commitment.

Leader commitment and participatory behaviors

A few studies support the relationship between leader commitments on employees’ behavioral outcomes. For example, Becker et al. (1996) found that overall commitment to supervisor was positively correlated with the performance of employees. The study implied that supervisors actively create and promote performance norms, and

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 9

employees who develop strong commitment to their supervisors perform accordingly to the performance norms. Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe (2003) also found that affective commitment to the supervisor fully mediated the effect of perceived supervisor support on turnover. In the Church context, participatory behaviors of parishioners can be regarded as an important indication of a Catholic Church’s performance, and it can be expected that parishioners who develop stronger commitment to their priest would participate in weekday Mass and voluntary activities more frequently.

Hypothesis 4: Leader commitment will be positively related to members’ participation behaviors.

Organizational commitment and participatory behaviors

Prior research has demonstrated the link between organizational commitment and various employee outcomes. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) conducted 48 meta-analyses and identified several important outcomes of organizational commitment, such as job performance, attendance, intention to leave, and turnover. Meyer et al. (2002) also found similar results that included turnover, absenteeism, job performance, OCB, stress, and family-conflict. More recently, Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2011) found a significant negative relationship between organizational commitment and employees’ turnover intentions. These studies indicate that employees’ organizational commitment may influence (desirable) employee work outcomes. Although no study has examined its effect in a religious organization, we proposed a direct link between organizational commitment and members’ participatory behaviors.

Hypothesis 5: Organizational commitment will be positively related to members’ participa- tion behaviors.

Mediation hypotheses

In addition to the proposed direct relationships, we tested several mediation hypotheses to further our understanding of the utility of servant leadership and causal relationships among the constructs in this study. First, servant leadership is expected to have an indirect relationship with organizational commitment, through the mediating role of leader commitment. Panaccio and Vandenberghe’s (2011) study demonstrated the mediating role of supervisor commitment in the relationship between job conditions and organizational commitment. Their findings showed that supervisors exhibited great influence on employees’ attitudes toward themselves and the organization. Therefore, while servant leadership may directly induce organizational commitment, we expect that followers may first develop commitment to their leader (i.e., priest), and in turn commit to the organization (i.e., church).

Hypothesis 6: The indirect effect of servant leadership on organizational commitment will be partially mediated by leader commitment.

Second, we expected that organizational commitment will mediate the effects of leader commitment on members’ participation behaviors. Earlier, we theorized that leader commitment will induce followers’ organizational commitment (Liden et al. 2014), and positively influence members’ participation behaviors (Becker et al. 1996).

10 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

Further, it was proposed that when followers develop commitment to the organization, they would likely participate in desirable behaviors in the workplace (Meyer et al. 2002). Extending these arguments, we expect that organizational commitment would fully mediate the link between leader commitment and members’ participation behaviors. In other words, organizational commitment will diminish the direct effect of leader commitment on members’ participation behaviors.

Hypothesis 7: The indirect effect of leader commitment on members’ participation beha- viors will be fully mediated by organizational commitment.

Last, by combining hypotheses 6 and 7, we also examined the mediating role of leader commitment and organizational commitment, in the relationship between ser- vant leadership and members’ participation behaviors. Based on the two hypotheses above, it would be reasonable to expect a significant linear causal link from servant leadership to leader commitment, to organizational commitment, and finally to mem- bers’ participation behaviors.

Hypothesis 8: The indirect effect of servant leadership on members’ participation behaviors will be fully mediated by leader commitment and organizational commitment.

Method

Sample and procedures

Parishioners of a South Korean Catholic church, registered among 28 churches in the Seoul parish, were recruited to participate in the study. Participants were among parishioners who were at the time, in charge of a subgroup in their respective churches. Since the participants were seen to closely work with their priests, they were able to respond to the intended survey questions, regarding their priest’s leadership style and their own behaviors toward the priests and churches.

A total of 1709 parishioners completed the survey, among 2770 who were initially invited to participate in the study. Responses with missing values or severe central tendency were eliminated, which resulted in a total of 1232 responses (response rate of 45%). The low response rate, to our understanding, reflects the religious nature of church membership, in that participants may have felt undesirable to evaluate their priests. Demographic variables such as gender, age, length of baptism, length of relationship with the current priest were also included. Most respondents were female (79.6%) in their fifties (49.3%) and in charge of subparish groups (84.5%). Regarding the length of baptism and relationship with the current priest, 52.6% of respondents were baptized more than 20 years ago, and 57.6% have worked with their current priest for less than 3 years.

