Journal of Leadership in Organizations.
ISSN 2656-8829 (Prin.
ISSN 2656-8810 (Onlin.
Vol.
No.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP
IN ORGANIZATIONS
Journal homepage: https://jurnal.
id/leadership A Meta-Analysis Study: The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Qurrota AAoyun1*.
Raja Oloan Tumanggor2, and P.
Tommy Y.
Suyasa3 1,2,3 MasterAos Program in Psychology.
Faculty of Psychology.
Universitas Tarumanagara.
Jakarta.
Indonesia
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Meta-analysis.
Organizational citizenship behavior.
Servant Article History:
Received 2025-10-18
Received in revised form
2025-12-05
Received in revised form
2026-01-14
Received in revised form
2026-01-30
Received in revised form
2026-02-03
Accepted 2026-03-02 DOI: 10.
22146/ jlo.
* Corresponding Author at MasterAos Program in Psychology.
Faculty of Psychology.
Tarumanagara University.
Jakarta.
Indonesia.
E-mail address:
707241014@stu.
ABSTRACT
Introduction/Main Objectives: This study examined the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior using a meta-analytic approach.
The topic is essential because servant leadership emphasizes ethical conduct, empathy, and Background Problems: Previous studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the influence of servant leadership on organizational citizenship behavior across various cultural and organizational contexts.
This study examined the central question: To what extent is the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior consistent and significant within Asian organizational contexts? Novelty: This research synthesized 22 quantitative studies conducted across Asia, published from 2015 to 2024, making it the first regional meta-analysis to systematically explore the servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior Prior research has been fragmented and dominated by Western perspectives, limiting comprehensive insights into collectivist Asian cultures.
Research Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted using data from 6,023 participants.
Statistical procedures, including effect size calculation .
C).
FisherAos Z transformation, heterogeneity testing, and publication bias assessment, were conducted using JAMOVI version 2.
Finding/Results: The results indicate a significant and positive correlation between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior .
C = 0.
95% CI .
274, 0.
), demonstrating that a higher level of servant leadership is associated with stronger extra-role behaviors among No evidence of publication bias was identified.
Conclusion: Servant leadership plays a critical role in fostering extrarole behaviors among employees in Asian organizations.
These findings underscore the importance of cultivating servant leadership practices to enhance collaboration, empathy, and sustainable organizational performance.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license .
ttp://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.
0/).
AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
Introduction Mazumder, 2.
Such behavior improves According to Zhang et al.
collaborative efforts by employees in accomplishing organizational objectives contribute meaningfully to these positive Human increasingly emerged as a global strategic issue, one of which concerns extra-role behavior within organizations, commonly referred to as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Bateman & Organ, 1.
According to Organ .
, organizational citizenship behavior is an individual behavior that is indirectly recognized by the formal reward system and contributes to enhancing the organizationAos efficiency.
Furthermore, organizational citizenship behavior reflects employee behavior that improves the efficiency and effectiveness of interfering with individual task performance (Organ, 1.
Katz and Kahn .
proposed three behavioral patterns necessary for achieving organizational effectiveness: joining and remaining within the organization, fulfilling required role activities, and engaging in spontaneous and innovative actions beyond prescribed tasks.
These extra-role behaviors, referred to as citizenship behaviors, are indirectly valued because they are not formally standardized yet significantly enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1.
Organ .
further explained that organizational citizenship behavior is driven by two broad categories of antecedents:
commitment, job satisfaction, motivation, organizational culture, leadership style, trust in leaders, and perceived organizational Among these external factors, servant leadership is identified as a key predictor of organizational citizenship behavior (Mekpor & Dartey-Baah, 2.
A substantial body of research on organizational citizenship behavior has accumulated to date, highlighting its relevance in continued scholarly discussion.
Organizational citizenship behavior has been shown to positively influence organizational performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1.
and shape the organizational climate (Tagliabue et al.
, 2.
, indicating that strong extra-role behavior contributes to enhanced performance and a healthier organizational Additionally, organizational citizenship behavior is associated with higher job satisfaction (Biswas & Mazumder, 2.
and lower turnover intentions (Shareef & Atan, 2.
Organizational citizenship behavior also correlates with emotional intelligence, as employees who demonstrate higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior tend to exhibit stronger emotional intelligence (Turnipseed, 2.
Servant leadership emphasizes serving others as a central priority (Spears, 2.
According to Neuschel .
, servant leadership is characterized by the leader placing the needs and interests of others above oneself, creating a reciprocal and trustbased relationship between the leader and The focus of servant leadership is not merely guiding followers but also motivating them and facilitating their This leadership style adopts a longterm developmental approach that fosters holistic changes in individuals' personal and professional lives (Choudhary et al.
, 2.
