SEQUENTIAL MEDIATION ANALYSIS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE: EVIDENCE FROM INDONESIA

Headnote

ABSTRACT

One of the most significant challenges facing leaders today is the need to position and enable organisations and people to adapt to an increasingly dynamic and demanding environment. This study examined and analysed the role of servant leadership in affective commitment to change in the higher education sector using a sequential mediation model of conscientiousness personality and psychological ownership. The data were collected online from 293 Indonesian lecturers. Data analysis was performed using a structural equation model using SmartPLS software. The results confirmed that implementing servant leadership encourages positive values in social learning principles in higher education, which can improve conscientiousness and psychological ownership. Conscientiousness and psychological ownership support social learning, according to the principle of servant leadership, to encourage a robust affective commitment to change in a higher education environment. Conscientiousness and psychological ownership are sequential mediators that influence affective commitment to change. This study is unique in that it highlights the conscious personality factor and psychological aspects as sequential mediation on the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change in the higher education sector, as well as the fact that although all hypotheses are supported, this sequential mediation mechanism is the first such study.

Keywords: affective commitment to change, conscientiousness, organisational change, psychological ownership, servant leadership

INTRODUCTION

Leadership is a central determinant of how organisations adapt to and manage change. In dynamic and complex environments, leaders are expected not only to initiate transformation but also to build the emotional and psychological conditions that make change sustainable. Servant leadership, as conceptualised by Greenleaf (1970), emphasises a leader's role as a steward who prioritises the growth and well-being of others. Rather than exercising authority from the top, servant leaders model integrity, provide support, and empower follower qualities essential for fostering engagement during organisational change (Yang et al., 2019). As transformation efforts intensify across sectors, the relevance of servant leadership becomes more pronounced, particularly in the field of education, where emotional support and individual empowerment are essential for sustainable reform.

In the context of higher education, ongoing transformation driven by technological advancement, pedagogical innovation, and evolving stakeholder demands has significantly reshaped the way universities operate (Baker & Baldwin, 2015). These changes are particularly evident in Indonesia, where academic institutions are expected to adopt new technologies, revise curricula, and develop inclusive learning environments. However, such transitions often provoke resistance and psychological strain among staff owing to increased uncertainty and perceived loss of control (Clarence et al., 2021). Consequently, there is a growing need for leadership that not only drives reform but also fosters psychological safety, emotional resilience, and commitment. Universities require leadership approaches that foster a strong sense of purpose, shared vision, and voluntary participation in change initiatives (Turner, 2022).

Among the various forms of commitment, affective commitment to change-defined as an individual's emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in a change initiative-is particularly crucial (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002). Individuals who experience this form of commitment are more likely to embrace change and actively support its implementation (Bouckenooghe et al., 2015). Despite its relevance, the underlying psychological and dispositional mechanisms that foster affective commitment remain underexplored. Scholars increasingly recognise that beyond motivation, individual differences, such as personality traits and perceptions of leadership, play a critical role in shaping readiness for change (Bakari et al., 2017).

Drawing upon the social learning theory (SLT) (Bandura, 1997), this study posits that servant leadership may activate internal responses among followers through modelling, reinforcement, and imitation. Servant leaders, as credible role models, can shape the way employees perceive change, especially when they possess personal traits, such as conscientiousness. Individuals with conscientiousness are typically organised, disciplined, reliable, and achievement-oriented (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These individuals are more likely to internalise leadership values and align their behaviour with organisational goals Qudge et al., 1999). From an SLT perspective, conscientiousness can enhance the likelihood of followers adopting behaviours modelled by servant leaders, making it a critical variable for understanding how leadership influences change-related attitudes. In addition, psychological ownership, a state in which individuals feel a sense of possessiveness and personal responsibility towards their organisation or work, has been identified as a strong predictor of motivation, accountability, and organisational citizenship (Pierce et al., 2003; Avey et al., 2009). It reflects an individual's psychological investment in organisational success and has been linked to both improved performance and stronger commitment, particularly in change settings (Pierce & Jussila, 2011). Individuals with high psychological ownership are more likely to perceive organisational change as personally relevant and worthwhile, thereby enhancing their affective commitment to it.

Despite growing attention to these individual-level factors, empirical studies have yet to fully investigate how servant leadership interacts with conscientiousness and psychological ownership to shape affective commitment to change, particularly within higher education institutions in emerging economies. Existing research has not sufficiently explored the sequential psychological process through which leadership behaviour is translated into meaningful commitment outcomes (Liu et al., 2022; Dawkins et al., 2017; van Dierendonck et al., 2023). To address this gap, this study investigates whether conscientiousness and psychological ownership sequentially mediate the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change. By examining these constructs in tandem, this study contributes to a more holistic understanding of how leadership interacts with individual traits and psychological mechanisms to foster change. Furthermore, this study offers practical insights for higher education institutions, particularly in Indonesia, by highlighting the need for personality-aware leadership development and psychological empowerment strategies to enhance readiness and institutional resilience.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Social Learning Theory

The SLT, introduced by Bandura (1997), explains how individuals acquire behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs through observation, imitation, and reinforcement. Unlike theories that focus solely on internal traits or external stimuli, the SLT emphasises the reciprocal interaction of cognitive, behavioural, and environmental factors in the learning process (Pinho et al., 2020). Individuals tend to adopt behaviours modeled by credible role models, particularly when such behaviours are perceived as producing positive outcomes. The SLT identifies four critical learning conditions: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. These processes are particularly relevant in organisational settings, where leaders act as salient models (Bandura, 1997). By consistently demonstrating values, such as empathy, discipline, and accountability, leaders reinforce these behaviours in their followers, which can shape employees' workplace attitudes, personality expressions, and commitment.

