JURNAL AKUNTANSI, MANAJEMEN DAN EKONOMI 
Vol. 25, No. 01, 2023, pp. 1 - 7 

  Published online  in http://jos.unsoed.ac.id/index.php/jame  
ISSN: 1410-9336/E-ISSN: 2620-8482 

 

  
Correspondence to : marampa.adriana09gmail.com 
    

Received: 12 Des 2022  
Accepted: 1 Jan 2023 

Published: 15 Mar 2023 

 

INTRODUCTION  
The management of higher education requires 
leaders who can manage universities. In 
higher education there is often a conflict due 
to a lack of coordination between one person 
and another. To create a good coordination, a 
leadership is needed. One of the leadership 
that can be applied in higher education is 
servant leadership. Russell & Gregory Stone, 
(2002) say, that service leaders focus on 
personal growth and development of followers 
to maintain the interests of followers. Servant 
leaders show an attitude that can empower 
and develop people and show a humble, 
authentic, accepting people as they are, able 
to provide direction, and steward in working for 
the common good. (Dierendonck & Nuijten, 
2011). 

Servant leadership has attracted interest in 
research in the field of organizational studies 
in the last decade and has received particular 
attention to the leader's role as servant, and 
prioritizing the needs of others consequently 
drives positive organizational outcomes 
(Lapointe & Vandernberghe, 2018; Liu, 2019; 
Newman et al ., 2017). Servant leaders 
believe they have a duty to steward. They are 
people-centered and value service to others in 
general and followers more specifically. 
Servant leadership manifests itself in the care 
that is exercised by the servant first, to ensure 
that the highest priority needs of those of 
others are served. In an organizational setting, 
servant leaders believe in each employee 
being able to treat followers with respect and 
humility. Every employee in the organization is 

  

The Impact of Serving Leadership, Team Work on 
Higher Education Performance 
 
Adriana Madya Marampa1, Elisabeth Pali2, Raden Lestari3 

 
12Management Department, Universitas Kristen Toraja, Indonesia 
3Management Department, Universitas Pekanbaru Riau, Indonesia 

 
 

Abstract 

 

The purpose of this study was to find out how servant leadership influences team work, 
how team work influences organizational performance and how servant leadership 
influences the performance of a tertiary institution. The population in this study are 
campuses in South Sulawesi. The sample of this research is 54 lecturers in one of South 
Sulawesi. The sampling technique was carried out by simple random sampling. Data 
processing method using SEM-PLS. The novelty of this research is that research on team 
work with the dimensions of togetherness, trust, emotional closeness, empathy has not 
been studied much, especially in higher education. 

The results showed that the relationship between Team Work (X1) and Performance (Y) 
was significant with a T-statistic of 2,149 (> 1.96).). Thus the H1 hypothesis is accepted. 
The results showed that the relationship between Servant Leadership (X2) and 
Performance (Y) was significant with a T-statistic of 2.145 (>1.96). Thus the H2 hypothesis 
was accepted. The results showed that the relationship between Servant Leadership (X1) 
and Team Work (X2) was significant with a T-statistic of 52,645 (> 1.96). 

Thus the H3 hypothesis is accepted. The results showed that there was a significant 
relationship between Team Work (X1) and Performance (Y) through Leadership (X2) with 
a T-statistic of 2,027 (> 1.96). The relationship between variables can be considered 
significant if the P value is smaller than the predetermined significant value (0.000 <0.05). 
Thus the H4 hypothesis is accepted. 

 

Keywords 
 
Team Work, Covenantal Leadership, Performance 

 

 

 

  



 
 
 
JURNAL AKUNTANSI, MANAJEMEN DAN EKONOMI , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1-7 

given the opportunity to do meaningful work 
(Saleem et al., 2020). 

In this study the dimensions used in 
serving leadership in the tertiary environment 
are responsibility, influence, empowerment, 
direction, integrity, treating everyone equally, 
having a humble attitude and clear vision. The 
servant leadership style has attracted a lot of 
attention in the last decade for leadership 
studies because it is basically focused on 
serving others first. Building a team work 
within the higher education environment 
requires servant leadership. The attitude of a 
serving leader can support the development of 
team work in tertiary institutions so that they 
can improve the performance of a tertiary 
institution. 