By prioritizing employee well-being, organizations foster greater commitment, optimal performance, and enhanced job Employees tend to exert extra effort and deliver performance beyond expectations when they work in a supportive and comfortable environment (Biswas & Servant leadership is considered highly compatible with organizational citizenship AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
behavior because it targets not only organizational development but also employee growth (Margaretha & Prasetio.
Leaders play a decisive role in shaping followersAo attitudes and behaviors because their decisions, actions, and communications influence employees' willingness to engage in organizational citizenship behavior (Adewale & Ghavifekr, 2.
Empirical evidence has supported the relationship organizational citizenship behavior (Zhao & Zhou, 2.
several variables, namely performance, job satisfaction, commitment, and trust.
Zhang et .
also asserted that servant citizenship behavior, job outcomes, in-role performance, creativity, and service quality, and these effects vary across cultural contexts and group-level conditions.
Despite these findings, there have been some reported inconsistencies in the strength of the relationship and limited exploration of mediating or moderating mechanisms.
A review of empirical studies conducted between 2015 and 2024 indicates mixed results regarding the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, including significant positive, non-significant positive, and even negative correlations.
Several mediators have been identified in this relationship, such as leadership trust (Abid et al.
, 2.
organizational justice (Khajehpour et al.
, employee cynicism (Aziz et al.
, 2.
other-orientation (Ozturk, organizational support (Beshlideh et al.
(Ezerman & Sintaasih, 2.
, job satisfaction (Wahyu et al.
, 2.
, affective and cognitive trust (Saleem et al.
, 2.
, organizational commitment (Sadikin et al.
, 2.
, work (Shafi organizational culture (Aminah et al.
, 2022.
Naa et al.
, 2.
, and emotional intelligence (Kumari et al.
, 2.
Moderating variables, such as group cohesion (Abid et al.
, 2.
and tenure (Thao & Kang, 2.
, have also been Research has consistently demonstrated that servant leadership is closely associated with organizational citizenship behavior, as leaders can model exemplary behavior that followers emulate.
However, leadership theories have continued to evolve, and no single leadership model is universally applicable across all organizational contexts (Khan & Nawaz, 2.
Identifying the most appropriate leadership style depends on multiple factors, including organizational culture, environment, structural complexity, dynamics (Frangieh & Popescu, 2.
Muhdar .
argued that several leadership styles are positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior.
These authoritative, charismatic, spiritual, and servant leadership.
Eva et al.
organizational citizenship behavior at both the individual and group levels.
Similarly.
Maharani .
found that servant leadership has a positive and significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior.
Since previous research on servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior has shown diverse and inconsistent findings, this meta-analysis aimed to examine the presence and stability of the correlation between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior by correcting for potential sampling errors.
Establishing the consistency of this Multiple meta-analyses have examined the servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior relationship.
Kiker et al.
found significant relationships organizational citizenship behavior through AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
relationship is crucial for ensuring the validity of conclusions and providing a reliable basis for practitioners seeking to organizational contexts.
rewards or specific bonuses for engaging in such behavior.
Rather, organizational citizenship behavior reflects employees' prosocial actions aimed at contributing beyond what is formally expected.
Organizational citizenship behavior includes a variety of behaviors, such as assisting coworkers, avoiding interpersonal conflict, showing respect for organizational norms, and complying with established workplace According to Organ .
, organizational citizenship behavior consists of five dimensions: .
altruism, .
conscientiousness, .
courtesy, .
civic virtue, and .
Literature Review 1 Organizational Citizenship Behavior The term organizational citizenship behavior refers to discretionary individual behaviors that go beyond formal job requirements.
Organ .
conceptualized organizational citizenship behavior as voluntary, extra-role actions performed within an organization, which support colleagues and contribute to the effective and efficient functioning of organizational processes.
Similarly.
Robbins and Judge .
described organizational citizenship behavior as voluntary employee actions .
ndertaken without coercio.
, reflecting a willingness to provide assistance that exceeds prescribed job duties.
According to Organ .
, organizational citizenship behavior represents individual choices and initiatives that are not formally rewarded yet In other words, these behaviors are not part of official job descriptions, and employees are not penalized for failing to display them.
Nielsen et al.
further emphasized that organizational citizenship behavior encompasses individual actions that exceed obligatory roles and are not directly recognized by formal organizational systems, yet they facilitate improved organizational functioning.
Altruism refers to voluntary actions aimed at helping individuals who are experiencing difficulties in organizational tasks or personal situations.
Then, conscientiousness is described as behaviors that demonstrate oneAos effort to exceed minimal job requirements, reflecting a strong sense of Courtesy refers to behaviors relationships and prevent work-related conflicts among colleagues.
Civic virtue relates to behaviors reflecting oneAos active Lastly, sportsmanship is understood as tolerance and acceptance of less-than-ideal organizational conditions without complaining or engaging in negative behavior (Podsakoff et al.
, 2.