Compared to the Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau, 1964), which explains workplace behaviour based on reciprocal exchanges and mutual obligations, the SLT emphasises behavioural modeling and vicarious learning rather than direct interpersonal exchange. While the SET highlights the transactional relationships between leaders and followers, the SLT focuses on how followers learn by observing leadership behaviours and internalising behavioural scripts over time. Similarly, although the social identity theory (SIT) explains employee behaviour based on group membership and identity alignment (Peng et al., 2023; Worley et al., 2020), it is less equipped to capture individual learning and behavioural changes that result from direct interpersonal interactions with leaders.

In contrast to the SIT, which centers on collective identity and group dynamics, the SLT offers deeper insights into individual-level behaviour formation, particularly as it pertains to observable and reinforced leadership behaviours. For instance, while the SIT might explain why individuals identify with a leader's group, the SLT elucidates how followers learn and imitate servant leadership behaviours, such as humility, service, and care, especially when those behaviours are consistently reinforced in the organisational environment (Yarberry & Sims, 2021). This theoretical perspective provides a foundation for the sequential mediation model proposed in this study. Through consistent interactions with servant leaders, followers may adopt behaviours aligned with conscientiousness, a trait reflecting responsibility, discipline, and goal orientation. As the SLT suggests, personality traits such as conscientiousness, although relatively stable, may be expressed more prominently when shaped by environmental cues, such as servant leadership. This enhanced conscientiousness may then foster a sense of psychological ownership-a perception of personal responsibility and attachment to organisational change initiatives (Pierce et al., 2003). Ultimately, individuals who feel ownership of the change process are more likely to experience affective commitment to change, demonstrating emotional engagement, support, and advocacy for transformation.

Servant Leadership

Greenleaf (1970) conceptualised servant leadership, which underscores the significance of the social benefits derived from serving and caring for others. Since its inception, the notion of servant leadership has garnered widespread popularity and emerged as a subject of scholarly discourse worldwide (Abbas et al., 2022). Servant leadership represents a novel approach centered on altruistic, follower-focused, moral/ethical, and spiritually robust. Post-conventional moral reasoning and spiritual considerations towards others can serve as relational strengths for leaders who embrace the servant leadership paradigm (Sendjaya & Pekerti, 2010). Hence, this demonstrates that servant leadership directs its focus outward towards others rather than inward towards oneself as a servant and thus should not be driven by personal interests (Sendjaya et al., 2019).

Servant leadership is poised to aid followers by nurturing autonomy across various relational, moral, emotional, and spiritual domains to motivate them to excel. Consequently, followers are empowered to enhance their contributions to the organisation, as envisioned. Grounded in the philosophy of leadership, servant leadership advocates the development of subordinates by serving and assisting them in confronting workplace challenges while upholding moral conduct (Clarence et al., 2021). This support fosters heightened commitment among followers to perform better and fosters the cultivation of social capital as part of the self-development process. Servant leadership represents an effective strategy for nurturing followers' growth, ultimately impacting affective commitment.

Affective Commitment to Change

Change is a natural phenomenon that humans cannot avoid or control. With the rapid advancement of technology and prevalence of economic and political uncertainty, significant transformations are unfolding globally, exerting varying degrees of influence on both private and public entities (Zainun et al., 2020). The pressure to adapt to these changes necessitates an unwavering commitment from organisations and their members. Commitment to change is perceived as an individual-level relationship crucial to navigating a dynamic process that involves the implementation of new work protocols, policies, programs, budgets, and technologies (Thien, 2019). Building upon Meyer and Allen (1997) conceptualisation of organisational commitment, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) proposed a multidimensional construct of commitment to change comprising three dimensions: (a) affective commitment to change, (b) continuance commitment to change, and (c) normative commitment to change. Affective commitment to change, as defined by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), denotes the desire to endorse change driven by perceived intrinsic benefits.

Affective commitment emerges as individuals engage in, recognise the relevance of, or align their identity with an entity or pursue a specific course of action. It signifies emotional attachment and willingness to support change owing to its perceived advantages for both individuals and organisations (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Affective commitment to change galvanises employees, as it is believed to cultivate positive energy and emotions, often resulting in favourable work behaviours, such as active support for change initiatives. In essence, affective commitment to change manifests when employees genuinely "desire" to support the change.

Conscientiousness

Personality is often conceived as a complex interweaving of social and individual relationships, forming a nexus that binds these activities (Roth, 2013). Concurrently, individual consciousness, characterised as a unique human manifestation of subjective reflection on objective reality, is seen as a product of the relational dynamics and mediations that arise during the establishment and evolution of society (Roth, 2013). Studies have demonstrated that an individual's response to perceived favourable or unfavourable work environments is contingent on personality factors (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). The five-factor personality model, widely acknowledged as a comprehensive framework, delineates the fundamental dimensions that best elucidate human behaviour in diverse organisational contexts (Penney et al., 2011). According to this model, personality is comprehensively understood through five broad traits; neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and intellect or openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This notion aligns with Robertson and Webber (2000), who presented evidence suggesting that conscientiousness, as a personality trait, stands out as a particularly robust predictor of overall job performance.