In an organization, it takes a team work to 
complete a job efficiently and effectively. 
Every company basically wants what has been 
planned and budgeted to be implemented 
properly. Likewise, universities as one of the 
organizations engaged in the world of 
education want what is planned and planned 
in universities to be carried out properly. One 
way that can be done to achieve performance 
in tertiary institutions is to form a team work. In 
this study, the problem is that many work 
programs and budgets in tertiary institutions 
are not carried out properly, causing the 
performance of tertiary institutions to not be 
achieved effectively. 

Team work is a very important thing to do 
to improve a performance. When an 
organization does team work, everyone in the 
organization can easily see and learn 
individual character well, so that what is 
planned in the organization can be achieved 
properly and can prevent conflict within the 
organization. 

The concept of teamwork is not new in the 
management literature, because the concept 
of teamwork forms the basis of the concept of 
organizational behavior. Effective teamwork is 
an important topic of human resource 
management, about how top-level managers 
work effectively as a team and is very 
important in creating a successful business. 
(Wei & Lau, 2012). Team work is defined and 
discussed by several researchers as a work 
skill that is necessary to achieve the vision, 
plans and goals of the organization to activate 
and improve the performance of the workers. 
Teamwork has the ability to enable team 
members to have a higher level of emotional 
security, self-confidence and the ability to plan 
and decide positively on others. Likewise, it 
can help in creating a healthy work 

environment with workable agendas, creative 
activities, strategies and positive values. 
(Sanyal & Hisam, 2018). 

Teamwork is the collaborative effort of a 
team to achieve a common goal or complete a 
task in the most effective and efficient way. In 
the implications of the organization 
concerned, teamwork is the key to making the 
organization able to develop in organizational 
practice. Teamwork is an organizational 
process in which many organizational and 
individual components revolve to complement 
the organizational philosophy (Kassim & 
Ramayah, 2015; Benar, Stewart, Lampman, 
Pelak , & Solimeo, 2014). 

In recent decades teamwork has taken on 
a new meaning in companies, and the results 
are invaluable. Teams have become a critical 
element in solving problems and helping 
businesses move forward into the future. 
Advances in technology have made most 
organizational activities complex so that 
teamwork is needed. A team is an identifiable 
set of two or more individuals who interact 
within a larger organization to achieve a 
common goal through specific interdependent 
roles and tasks. 

The interdependent nature of the tasks in 
which teams are involved requires individual 
members to adapt their own inputs and efforts 
to their teammates to achieve a common goal. 
Teamwork is the collaborative effort of a team 
to achieve a common goal or complete a task 
in the most effective and efficient way. When 
teams have clear goals in mind for completing 
their tasks, they share a common 
understanding of which team member must do 
what and when in the project cycle. The team 
also communicates more effectively with each 
other and puts synchronized efforts to 
complete the team's tasks, which, in turn, turn, 
serves the purpose of the team within a limited 
time frame (Alice et al., n.d.). In this study the 
dimensions used in building team work in 
tertiary institutions are trust, togetherness, 
communication, skills, abilities, cohesiveness 
and emotional closeness and empathy. 
Teamwork is defined in terms of the behaviors 
(eg, reserved behavior, closed 
communication), cognitions (shared mental 
models), and attitudes (cohesion, collective 
efficacy) that create performance. Building a 
work team in a tertiary environment requires 
servant leadership. The attitude of a servant 
leader can support the development of team 
work in higher education so that it can improve 
the performance of a tertiary institution. 
Analyzing organizational performance is 



 
 
 
JURNAL AKUNTANSI, MANAJEMEN DAN EKONOMI , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1-7 

important because it shows whether the 
organization is going where it intends or not. 
The performance of a tertiary institution can be 
achieved with the involvement of a serving 
leader in forming a team work. 

 

Team Work 
Ingram, (1996) said that teamwork is a 
disciplined way of working that can be 
described by the following characteristics: (1) 
Relationships. Teams work through face-to-
face relationships between people in specially 
formed groups. There is a relationship 
between relationship quality and team 
performance. (2) Social. People like to gather 
in groups, and teams represent units of social 
interaction and potential sources of 
satisfaction at work. (3) Purpose. Team 
members interact with each other to achieve a 
common goal. In general a source of team 
failure is that team members interpret tasks in 
different ways, so results or methods are not 
clearly visible to the rest of the team. (4) 
Culture. Effective groups, including teams, 
produce their own rules, procedures, and 
cultures. The term groupthink describes 
shared values and opinions that can be a 
source of innovation or can act as a barrier to 
organizational change. 
 