Measures

As the instruments have been developed and widely used in the western context, all questionnaires were translated using translation-back-translation procedures for use in South Korean Catholic churches. All constructs were measured using a 5-point Likert scale. See Table 2 for list of items and factor loadings.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 11

Servant leadership To measure perceptions of servant leadership, we followed Laub’s (1999) definition and used nine items that closely represented each of the six dimensions of servant leader- ship – develops people (SL7), shares leadership (SL2 & SL3), displays authenticity (SL4 & SL6), values people (SL 1), provides leadership (SL 9), and builds community (SL5 & SL8). Laub’s (1999) definition is among the most cited in the literature (Parris and Peachey 2013), and extant research generally supports these six dimensions (e.g., Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008; Van Dierendonck 2011). Further, several studies have employed these dimensions to assess perceptions of servant leadership in different organizational contexts (e.g., Joseph and Winston 2005; Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy 2005). In this study, the reliability of the nine items was 0.89, and all items were modified to best fit to the Korean Catholic church context. Sample items include: “Our priest provides support and resources needed to help followers meet their goals,” “Our priest is open to receiving criticism and challenge from followers,” and “Our priest uses persuasion to influence followers instead of coercion.”

Leader commitment Four items from the commitment to supervisor inventory developed by Becker et al. (1996) was used to measure leader commitment. The original items were modified to fit the church context. The reliability of four items was 0.73 in this study. Sample items include: “When someone criticizes my priest, it feels like a personal insult,” and “When someone praises my priest, it feels like a personal compliment.”

Organizational commitment Followers’ commitment to the organization was measured using a shortened version of Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ). The OCQ is originally comprised of 15 items, and has been widely used to examine organiza- tional commitment in various contexts (e.g., Schneider and George 2011). Four items were chosen and modified from the OCQ that best represent the Korean church context. The reliability of the four items was 0.83. Sample items include: “I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this church,” and “I feel a strong sense of belonging to my church.”

Participatory behaviors Participatory behaviors of parishioners were measured in two aspects: frequency of participation in weekday worship and frequency of participation in church activities and services. The two items are: “How often do you participate in weekday worship?” and “How often do you participate in service of inside of the church?” Although the internal reliability was relatively low (0.55), we believe that as mentioned before, these two items well represent parishioners’ participatory behaviors in church, in terms of love for God and neighbors (Ozorak 2003).

Results

The results of the study are reported in three parts. First, the measurement model is presented. Second, descriptive statistics are reported. Third, the results of structural equation modeling (SEM) are presented.

12 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

Measurement model assessment

We estimated the validity of the four measures (i.e., servant leadership, leader commit- ment, organizational commitment, and participatory behaviors) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA can estimate the quality of the factor structure and desig- nated factor loadings, by statistically testing the fit between the measurement model and the collected data (Kline 2005). The measurement model test was based on a covariance matrix and used maximum likelihood estimation as implemented in LISREL 8.8. The goodness-of-fit indices employed in this analysis included Chi-square, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), non-normed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean square error (SRMR). In all the goodness-of-fit indices, the measurement model indicated an excellent fit to the data (see Table 1). As indicated in Table 2, all factor loadings except for PB1 were over .40.

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities

Table 3 shows the correlations among the constructs, and the internal reliabilities of the scales. Except for the relationship between servant leadership and participatory beha- viors, all correlations indicated a significant relationship (p < .05). Among others, the relationship between servant leadership and leader commitment was the highest (r = .50). All measures indicated adequate levels of reliability (r = .73 to .88). Based on the correlational analysis, all the hypotheses were supported. With regard to the demographic variables, female members, those who were baptized long ago, and those who had a longer relationship with the current priest tended to participate in weekday worships and church activities and services.

Structural model assessment

The SEM method was used to analyze the data and address the results of the hypothesis testing. The adequacy of the structural model was estimated by comparing the good- ness-of-fit to the hypothesized model. The hypotheses were then tested by the path coefficients and the total effect sizes of the constructs in the final model.

As illustrated in Figure 1, H1, H3, and H5 were supported showing statistically significant path coefficients (t > 1.96, p < .05), whereas H2 and H4 turned out to be nonsignificant. The hypothesized model indicated a very good fit in all indices, χ2

[147] = 597.56; p = .00; RMSEA = .048; NNFI = .98; CFI = .98; SRMR = .034. In terms of squared multiple correlations (SMC), servant leadership accounted for 37% of the variance in leader commitment. Servant leadership and leader commitment explained 35% of the variance in organizational commitment. Lastly, 21% of the variance in participatory behaviors were explained by the three predictors.

Table 1. Measurement model assessment by CFA. χ2 df χ2/df RMSEA NFI CFI SRMR

596.86*** 146 4.09 .049 .98 .98 .034

Note: n = 1313 (excluding missing data); ***p < .001.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 13

In addition, an alternative model was tested, excluding the nonsignificant paths (H2 and H4) (see Figure 2). This alternative model exhibited an equivalent fit to the data, χ2

[149] = 602.99; p = .00; RMSEA = .048; NNFI = .98; CFI = .98; SRMR = .034. In terms of SMC, 39%, 36%, and 21% of the variances in leader commitment, organizational commit- ment, and participatory behaviors were explained, respectively. We accepted the alternative model as the final model, because it was more parsimonious excluding nonsignificant

Table 2. Items and factor loadings.

Items Servant

leadership Leader com- mitment

Organizational commitment

Participatory behaviors

SL1 Our priest is open to learning from followers in the church.

0.69

SL2 Our priest works alongside followers when making important decisions.

0.68

SL3 Our priest uses persuasion to influence followers instead of coercion.

