The Relationship between Servant Leadership, Organisational Citizenship Behaviour and Team Effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Open associations, for example, schools, despite everything face the test of building up a compelling methodology for accomplishing group adequacy. The cozy connection between fruitful authority and viable schools is generally perceived (Bush and Heystek, 2006). For a school to accomplish viability, it is basic that the initiative aptitudes of principals be created to upgrade the nature of school the board and improve instructive results. The South African Schools Act of 1996 distinguishes administration and the executives as two separate exercises drove by two covering groups. The expert administration of the school is the duty of the head and the school supervisory group (Bush and Heystek, 2006). In a school setting, principals and instructors are the fundamental deciding factors of the nature of training (Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Sisman, 2004). Instructors who do instructive exercises in the class and who invest more energy with students importantly affect student scholastic performance (Rowan et al., 2002). Principals, as pioneers, can assume a basic job in helping instructors to understand their potential to the extent administration conveyance in the study hall is concerned (Cerit, 2009). One of the authority moves toward that are probably going to influence school group adequacy is worker initiative. The act of hireling initiative by the chief empowers instructors to progress in the direction of a mutual vision and respect aggregate responsibilities to self and can possibly improve the whole school condition in which teachers work and serve (Cerit, 2009; DuFour, 2001). A help arranged authority approach, for example, hireling administration is probably going to make a domain helpful for compelling school group working (Irving and Longbotham, 2007; Morgeson, DeRue and Karam, 2010; Transcritti, 2010). For the most part, the worker administration approach centers around creating representatives to their fullest potential in the zones of undertaking viability, network stewardship, self-inspiration and future initiative abilities (Greenleaf, 1977). Hireling initiative involves an understanding and practice of administration that places the great and interests of devotees over the personal responsibility of the pioneer (Greenleaf, 1977). The worker head makes open doors for adherents to assist them with growing (Luthans and Avolio, 2003). This is accomplished through encouraging fearlessness, filling in as a good example, motivating trust and giving data, input and assets (Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Henderson, 2008; Lord, Brown and Freiberg, 1999). In opposition to customary bureaucratic and robotic authority styles, principals as hireling pioneers don't utilize their capacity to complete things, but instead utilize one-on-one correspondence just as influence to understand the educators' needs, wants, capacities, objectives and potential (Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck and Nuitjen, 2011). With information on every devotee's remarkable attributes and interests, pioneers at that point help supporters in accomplishing their latent capacity (Liden et al., 2008). Hireling authority likewise focuses on close to home trustworthiness and spotlights on shaping solid long haul associations with educators and organizational partners, for example, the network, guardians, colleges, graduated class and utilizing associations (Graham, 1991). stewardship and by giving direction, subordinates are probably going to feel enabled (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Earlier research has exhibited that representatives, when enabled, ooze a more significant level of self-assurance and have a more noteworthy feeling of having the option to emphatically impact their workplace (Zhu, May and Avolio, 2004). Worker initiative is a benevolent administration style that conceivably adds to the advancement of inspirational demeanors in adherents, most quite organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Sendjaya, Sarros and Santorra, 2008). Organizational citizenship behavior, as a particular behavior of a colleague, can be comprehended as a group procedure variable that dynamically affects group viability (Ren-Tao and Heung-Gil, 2009). This sort of behavior is significant in a group setting since it demonstrates the degree to which singular individuals from the association or group are capable and ready to take part in organizational citizenship behaviors that are useful to the association (OCBO) and others inside the association (OCBI) (Mohammad, Habib and Alias, 2011). Extra-job behaviors are likewise significant and attractive for an association, as they are probably going to advance progressively viable correspondence, which permits best practices to be shared among workers or cultivates expanded coordination among representatives (Ren-Tao and Heung-Gil, 2009). While the writing on groups and worker initiative is developing, no exploration was found on the connections between hireling administration, organizational citizenship behavior and group adequacy in an instructive setting in South Africa. It is essential to understand group viability in school settings as it assists with demonstrating how the idea of the school as a working environment, just as how the nature of connections in schools, influence educators' adequacy, performance and the depiction of behaviors that go past the obligation at hand.