Performance 
Ingram, (1996) said, that organizational 
performance is synonymous with economic 
results because profits are necessary for 
companies to continue business. 
Organizational performance is defined as the 
result or output of an organization compared 
to its goals and objectives. (Manzoor et al., 
2011). Organizational performance is a 
measure that shows, an organization's 
progress, shows how well an organization 
achieves a goal (Hamon 2003). Mickan & 
Rodger, (2000) say, that organizational 
performance is mostly viewed in terms of 
"criteria such as productivity, net profit, 
mission achievement or organizational 
growth. 
 

Service Leadership 
Greenleaf (1977) first proposed the concept of 
servant leadership, which can be defined as a 
leadership style in which leaders acknowledge 
their moral responsibility not only for 
organizational success but also for their 
subordinates, their customers, and other 
organizational stakeholders. 

According to Spears (1996), servant 
leadership is a new type of leadership model, 

which places serving others as the number 
one priority. Servant leadership emphasizes 
service to others. The main principles of the 
servant leadership framework are rendering 
service to others, a holistic approach to work, 
promoting a sense of community, and sharing 
power in decision making. Servant leadership 
has been recognized as a leadership 
philosophy that addresses ethical issues 
(Carter & Baghurst, 2014). Servant leadership 
has several elements, namely personal 
integrity, ethical behavior, altruism, and 
exemplary with an ethical leadership approach 
(Liden et al., 2008) Reed et al., 2011) As a 
developing research area, servant leadership 
links leadership with ethics, virtue , and 
morality (Lanctot & Irving, 2007 ; Parris & 
Peachey, 2013). 

 

Servant Leadership on Performance 
Jaramillo et al. (2015) found a significant 
positive relationship between servant 
leadership and performance. Performance is 
potentially related to leadership when the 
leader's main focus is to serve followers 
(Joseph & Winston, 2005). Likewise, the 
results of Huang et al., (2016) show that there 
is a relationship between servant leadership 
and performance. Based on the literature 
review above, the hypothesis in this study is: 
H2: There is a relationship between servant 
leadership and performance. 
 

Servant Leadership and Team Work 
Irving, (2005); Wong et al., (2018) research 
results show that there is a relationship 
between team work and servant leadership. 
Likewise, the research results of Moghimi & 
Sadri, (2021) show that there is a relationship 
between servant leadership and team work. 
Based on the literature review above, the 
hypothesis in this study is: 
H3 : There is a relationship between servant 
leadership and team work 

 

 

METHODS  
This study uses a quantitative research 
method. The population in this study were 
lecturers in South Sulawesi. The sample in this 
study were 54 lecturers on a campus in South 
Sulawesi. The data collection method in this 
study was using simple random sampling. The 
data processing method in this study was 
using SEM PLS. In processing PLS SEM data 
there are several stages, namely outer model 
analysis, analysis of the inner model, 
hypothesis testing. 



 
 
 
JURNAL AKUNTANSI, MANAJEMEN DAN EKONOMI , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1-7 

Outer model analysis is carried out to ensure 
that the measurement used is feasible to be 
used as a measurement (valid and reliable). 
Outer model analysis can be seen from 
several indicators namely convergent validity 
and unidimensionality. Meanwhile, an analysis 
of the inner model/structural analysis of the 
model is carried out to ensure that the 
structural model built is robust and accurate. 
Evaluation of the inner model can be seen 
from several indicators which include the 
coefficient of determination (R2), predictive 
relevance, goodness of Fit Index (GoF). 
Hypothesis testing is done by looking at the 
probability value and the t-statistic. For 
probability values, the p-value with an alpha of 
5% is less than 0.05. 
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Outer Model Analysis 
This Outer Model analysis specifies the 

relationship between latent variables and their 
indicators. or it can be said that the outer 
model defines how each indicator relates to its 
latent variable. Tests performed on the outer 
model: 

Figure 1. Outer Model Analysis 
 

Convergent Validity 
Convergent validity is used to validate 
indicators of the variables in terms of the 
loading factor values. This value will be 
accepted if the loading factor value is above 
0.7 with a minimum value of 0.5. The last 
check of convergent validity is to look at the 
AVE value. An indicator is considered to have 
good convergent validity if it has an AVE value 
of more than 0.5. 
 
