The effect of servant leadership on the organizational citizenship behavior of instructors in public universities in Amhara region

Figures & data

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the study.

Source: Author own survey, 2021.

Figure 2. Explanatory sequential mixed design.

(source: Creswell, 2014, p. 270).

Table 1. Summary of population and sample of the study

Strata	Name of universities	Population size of each university (Nk)	Sample size of each university (nk)
1^st generation	University of Gondar	731	114
	Wollo University	280	44
2^nd generation	Debre Markos University	430	67
3^rd generation	Debre Tabor University	427	67
	Injibara University	145	22
4^th generation	Debark University	157	24
	Total	N= 2170	n= 338

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Figure 3. The measurement model of the study.

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Table 2. Factor component matrix estimate of items in servant leadership dimensions

Number of items in the subscales	Factor loadings
	Emotional healing	Creating value for the community	Conceptual skill	Empowering	Helping subordinates grow	Putting subordinates first	Behaving ethically
1	.713	.800	.803	.882	.761	.843	.848
2	.815	.807	.838	.837	.818	.854	.886
3	.649	.754	.869	.692	.601	.809	.871
4	.	.874	.840	.770	.	.784	.844
Eigenvalues	1.592	2.622	2.809	1.957	1.609	2.710	2.976
% of variance	53.174	65.557	70.228	65.247	53.452	67.743	74.400

Table 3. Factor component matrix estimate of items in OCB dimensions

Number of items in the subscales	Factor loadings
	Altruism	Conscientiousness	Sportsmanship	Courtesy	Civic virtue
1	.681	.816	.903	.808	.754
2	.814	.811	.914	.810	.800
3	.738	.792	.891	.825	.861
4	.753	.795	.872	.844	.833
5	.	.768	.850	.687	.
Eigenvalues	2.112	3.173	2.443	3.175	1.949
% of variance	52.810	63.463	81.443	63.459	64.953

Table 4. AMOS outputs on the fitness indices against the criteria of the measurement model

Criteria	Obtained values	Threshold
Relative chi-square (CMIN/DF)	4.828	<5
Goodness of fit index (GFI)	.947	>.90
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)	.917	>.90
Normed fit index (NFI)	.929	>.90
Incremental fit index (IFI)	.942	>.90
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)	.925	>.90
Comparative fit index (CFI)	.942	>.90
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)	.045	<.05

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Table 5. Unstandardized and standardized regression weights of the measurement model

Parameters/dimensions			Unstandardized				Standardized
			Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	Estimate
Emotional healing	<—	SL	1.000				.752
Creating value	<—	SL	1.117	.052	21.468	***	.815
Conceptual skill	<—	SL	1.077	.056	19.364	***	.727
Empowering	<—	SL	.959	.051	18.900	***	.710
Helping subordinates	<—	SL	.737	.055	13.466	***	.510
Putting subordinates first	<—	SL	.642	.055	11.657	***	.442
Behaving ethically	<—	SL	.472	.072	6.529	***	.329
Altruism	<—	OCB	1.000				.738
Conscientiousness	<—	OCB	1.109	.053	21.084	***	.784
Sportsmanship	<—	OCB	1.076	.051	21.205	***	.789
Courtesy	<—	OCB	1.024	.048	21.117	***	.786
Civic virtue	<—	OCB	1.048	.052	20.284	***	.754

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Table 6. A one sample t-test for the dimensions of servant leadership and OCB

Dimensions	Mean	Std.	Mean difference	t-value	df	Sig.(2-tailed)
Servant leadership
Emotional healing	3.54	.777	.53945	12.755	337	.000
Creating value for the community	3.61	.701	.60725	15.917	337	.000
Conceptual skills	3.76	.676	.76479	20.788	337	.000
Empowering	3.38	.766	.38240	9.177	337	.000
Helping subordinates grow and succeed	3.51	.723	.50690	12.886	337	.000
Putting subordinates first	2.78	.578	−.21967	−6.978	337	.000
Behaving ethically	3.17	.985	.17308	3.230	337	.001
Grand mean score	3.39	.514	.39347	14.072	337	.000
Organizational citizenship behavior
Altruism	3.74	.683	.74112	19.925	337	.000
Conscientiousness	3.17	1.131	.16982	2.759	337	.000
Sportsmanship	2.97	.875	−.020	−.369	337	.713
Courtesy	2.39	.852	−.61006	−13.159	337	.000
Civic virtue	3.73	.579	.73422	23.274	337	.000
Grand mean score	3.21	.537	.21448	7.339	337	.000

N=338, *Sig. <.05

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Table 7. Correlation coefficient of servant leadership and OCB

Latent variables in the structural model			Unstandardized				Standardized
			Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	Estimate
Servant leadership	<–>	OCB	.808	.057	14.068	***	.578

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Table 8. Regression of OCB on servant leadership

Latent variables in the structural model			Unstandardized				Standardized
			Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	Estimate
OCB	<—	Servant leadership	.555	.028	19.904	***	.578
R-squared			.334

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Table 9. One way ANOVA on differences in perception of servant leadership and OCB among instructors in the four generations of universities

Variables	Generations of university	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Servant leadership	Between Groups	3.875	3	1.292	4.204	.006
	Within Groups	102.622	334	.307
	Total	106.497	337
OCB	Between Groups	.978	3	.326	.506	.678
	Within Groups	215.023	334	.644
	Total	216.001	337

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Table 10. Post hoc tests of multiple comparisons among instructors in their perception of servant leadership

Variables	(I) Generations of universities	(J) Generations of universities	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
						Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Servant leadership	1^st generation	Second generation	.1907	.07370	.084	−.0164	.3978
		Third generation	.2778*	.08271	.011	.0454	.5102
		Fourth generation	.2548	.14991	.411	−.1665	.6760
	2^nd generation	First generation	−.1907	.07370	.084	−.3978	.0164
		Third generation	.0871	.07574	.724	−.1258	.2999
		Fourth generation	.0640	.14617	.979	−.3467	.4747
	3^rd generation	First generation	−.2778*	.08271	.011	−.5102	−.0454
		Second generation	−.0871	.07574	.724	−.2999	.1258
		Fourth generation	−.0231	.15092	.999	−.4471	.4010
	4^th generation	First generation	−.2548	.14991	.411	−.6760	.1665
		Second generation	−.0640	.14617	.979	−.4747	.3467
		Third generation	.0231	.15092	.999	−.4010	.4471

Source: Author own survey 2021.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage publications.

 Google Scholar