The essential objective of the investigation was to direct an examination of the connections that exist between hireling initiative, organizational citizenship behavior and school group adequacy. The auxiliary objective was to approve a hypothetical model explaining the basic connections between these factors in the South African educational system.

Group adequacy alludes to the fulfillment of shared objectives or goals through the coordination of colleagues' work exercises (Irving and Longbotham, 2007). It has critical ramifications in the group named powerful, the colleagues (instructors) need to create top notch yields (scholarly performance) just as determine some satisfactory working experience. Thusly, school group adequacy should gauge the performance of schools and the idea of the school group as a working unit, just as the impact of the school group on its individual educators (Piccoli et al., 2004). A survey of the writing on groups uncovers a high volume of concentrates outfitted towards recognizing sets of factors that could be utilized to operationalise group viability (Bettenhausen, 1991; Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Guzzo, 1986; Hackman, 1987; Neale and Mannix, 2012; Pina, Martinez and Martinez, 2008; Ross, Jones and Adams, 2008). In spite of the presence of various investigations on group viability, analysts face issues with characterizing the group adequacy build (Pina et al., 2008). The issues experienced identify with inability to recognize determinant factors and criteria of adequacy in South African schools. By and large, two models of group viability exist, to be specific the unidimensional and multidimensional viewpoints. The unidimensional view uses target proportions of group performance (Kolodny and Kiggundu, 1980; Shea and Guzzo, 1987) or of the level of genuine efficiency (Pina et al., 2008). The multidimensional view sets that group adequacy is an element of a few different factors other than performance (Hackman, 1987; Hackman and Walton, 1986; Nieva, Fleishman and Reick, 1978). In a school setting, group viability can be characterized regarding scholarly performance and effective extramural exercises. The info procedure yield (I-P-O) heuristic planned by McGrath (1964; cf. Gladstein, 1984; Salas, Dickenson, Converse and Tannenbaum, 1992; Salas, Stagl and Burke, 2004; Stagl, Salas and Burke, 2007) is one of the multidimensional group adequacy structures that have commanded group viability hovers in the course of recent decades (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). The model envelops singular level information factors, for example, gathering (for example school group) arrangement factors (for example abilities, heterogeneity) and gathering structure (for example formal initiative, work standards). It likewise fuses organizational-level information factors, for example, assets accessible (for example preparing, counseling) and organizational-structure factors (for example rewards, supervisory control). The relations between singular level and organizational-level information factors and group viability are interceded by bunch forms. The model likewise shows that gathering task unpredictability, vulnerability and reliance moderate the relations between bunch procedures and results, for example, fulfillment (Gladstein, 1984). Procedures

First developing during the 1970s, the hireling administration idea has its foundations in the original work of Robert Greenleaf, a noticeable representative who portrayed a people-focused initiative way of thinking, one that promoters the worker chief as pioneer: It starts with the regular inclination that one needs to serve, to serve first. At that point cognizant decision carries one to try to lead. The distinction shows itself in the consideration taken by the hireling - first to ensure that others' most noteworthy need needs are being served. The best test is: Do those served develop as people; do they, while being served, gotten more advantageous, more shrewd, more liberated, progressively self-governing, more probable themselves to become hirelings? (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 4) Hireling authority is anything but another build: it very well may be followed back to recorded pioneers, for example, Mahatma Gandhi, and in later occasions to Mother Theresa, and strict pioneers, for example, Martin Luther King, who rehearsed and maintained it similar to the best approach to move toward administration (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002). In spite of the presence of an all around acknowledged meaning of worker authority, the hireling administration develop has increased impressive prominence for the most part in the course of recent years, as confirm by the huge number of expert arranged hireling initiative articles regarding the matter (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Dannhauser and Boshoff, 2007; Liden et al., 2008; Parolini, Patterson and Winston, 2009; Sun and Wang, 2009; Van Dierendonck, 2011). The greater part of the investigations have concentrated on how worker administration impacts work behavior and on the hypothetical advancement and estimation of the hireling authority develop (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Hireling authority depends on the reason that, to draw out the best in their devotees, pioneers depend on one-on-one correspondence to understand the capacities, needs, wants, objectives and capability of their representatives. With information on every adherent's remarkable attributes and interests, pioneers at that point help devotees in accomplishing their latent capacity. This support is done through structure self-assurance (Liden et al., 2008; Lord, Brown and Freiberg, 1999), filling in as a good example, rousing trust and giving data, criticism and assets. Hireling initiative is viewed as temperate, profoundly moral and dependent on the reason that support of devotees is at the center of administration (Sendjaya et al., 2008). It is critical to understand yet who attempts to convince and persuade staff (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Worker pioneers additionally exhibit the characteristics of philanthropy, quietude, trust, uprightness, vision, thinking about others, reliability and relational acknowledgment (Van Dierendonck, 2011).