 
 
 

Table 1. Convergent Validity  
Performance 

(Y) 
Servant 

Leadership 
(X2) 

Team 
Work 
(X1) 

X1.1 
  

0.939 

X1.2 
  

0.970 

X1.3 
  

0.966 

X1.4 
  

0.879 

X1.5 
  

0.935 

X1.6 
  

0.946 

X1.7 
  

0.908 

X1.8 
  

0.892 

X1.9 
  

0.940 

X2.1 
 

0.955 
 

X2.2 
 

0.960 
 

X2.3 
 

0.969 
 

X2.4 
 

0.973 
 

X2.5 
 

0.854 
 

X2.6 
 

0.943 
 

X2.7 
 

0.955 
 

Y1.1 0.929 
  

Y1.2 0.839 
  

Y1.3 0.934 
  

Y1.4 0.919 
  

Y1.5 0.943 
  

Y1.6 0.910 
  

 

Discriminant Validity 
The discriminant validity of the measurement 
model with reflective indicators was assessed 
by comparing the average extracted (AVE) 
square root value of each construct with the 
correlation between the construct and the 
other constructs in the model. If the AVE 
square root value of each construct is greater 
than the correlation value between the 
construct and the other constructs in the 
model, it is said to have a good discriminant 
validity value (Ghozali, 2011). 
 

Table 2. Composite Variable 

   AVE 
AVE Square 

Root 

Performance (Y) 0.833 0.913 

Servant 
Leadership (X2) 

0.893 0.945 

Team Work (X1) 0.867 0.931 

 
 
 



 
 
 
JURNAL AKUNTANSI, MANAJEMEN DAN EKONOMI , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1-7 

Composite Reliability 
Data that has composite reliability > 0.7 has 
high reliability. 
 

Table 3. Composite Reliability 

  
Composite  

Reliability 

Performance (Y) 0.968 

Servant Leadership (X2) 0.983 

Team Work (X1) 0.983 

 
The construct reliability test is carried out by 
measuring two criteria, namely composite 
reliability and Cronbach alpha. The construct 
is declared reliable if the value of composite 
reliability and Cronbach alpha is above 0.7. 
Composite reliability test results and 
Cronbach alpha are in the table. From the 
tables presented, it can be seen that all 
variables have a composite reliability above 
0.7. The reliability test is strengthened by 
Cronbach Alpha. The reliability test is 
strengthened by Cronbach Alpha. Expected 
value > 0.6 for all constructs. (Ghozali, 2011). 
 

Table 4. Construct Reliability 

  AVE CR   

Perf (Y) 0.833 0.913 Reliable 

Serv 
Lead(X2) 

0.893 0.945 
Reliable 

Team Work 
(X1) 

0.867 0.931 
Reliable 

 
Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Nilai AVE 
yang diharapkan >0.5. 
 

Table 5. AVE Result 

 AVE 

Performance (Y) 0.833 

Servant Leadership 
(X2) 

0.893 

Team Work (X1) 0.867 

 
Inner Model Testing 
 Evaluation of the inner model can be done in 
three ways. The three ways are by looking at 
R2, Q2 and GoF. 
 

Table 6. Inner Model Result 

  
R 

Square 
R Square 
Adjusted 

Performance (Y) 0.854 0.848 

Team Work (X1) 0.939 0.938 

 

Q2 Predictive Relevance 
Besides looking at the R-square size, 
evaluation of the PLS model can also be done 
with Q2 predictive relevance or predictive 
sample reuse to represent the synthetic cross-
validation and fitting functions with predictions 
from the observed variables and estimates 
from the construct parameters. The Q2 value 
> 0 indicates that the model has predictive 
relevance, while the Q2 value <0 indicates that 
the model lacks predictive relevance (Ghozali 
and Latan, 2015). Q2 measures how well the 
observed values are generated by the model 
and also the parameter estimates. The 
following for testing the Inner model can be 
done by looking at the value of Q^2 (predictive 
relevance). 
 