Conscientiousness personality, as defined by John and Srivastava (1999), encompasses socially determined impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed behaviour such as forethought, delaying gratification, adherence to norms and regulations, and the ability to plan, organise, and prioritise tasks. Individuals scoring high on the conscientiousness dimension typically exhibit organisational traits, goal orientation, and decisiveness. They harbor lofty aspirations and strive for excellence in their endeavors. Conversely, those with low conscientiousness tend to display carelessness, susceptibility to distraction, and unreliability (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Psychological Ownership

Psychological ownership refers to employees' subjective interpretations and evaluations of their relationship with the organisation (Feldman et al., 1998). Pierce et al. (2003) defined psychological possession as "the state in which an individual feels as if the target of possession or part of it is 'theirs' (e.g., it is MINE!)." Initially, legal ownership was considered the sole factor contributing to psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). However, it has been observed that psychological ownership can manifest independently of legal ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). Researchers conceptualise this construct as "an attitude characterised by both affective and cognitive elements." Pierce et al. (2003) outlined three sub-dimensions of this construct: sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and self-identity. Avey et al. (2009) identified two forms of psychological ownership; promotion and prevention orientation. In promotion orientation, psychological ownership comprises five sub-dimensions: (a) self-efficacy, (b) accountability, (c) sense of belonging, (d) self-identity, and (e) territorial orientation, which are the sole components of prevention-oriented psychological ownership. Kark and Van Dijk (2007) argue that individuals with a promotion focus are more concerned with achievements and aspirations and demonstrate greater willingness to take risks. In contrast, individuals with a prevention focus prioritise tasks and obligations and experience emotions such as anxiety and agitation.

Hypotheses Development

Servant leadership and affective commitment to change

Servant leadership is considered a cause of change because it comes from the organisation and becomes a servant to its followers. Servant leadership leads to effective change management (Dhiman & Marques, 2020). The organisational environment is positively influenced by the characteristics of the servant leader, which allows followers to adapt to change more readily. As a core concept of leadership, being a servant is expected to motivate and encourage life values and increase the welfare of followers as a whole. This has led to personal and professional development. Organisations expect followers to perform predetermined tasks and to show commitment (Jabeen et al., 2015). Such commitment can be a psychological state that reveals the follower's active relationship with the organisation and can be reflected in employees' beliefs, feelings, and actions (Dahleez et al., 2021).

According to Meyer and Allen (1997), affective commitment is the most popular because of its relevance in determining psychological behaviour (Ling et al., 2017). Servant leadership and affective commitment to change can be analysed using the SLT. SLT refers to how individuals learn through observation, interaction with the environment, and sharing experiences with others (Bandura, 1997). Servant leadership involves a leader's willingness to meet their needs and encourage the development of subordinates while focusing on collaboration, empathy, and empowerment. Meanwhile, affective commitment to change refers to an individual's emotional attachment to and motivation for organisational change. Thus, when a leader prioritises individual needs and supports individuals in assisting their development, the individual will have a high level of emotional attachment to the leader. This, in turn, enables individuals to develop a positive occupational identity and derive meaning from their work, thereby facilitating higher levels of affective commitment to change.

In this study, leaders acted as strong role models in organisations by demonstrating attitudes and behaviours that focused on service, empathy, and attention to the needs of team members or the organisation (Mayer et al., 2012). Serving leaders provide instructions and directions and act as living examples that influence how subordinates think and act (Kim, 2020). Thus, leaders are essential for facilitating the change process, stimulating affective and solid commitment, and encouraging involvement and motivation to support and contribute to these changes. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

HI: Servant leadership influences affective commitment to change.

Mediation of conscientiousness personality

Personality is often viewed as a dynamic construct shaped by the interaction between social structures and individual experiences, functioning as a relational node that connects internal dispositions to external social roles (Roth, 2013). Among the Big Five traits, conscientiousness is particularly relevant in organisational contexts as it reflects an individual's sense of responsibility, discipline, and goal orientation (Khan et al., 2021). In the context of change initiatives, affective commitment to change refers to an employee's emotional attachment to, involvement in, and identification with crucial goals of change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). When individuals perceive change to be meaningful and consistent with their values, they are more likely to support it emotionally and behaviourally. Servant leadership, which emphasises authenticity, empowerment, and commitment to others' growth, can foster emotional commitment by creating an environment of psychological safety, inclusion, and trust (Greenleaf, 1979).

From the perspective of the SLT (Bandura, 1997), leaders function as role models whose behaviours are observed, internalised, and emulated by their followers. Servant leaders model conscientious behaviours, such as integrity, diligence, and care for others, which in turn may reinforce similar traits in employees. Over time, these repeated interactions may activate or strengthen followers' conscientiousness by aligning external role expectations with internal values (Yarberry & Sims, 2021). As individuals become more conscientious, they are more likely to perceive organisational change as an opportunity to align with their personal standards of excellence and duties.

Furthermore, conscientiousness serves as a cognitive affective mediator that connects leadership behaviour with change-related outcomes. It enables employees to interpret servant leadership not just as a leadership style but as a set of values congruent with their own preferences for order, reliability, and ethical behaviour (Penney et al., 2011). This alignment can enhance the perceived legitimacy of change initiatives, thereby increasing the likelihood of emotional investment and long-term commitments. Accordingly, based on the SLT framework and empirical evidence linking leadership, personality activation, and commitment to change, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H2: Conscientiousness mediates the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change.