Organ .
asserted that organizational citizenship behavior is influenced by two broad categories of factors: .
internal factors .
riginating from within the commitment, job satisfaction, motivation, and mood.
external factors .
rom the Organizational citizenship behavior is also frequently defined as behavior that exceeds formal obligations, extra-role actions not directly tied to compensation, where individuals who exhibit such behaviors are considered to be good organizational citizens (Robbins & Coulter, 2.
This suggests that employees with high levels of organizational citizenship behavior do not receive monetary AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
leadership style, trust in leaders, and perceived organizational support.
awareness and inner composure when serving others.
Building community, which explains how leaders cultivate a sense of collective identity within the organization.
Conceptualization, which reflects a leaderAos capacity to view organizational issues from a broad and strategic .
Commitment to the growth of people, which emphasizes the leader's development within the organization.
Empathy, which entails understanding and appreciation of othersAo thoughts and feelings.
Foresight, which refers to the leader's ability to anticipate future outcomes.
Healing, which is defined as the leaderAos capacity to help oneself and others recover from emotional challenges or setbacks.
Listening, which involves identifying followers' needs and helping them articulate their aspirations through attentive listening.
Persuasion, which refers to the leaderAos ability to influence others without relying on formal authority or coercive power.
Then, .
stewardship, which describes the leaderAos commitment to serve as a responsible caretaker of both organizational and stakeholder needs.
2 Servant Leadership Greenleaf .
conceptualized servant leadership as a form of leadership grounded in an individual's intrinsic inclination to According to him, servant leaders demonstrate a natural commitment to serving others with diligence, civility, and genuine concern by prioritizing the needs of others and acting in accordance with normative moral expectations.
Similarly.
Spears .
stated that a servant leader is someone whose desire to lead originates from a fundamental and natural desire to Through conscious and intentional service, servant leaders inspire others to realize their aspirations and develop the capacity to lead.
Neuschel .
further defined servant leadership as a leadership style rooted in a sincere inner motivation to serve first.
Leaders who embody this genuine spirit of service positively influence followers and organizational productivity.
Servant leadership has also been described as a leadership approach that emphasizes care for the growth and well-being of followers, the community, and even the leader themselves, prioritizing collective interests over personal ambition (Vondey, 2.
represents an interactive process in which leaders exert influence by serving, listening, and understanding the needs of their followers so that they may grow and reach their highest potential.
Servant leaders extend their contribution beyond merely meeting the needs of others.
They foster development, empower individuals, and create opportunities for followers to experience both material and emotional wellbeing.
Liden et al.
proposed that servant leadership is shaped by three key elements.
The first element is context and culture, as leaders are shaped by the environments and cultural norms within their organizations.
Then, there is follower receptivity, which determines the extent to which employees accept and respond positively to servant leadership behaviors.
Third, emotional intelligence to lead and personal values, which enable leaders to simultaneously guide and serve their followers effectively.
3 Servant Leadership Organizational Citizenship Behavior Spears .
identified ten essential characteristics of servant leadership: .
Awareness, which refers to the leaderAos self- Leadership constitutes a critical element in shaping and directing individual behavior AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
within organizations.
Among various leadership approaches, servant leadership stands out for its emphasis on empathy, awareness, stewardship, empowerment, and a commitment to fostering the growth of Greenleaf .
conceptualized servant leadership as an orientation in which leaders place the interests of their followers above their own, prioritizing followersAo development and well-being.
In line with this view.
Spears .
explained that servant leaders focus on empowering organizational members, elevating the needs of others, and nurturing followersAo growth within the work environment.
In contrast, organizational citizenship behavior refers to voluntary, discretionary behaviors that extend beyond formal job requirements and significantly contribute to organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1.
represents a behavioral expression of reciprocity as outlined in SET.
Servant leadership cultivates positive relational exchanges marked by trust, respect, and mutual concern for well-being (Eva et al.
, 2.
When followers perceive that leaders genuinely attend to their needs and personal development, they have higher motivation to contribute beyond their formal Within the framework of contributions materialize as organizational citizenship behavior, reflecting followers' responses to fair, supportive, and relationally enriching leadership practices.
Accordingly, servant leadership promotes organizational citizenship behavior through psychological mechanisms grounded in trust, loyalty, and affective commitment to the organization (Pletzer et al.
, 2.
Based on the theoretical foundation provided by social exchange theory and its implications for the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, the following hypothesis was proposed:
The dynamics between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior can be understood through the lens of social exchange theory (SET) introduced by Blau .
and the leaderAemember exchange theory (LMX) developed by Graen and UhlBien .
Both theories posit that relationships between leaders and followers are built upon reciprocity, whereby positive actions by one party elicit positive responses from the other.
In organizational settings, such reciprocal behaviors may include assisting colleagues, fostering a positive work climate, engaging in organizational activities, and demonstrating commitment to organizational objectives (Podsakoff et al.
When leaders adopt a servant leadership style characterized by emotional support, empathy, and developmental opportunities, followers perceive these actions as forms of social investment.