Gotten from Katz's (1964) idea of extra-job behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) have been characterized as behaviors shown by instructors that are optional, not legitimately or unequivocally perceived by the proper prize framework and that, in the total, advance the viable working of an association (school). These behaviors are regularly inside spurred, emerging from and supported by a person's inherent requirement for a feeling of accomplishment, skill, having a place or connection (Organ, 1988). There is no accord in the writing on the quantity of measurements of OCB. Specialists have proposed anything from two (Williams and Anderson, 1991) to seven (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach, 2000). Organ (1988) initially proposed the accompanying five measurements: unselfishness, reliability, sportsmanship, kindness and community uprightness. As indicated by Organ, sportsmanship alludes to a representative's capacity to endure not exactly perfect conditions without griping and causing issues to appear to be greater than they really are; city temperance demonstrates a worker's dynamic enthusiasm for the life of the association; good faith (frequently called consistence) shows a representative's acknowledgment and adherence to the principles, guidelines and methods of the association. Obligingness alludes to activities focused on the counteraction of future issues, while benevolence demonstrates helping behaviors focused on explicit people. Williams and Anderson (1991) classify OCB into two sorts: behavior that is aimed at people in the association (OCBI) and behavior that is worried about helping the association in general (OCBO). Podsakoff et al. (2000) present the seven normal subjects or measurements of OCB as: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational reliability, organizational consistence, singular activity, metro ethicalness and self-advancement. In the present examination, Organ's conceptualisation of the extra-job behavior build is utilized. The chief's behavior is a critical factor in the accomplishment of school group viability. School pioneers' qualities and relational skills are of basic significance to the general achievement of the school group. A group head should be objective coordinated, make duty, give acknowledgment, have the option to handle diverse personality types inside the group and improve cohesiveness among colleagues. These angles are fused in worker administration (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Hireling administration stretches out past the wants of the self-personality and assembles a working atmosphere that produces sentiments of worker strengthening (Liden et al., 2008). The motivational and good segment of hireling initiative is significant for the advancement of groups. Educators are bound to work cooperatively in the accomplishment of school group objectives on the off chance that they have persuasive and moral trust in their pioneer (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Albeit various investigations on the significance of authority in group performance are accessible (Gupta, Huang and Niranjan, 2010; Kuo, 2004; Morgeson, DeRue and Karam, 2010), the job that hireling administration plays in the viable working of school groups has not been considered broadly. Irving and Longbotham (2007) analyzed the connection between hireling administration and group viability in a division of a universal non-benefit making association in the United States. Transcritti (2010) affirmed these discoveries in an ongoing investigation of chapel ministers in the territory of Ohio, by announcing a critical positive connection between the two ideas. As of late, Hu and Liden (2011) additionally found a positive connection between hireling authority and group viability.