𝑄2 = 1 − (1 − 𝑅2)(1 − 𝑅2) 

𝑄2 = 1 − (1 − 0.8542) (1 − 0.9392) 

𝑄2 = 0,967 

 

Goodness of Fit (GoF) test 
The results of the GoF test are obtained by 
multiplying the mean root value of the 
communailities with the r-square root mean 
value. From the results of the GoF calculation 
above, a value of 0.967 is obtained for the 
Team work (X1) Servant Leadership (X2) 
construct on Performance (Y) so that it can be 
concluded that the model has a large GoF and 
the greater the GoF value, the more suitable it 
is in describing the research sample. 
The last is to find the value of Goodness of Fit 
(GoF). In contrast to CB-SEM, the GoF value 
in PLS-SEM must be searched manually. 
 

GoF = √𝐴𝑉𝐸𝑥𝑅2 ........Tenenhaus (2004)  

GoF =  √0.864 𝑥0.597 

GoF = 0.718 

According to Tenenhau (2004), it is used to 
validate the performance of the combined 
measurement model (outer model) and 
structural model (inner model) whose values 
range from 0-1 with an interpretation of 0-0.25 
(Small GoF), 0.25-0 .36 (moderate GoF), and 
above 0.36 (large GoF). 

 
Hypothesis Test 
Evaluation of the Structural Model (inner 
model). After testing the measurement model 
(outer model) the next step is testing the 
structural model (inner model) to find out 



 
 
 
JURNAL AKUNTANSI, MANAJEMEN DAN EKONOMI , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1-7 

whether the hypothesis can be accepted or 
rejected. This study will use a significant value 
(α) of 0.05 or 5%. The relationship between 
variables can be considered significant if the P 
value is less than the predetermined 
significant value (P <0.05). 
Basically this section describes how the 
research was conducted. The important things 
from this section are: (1) research design; (2) 
population and sample (research target); (3) 
data collection and instrument development 
techniques; (4) and data analysis techniques. 
For research using tools and materials, it is 
important to write down the specifications of 
the tools and materials. The tool specification 
describes the sophistication of the tool used 
while the material specification describes the 
type of material used. For qualitative research 
such as classroom action research, 
ethnography, phenomenology, case studies, 
etc., it is necessary to add the presence of 
researchers, research subjects, informants 
who help collect research data, location and 
duration of research and a description of the 
validity check of research results. 
The table above shows that there is a 
significant relationship between Team Work 
(X1) and Performance (Y) through Leadership 
(X2) with a T-statistic of 2,027 (> 1.96). The 
original sample estimate value is 0.451 which 
indicates that the direction of the relationship 
is between Servant Leadership (X2) and 
Performance (Y) through Team Work (X1). 
The relationship between variables can be 
considered significant if the P value is smaller 
than the predetermined significant value 
(0.000 <0.05). Thus the H4 hypothesis is 
accepted. 
 

Table 7. Hypothesis 1 Test 

 O M 
ST 

DEV 
O/ 

STDEV 
P 

Val 

 X1  
->  
Y 

0.4 0.4 0.230 2.025 0.04 

 
Based on the table above, it shows that there 
is a significant relationship between Team 
Work (X1) and Performance (Y) with a T-
statistic of 2,025 (> 1.96). The original sample 
estimate value is 0.466 which indicates that 
the direction of the relationship is between 
Team Work (X1) and Performance (Y). The 
relationship between variables can be 
considered significant if the P value is smaller 
than the predetermined significant value 
(0.000 <0.05). Thus the H1 hypothesis is 
accepted. 

 
Table 8. Hypothesis 2 Test 

 O M 
STDE

V 
|O/STD

EV| 
P Val 

X2  
->   
Y 

0.466 0.456   0.230    2.028 0.043 

      

 
Based on the table above, it shows that there 
is a significant relationship between Servant 
Leadership (X2) and Performance (Y) with a 
T-statistic of 2,028 (> 1.96). The original 
sample estimate value is 0.466 which 
indicates that the direction of the relationship 
is between Servant Leadership (X2) and 
Performance (Y). The relationship between 
variables can be considered significant if the P 
value is smaller than the predetermined 
significant value (0.000 <0.05). Thus the H2 
hypothesis is accepted. 
 

Table 9. Hypothesis 3 Test 

  O  M 
STDE

V 

 O/ 
STDE

V 
P Val 

X2  
-> 
X1 

0.9 0.96 0.015 66.4 0.00 

 
Based on the table above, it shows that there 
is a significant relationship between Servant 
Leadership (X2) and Team Work (X1) with a 
T-statistic of 66,472 (> 1.96). The original 
sample estimate value is 0.969 which 
indicates that the direction of the relationship 
is between Servant Leadership (X2) and Team 
Work (X1). The relationship between variables 
can be considered significant if the P value is 
smaller than the predetermined significant 
value (0.000 <0.05). Thus the H3 hypothesis 
is accepted. 
 