Mediation of psychological ownership

As defined by Pierce et al. (2003), psychological ownership encapsulates employees, subjective perceptions of their connections with the organisation, irrespective of legal ownership. SLT explains individual characteristics and behaviours that can create and influence follower perceptions in leader-follower relationships (Bandura, 1997). The SLT asserts that individuals learn from the behaviour and attitudes of their role models and act according to their perceived relationships. When a servant leader is caring, loving, and friendly and prioritises followers' needs, pays attention to followers when making decisions, and resolves problems, organisation-based psychological ownership develops among employees, which can be developed for the betterment of the organisation (Anwaar & Jingwei, 2022). When leaders respect their followers, the followers reciprocate, as suggested by the SLT. A sense of belonging arises in followers due to servant leadership, which is then used to prioritise organisational goals over personal goals.

Psychological ownership is defined as an individual's possessive feelings towards entities such as work and organisation (Pierce & Jussila, 2011). It is hoped that followers with psychological ownership in the workplace will experience better situations. Furthermore, these feelings of possessiveness extend to employees who express favourable evaluations (Dahleez et al., 2021). When employees demonstrate a strong belief in the organisation and accept its goals and values, exerting significant effort from the servant leader's stimulus becomes motivating. Dahleez et al. (2021) is one of the latest studies empirically testing the mediating role of psychological ownership in the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment. However, research has yet to use the context of change in the development of literature. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3: Psychological ownership mediates the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change.

Sequential mediation of conscientiousness personality and psychological ownership

Servant leadership has gained increasing attention as a leadership approach that fosters an inclusive, collaborative, and ethically grounded organisational culture, particularly in the context of transformation and change. By emphasising empathy, empowerment, and the growth of followers, servant leaders cultivate environments in which individuals feel psychologically safe, valued, and motivated to contribute to positive change (van Dierendonck et al., 2023). This leadership style is instrumental in shaping affective commitment to change, defined as emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in a change initiative (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). As hypothesised (HI), servant leadership directly influences this form of commitment. Drawing from SLT (Bandura, 1997), individuals learn by observing and internalising the behaviours and values of credible models, in this case, servant leaders. These leaders model behaviours such as responsibility, ethical conduct, and care for others, which over time can activate personal traits, such as conscientiousness, a personality characteristic associated with self-discipline, goal orientation, and a strong sense of duty (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The activation of conscientiousness in followers creates readiness to engage seriously and reliability in organisational tasks and change processes.

Once conscientiousness is activated, it may subsequently foster the development of psychological ownership, a cognitive-affective state in which individuals feel a sense of possessiveness and responsibility towards the organisation or institutional citizenship (Pierce et al., 2003). Conscientious individuals are more likely to assume ownership of their work and its outcomes, as they tend to value accountability, autonomy, and task completion. In the context of organisational change, this sense of psychological ownership translates into deeper emotional investment and increases the likelihood of supporting change efforts (Avey et al. 2009).

This study posits a sequential mediation mechanism in which servant leadership influences affective commitment to change through two interlinked pathways: first, by enhancing followers' conscientiousness, and second, by enabling the development of psychological ownership. This integrative mechanism explains how leadership behaviour shapes both personality expression and psychological orientation, which are two important determinants of change-related commitment. Sequential mediation models such as this are increasingly recognised in the organisational behaviour literature for their ability to capture the complexity of interpersonal influence processes (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: Conscientiousness and psychological ownership sequentially mediate the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change.

METHODS

Data and Sample

The study population was comprised of university lecturers across Indonesia. This population is considered relevant given the ongoing reforms and technological transformations within the higher education sector, which require lecturers to adapt and respond to organisational changes. A purposive sampling technique was employed, guided by specific inclusion criteria: respondents must be currently employed as lecturers and have a minimum of one year of experience in their institution. This criterion ensures adequate exposure to institutional changes and leadership behaviours in their respective work environments. The selection approach followed the recommendation of Cooper and Schindler (2014), where purposive sampling is suitable for theory-driven research involving context-specific phenomena. The data collection process involved an online survey distributed through academic networks, mailing lists, and professional forums. The respondents were informed of the voluntary nature of participation, data confidentiality, and the estimated time required to complete the survey. Informed consent was obtained electronically. Screening questions were included to ensure that only eligible participants (i.e., lecturers with sufficient tenure) could proceed. A pilot test was conducted with 30 participants to assess the clarity, readability, and contextual relevance of the questionnaires. The instrument demonstrated strong internal consistency, with no significant comprehension issues, justifying its use in the main study. Furthermore, because the original items were developed in English, a back-translation procedure was applied. Two bilingual experts independently translated the items from English into Bahasa Indonesia and then returned them to English. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved in order to ensure semantic equivalence and cultural appropriateness.

Of the 321 returned questionnaires, 28 were incomplete and excluded, resulting in 293 valid responses and a response rate of 91%, which exceeds typical benchmarks for social science research (Neuman, 2014). The final sample size surpassed the minimum threshold of 200, as suggested by Hair and Alamer (2022) for PLS-SEM analysis. The descriptive statistics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. Of the total, 63.48% were female, and the largest age group was 25-30 years old (33.79%). Most respondents held a master's degree (86.69%), and 38.86% had worked at their institution for more than 10 years. Additionally, 58.02% had worked with their current department head for 1-2 years.