First developing during the 1970s, the hireling administration idea has its foundations in the original work of Robert Greenleaf, a noticeable representative who portrayed a people-focused authority theory, one that supporters the worker chief as pioneer: It starts with the common inclination that one needs to serve, to serve first. At that point cognizant decision carries one to try to lead. The distinction shows itself in the consideration taken by the hireling - first to ensure that others' most noteworthy need needs are being served. The best test is: Do those served develop as people; do they, while being served, gotten more beneficial, savvier, more liberated, increasingly independent, almost certain themselves to become hirelings? (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 4) occasions to Mother Theresa, and strict pioneers, for example, Martin Luther King, who rehearsed and maintained it just like the best approach to move toward initiative (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002). Regardless of the presence of a generally acknowledged meaning of hireling authority, the worker administration build has increased impressive ubiquity fundamentally in the course of recent years, as prove by the huge number of professional situated worker initiative articles regarding the matter (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Dannhauser and Boshoff, 2007; Liden et al., 2008; Parolini, Patterson and Winston, 2009; Sun and Wang, 2009; Van Dierendonck, 2011). The greater part of the investigations have concentrated on how hireling initiative impacts work behavior and on the hypothetical advancement and estimation of the worker authority develop (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Hireling authority depends on the reason that, to draw out the best in their adherents, pioneers depend on one-on-one correspondence to understand the capacities, needs, wants, objectives and capability of their workers. With information on every supporter's special qualities and interests, pioneers at that point help devotees in accomplishing their latent capacity. This support is done through structure fearlessness (Liden et al., 2008; Lord, Brown and Freiberg, 1999), filling in as a good example, moving trust and giving data, criticism and assets. Worker administration is viewed as temperate, exceptionally moral and dependent on the reason that support of adherents is at the center of initiative (Sendjaya et al., 2008). It is imperative to understand that, as indicated by Greenleaf, the worker head is 'primus bury pares' (for example first among approaches), who doesn't utilize their capacity to complete things yet who attempts to convince and persuade staff (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Hireling pioneers additionally exhibit the characteristics of selflessness, quietude, trust, uprightness, vision, thinking about others, reliability and relational acknowledgment (Van Dierendonck, 2011).

Gotten from Katz's (1964) thought of extra-job behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) have been characterized as behaviors shown by educators that are optional, not straightforwardly or unequivocally perceived by the conventional prize framework and that, in the total, advance the compelling working of an association (school). These behaviors are frequently inside propelled, emerging from and continued by a person's natural requirement for a feeling of

There is no accord in the writing on the quantity of measurements of OCB. Scientists have proposed anything from two (Williams and Anderson, 1991) to seven (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach, 2000). Organ (1988) initially proposed the accompanying five measurements: charitableness, reliability, sportsmanship, affability and urban uprightness. As per Organ, sportsmanship alludes to a representative's capacity to endure not exactly perfect conditions without grumbling and causing issues to appear to be greater than they really are; municipal righteousness shows a worker's dynamic enthusiasm for the life of the association; reliability (regularly called consistence) demonstrates a representative's acknowledgment and adherence to the principles, guidelines and methods of the association. Graciousness alludes to activities focused on the avoidance of future issues, while charitableness shows helping behaviors focused on explicit people. Williams and Anderson (1991) classify OCB into two kinds: behavior that is aimed at people in the association (OCBI) and behavior that is worried about helping the association all in all (OCBO). Podsakoff et al. (2000) present the seven normal topics or measurements of OCB as: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational devotion, organizational consistence, singular activity, municipal excellence and self-improvement. In the present investigation, Organ's conceptualisation of the extra-job behavior develop is utilized.

The foremost's behavior is an essential factor in the accomplishment of school group viability. School pioneers' qualities and relational skills are of basic significance to the general achievement of the school group. A group head should be objective coordinated, make duty, give acknowledgment, have the option to handle distinctive personality types inside the group and upgrade cohesiveness among colleagues. These viewpoints are consolidated in hireling initiative (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Hireling authority stretches out past the wants of the self-sense of self and fabricates a working atmosphere that creates sentiments of representative strengthening (Liden et al., 2008). The persuasive and good part of hireling initiative is significant for the advancement of groups. Instructors are bound to work cooperatively in the accomplishment of school group objectives in the event that they have moving and moral trust in their pioneer (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Albeit various investigations on the significance of initiative in group performance are accessible (Gupta, Huang and Niranjan, 2010; Kuo, 2004; Morgeson, DeRue and Karam, 2010), the job that connection between worker administration and group adequacy in a division of a worldwide non-benefit making association in the United States. Transcritti (2010) affirmed these discoveries in an ongoing investigation of chapel ministers in the territory of Ohio, by revealing a huge positive connection between the two ideas. As of late, Hu and Liden (2011) additionally found a positive connection between worker administration and group adequacy.