0.72

SL4 Our priest leads by example by modeling appropriate behaviors.

0.67

SL5 Our priest facilitates building community and team work.

0.66

SL6 Our priest is open to receiving criticism and challenge from followers.

0.74

SL7 Our priest provides support and resources needed to help followers meet their goals.

0.67

SL8 Our priest promotes open communication and sharing of information.

0.72

SL9 Our priest communicates a clear vision for the future of the church.

0.59

LC1 When someone criticizes our priest, it feels like a personal insult.

0.61

LC2 When our priest feels satisfied with church activities, I also feel good and satisfied.

0.75

LC3 When someone praises our priest, it feels like a personal compliment.

0.69

LC4 My current role in the church made my personal values closely reflect that of the priest’s.

0.53

OC1 I feel “emotionally attached” to this church. 0.79 OC2 I really feel as if this church’s problems are my own. 0.61 OC3 I feel a strong sense of belonging to my church. 0.85 OC4 This church has a great deal of personal meaning for

me. 0.71

PB1 How often do you participate in weekday worship? 0.37 PB2 How often do you participate in service of inside of

the church? 0.41

Note: SL: servant leadership; LC: leader commitment; OC: organizational commitment; PB: participatory behaviors.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(1) Servant leadership 3.91 .67 (.89) (2) Leader commitment 3.75 .66 .50** (.73) (3) Organizational commitment 3.92 .64 .34** .46** (.83) (4) Participatory behaviors 1.98 .87 −.01 .07** .18** (.55) (5) Gender 0.79 .41 −.01 .01 −.07** −.07** – (6) Age 2.81 .75 −.02 .09** .00 .01 −.09** – (7) Length of baptism 23.93 14.68 −.07** .03 .02 .06* .02 .22** – (8) Length of relationship with a current priest 2.44 1.10 −.09** .01 .09** .19** −.06* .11** .06*

Note: n = 1313; * p < .05; ** p < .01; internal reliabilities in the parentheses.

14 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

parameters while providing an equivalent fit to the data. Thus, it indicated a full mediation model from servant leadership to leader commitment, to organizational commitment, and eventually to participatory behaviors of the church members.

Bootstrap analyses

To examine the mediation effects (H6, H7, and H8) more rigorously, we conducted three Bootstrap analyses, using SPSS (Hayes, Preacher, and Myers 2011; Preacher and Hayes 2008). By creating 5000 bootstrap samples, we calculated the percentage of estimates that were at or below zero in the distribution and compared this with an alpha of .05.

As shown in Table 4, all the mediation hypotheses were supported. To illustrate, the first bootstrap analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of servant leadership on organiza- tional commitment, through leader commitment. Across the bootstrap samples, the values for the mediated effect ranged from .147 to .213, indicating a significant indirect path because zero was not included in the 95% confidence interval. As for the effect ratio, the threshold of a full/partial mediation is .80 (Jose 2008). Since the effect ratio was .579, we concluded that leader commitment partially mediated the relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment. As for the second bootstrap analysis (H7), organizational commitment fully mediated the relationship between leader commitment and participatory behaviors, as the effect ratio was greater than .80. The final Bootstrap test (H8) also turned out to be significant. Leader commitment and organizational commitment fully mediated the relationship between servant leadership and participatory behaviors. Therefore, H6, H7, and H8 were supported in this study.

Discussion

This study aimed to examine the effects of priest’s servant leadership on church members’ commitment to leader and organization, and their participatory behaviors

Figure 2. Alternative model

Table 4. Path coefficients and indirect effects for mediation models. Indirect effects by bootstrap analysis

Hypothesis and path Estimate Standard error 95% Confidence interval

(lower, upper) Effect ratio** (a * b/c)

H6 SL → LC →OC .179* .017 .147, .213 .579 H7 LC → OC →PB .114* .020 .077, .156 1.162 H8 SL →LC→ OC →PB .101* .021 .061, .144 5.365

Note: N = 1313. Bootstrap confidence intervals were constructed using 5000 resamples; *p < .05;**Effect ratio = a * b/c, where a is the effect of independent variable (IV) on mediator (M); b is the effect of M on dependent variable (DV); c is the effect of IV on DV; the threshold is .80 (a partial mediation if <.80; a full mediation if >.80) (Jose 2008).

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 15

in the South Korean Catholic church context. We found that those who perceived higher levels of servant leadership from their priest tended to commit more to the priest (i.e., leader) and to the church (i.e., organization). Further, church members attended in weekday worships in addition to Sunday Mass more often, and actively participated in church activities and services, when they were highly committed to the church. Results from SEM and Bootstrap analyses confirmed a significant and linear relationship – from servant leadership to leader commitment, from leader commitment to organiza- tional commitment, and eventually from organizational commitment to members’ participatory behaviors.

Theoretical contributions

Overall, our findings are consistent with previous theoretical and empirical studies, on the relationship between servant leadership, and followers’ attitudinal and behavioral out- comes (e.g., Liden et al. 2008; Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy 2005; Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008; Van Dierendonck 2011). These findings extend and contribute to the increasing body of knowledge and research, by connecting the notion of spirituality with organizational leadership and workplace outcomes (Dehler and Neal 2000; Fry 2003).