Consequently, followers are motivated to reciprocate through behaviors that benefit the organization, which are manifested in behavior (Liden et al.
, 2.
In this sense.
H1: Servant leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior.
Method.
Data, and Analysis This study employed a non-experimental meta-analysis correlational quantitative approach.
The research procedures adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et , 2.
Meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize findings from multiple prior studies to determine whether the hypotheses tested in those studies are supported or rejected (Retnawati et al.
, 2.
It also serves to examine the consistency of research outcomes, particularly when previous studies reported varying results, some revealing strong or weak relationships, and AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
others reporting significant or nonsignificant effects.
Assessing this variability is essential for establishing the robustness of the observed relationships.
relationship, making the available evidence more relevant to workplace contexts.
Limiting the search to this timeframe ensured that the meta-analysis incorporated methodological rigor, thereby enhancing the validity and relevance of the synthesized This meta-analysis adopted a comparative study approach, which aims to evaluate the relationship between variables by analyzing effect sizes and study characteristics (Retnawati et al.
, 2.
In this approach, the relationship between variables is treated as a covariance between two constructs, allowing researchers to determine the presence and magnitude of relationships across studies (Retnawati et al.
, 2.
This study focused exclusively on quantitative empirical research.
Therefore, publications like book chapters, theoretical reviews, systematic reviews, case studies, and other non-quantitative documents about servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior were excluded.
The initial search identified 183 open-access These articles were subsequently screened and evaluated based on the predetermined inclusion criteria required for conducting the meta-analysis.
1 Research Literature Search The literature search was conducted using a digital platform provided by Tarumanagara University .
ttps://fakultas-psikologiuntar.
co/) and various reputable scientific databases, e.
, the American Psychological Association (APA).
Academica.
Atlantis Press.
AOSIS.
Elsevier.
Emerald Insight.
Growing Science.
HRMARS.
Mendeley.
PsycINFO.
ResearchGate.
SagePub.
ScienceDirect.
Sciendo.
Sustainability.
SpingerLink.
Taylor & Francis, and Wiley.
The keywords employed in the search process were both English and Indonesian, including "servant leadership" OR "kepemimpinan melayani" "pemimpin AND "organizational citizenship behavior" OR "perilaku warga organisasi" OR "perilaku peran ekstra".
2 Research Inclusion and Exclusion To identify articles relevant to the objectives of this study, a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was established.
The inclusion criteria were as follows: .
empirical studies that examined the variables of servant leadership and organizational citizenship .
articles written in English and .
articles published within the last ten years .
studies conducted in Asian countries based on the rationale that both developed and developing nations within the region share similar contextual characteristics, including cultural norms and environmental condition.
studies that reported sufficient statistical information for meta-analytic sample size .
, correlation coefficient .
, chi-square value, t-value, or p-value.
The search was restricted to published scientific literature from 2015 to 2024.
This conceptualization and measurement of servant leadership had become more consistent and standardized, enabling greater comparability across studies.
It also corresponds with notable shifts in organizational dynamics and a rise in research on the servant leadership and Studies that did not meet these criteria were The exclusion criteria included: .
articles that were not available in full text or AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
were not open access.
publications written in languages other than English.
Studies conducted outside the Asian context .
, in Africa, the Americas.
Australia, or Europ.
studies that did not provide correlation coefficients, t-values, or p-values.
remained for screening.
During the screening stage, 22 articles were excluded because they did not meet the criteria for publication characteristics or were conducted outside the Asian context.
The remaining 36 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility.
At this stage, studies were evaluated based on the information and the fulfillment of the quality assessment criteria.
Ultimately, 22 studies met all inclusion criteria and were retained for quantitative synthesis in the metaanalysis.
The detailed flow is depicted in the PRISMA diagram (Figure .
3 Research Study Selection A total of 183 records were identified through database searches using the Auservant leadershipAy Auorganizational citizenship behaviorAy for the publication period of 2015-2024.
After removing articles that were not available in full text or not open access, 58 articles Figure 1.
The Study Selection Process for Meta-Analysis Based on the PRISMA Flow Diagram Records removed before screening:
ther reasons .
on-full text and non-open acces.
= .
Records identified from databases .
= .
Records screened .
= .
Records excluded .
esearch conducted outside Asi.
= .
Reports assessed for eligibility .
= .
Reports excluded .
issing effect or failed quality chec.
= .
Included Screening Identification Identification of new studies on databases and registers Final studies included in review .
= .
feasibility assessment.
The feasibility assessment was conducted using the quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH, 2.
, which provides a widely recognized The instrument encompasses four principal 4 Research Inclusion and Exclusion The methodological rigor of studies included in the meta-analysis was systematically reevaluated through a comprehensive and structured screening procedure.
This procedure determines the relevance, methodological adequacy, and overall eligibility of the studies identified during the article search through several stages of AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
criteria, each comprising five to six specific evaluative questions that assess: .
participant characteristics.
measurement quality.
reported A detailed explanation of each criterion is provided in Table 1.