Speculation 1: If the larger substantive research theory is deciphered to show that the auxiliary model gives a surmised record of the manner by which hireling authority and OCB impact group viability, the substantive research speculation converts into the accompanying close fit invalid speculation:

H01: RMSEA < .05

Ha1: RMSEA > .05

The larger auxiliary model substantive research theory was dismembered into three way explicit substantive research theories. These three way explicit research speculations convert into the accompanying explicit research theories: Speculation 2: Servant initiative (ξ1) emphatically influences group viability (η2) (H02: γ21= 0; Ha2:γ21 > 0). Speculation 3: Servant initiative (ξ1) emphatically influences OCB (η1) (H03: γ11 = 0; Ha3: γ11 > 0). Speculation 4: OCB (η1) decidedly influences group adequacy (η2) (H04: β21 = 0; Ha4: β21 > 0).

So as to accomplish the set targets just as test the theories planned to respond to the exploration question, a quantitative research configuration was

The members got a survey that was comprised of a covering letter, an anecdotal segment and the three estimating instruments. The covering letter featured the point of the examination, guidelines on finishing the polls, just as the members' moral rights.

A non-likelihood testing methodology was utilized in the examination. Despite the fact that the group is relied upon to be the unit of investigation in investigations of this nature, the present examination utilized the individual colleagues (instructors) as the unit of investigation. The examination was directed utilizing teachers drawn from schools in the Western Cape in South Africa. Consequently the speculations that have been talked about show educators' impression of the various connections in a school. The example comprised of 205 female (71.2%) and 83 male (28.8%) instructors. The larger part (30.9%) fell inside the age class of 41-50 years. The ethnic appropriation in the example was: Black (17.3%), blended race (39.6%) and White (43.1%). The home language of the lion's share was Afrikaans (74.9%), with a minority utilizing isiXhosa (12.9%) and English (10.4%) as their home dialects. With respect to level of capability, most of respondents had a degree or recognition (92.7%).

Three self-announcing estimating instruments were distinguished and utilized in estimating the develops under investigation.

The worker authority of the chief was estimated utilizing the hireling administration poll (SLQ) (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006). The SLQ was figured to build up a scale that catches the eleven attributes of worker administration. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), through factor investigation, found just five factors fundamental 23 things. Reliabilities for oneself and rater adaptations of the scale went from .68 to .87 and .82 to .92 separately. The rater adaptation of the scale yielded the accompanying coefficient alphas: selfless calling (α = .82), enthusiastic mending (α = .91), insight (α = .92), convincing mapping (α = .83) and organizational stewardship (α = .83) (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006). Model things included: 'This individual goes far in excess of what was required to address my issues' (unselfish calling), 'This individual is capable at helping me to mend inwardly' (enthusiastic 'This individual accepts that the association needs to assume an ethical job in the public eye' (organizational stewardship).

Podsakoff and Mackenzie's (1994) organizational citizenship behavior scale (OCBS) was utilized to quantify organizational citizenship behavior. This instrument comprises of 24 things estimating five subscales as conceptualized by Organ (1988), to be specific: charitableness, reliability, sportsmanship, cordiality and municipal uprightness. The OCBS has sound psychometric characteristics (Hui, Law and Chen, 1999; Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). The dependability alpha coefficients for the subscales ran from (.70 for municipal ethicalness to .85 for charitableness. Utilization of the corroborative factor investigation as indicated by Podsakoff and MacKenzie affirmed the conjectured factor structure, with a Tucker-Lewis fit record of .94 learning that the entirety of the things used to survey the five OCB factors stacked altogether on their expected factors. Model things include: 'I help other people who have overwhelming remaining burdens', 'I generally criticize what the association is doing', 'I go to gatherings that are not mandatory but rather are viewed as significant', 'I eagerly give my opportunity to help other people who have business related issues'.