Several important theoretical implications can arise from our study findings. First, as mentioned earlier, the notion of servant leadership was inspired by Herman Hesse’s novel The Journey to the East, which is a story about a pilgrimage to the East in search of the ultimate truth (Greenleaf 1970). Despite its potential and intuitive link, to date, little research has examined the effect of servant leadership in religious organizations. The only exception was the dissertation by Scuderi (2010), which targeted protestant churches in the United States. Our study extends the applicability of servant leadership to a wider variety of organizations, by examining servant leadership behaviors and outcomes in the South Korean Catholic church context. More specifically, the current study focused on distinctive characteristics of religious leaders and organizations that may have influenced the role of servant leadership on follower outcomes. Research suggests that Catholic priests are likely to exhibit self-awareness and serving behaviors based on normative and spiritually intrinsic reasons (Andersen 2004). In line with this view, our findings confirmed that servant leadership behaviors by Catholic priests positively influenced church members’ commitment and participatory behaviors.

Another contribution lies in that this study identified the missing links between servant leadership and church members’ behaviors, by examining the effect of servant leadership on church members’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. In investigating the influences of priest’s servant leadership behaviors on two key behavioral outcomes, the current study explored the role of commitment – commitment to leaders as well as church. Whereas some previous research reported a positive relationship between servant leadership and commitment in the workplace (e.g., Liden et al. 2014), this is the first study that found the mediating roles of leader commitment and organizational commitment on the relationship between servant leadership and participatory beha- viors in the context of Korean Catholic church. While priest’s behaviors of servant leadership had no direct impact on members’ behaviors, servant leaders indirectly influenced members’ participatory behaviors through commitment to the priest and to the church. This finding of linear relationships among the variables can contribute to

16 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

the body of knowledge for servant leadership research, and to practice not only in religious organizations but also in other nonprofit and charitable organizations.

In line with the above, contrary to our expectations, leader commitment did not have a direct effect on members’ participatory behaviors. It turned out that organizational commitment had a larger effect on members’ intentions to participate in church services and activities. While this finding is consistent with prior studies (e.g., Panaccio and Vandenberghe 2011), some potential reasons include the size of church and periodic turnover of the priests. According to Korean Catholic Statistics published by Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Korea (2015), on average one priest serves 1350 members in Korean Catholic church. That is, church members do not have much opportunity to meet and interact with the priest personally. Also, the Catholic church requires priests to move from one church to another after serving for about five years (Catholic Answers 2016). Thus, further research in other religious organizations (i.e., Protestant church, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, etc.) is needed for these findings to be generalized.

Lastly, conducted in the South Korean Catholic church context, this study with a relatively large data can make a unique contribution to the field of management, spiri- tuality, and religion. On the other hand, the findings in this study may reflect cultural influences from Korean national culture and societal norms. South Korea’s national culture is characterized by Confucianism and values such as harmony, trust, and obedi- ence (Hofstede 1984). In such cultures, in-group harmony and affective ties are valued among organizational members (Joo, Yang, and McLean 2014), and these cultural values are often seen to override values in organizational cultures (Yen and Teng 2013). For instance, the significant role of leader commitment in the relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment may reflect, to some extent, the high power distance underlying leader–follower relationships in the South Korean culture. Also, the importance of Confucian values in Korean culture may explain why the direct relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment was not found. According to Hunsaker’s (2016) recent study, Korean Confucian values, including relational harmony such as empathy, reciprocity in human relations, and respect for elders, played an important mediating role between spiritual leadership and OCB. Such emphasis on strong group orientation and relationships may have led to leader commitment mediating the relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment. Further research is needed to investigate more specific influences of cultural value orientations, on servant leadership and its effects on followers’ outcomes.

Practical implications

South Korea’s contemporary spiritual identity has been characterized as an eclectic mixture of traditional ideologies and Christianity (Hunsaker 2014). Historically, Buddhism had flourished for more than a millennium in Korea, and this was replaced by Confucianism which has had profound influence on all aspects of Korean society and people over five centuries. Following industrialization, Christianity has grown and spread rapidly in Korea between 1960s and 1980s, and a recent survey indicates that about one third of Koreans view themselves as Christians (South Korea National Statistical Office 2015). In this regard, Christian leaders and especially Catholic church leaders in Korea are believed to have profound influence not only on the growth of Christian communities but

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 17

also on the broader Korean society, by playing important roles in the historical transitions and struggles for civil rights and democracy (Philpott 2004).