To ensure reliability and consistency in the independently assessed by the primary author using the modified scoring Ambiguous or insufficiently reported items were subsequently reviewed with the second and third authors to establish a shared interpretation of the assessment criteria and reach consensus.
Although formal statistical indicators of inter-rater reliability were not computed, coding reliability was reinforced through cross-checking, alignment of interpretive standards, and systematic verification across In its original form, the NIH assessment tool employs a dichotomous response format (AuyesAy or AunoA.
for each item.
However, for the purposes of this study, the researchers modified the scoring system to enhance clarity, transparency, and consistency in evaluating the completeness of information reported by each study.
Specifically, each item was assigned a numerical score of Au1Ay if the required information was explicitly stated in the article and Au0Ay if the information was absent, unclear, or not explicitly The cumulative score obtained by summing the values across all items served as the final quality score for each Based on this scoring system, studies with a total score of over 2.
50 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis, whereas those scoring less than 2.
50 were classified as ineligible.
A comprehensive evaluation of potential research bias, e.
, participant selection, measurement procedures, and analytical approaches, was also conducted.
Overall, the included studies demonstrated adequate efforts to address common sources of bias and provided sufficient methodological A summary of the quality assessment results for all reviewed studies is presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Article Quality Assessment and Reporting Criteria Criteria Study Characteristics 5 --- 1 --Participant Characteristics 6 --- 1 --Measurement 6 --- Score Provides complete information about the study .
uthor and year of publication.
study title related to SL and OCB variables.
journal name, volume, and issue country of publication.
author's university and country of origin.
study desig.
Does not provide the required information completely Provides information about participant demographics .
umber of participants, gender, age of participants, length of employment, name of workplace, and other criteria for participant.
Does not provide all the required information Provides information about the measurement methods used .
uthor and year of the theory used.
implementation of each variable dimension.
number of measurement items.
examples of measurement items.
AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
Criteria
1 ---
Statistical Analysis 5 ---
1 ---
Score measurement tool references.
reliability and validity Does not provide the required information completely Provides information about the results .
nalysis program used.
statistical value reports.
use of images or interpretation of statistical reports.
Does not provide the required information completely 5 Research Inclusion and Exclusion , 2.
Publication bias typically occurs due to discrepancies in sample sizes across studies and the greater likelihood of compared to nonsignificant ones.
This selective publication tendency leads to an significant results, as journals are more inclined to accept such manuscripts.
detect potential publication bias.
Begg and MazumdarAos rank correlation test and EggerAos regression test were performed, both of which were evaluated using a funnel plot.
All statistical analyses in this study were conducted using the JAMOVI 2.
The dataset for this study .
, chi-square values, t-values, and p-value.
was subsequently converted into effect sizes .
for analysis (Borenstein et al.
, 2.
FisherAos Z transformation was employed to calculate both the effect sizes and their standard errors, with all computations performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis A heterogeneity test was conducted to determine whether the effect sizes across the included studies reflected a common underlying effect or varied significantly (Retnawati et al.
, 2.
The effect sizes of the studies were standardized and analyzed to assess the strength of the relationship under the proposed hypotheses.
The heterogeneity analysis also served as an assumption test for the application of the random-effects model.
Effect size estimates were visually represented using a forest plot with a 95% confidence interval.
4 Result and Discussion 1 Research Inclusion and Exclusion This meta-analysis incorporated 22 empirical studies that examined the relationship organizational citizenship behavior.
These studies were published from 2015 to 2024.
The results of the quality assessment and feasibility evaluation are presented in Table A publication bias analysis was carried out to ensure that the meta-analytic findings were not distorted by systematic bias (Retnawati et Table 2.
Summary of Article Quality Assessment and Reporting Score Abid et al.
Aminah et al.
Aydoan and ynzer.
Study Year Author Total Score Note Pass Pass Pass AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
Score Aziz et al.
Aziz et al.
Bahari.
Study Year Total Score Note Pass Pass Pass Beshlideh et al.
Pass Deng.
Pass Ezerman Sintaasih.
Fallen Farooqui et al.
Pass Gao and Huang.
Pass Hanaysha et al.
Pass Hanilesta Putranto.
Fallen Harwiki.
Fallen Kartono et al.
Pass Khajehpour et al.
Fallen Kumar and Hamid.
Fallen Kumari et al.
Pass Leem and Lee.
Pass Lu et al.
Pass Mariana et al.
Fallen Naa et al.
Fallen Nelwan et al.
Fallen Ozturk.
Pass Perkasa et al.
Fallen Priyono et al.
Fallen Sadikin et al.
Fallen Saleem et al.
Pass Shafi et al.
Pass Subhaktiyasa et al.
Pass Suhardi et al.
Fallen Susanto.
Fallen Thao and Kang.