MEASUREMENT

All constructs were measured using previously validated instruments and were adapted to the Indonesian higher education context. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Servant leadership was assessed using the six items adapted from Sendjaya et al. (2019). Respondents evaluated their department heads (e.g., "My department head uses authority to serve other people, not for his ambitions."). Affective commitment to change was measured using six items (e.g., "I believe in the value of this change."). Conscientiousness was measured using six items (e.g., "I always do my work until it is finished."). Psychological ownership was assessed using seven items adapted from Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) (e.g., "I feel a very high level of personal ownership for this organisation."). While demographic data (e.g., age, gender, and tenure) were collected, control variables were not included in the structural model. This decision follows the recommendations of Spector and Brannick (2011) and Bernerth et al. (2018), who advise against routine inclusion controls without strong theoretical justification. Including such variables without a clear rationale may introduce statistical and obscure substantive effects.

Data Analysis

The data were analysed using partial least squares structural modeling (PLS-SEM), which is suitable for complex models, small-to-medium sample sizes, and exploratory research (Hair & Alamer, 2022; Hair et al., 2019). PLS-SEM was chosen because of its robustness in simultaneously assessing both measurement and structural models, particularly under non-normal data conditions. The analysis proceeded in three stages:

1. Measurement model assessment, including tests for construct reliability, convergent validity (using average variance extracted (AVE) and factor loadings), and discriminant validity.

2. Structural model evaluation, including tests for collinearity (variance inflation factor [VIF]), path coefficients, and model predictive power (coefficient of determination [R2], effect size \f]).

3. Model prediction accuracy, assessed using PLS predict, which provides more rigorous out-of-sample predictive validity than traditional blindfolding techniques.

This analytical strategy provides a comprehensive examination of the theoretical framework and the predictive capabilities of the proposed model.

RESULTS

The measurement model was evaluated for convergent and discriminant validities. Convergent validity was assessed by examining factor loadings, AVE, Cronbach's alpha (a), and composite reliability (CR). As shown in Table 2, all items exceeded the minimum loading threshold of 0.50, with AVE values above 0.50, and CR values exceeding 0.70, indicating acceptable reliability and convergent validity (Hair & Alamer, 2022; Hair et al., 2019). While several a values fell slightly below the conventional cutoff of 0.70, values above 0.50 were still acceptable in exploratory contexts with well-established scales.

Discriminant validity was evaluated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. The square root of each construct's AVE exceeded the inter-construct correlations, and all HTMT values were below the conservative threshold of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015). Thus, discriminant validity was confirmed. Descriptive statistics and inter-variable correlations (see Table 3) showed that servant leadership positively correlated with conscientiousness (r = 0.31), psychological ownership (r = 0.51), and affective commitment to change (r = 0.44), consistent and positive associations between the variables. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with psychological ownership (r = 0.35) and affective commitment to change (r = 0.45). The strongest correlation was found between psychological ownership and affective commitment to change (r = 0.58), supporting the proposed mediation model.

Following confirmation of the measurement model, the structural model was assessed in four stages, following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2019). First, multicollinearity among the constructs was examined using the VIF values. All VIF values were below the recommended threshold of 5.00, confirming the absence of collinearity and the suitability of the model for further analysis. Subsequently, hypothesis testing was conducted using bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples. The results presented in Table 4 demonstrate that all four hypotheses were supported. First, servant leadership had a positive and significant direct effect on affective commitment to change (3 = 0.151, t = 2.722, p <0.05), supporting HI. The f value for this relationship is 0.030, indicating a small effect size. H2 was also supported, as conscientiousness significantly mediated the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change (3 = 0.088, t= 2.972; 95% CI [0.038, 0.155]), with a confidence interval excluding zero. H3 was confirmed, with psychological ownership significantly mediating this relationship 0 = 0.098, t = 3.642; 95% CI [0.046, 0.153]). Furthermore, H4, which proposed sequential mediation through conscientiousness and psychological ownership, was statistically significant (0 = 0.031, t= 2.602; 95% CI [0.013, 0.058]), indicating a robust indirect path from servant leadership to affective commitment via the two mediators.

The R2 was used to assess the explanatory power of the model. The R2for affective commitment to change was 0.449, meaning that 44.9% of the variance in this variable was explained by the predictors in the model, indicating moderate-to-strong explanatory power. The R2 values for conscientiousness and psychological ownership were 0.308 and 0.104, respectively, representing moderate and low levels of explanation, although they were acceptable within the context of personality and psychological constructs. In terms off, the relationship between psychological ownership and affective commitment to change yielded a moderate effect (j2 = 0.234), whereas the effect of conscientiousness on psychological ownership was moderate (j2 = 0.256). The effects of servant leadership on conscientiousness

The PLS predict procedure was employed to further assess the predictive validity of the model. The results revealed positive Q2_predict values for all endogenous constructs, indicating a strong predictive relevance. The highest Q2_predict was observed for psychological ownership (0.253), followed by affective commitment to change (0.193) and conscientiousness (0.087). Additionally, the PLS-based root mean square error (RMSE) values were consistently lower than those of the linear model benchmark, confirming that the model had strong out-of-sample predictive accuracy (Shmueli et al., 2019). Complementing these results, the blindfolding Q2 value for affective commitment to change was 0.444, exceeding the zero threshold, further supporting the model's predictive relevance (Hair & Alamer, 2022).