RESULTS

Missing values The use of imputation by matching resulted in an effective sample size of 288 cases (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). Goodness-of-fit: The measurement and structural models Correlation of the decency of-fit lists announced in Table 1 shows that the structures of the SLQ, OCBS and TEQ present a satisfactory fit with the information (Hair et al., 2006; Kelloway, 1998). As far as the integrity of-fit files, the χ2/df proportion for the greater part of the estimation models, with the exception of the auxiliary model, fell in the 2-5 territory, which is demonstrative of adequate fit (Kelloway, 1998). Proportions under 2 have been deciphered as showing over-fitting. As per this standard understanding, the model could either be believed to fit the information well or be believed to have been over-fitted.

The utilization of ascription by coordinating brought about a viable example size of 288 cases (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2006).

Examination of the decency of-fit records revealed in Table 1 demonstrates that the structures of the SLQ, OCBS and TEQ present a satisfactory fit with the information (Hair et al., 2006; Kelloway, 1998). As far as the integrity of-fit files, the χ2/df proportion for the greater part of the estimation models, with the exception of the auxiliary model, fell in the 2-5 territory, which is characteristic of adequate fit (Kelloway, 1998). Proportions under 2 have been deciphered as demonstrating over-fitting. As indicated by this standard understanding, the model could either be believed to fit the information well or be believed to have been over-fitted.

One of the constraints of the examination identifies with the equivalence of an assistance situated setting to a business-arranged setting. The investigation was directed in a school setting, which is generally administration situated, while business settings are income creating. In this way, future examinations ought to look at whether administration arranged and income creating groups are equivalent. Also, the treatment of each school as a group had its own confinement. A commonplace school group of educators is made out of the establishment stage, middle of the road and senior stage groups. The working of these sub-groups might be not the same as how the more extensive school group works; establishment stage instructors may cooperate considerably more proficiently than those in the middle of the road stage. Future investigations should endeavor to draw likelihood tests from different schools so as to build the segment representativeness of the educator populace in the Western Cape and South Africa. Future research ought to expand the hypothetical model by consolidating other inert factors, for example, trust, passionate insight, organizational equity and mental strengthening, to clarify extra change in group viability. their typical activity obligations and give scholastic performance that is past desires. So as to arrive at this perfect, school groups need pioneers who place more prominent accentuation on educator improvement and are progressively disposed to serve, engage and perceive the abilities of others than to propel their own needs. Worker administration has given some guarantee and positions itself as the perfect authority style for group viability. In the event that principals submissively benefit their support of their school groups, perceive and sustain the instructors' gifts, at that point the educators are probably going to go the additional mile and eventually help the school accomplish adequacy by helping out different educators, stepping up to the plate and taking part in different school exercises. To accomplish an elevated level of OCB and group viability in schools, school principals are required to perform exercises of worker initiative, for example, supporting and creating instructors, regarding educators, giving a trustable, good and aware condition and thinking about educators.

Afolabi, O.A., Adesina, A., & Aigbedion, A. (2009). Influence of team leadership and team commitment on teamwork and conscientiousness. Journal of Social Sciences, 21(3), pp. 211-216. [Links] Alizadeh, Z., Darvishi, S., Nazari, K., & Emami, M. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9), pp. 494-505. [Links] Barbuto, J.E., & Wheeler, D.W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Organisational Management, 31(3), pp. 300-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601106287091 [Links] Bettenhausen, K.L. (1991). Five years of group research: What we have learnt and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, pp. 345-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700205 [Links] Bush, T., & Heystek, J. (2006). School Leadership and Management in South Africa: Principals' perceptions. Educational Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers' job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), pp. 600-623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143209339650 [Links] Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite? Journal of Management, 3, 239-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303 [Links] Dannhauser, Z. (2007). Relationship between servant leadership, follower trust, team commitment and unit effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. [Links] Dannhauser, Z., & Boshoff, A.B. (2007). Structural equivalence of the Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) Servant Leadership Questionnaire on North American and South African samples. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 148-168. [Links] Davoudi, S.M.M. (2012). A comprehensive study of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): Introducing the term, clarifying its consequences and identifying its antecedents. Journal of Economics and Management, 1(2), 73-85. [Links] Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J.A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage. [Links] DuFour, R. (2001). In the right context. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), pp. 14-17. [Links] Ehrhart, M.G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 57, pp. 61-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x [Links] Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, pp. 499-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392936 [Links] Graham, J. (1991). Servant leadership in organisations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), pp. 105-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91)90025-W [Links] Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. [Links] Güçel, C., & Begec, S. (2012). The effect of the servant leadership on organizational citizenship behaviour: Case study of a university. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 4(1), pp. 107-116. [Links] Gupta, V., Huang, R., & Niranjan, S. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leadership and performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, pp. 335-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809359184 [Links] Guzzo R. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness. In P.S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups (pp. 34-71). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. [Links] Hackman J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organisational behaviour (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall. [Links] Hackman, J.R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [Links] Hackman, J.R., & Walton, R.E. (1986). Leading groups in organisations. In P.S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72-119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Links] Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. (7th edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2009.12.014 [Links] Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A Review of the empirical research. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1), pp. 27-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X96032001002 [Links] 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