Pass van Hoven et al.
Pass Author AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
Study Year Score Wahyu et al.
Wulandari et al.
Author Total Score Note Pass Fallen Note.
SC = Study characteristics.
PC = Participant characteristics.
MT = Measurement tools.
SA =
Statistical analysis Of the 36 articles initially screened, 22 met the established eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis.
Twelve studies were classified as having moderate methodological quality, with total scores ranging from 2.
57 to 2.
77 across all assessment criteria.
These studies were Abid et al.
Aziz et al.
Aziz et al.
Beshlideh et al.
Deng .
Farooqui et al.
Gao and Huang .
Kartono et al.
Leem and Lee .
Lu et al.
Ozturk .
, and Wahyu et al.
Their classification as moderate requirements in several critical indicators about study characteristics, measurement adequacy, and the clarity of reported scores ranging from 2.
90 to 3.
These studies were conducted by Aminah et al.
Aydoan and ynzer .
Bahari .
Hanaysha et al.
Kumari et al.
Saleem et al.
Shafi et al.
Subhaktiyasa et al.
Thao and Kang .
, and van Hoven et al.
2 Participants The participants from diverse organizational settings across multiple Asian countries.
The overall sample comprised employees from both public and private institutions, educational institutions, and industrial and manufacturing sectors.
Sample sizes across the studies varied substantially, ranging from 36 to 835 participants.
A detailed summary of participant characteristics for each study is presented in Table 3.
The remaining ten articles demonstrated high methodological quality, with total Table 3.
Summary of Study Participants Study Year Author 2015 Abid et al.
Aminah et al.
Aydoan ynzer.
Aziz et al.
Participant Characteristics Country Employees .
anking, education, and transportation Human resource employees at the headquarters of the financial and development supervisory agency Employees of three private hospitals belonging to a healthcare Employees of organizations in the service sectors .
, education.
Pakistan China Turkey Pakistan AAoyun et al.
Study Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
Year Author Participant Characteristics auditing, and consultin.
Employees of organizations in the service sectors .
, education, telecommunications, banking, and Employees of public secondary Employees manufacturing company Country Aziz et al.
Bahari.
Beshlideh et al.
Deng.
MBA training employees China Farooqui et al.
Lecturers of state university Pakistan Gao and Huang.
Lecturers of state university China Hanaysha et al.
Administrative staff and academic staff of state university Kartono et al.
Kumari et al.
Leem and Lee.
Employees of PT Bank Artha Graha Internasional Managerial and non-managerial employees in the manufacturing services industry Employees of community federal credit unions Lu et al.
Private company employees Ozturk.
Saleem et al.
Shafi et al.
Industrial workers and members of entrepreneur associations Head of departments in a state Employees of public and private banking companies Subhaktiyasa et Thao and Kang.
van Hoven et al.
Wahyu et al.
Lecturers of a state university Employees Employees of public primary and secondary schools Permanent non-academic employees at a university Pakistan Malaysia Iran United Arab Emirates Indonesia Pakistan Korea Utara China Turkey Pakistan Pakistan Indonesia Vietnam Iran Indonesia Note.
N = Number of Participants 3 Correlation Consistency Test organizational citizenship behavior .
C = 359, p < 0.
001, 95% CI .
274, 0.
confirming that the estimated effect size is both statistically significant and unlikely to The results of the random-effects metaanalysis indicate a statistically robust correlation between servant leadership and AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
be the result of sampling error.
Accordingly, the research hypothesis is supported.
In this study, the analysis of 22 articles examining the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior employed a random-effects model.
The heterogeneity across studies (IA= 94.
Q=526.
df = 21.
p < 0.
These findings confirm that the observed variations in effect sizes are not attributable to sampling error alone.
The complete heterogeneity test results are presented in Table 5 along with the corresponding forest plot (Figure .
The correlation coefficient falls within the moderate range, suggesting that servant leadership demonstrates a meaningful and substantive influence on the development of organizational citizenship behavior across diverse empirical contexts.
This level of consistency implies that, although the strength of the relationship may vary across individual studies, the overall pattern remains stable and coherent within the aggregated dataset.
A comprehensive summary of the statistical findings and effect size distribution is presented in Table 4.
Table 5.
Heterogeneity Test Table 4.
Consistency of Correlation Random Effects Model Confidence Interval Lower Upper Note.
k = Number of studies used.
n = Number of research samples.
r = Correlation coefficient estimator.
p = Level of significance.
IC =
Confidence intervals Heterogeneity Statistics IA 21,000 Note.
k = Number of studies used.
n = Number of study samples.
= Heterogeneity.
df = Degree of freedom.
Q = CochranAos Q.
Level of significance 4 Heterogeneity Test The heterogeneity test was conducted to examine whether the effect sizes across the included studies demonstrated consistent or varying correlations (Retnawati et al.
, 2.