In summary, all hypothesised direct, indirect, and sequential relationships were supported by the data. These findings validate the proposed model, in which servant leadership enhances affective commitment to change both directly and indirectly through the psychological mechanisms of conscientiousness and psychological ownership. The results offer empirical support for the theoretical framework based on SLT, highlighting the significance of leadership modeling, personality activation, and psychological engagement in shaping employees' readiness for organisational change, particularly within the context of higher education institutions transforming.

DISCUSSION

This study investigated how servant leadership shapes affective commitment to change through the sequential mediation of conscientiousness and psychological ownership, grounded in SLT, and situated within the context of Indonesian higher education. The empirical findings support all four hypotheses (H1-H4), indicating that servant leadership exerts both direct and indirect effects on affective commitment through the internalisation of values (via conscientiousness) and psychological connections (via ownership). These findings offer nuanced insights into how leadership behaviours foster readiness and emotional investment in the change processes.

The direct relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change was significant, although itsf was small (0.030). This suggests that, while servant leadership is necessary to inspire emotional attachment to organisational change, its influence alone is insufficient without a complementary mechanism. However, the R2 value of 0.449 for affective commitment to change indicates substantial explanatory power within the model, reaffirming the centrality of leadership in shaping change readiness (Hair & Alamer, 2022). This is in line with research emphasising that servant leadership, characterised by empowerment, empathy, and ethical modeling, creates a climate of psychological safety and mutual respect that facilitates employee buy-in (Hoch et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020).

The findings also revealed that conscientiousness significantly mediated the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change. Lecturers with high levels of conscientiousness-those who are goal-oriented, diligent, and intrinsically motivated-were more responsive to the values modeled by servant leaders and were more likely to perceive change as an opportunity for growth and self-improvement, consistent with the findings of Khan et al. (2021) and Bakker et al. (2012). Nevertheless, the modest R2value for conscientiousness (0.104) suggests that, while servant leadership can activate the behavioural expression of personality, dispositional traits are also influenced by stable internal and environmental factors.

The findings further underscore the mediating role of psychological ownership in the leadership-commitment relationship. Psychological ownership, defined as a sense of personal investment and responsibility towards trusted organisational goals (Pierce et al., 2003), was found to significantly mediate the relationship between servant leadership and affective commitment to change. The R2value for psychological ownership was 0.308, indicating moderate explanatory power, with a medium effect size underscoring its central role in converting perceived leadership support into emotional and behavioural commitment. These results are consistent with both SLT and SET, indicating that followers develop stronger affective bonds when they feel recognised, involved, and trusted (Dahleez et al., 2021; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Servant leaders cultivate ownership by empowering followers, promoting autonomy, and providing emotional support, especially during periods of uncertainty and transformation. This is particularly critical in higher education, where individual autonomy and intellectual freedom are highly valued but often challenged during institutional reforms. SLT elucidates this process by showing how behavioural modelling by leaders is internalised by followers, reinforcing not only ethical values but also a sense of shared purpose. This supports the notion that servant leadership is not merely transactional but transformational through its capacity to shift attitudes and behaviours via observational learning (Bandura, 1997; Yarberry & Sims, 2021)

This study's most novel and theoretically rich contribution is its confirmation of the sequential mediation mechanism. Servant leadership was found to stimulate conscientious behaviours, which in turn strengthened psychological ownership, ultimately leading to stronger affective commitment to change. This sequential pathway highlights the cascading impact of leadership on both personality expression and psychological attachment. It provides empirical support for recent calls to unpack complex mediation chains in organisational behaviour research (Podsakoff et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2022). More importantly, it bridges the micro level (personality traits) with the meso level (organisational behaviour), demonstrating how intrapersonal and contextual elements co-produce change-supportive attitudes.

Demographic analysis of the sample adds a critical context to these results. The majority of respondents were early career lecturers (33.79% aged 25-30), and over half (58.02%) had worked with their current department head for 1-2 years. This demographic profile suggests that a population shapes its professional identity and is more likely to be influenced by leadership behaviours. According to the SLT, behavioural modelling is especially effective when the observer perceives the model as competent, trustworthy, and morally upright (Bandura, 1997). The relatively short tenure also indicates that positive leadership behaviours can exert rapid influence, an important insight for institutions undergoing frequent administrative changes. Moreover, the predominance of female respondents (63.48%) may help explain the strength of the mediation pathways, as women are generally more responsive to leadership styles that emphasise care, service, and relationship building (Eagly & Chin, 2010). Most of the respondents held master's degrees (86.69%), representing a professionally experienced cohort that was both intellectually mature and organisationally embedded. These individuals are well positioned to internalise the values of servant leadership and translate them into ownership and commitment to institutional change.

The strong predictive relevance of the model, as indicated by Q2 values above 0.25, demonstrates that the structural path not only explains in-sample behaviour but also predicts future outcomes, enhancing the practical utility of the model. This validates the generalisability of the model to leadership interventions in comparable organisational contexts. This study provides robust empirical evidence that servant leadership exerts its influence through both internal (conscientiousness) and psychological (ownership) mechanisms. This dual-pathway approach underscores the value of integrating personality traits and cognitively effective constructs into leadership research. For higher education institutions grappling with transformation, these findings underscore the importance of adopting leadership styles that not only instruct but also inspire alignment with both personal values and collective goals to foster commitment to sustainable change.