Pastoral and church leaders need to pay more attention to the findings of this study. For example, the worships tend to be ritualistic and long, while the sermon is relatively short in Catholic church. The opposite is true in most Protestant churches – the sermons are longer, and the ritual is more simplistic in a Protestant church. In addition, most Catholic churches in Seoul, a megalopolis, is large in terms of membership (Catholic Answers 2016). A potential problem in a large church is that it can limit the direct interactions between the priest and church members. As such, there may not be enough opportunities for members to interact with the priest. Without adequate interactions, church members cannot possibly observe servant leadership behaviors of their priests. On the contrary, a pastor in a small Protestant church who actively interacts with the members is likely to have a greater influence on the members than a priest in a Catholic church. Thus, it is critical for the priests or church leaders to increase interactions with church members. More interactions will lead members to rely more on their leaders, and servant leadership behaviors may have a stronger impact on members’ participatory behaviors. Finally, strengthening the leadership of laymen could be another suggestion to enhance the members’ participation in worships and church activities and services.

The study findings will also have managerial implications for leaders in diverse organizational contexts (e.g., governmental, corporate, nonprofit, educational, medical, etc.). To effectively increase employees’ participation in organizations, leaders will need to promote servant leadership behaviors and leverage the two-stage process (i.e., leader commitment, then organizational commitment) that provided an important link, between servant leadership and employees’ participatory behaviors. In doing so, orga- nizational leaders will need to focus on enhancing employees’ leader commitment first, by exercising servant leadership themselves.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

There are several limitations to this study. By relying on self-reported responses from church members, this cross-sectional survey design leaves room for speculation with regard to causality among the variables. Future research may use longitudinal research designs based on multiple data points and/or hierarchical linear modeling to address these limitations. Further, while the reliability was relatively low for participatory behaviors, our measures were based on solid evidence of church members’ participatory behaviors – participation in weekday worship and church event and activities, and such behaviors are believed to well represent member outcomes in the Catholic church context (Ozorak 2003). In addition, spiritual and/or servant leadership research may also benefit from future qualitative inquiries. For example, what does it mean to serve followers as a servant leader in different organizational contexts? And, what meanings do followers attach to servant leadership or spirituality in the workplace? Future research may address these questions, using qualitative research designs and in-depth participant interviews.

Another limitation may be that our sample included a group of respondents with similar demographic characteristics – Catholic church members in a Korean cultural

18 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

setting. This limits the generalizability of our findings and warrants future cross- cultural research. Future studies may compare constructs, used in this study, within distinct cultural contexts (e.g., Western versus Asian countries), and use established cultural models and frameworks such as Hofstede’s (1984) cultural dimensions. In doing so, researchers should be mindful of other potential influences, such as the interactions between national and organizational cultures (Newman and Nollen 1996; Yen and Teng 2013), and avoid simplifications or generalizations in terms of cultural or national boundaries (Clark et al. 2016). In addition, to increase the generalizability of the present study, more studies in various industries, such as nonprofit or religious organizations, representing diverse demographic groups are needed. Such research efforts may shed new light on cross-cultural servant leadership research, and broaden our understanding of servant leadership in different national and cultural contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is an associate professor of management in the school of business at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Human Resource Development and an M.A. in Human Resources and Industrial Relations from the University of Minnesota. His current research interests include positive organizational behavior, organiza- tional creativity, leadership, coaching, and international HR/OD. He has published research papers in such journals as Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Career Development International, and Personnel Review.

Sangwon Byun is a Ph.D. candidate in human resource development in the department of organizational leadership, policy, and development at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His current research interests include ethical leadership, spiritual leadership, mindful practices, coaching, and leadership development and assessment.

Soebin Jang is a Ph.D. candidate in human resource development in the department of organiza- tional leadership, policy, and development at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His current research interests include corporate social responsibility and business ethics, moral leadership, organizational culture, and organizational development and change.

Insuk Lee is a professor in organizational behavior at Sogang University, South Korea. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Cornell University and MBA from George Washington University. His current research interests include innovation and organization development, leadership and conflict management, strategic human resource management, and learning organization.

ORCID

Soebin Jang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9480-4629

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 19

References

Allen, N. J., and J. P. Meyer. 1990. “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 63 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1111/joop.1990.63.issue-1.

Andersen, J. A. 2004. “Vicars Vs. Managers: Do Vicars Differ from Managers in Terms of Leadership Behaviour?” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 1 (2): 201–223. doi:10.1080/14766080409518556.

Avolio, B. J., and W. L. Gardner. 2005. “Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the Root of Positive Forms of Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 16 (3): 315–338. doi:10.1016/j. leaqua.2005.03.001.

Barbuto, J. E., Jr, and D. W. Wheeler. 2006. “Scale Development and Construct Clarification of Servant Leadership.” Group & Organization Management 31 (3): 300–326. doi:10.1177/ 1059601106287091.

Bartlett, K. R. 2001. “The Relationship between Training and Organizational Commitment: A Study in the Health Care Field.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 12 (4): 335–352. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1001.