According to the established criteria, heterogeneity is indicated when the IA value is Ou50%, the Q value exceeds the degree of freedom .
, and the p-value is <0.
Under these conditions, the assumption of heterogeneity is accepted, and a randomeffects model is applied.
Conversely, if the IA value is O50%, the Q value is less than df, and the p-value is >0.
05, the homogeneity assumption is accepted, and a fixed-effects model is used (Retnawati et al.
, 2.
The forest plot (Figure .
illustrates the effect sizes of the individual studies and their respective positions.
The results indicate that, among the 22 included studies, only one demonstrated a negative effect size, specifically the study by Ozturk .
, which appears on the left side of the plot.
contrast, twenty-one studies reported positive effect sizes, positioned on the right side of the plot.
Further examination of sample sizes reveals that the studies conducted by Leem and Lee .
and Wahyu et al.
were conducted on relatively small samples yet yielded statistically significant results.
Conversely, the study by Ozturk .
, which also utilized a small sample size, did not produce statistically significant findings.
AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
Figure 2.
Forest Plot Study ES (BB.
BA) 5 Publication Bias Test The results of Begg and MazumdarAos rank correlation .
=-0.
p=0.
696, p>0.
, and EggerAos regression test .
=-1.
p=0.
p>0.
indicate that there is no publication bias in this meta-analysis.
Thus, the results can be considered robust and free from systematic reporting bias.
The complete results of the publication bias test are presented in Table 6 along with the funnel plot (Figure .
A funnel plot is a widely used diagnostic tool for examining the presence of publication bias within meta-analytic In this plot, the vertical axis typically represents the study precision.
often operationalized through sample size or standard error, while the horizontal axis displays the estimated effect size.
Under conditions of no publication bias, studies with higher precision cluster near the true effect size, whereas studies with lower precision disperse more widely, collectively forming a symmetrical, inverted funnel The publication bias test was conducted to identify potential bias, using Begg and MazumdarAos rank correlation and EggerAos regression analysis based on the funnel plot.
In a funnel plot, studies with larger sample sizes typically cluster toward the top of the graph, whereas studies with smaller sample sizes are distributed toward the bottom.
assessing funnel plot asymmetry, a p-value <0.
05 indicates evidence of publication bias, whereas a p-value >0.
05 suggests the absence of bias (Retnawati et al.
, 2.
Table 6.
Publication Bias Test Time Name Fail Ae Safe N Begg and Mazumdar Rank Corr Egger's Regression Trim and Fill Number of Studies Value 7,299.
< .
4,000
AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
Figure 3.
Funnel Plot In the present meta-analysis, the observed distribution of effect sizes relative to their standard errors demonstrates a clearly defined and relatively symmetrical funnel This symmetrical dispersion of data points around the pooled effect estimate .
enter lin.
indicates that the included studies are not systematically skewed toward larger or smaller effects, thereby reducing concerns regarding selective reporting or the non-publication of null This visual interpretation is further substantiated by the results of EggerAos regression test, which yielded a nonsignificant coefficient.
The non-significant Egger test provides additional statistical confirmation that small-study effects or publication bias are unlikely to have influenced the aggregated results.
the synthesized effect sizes across the body of research examined.
6 Discussion This meta-analysis synthesized findings of 22 empirical studies examining the relationship between servant leadership (SL) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), with a primary focus on research conducted in Asian contexts.
Overall, the analysis revealed a consistent positive association between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior .
C = 359, p < 0.
001, 95% CI .
274, 0.
This moderate effect size indicates that a higher level of servant leadership is associated with behavior among employees, underscoring the relevance of service-oriented leadership in fostering employeesAo discretionary contributions to organizational functioning (Borenstein et al.
, 2.
Considering both the graphical and statistical evidence, the findings of this metaanalysis are stable and methodologically The absence of notable publication representativeness, and generalizability of Among the 22 studies analyzed, 19 reported a significant positive relationship between servant leadership and organizational AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
citizenship behavior, whereas three studies reported non-significant findings.
The inconsistencies observed in these three studies can be attributed to contextual and methodological variations.
For example.
Leem and Lee .
incorporated alternative explanatory factors and used measurement strategies that might not have accurately captured the servant leadership Ozturk demographic factors, such as age, gender, education, and job position, as control variables, which could have attenuated the leadership and organizational citizenship Similarly.
Aminah et al.
emphasized mediating mechanisms rather than direct correlations, which might explain the insignificant effect.
Taken together, these variations highlight the importance of characteristics in shaping the relationship organizational citizenship behavior.
Popescu, 2.
LeadersAo decisions, relational behaviors, and interpersonal interactions play a central role in shaping employeesAo affective responses, identification, and optimism toward their organization .
an Dierendonck, 2010.
Khan & Nawaz, 2.
Accordingly, servant leaders who prioritize humility, ethical conduct, and service to followers are well-positioned to cultivate organizational citizenship behavior as a critical behavioral resource to achieve organizational objectives (Russell, 2.