Theoretical Contributions

This study significantly contributes to the development of leadership and organisational behaviour theory, particularly in the context of changes in higher education environments. Using the SLT approach, Bandura (1997) explained how servant leadership behaviour can be observed, modeled, and internalised by lecturers as followers, thus encouraging the formation of an effective commitment to change. These findings strengthen the argument that leadership is not only instructional but also inspirational through social learning. The main theoretical contribution of this study is testing a sequential mediation model involving conscientiousness and psychological ownership as mediators between servant leadership and affective commitment to change. This model provides a deeper explanation of the psychological processes underlying individual behavioural changes in organisations and broadens the understanding of the role of personality in mediating the influence of leadership (Podsakoff et al., 2012).

This finding also strengthens the position of psychological ownership as a mediating mechanism that bridges the influence of leadership on attitudes towards change (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). This contribution is important in the context of a collectivistic culture such as Indonesia because it highlights the cross-cultural relevance of psychological and leadership concepts that have been widely studied in Western contexts (Rockstuhl et al., 2011). Thus, this study enriches the theory of leadership, personality, and organisational change by holistically integrating psychological and contextual factors.

Managerial Implications

The conclusions of this study have significant managerial implications, particularly for leaders of higher education institutions confronting calls for organisational reform. The findings indicate that servant leadership, characterised by prioritising subordinates' interests over personal gain and exhibiting empathy, support, and moral integrity, can substantially enhance lecturers' preparedness and affective commitment to change. Consequently, businesses must establish a leadership training framework that promotes services, empowerment, and individual growth. Second, firms must consider lecturers' personality traits, particularly conscientiousness, during the change-management process. Lecturers exhibiting elevated conscientiousness typically display self-discipline, accountability, and commitment to continually advancing institutional objectives. In this context, managerial tactics such as personality-focused recruitment, value-oriented career development, and compensation systems that highlight individual contributions to change can be effective.

Third, psychological ownership has been demonstrated to be a crucial link in establishing an emotional attachment to change. Consequently, management must cultivate a work climate that enables lecturers to take responsibility for policies and trajectories of institutional transformation. This can be achieved through active engagement in policy formation, transparent communication, and lectures in strategic decision-making. The conclusions of this study emphasise the significance of a value-oriented approach to local culture. In collectivist societies such as Indonesia, where social interactions, communal unity, and harmony are paramount values, change methods should be implemented through a collaborative approach rather than a coercive approach. This entails greater engagement of internal stakeholders, enhancing mutual trust, and underscoring the significance of change as an element of collective growth. The study's conclusions suggest that organisational leaders prioritise structural tactics in change management and enhance psychological, cultural, and relational approaches centred on human factors.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that must be acknowledged when interpreting the data and its implications. This cross-sectional study approach was a primary drawback. The causal relationship between variables cannot be definitively determined using data obtained at a single point in time. Consequently, while the proposed model theoretically endorses a causal relationship, a longitudinal study is more suitable for accurately examining the dynamics of changes in individual attitudes and behaviours regarding organisational change. Second, self-report survey methodologies may result in biases, including social desirability bias and standard method variance. Despite the use of preventive measures, including validated scales and assurances of anonymity, reliance on a single data source continues to jeopardise the internal validity of the findings.

The extrapolation of this study's results must be approached cautiously, given that the research sample is confined to university teachers in Indonesia. A collectivistic culture in this environment may influence the dynamics of leadership, psychological ownership, and openness to change in a manner distinct from more individualistic cultural contexts. Consequently, these findings may not be relevant for businesses or nations with distinct cultural attributes. The personality factors that were examined were limited to conscientiousness. Other traits in the Big Five model, such as openness to experience and agreeableness, may significantly influence organisational transformation. Additional research should investigate personality dimensions to gain a more comprehensive understanding.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the important role of servant leadership in fostering affective commitment to change among university lecturers in Indonesia through the sequential mediation between conscientiousness and psychological ownership. Based on the SLT, the findings suggest that servant leadership influences followers by modelling positive behaviours, such as responsibility, adaptability, and emotional investment in organisational change. Conscientious individuals, in particular, are more likely to internalise the values exemplified by servant leaders, which in turn strengthens their sense of ownership and commitment to change. The findings support the importance of adopting a person-centred leadership approach in transforming higher education environments. Servant leadership provides a practical and empowering framework to manage change by promoting psychological engagement and responsibility.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors express their deepest gratitude to all participants and colleagues who have supported this research. We also appreciate the valuable input from the reviewers and journal editors.

References

REFERENCES

Abbas, A., Saud, M., Suhariadi, F., Usman, I., & Ekowati, D. (2022). Positive leadership psychology: Authentic and servant leadership in higher education in Pakistan. Current Psychology, 41(9), 5859-5871. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2144-020-01051-l

Anwaar, S., & Jingwei, L. (2022). Knowledge hiding in teachers of moral education degree programs in Pakistan: The role of servant leadership, psychological ownership, and perceived coworker support. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 860405. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.860405

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 173-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.583

Bakari, H., Hunjra, A. I., & Niazi, G. S. K. (2017). How does authentic leadership influence planned organizational change? The role of employees' perceptions: Integration of theory of planned behavior and Lewin's three step model. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 155-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1299370

Baker, V. L., & Baldwin, R. G. (2015). A case study of liberal arts colleges in the 21st century: Understanding organizational change and evolution in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40(3), 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0755-014-9311-6

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 555-564. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008

Bandura, A. (1997). Social learning theory. In Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813251-7.00057-2

Bernerth, J. B., Cole, M. S., Taylor, E. C, & Walker, H. J. (2018). Control variables in leadership research: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Management, 44(1), 131-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317690586

Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. Routledge.