Hui, C., Law, K.S., & Chen, Z.X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 77(1), pp. 3-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2812 [Links] Irving, J.A., & Longbotham, G.J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the Organizational Leadership Assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), pp. 98-113. [Links] Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. PMid:9010656. [Links] Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). Interactive LISREL 8.80. Chicago: Scientific Software International. [Links] Karambayya, R. (1990). Good organizational citizens do make a difference. Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (pp. 110-119). Whistler, British Columbia: The Administrative Sciences of Canada. [Links] Katz, D. (1964). Motivational basis of organisational behaviour. Behavioural Science, 9(2), pp. 131-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090206 [Links] Kelloway, E.K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modelling: A researcher's guide. USA: Sage. [Links] Kolodny, H.F., & Kiggundu, M.N. (1980). Towards the development of a sociotechnical systems model in woodlands mechanical harvesting. Human Relations, 33, pp. 623-645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872678003300902 [Links] Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, December, pp. 1-119. [Links] Kuo, C.C. (2004). Research on impacts of team leadership on team effectiveness. Journal of Larson, C.E., & LaFasto, F.M.J. (2001). The team effectiveness questionnaire. In P.G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd edn.) (p. 184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Links] LePine, J.A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D.E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organisational citizenship behaviour. A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), pp. 52-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.L52 [Links] Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, pp. 161-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jJeaqua.2008.01.006 [Links] Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J., & Freiberg, S.J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2832 [Links] Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-261). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. [Links] Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2013). The relationship between servant leadership, affective team commitment and team effectiveness. SA Journal of Human ResourceManagement/SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 11(1), Art. #495, 10 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v11i1.495 [Links] McCrimmon, M. (2010). Servant leadership. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from http://www.leadersdirect.com/servantleadership [Links] McGrath, J.E. (1964). Toward a 'theory of method' for research on organizations. In W.W. Cooper, L. Leavitt, & M.W. Shelley (Eds.), New perspectives in organization research modelling with LISREL 8.54 for Windows. University of Port Elizabeth. [Links] Mohammad, J., Habib, F.Q., & Alias, M.A. (2011). Job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviour: An empirical study at higher learning institutions. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), pp. 149-165. [Links] Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviours: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845 [Links] Morgeson, F.P., DeRue, D.S., & Karam, E.P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), pp. 5-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376 [Links] Neale, M., & Mannix, E. (2012). Research on managing groups and teams. In M.A. Neale, & E.A. Mannix (Eds.), Looking back, moving forward: A review of group and team-based research (research on managing groups and teams), Vol. 15 (pp. 359-381). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. [Links] Neubert, M.J., Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., Chonko, L.B., & Roberts, J.A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 1220-1233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012695 [Links] Niehoff, B.P., & Moorman, R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organisational citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), pp. 527-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256591 [Links] Nieva, V.F., Fleishman, E.A., & Reick, A. (1978). Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships. Final Technical Report. Contract No. DAH19-78-C- 0001. Washington, DC: Advanced Research Resources Organisation. [Links] Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Links] Parolini, J., Patterson, K., & Winston, B. (2009). Distinguishing between transformational and servant leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30(3), pp. 274-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730910949544 [Links] Piccoli, G., Powell, A., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: Team control structure, work processes, and team effectiveness. Information Technology and People, 17, pp. 359-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840410570258 [Links] Pina, M., Martinez, A., & Martinez, L. (2008). Teams in organizations: A review on team effectiveness. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), pp. 7-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590810860177 [Links] Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced 'substitutes for leadership' scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), pp. 702-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.702 [Links] Podsakoff, P.M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (1997). Impact of organisational citizenship behaviour on performance: A review and suggestions for further research. Human Performance, 10(2), pp. 133-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_5 [Links] Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organisational citizenship behaviours: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, pp. 513-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307 [Links] Randel, A.E. (2003). The salience of culture in multinational teams and its relation to team citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(1), pp. 27-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470595803003001848 [Links] Ren-Tao, M., & Heung-Gil, K. (2009). The impact of organisational citizenship behaviour on