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New york, NY: Free Press. Beazley, D., and G. Gemmill. 2006. “Spirituality and Servant Leader Behavior.” Journal of

Management, Spirituality & Religion 3 (3): 258–270. doi:10.1080/14766080609518629. Becker, T. E. 2016. “Multiple Foci of Workplace Commitments.” In Handbook of Employee

Commitment, edited by J. P. Meyer, 43–55. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Becker, T. E., and R. S. Billings. 1993. “Profiles of Commitment: An Empirical Test.” Journal of

Organizational Behavior 14 (2): 177–190. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379. Becker, T. M., R. S. Billings, D. M. Eveleth, and N. L. Gilbert. 1996. “Foci and Bases of Employee

Commitment: Implication for Job Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 39 (2): 464–482. Catholic Answers. 2016. “Catholic Answers.” To Explain & Defend the Faith. http://www.

catholic.com/ Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Korea. 2015 Statistics of the Catholic Church in Korea. http://

english.cbck.or.kr/statistics/17684 Catholic Culture.org. 2016. “Catholic Dictionary.” Definition of Mass. https://www.catholiccul

ture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34771 Chaves, M. 2011. American Religion: Contemporary Trends. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cieslak, M. J. 1984. “Parish Responsiveness and Parishioner Commitment.” Review of Religious

Research 26 (2): 132–147. doi:10.2307/3511698. Clark, J. M., L. N. Quast, S. Jang, J. Wohkittel, B. Center, K. Edwards, and W. Bovornusvakool.

2016. “GLOBE Study Culture Clusters: Can They Be Found in Importance Ratings of Managerial Competencies?” European Journal of Training and Development 40 (7): 534–553. doi:10.1108/EJTD-03-2016-0016.

Clugston, M., J. P. Howell, and P. W. Dorfman. 2000. “Does Cultural Socialization Predict Multiple Bases and Foci of Commitment?” Journal of Management 26 (1): 5–30. doi:10.1177/ 014920630002600106.

Conger, J. A., and R. N. Kanungo. 1988. “The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice.” Academy of Management Review 13 (3): 471–482. doi:10.5465/amr.1988.4306983.

Cowan, D. A. 2005. “Translating Spiritual Intelligence into Leadership Competencies.” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 2 (1): 3–38. doi:10.1080/14766080509518565.

Day, D. V., J. W. Fleenor, L. E. Atwater, R. E. Sturm, and R. A. McKee. 2014. “Advances in Leader and Leadership Development: A Review of 25 years of Research and Theory.” The Leadership Quarterly 25 (1): 63–82. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004.

Dehler, G., and J. Neal. 2000. “The Guest Editors’ Corner.” Journal of Management Education 24 (5): 536–539. doi:10.1177/105256290002400502.

Dennis, R. S., and M. Bocarnea. 2005. “Development of the Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26 (8): 600–615. doi:10.1108/ 01437730510633692.

20 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

Dorfman, P. W., J. P. Howell, S. Hibino, J. K. Lee, U. Tate, and A. Bautista. 1997. “Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Differences in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures.” The Leadership Quarterly 8 (3): 233–274. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843 (97)90003-5.

Eby, L. T., D. M. Freeman, M. C. Rush, and C. E. Lance. 1999. “Motivational Bases of Affective Organizational Commitment: A Partial Test of an Integrative Theoretical Model.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72 (4): 463–483. doi:10.1348/ 096317999166798.

Ehrhart, M. G. 2004. “Leadership and Procedural Justice Climate as Antecedents of Unit-Level Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” Personnel Psychology 57 (1): 61–94. doi:10.1111/ peps.2004.57.issue-1.

Fairholm, G. W. 1996. “Spiritual Leadership: Fulfilling Whole-Self Needs at Work.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 17 (5): 11–17. doi:10.1108/01437739610127469.

Fairholm, M. R., and T. W. Gronan. 2015. “Spiritual Leadership in the Work of Public Administrators.” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 12 (4): 354–373. doi:10.1080/14766086.2015.1060516.

Fry, L. W. 2003. “Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 14 (6): 693–727. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001.

Graham, J. W. 1991. “Servant-Leadership in Organizations: Inspirational and Moral.” The Leadership Quarterly 2 (2): 105–119. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(91)90025-W.

Greenleaf, R. K. 1970. The Servant as Leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Greenleaf, R. K. 1977. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Hall, D. T., B. Schneider, and H. T. Nygren. 1970. “Personal Factors in Organizational Identification.” Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (2): 176–190. doi:10.2307/2391488.

Hayes, A. F., K. J. Preacher, and T. A. Myers. 2011. “Mediation and the Estimation of Indirect Effects in Political Communication Research.” In Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, edited by E. P. Bucy and R. Lance Holbert, 434–465. New York: Routledge.

Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hong, Y. G. 2001. “The Impact of Charismatic Pastoral Leadership on Religious Commitment and Church Growth in the Korean Mega-Churches.” Mission Studies 18 (1): 22–49.

Houghton, J. D., C. P. Neck, and S. Krishnakumar. 2016. “The What, Why, and How of Spirituality in the Workplace Revisited: A 14-Year Update and Extension.” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 13 (3): 177–205. doi:10.1080/14766086.2016.1185292.

Hunsaker, W. D. 2014. “Spiritual Leadership in South Korea: A Multi-Sample Analysis of the Brokerage Sector.” Life Science Journal 11 (7): 84–89.

Hunsaker, W. D. 2016. “Spiritual Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Relationship with Confucian Values.” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 13 (3): 206–225. doi:10.1080/14766086.2016.1159974.