Bouckenooghe, D., M. Schwarz, G., & Minbashian, A. (2015). Herscovitch and Meyer's three-component model of commitment to change: Meta-analytic findings. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(4), 578-595. https://doi.Org/10.l 080/1359432X.2014.963059

Clarence, M., Devassy, V. P., Jena, L. K., & George, T. S. (2021). The effect of servant leadership on ad hoc schoolteachers' affective commitment and psychological well-being: The mediating role of psychological capital. International Review of Education, 67(3), 305-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/slll59-020-09856-9

Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Methods (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Costa, J. P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 667-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-J

Dahleez, K. A., Aboramadan, M., & Bansal, A. (2021). Servant leadership and affective commitment: the role of psychological ownership and person-organization fit. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(2), 493-511. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJOA-03-2020-2105

Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2057

Dhiman, S., & Marques, J. (2020). New horizons in positive leadership and change. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38129-5

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3), 216.

Feldman, D. C, Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1998). The socialization of expatriate interns. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(4), 403-418.

Greenleaf, R. (1970). The servant as a leader. The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1979). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. In Business Horizons (Vol. 22, Issue 3). Paulist Press. https://doi. org/10.1016/0007-6813(79)90092-2

Hair, J., & Alamer, A. (2022). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/]'. rmal.2022.100027

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 566-584. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EJM-10-2018-0665

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/sll747-014-0403-8

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474

Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206316665461

Jabeen, F., Behery, M., & Abu Elanain, H. (2015). Examining the relationship between the psychological contract and organisational commitment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-10-2014-0812

John, 0. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & 0. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). Guilford Press.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 107-122. https://doi.Org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.l.107

Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. In Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286-1298. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286

Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351846

Khan, S. N., Mubushar, M., Khan, I. U., Rehman, H. M., & Khan, S. U. (2021). The influence of personality traits on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions: The moderating role of servant leadership. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(9), 13707-13730. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0668-021-01235-0

Kim, J. (2020). The emergence of servant leadership and its effectiveness in bureaucratic organizations. International Journal of Manpower, 41(8), 1235-1249. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJM-05-2019-0263

Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 1-44. https://doi. org/10.1111/joop.12265

Ling, Q., Liu, F., & Wu, X. (2017). Servant versus authentic leadership: Assessing effectiveness in China's hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58(1), 53-68. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1938965516641515

Liu, F., Qin, W., Liu, X., Li, J., & Sun, L. (2022). Enabling and burdening: The double-edged sword of conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 184(August 2021), 111216. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111216

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. The Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151-171. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2008.0276

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Sage, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231556

Neuman, W. L. (2014). Pearson new international edition social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson Education Limited.

Peng, C, Liang, Y., Yuan, G., Xie, M., Mao, Y., Harmat, L., & Bonaiuto, F. (2023). How servant leadership predicts employee resilience in public organizations: A social identity perspective. Current Psychology, 42(35), 31405-31420. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2144-022-04138-z

Penney, L. M., David, E., & Witt, L. A. (2011). A review of personality and performance: Identifying boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/]'. hrmr.2010.10.005

Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research evidence, and application. In Psychological Ownership and the Organizational Context: Theory, Research Evidence, and Application. Edward Elgar Publishing, https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857934451

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84-107. https://doi.Org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.l.84

Pinho, C, Franco, M., & Mendes, L. (2020). Exploring the conditions of success in e-libraries in the higher education context through the lens of the social learning theory. Information and Management, 57(4), 103208. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103208

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Robertson, J. M., & Webber, C. F. (2000). Cross-cultural leadership development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(4), 315-330. https://doi. org/10.1080/136031200750035950

Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825-840. https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x

Roth, W. M. (2013). Reading activity, consciousness, personality dialectically: Cultural-historical activity theory and the centrality of society. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2013.771368

Sendjaya, S., Eva, N., Butar Butar, I., Robin, M., & Castles, S. (2019). SLBS-6: Validation of a short form of the servant leadership behavior scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 941-956. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-017-3594-3

Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 643-663. https://doi. org/10.1108/01437731011079673

Shmueli, C, Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189

Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 287-305. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1094428110369842

Thien, L. M. (2019). Distributive leadership functions, readiness for change, and teachers' affective commitment to change: A partial least squares analysis. SAGE Open, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846209

Turner, K. (2022). Servant leadership to support wellbeing in higher education teaching. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(1), 947-958. https://doi.org/10.1080/03 09877X.2021.2023733

Van Dierendonck, D., Xiu, L., & Lv, F. (2023). Servant leadership measurement: a comparison of five instruments in China. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 44(3), 305-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2022-0153

Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439-459. https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.249

Worley, J. T., Harenberg, S., & Vosloo, J. (2020). The relationship between peer servant leadership, social identity, and team cohesion in intercollegiate athletics. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 49,101712. https://doi.0rg/https://doi.org/lO.lOl6/j. psychsport.2020.101712

Yang; Jv Gu, Jv & Liu, H. (2019). Servant leadership and employee creativity: The roles of psychological empowerment and work-family conflict. Current Psychology, 38(6), 1417-1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2144-019-0161-3

Yarberry, Sv & Sims, C. (2021). The impact of COVID-19-prompted virtual/remote work environments on employees' career development: Social learning theory, belongingnesS; and self-empowerment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(3), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223211017850

Zainun, N. F. Hv Johari, Jv & Adnan, Z. (2020). Technostress and commitment to change: The moderating role of internal communication. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(15), 1327-1339. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1672180