In addition to these primary findings, this meta-analysis identified a high level of heterogeneity among the included studies (IA = 94.
Q = 526.
061, p = 0.
, suggesting that observed effect size variations could not be attributed to sampling error alone.
This heterogeneity has important theoretical First, it suggests that the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is likely contingent on contextual factors.
Variations in cultural values, such as collectivism, power distance, relational norms, and hierarchical expectations, may shape both how servant leadership is enacted by leaders and how followers interpret service-oriented Such cultural contingencies imply that servant leadership may not operate reinforcing the need to integrate sociocultural dimensions into leadership theories.
The overall positive result aligns with theoretical perspectives suggesting that servant leadership fosters organizational citizenship behavior by emphasizing service, empathy, humility, moral stewardship, and follower development.
Leaders who prioritize followersAo needs and growth are better positioned to cultivate positive extrarole behaviors (Aydoan & ynzer, 2024.
Lu et , 2.
Prior research has demonstrated inspiration in subordinates (Liden et al.
Lee et al.
, 2020.
Gao & Huang, 2.
, which in turn strengthens the likelihood that employees will voluntarily contribute to organizational well-being beyond their formal responsibilities.
These findings align with theoretical perspectives emphasizing the role of service-oriented leadership in fostering prosocial behaviors beyond their formal roles (Thao & Kang, 2020.
Frangieh & Second, the heterogeneity may also stem from methodological diversity across operationalizations of the servant leadership variable, sampling frames, and the organizational sectors.
This diversity indicates that servant leadership operates through multiple theoretical pathways and that its influence on organizational citizenship behavior could be moderated by follower characteristics, organizational AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
climates, or organizationsAo structural Consequently, the heterogeneity observed in this meta-analysis highlights the theoretical complexity of servant leadership and calls for more frameworks that account for and incorporate boundary conditions and contextual moderators.
Despite this variability, the overall positive effect demonstrates that servant leadership remains a robust predictor of organizational citizenship behavior across different Therefore, the high degree of heterogeneity underscores the theoretical complexity of servant leadership as a construct and suggests the need to incorporate moderators, such as cultural values, job characteristics, and relational dynamics.
Despite this variability, the overall positive effect suggests that servant leadership remains a citizenship behavior across diverse contexts.
The publication bias analysis revealed no evidence of systematic bias, indicating that the aggregated effect size is reliable and not influenced by selective reporting.
Given the substantial body of research across sectors and populations observed in the included studies, the findings of this meta-analysis offer credible evidence regarding the positive influence of servant leadership on organizational citizenship behavior.
Given that most included studies were conducted in Asia, the findings of this metaanalysis also contribute to a broader understanding of servant leadership within Asian cultural contexts.
Asian societies are generally characterized by a high degree of collectivism, strong relational norms, and elevated power distance (Rockstuhl & Van Dyne, 2.
These cultural features align closely with core servant leadership values, , humility, interpersonal care, moral responsibility, and group-oriented behavior.
As employees in collectivist contexts tend to highly value relational harmony and leadersAo service-oriented behaviors with stronger discretionary contributions (Choi & Cho, 2.
, servant leadership may be particularly salient in Asian settings.
The positive effect sizes observed across the predominantly Asian studies thus support the theoretical proposition that servant leadership is culturally embedded.
Practically, this suggests that organizations in Asia may benefit from leadership development initiatives that emphasize humility, service, and follower-centeredness.
For researchers, these findings emphasize the importance of theorizing servant leadership as a culturally contingent construct and examining how Asian cultural dimensions may moderate its influence on follower outcomes.
Several The included studies span a variety of sectors but remain heavily concentrated in Asian contexts, which limits the generalizability of findings to other cultural regions.
This meta-analysis also did not examine subdimensions of servant leadership or organizational citizenship behavior, reducing the granularity of theoretical interpretations.
Additionally, potential mediators and moderators, e.
, job autonomy, trust, cultural values, or psychological safety, were not systematically tested, which might contribute to the high heterogeneity observed.
Future research should consider sectorspecific analyses .
, education, healthcare, public servic.
to refine contextual Expanding research beyond Asian contexts would facilitate more comprehensive cross-cultural comparisons and illuminate the moderating role of cultural dimensions.
Examining mediating and moderating mechanisms and analyzing AAoyun et al.
Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.
No.
construct sub-dimensions would provide a deeper understanding of the processes through which servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior.
Finally, experimental or longitudinal designs would strengthen causal inferences and contribute to a more theoretically grounded and contextually sensitive understanding of servant leadership.
A more diversified methodological and contextual approach can foster a richer theoretical understanding and offer stronger practical guidance for organizations seeking to cultivate servant leadership and enhance organizational citizenship behavior.
productive, harmonious, and contributiondriven work culture.
Implementing servant leadership can also help create a more collaborative, caring, and supportive work organizational performance and employee well-being.
References