Convergence Information Technology (pp. 641-646). Seoul: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. [Links] Ross, T.M., Jones, E.C., & Adams, S.G. (2008). Can team effectiveness be predicted? Team Performance Management, 14(5/6), pp. 248-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590810898518 [ Links ] Rowan, L., Knobel, M., Bigum, C., & Lankshear, C. (2002). Boys, literacies and schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press. [Links] Salas, E., Dickenson, T.L., Converse, S.A., & Tannenbaum, S.I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R.J. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [Links] Salas, E., Stagl, K.C., & Burke, C.S. (2004). 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs. In C.L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19 (pp. 47-91). Chichester: John Wiley. [Links] Schlechter, A.F., & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2006). The relationship between transformational leadership, meaning and organisational citizenship behaviour. Management Dynamics: Journal of the South African Institute for Management Scientists, 15(4), pp. 2-16. [Links] Schlechter, A.F., & Strauss, J.J. (2008). Leader emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, trust and team commitment: Testing a model within a team context. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(1), pp. 42-53. [Links] Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J.C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organisations. Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, 9(2), pp. 57-65. [Links] Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C., & Santorra, J.C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organisations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), pp. 402-424. [Links] Sheng, C., & Tian, Y. (2010). Relationships among teamwork behaviour, trust, perceived team support, and team commitment. Social Behaviour and Personality, 38(10), pp. 1297-1306. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.10.1297 [Links] Sisman, M. (2004) Ög"retim Liderlig"i [Instructional Leadership]. Ankara: PegemA Publication. [Links] Stagl, K.C., Salas, E., & Burke, C.S. (2007). Best practices in team leadership: What team leaders do to facilitate team effectiveness. In J.A. Conger & R.E. Riggio (Eds.), The practice of leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders (pp. 172198). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Links] Sun, J.M. & Wang, B. (2009). Servant leadership in China: Conceptualization and measurement. Advances in Global Leadership, 5, pp. 321-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005017 [Links] Transcritti, F.G. (2010). The relationship between servant leadership and team effectiveness of deacon ministries in Southern Baptist churches. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY. [Links] Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), pp. 1228-1261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462 [Links] Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant-leadership survey (SLS): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), pp. 249-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1 [Links] Vondey, M. (2010). The relationships among servant leadership, organizational citizenship behaviour, person-organization fit, and organizational identification. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), pp. 3-27. [Links] Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnell, C.A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee 517529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018867 [Links] Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organisational commitment as predictors of organisational citizenship behaviour and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17(3), pp. 601-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 [Links] Witt, L.A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes-organisational citizenship behaviours relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(18), pp. 1490-1501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00483.x [Links] Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., & Liu, C. (2009). Cross-functional team organisational citizenship behaviour in China: Shared vision and goal interdependence among departments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), pp. 2879-2909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00554.x [Links] Zhu, W., May, D.R., & Avolio, B.J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behaviour on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, 11(1), pp. 16-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190401100104

Research Scholar, IMSAR, MDU, Rohtak mahipal.raperia@gmail.com