Hunter, E. M., M. J. Neubert, S. J. Perry, L. A. Witt, L. M. Penney, and E. Weinberger. 2013. “Servant Leaders Inspire Servant Followers: Antecedents and Outcomes for Employees and the Organization.” The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2): 316–331. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001.

Jeon, K. S., D. L. Passmore, C. Lee, and W. Hunsaker. 2013. “Spiritual Leadership: A Validation Study in a Korean Context.” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 10 (4): 342–357. doi:10.1080/14766086.2013.801026.

Joo, B. K. 2010. “Organizational Commitment for Knowledge Workers: The Roles of Organizational Learning Culture, Leader-Member Exchange Quality, and Turnover Intention.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 21 (1): 69–85. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20031.

Joo, B. K., B. Yang, and G. McLean. 2014. “Employee Creativity: The Effects of Perceived Learning Culture, Leader-Member Exchange Quality, Job Autonomy, and Proactivity.”

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 21

Human Resource Development International 17: 297–317. doi:10.1080/ 13678868.2014.896126.

Jose, P. E. 2008. “Moderation/Mediation Help Centre (Ver. 3.0).” Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, School of Psychology. https://psychology.victoria.ac.nz/ helpcentre/

Joseph, E. E., and B. E. Winston. 2005. “A Correlation of Servant Leadership, Leader Trust, and Organizational Trust.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26 (1): 6–22. doi:10.1108/01437730510575552.

Kline, R. B. 2005. Methodology in the Social Sciences. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.

Kouzes, J. M., and B. Z. Posner. 1993. Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Krishnakumar, S., and C. P. Neck. 2002. “The “What”,“Why” and “How” of Spirituality in the Workplace.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 17 (3): 153–164. doi:10.1108/ 02683940210423060.

Laub, J. A. 1999. “Assessing the servant organization. Development of the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) model.” PhD Diss., Florida Atlantic University.

LePine, J. A., A. Erez, and D. E. Johnson. 2002. “The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (1): 52–65. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52.

Liden, R. C., A. Panaccio, J. D. Meuser, J. Hu, and S. J. Wayne. 2014. “Servant Leadership: Antecedents, Processes, and Outcomes.” In The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organization, edited by D. V. Day. New York: Oxford Handbook Online.

Liden, R. C., S. J. Wayne, H. Zhao, and D. Henderson. 2008. “Servant Leadership: Development of a Multidimensional Measure and Multi-Level Assessment.” The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006.

Liden, R. C., S. J. Wayne, and R. T. Sparrowe. 2000. “An Examination of the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relations between the Job, Interpersonal Relationships, and Work Outcomes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (3): 407–416.

Lowe, K. B., and W. L. Gardner. 2001. “Ten Years of the Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and Challenges for the Future.” Leadership Quarterly 11 (4): 459–514. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843 (00)00059-X.

Mathieu, J. E., and D. M. Zajac. 1990. “A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (2): 171–194. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171.

Meyer, J. P., A. J. S. Morin, and C. Vandenberghe. 2015. “Dual Commitment to Organization and Supervisor: A Person-Centered Approach.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 88: 56–72. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.001.

Meyer, J. P., D. J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch, and L. Topolnytsky. 2002. “Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 61 (1): 20–52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842.

Meyer, J. P., and N. J. Allen. 1991. “A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment.” Human Resource Management Review 1 (1): 61–89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91) 90011-Z.

Mitroff, I., and E. Denton. 1999. A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look at Spirituality. Religion, and Values in the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mottaz, C. J. 1988. “Determinants of Organizational Commitment.” Human Relations 41 (6): 467–482. doi:10.1177/001872678804100604.

Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter, and R. Steers. 1982. Organizational Linkage: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. NY: Academic Press.

Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers, and L. W. Porter. 1979. “The Measurement of Organizational Commitment.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 14 (2): 224–247. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79) 90072-1.

22 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

Mulreany, J. P. 2010. “The Priest as Cultic Figure, Servant Leader and Apostle: Images from Hebrews, John and Paul.” PhD Diss., Boston College.

Newman, K. L., and S. D. Nollen. 1996. “Culture and Congruence: The Fit between Management Practices and National Culture.” Journal of International Business Studies 27 (4): 753–779. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490152.

O’Reilly, C. A., and J. Chatman. 1986. “Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3): 492–499. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492.

Ozorak, E. W. 2003. “Love of God and Neighbor: Religion and Volunteer Service among College Students.” Review of Religious Research 44 (3): 285–299. doi:10.2307/3512388.

Panaccio, A., and C. Vandenberghe. 2011. “The Relationships of Role Clarity and Organizational-Based Self-Esteem to Commitment to Supervisors and Organizations and Turnover Intentions.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41 (6): 1455–1485. doi:10.1111/ j.1559-1816.2011.00764.x.

Parris, D. L., and J. W. Peachey. 2013. “A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts.” Journal of Business Ethics 113 (3): 377–393. doi:10.1007/ s10551-012-1322-6.

Pawar, B. S. 2009. “Individual Spirituality, Workplace Spirituality and Work Attitudes: An Empirical Test of Direct and Interaction Effects.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 30 (8): 759–777. doi:10.1108/01437730911003911.

Philpott, D. 2004. “The Catholic Wave.” Journal of Democracy 15 (2): 32–46. doi:10.1353/ jod.2004.0034.

Polson, E. C. 2016. “Putting Civic Participation in Context: Examining the Effects of Congregational Structure and Culture.” Review of Religious Research 58: 75–100. doi:10.1007/s13644-015-0223-4.

Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models.” Behavior Research Methods 40 (3): 879–891.

Pree, D. 1997. Leading without Power: Finding Hope in Serving Community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Reave, L. 2005. “Spiritual Values and Practices Related to Leadership Effectiveness.” The Leadership Quarterly 16 (5): 655–687. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003.

Rego, A., and M. Pina E Cunha. 2008. “Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Commitment: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 21 (1): 53–75. doi:10.1108/09534810810847039.

Reichers, A.E. 1985. “A Review and Reconceptualization Of Organizational Commitment.” Academy Of Management Review 10 (3): 465-476. doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4278960.

Russell, R. F., and A. Gregory Stone. 2002. “A Review of Servant Leadership Attributes: Developing A Practical Model.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23 (3): 145–157. doi:10.1108/01437730210424.

Sanders, J. E., III, W. E. Hopkins, and G. D. Geroy. 2005. “A Causal Assessment of the Spirituality-Leadership-Commitment Relationship.” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 2 (1): 39–66. doi:10.1080/14766080509518566.

Schein, E. H. 1983. “The Role of the Founder in Creating Organizational Culture.” Organizational Dynamics 12 (1): 13–28. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(83)90023-2.

Schneider, S. K., and W. M. George. 2011. “Servant Leadership versus Transformational Leadership in Voluntary Service Organizations.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32 (1): 60–77. doi:10.1108/01437731111099283.

Scuderi, N. F. 2010. “Servant leadership and transformational leadership in church organiza- tions.” PhD Diss., George Washington University.

Sendjaya, S., J. C. Sarros, and J. C. Santora. 2008. “Defining and Measuring Servant Leadership Behaviour in Organizations.” Journal of Management Studies 45 (2): 402–424. doi:10.1111/ joms.2007.45.issue-2.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 23

Siders, M. A., G. George, and R. Dharwadkar. 2001. “The Relationship of Internal and External Commitment Foci to Objective Job Performance Measures.” The Academy of Management Journal 44 (3): 570–579.

Smith, C. A., D. W. Organ, and J. P. Near. 1983. “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents.” Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (4): 653–663. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.68.4.653.

Snape, E., A. W. Chan, and T. Redman. 2006. “Multiple Commitments in the Chinese Context: Testing Compatibility, Cultural and Moderating Hypotheses.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2): 302–314. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.04.003.

South Korea National Statistical Office. 2015. “19th Population and Housing Census.” http:// kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=358170

Spears, L. C. 1995. Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant- Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers. NY: John Wiley.

Stinglhamber, F., and C. Vandenberghe. 2003. “Organizations and Supervisors as Sources of Support and Targets of Commitment: A Longitudinal Investigation.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (3): 251–270. doi:10.1002/job.192.

Stone, A. G., R. F. Russell, and K. Patterson. 2004. “Transformational versus Servant Leadership: A Difference in Leader Focus.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25 (4): 349– 361. doi:10.1108/01437730410538671.

Taylor, R. J., L. M. Chatters, and R. K. Brown. 2014. “African American Religious Participation.” Review of Religious Research 56 (4): 513–538. doi:10.1007/s13644-013-0144-z.

U.S. Catholic Conference, Inc. 2003. General Instruction of Roman Missal: Including Adaptations for the Dioceses of the United States of America. Washington, D.C: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. www.rcan.org/sites/default/files/files/02GIRM.pdf

USCCB. 2016. “Cannon Law. Canon 1246, §2 – Holy Days of Obligation.” http://www.usccb.org/ beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/canon-law/complementary-norms/canon-1246.cfm

Van Dierendonck, D. 2011. “Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis.” Journal of Management 37 (4): 1228–1261. doi:10.1177/0149206310380462.

Vondey, M. 2010. “The Relationships among Servant Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Person-Organization Fit, and Organizational Identification.” International Journal of Leadership Studies 6 (1): 3–27.

Wade, W. 2013. “Catholic Mass and Its Healing Implications for the Addicted Person.” Substance Use & Misuse 48 (12): 1138–1149. doi:10.3109/10826084.2013.800744.

Wilkes, C. G. 1996. Jesus on Leadership: Becoming a Servant Leader. Nashville, TN: LifeWay Press.

Wong, P. T. P., and D. Davey. 2007. “Best Practices in Servant Leadership.” Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

Yen, C. H., and H. Y. Teng. 2013. “The Effect of Centralization on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Deviant Workplace Behavior in the Hospitality Industry.” Tourism Management 36: 401–410. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.003.

24 B-K. (B.) JOO ET AL.

View publication statsView publication stats