Table 10. Hypothesis 4 Test 

   O  M 
 

STDEV 

 O/ 

STDEV 
P Val 

X2> 
X1>  
Y 

0.451 0.453 0.223 2.027 0.043 

 
CONCLUSION 
There is a significant relationship between 
Team Work (X1) and Performance (Y) with a 
T-statistic of 2,025 (> 1.96). This is consistent 
with the results of Choudhary et al., (2013) 
which showed that there is a relationship 
between team work and organizational 
performance. There is a significant 



 
 
 
JURNAL AKUNTANSI, MANAJEMEN DAN EKONOMI , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1-7 

relationship between Servant Leadership (X2) 
and Performance (Y) with a T-statistic of 2,028 
(> 1.96). This is in accordance with the results 
of Naconha's research, (2021), Saleem et al., 
2020) which states that there is a relationship 
between servant leadership and performance. 
There is a relationship between Servant 
Leadership (X2) and Team Work (X1). This is 
in accordance with the results of research by 
Bilal et all., (2020) which says that there is a 
relationship between servant leadership and 
Team Work. There is a relationship between 
Team Work (X1) on Performance (Y) through 
Leadership (X2). Based on the analysis 
above, it is necessary to consider that there 
are many factors or constructs other than the 
construct in this study, it is necessary to add 
other variables for further research. 
 

REFERENCES  
 
Alice, E., Bittner, C., & Leimeister, J. M. (n.d.). 

Creating Shared Understanding in 
Heterogeneous Work Groups : Why It Matters 
and How to Achieve It. 31(2014), 111–143. 
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222310106 

Bilal, A., Siddiquei, A., Asadullah, M. A., Awan, H. 
M., & Asmi, F. (2020). Servant leadership: a 
new perspective to explore project leadership 
and team effectiveness. International Journal 
of Organizational Analysis, 29(3), 699–715. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2019-1975 

Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2014). The Influence of 
Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee 
Engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 
124(3), 453–464. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0 

Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). 
Impact of Transformational and Servant 
Leadership on Organizational Performance: A 
Comparative Analysis. Journal of Business 
Ethics, 116(2), 433–440. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1470-8 

Dierendonck, D. Van, & Nuijten, I. (2011). The 
Servant Leadership Survey : Development 
and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. 
249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-
010-9194-1 

Huang, J., Li, W., Qiu, C., Yim, F. H. kit, & Wan, J. 
(2016). The impact of CEO servant leadership 
on firm performance in the hospitality industry. 
International Journal of Contemporary 
Hospitality Management, 28(5), 945–968. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2014-0388 

Ingram, H. (1996). Team Performance 
Management : An International Journal 
Linking teamwork with performance. 2(4), 5–
10. 

Irving, J. A. (2005). Exploring the Relationship 
between Servant Leadership and Team 
Effectiveness : August. 

Lanctot, J. D., & Irving, J. A. (2007). Character and 
Leadership : Situating Servant Leadership in a 
Proposed Virtues Framework. Leadership, 
6(2007), 26. 

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, 
D. (2008). Servant leadership : Development 
of a multidimensional measure and multi-level 

assessment ☆. 19(November 2005), 161–

177. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006 

Manzoor, S. R., Ullah, H., Hussain, M., & Ahmad, Z. 
M. (2011). Effect of Teamwork on Employee 
Performance. International Journal of 
Learning and Development, 1(1), 110. 
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v1i1.1110 

Mickan, S., & Rodger, S. (2000). The organisational 
context for teamwork : Comparing health care. 
Australian Health Review, 23(1), 179–192. 

Moghimi, ; T, & Sadri, R. (2021). Organizational 
Teamwork and The Impact of Charismatic 
Management On Organizational Efficiency 
and Health. Journal of Humanities Insights, 
5(1), 15–023. 
https://doi.org/10.22034/jhi.2021.122570. 

Naconha, A. E. (2021). No 主観的健康感を中心とし

た在宅高齢者における 健康関連指標に関す

る共分散構造分析Title. 4(1), 6. 
Russell, R. F., & Gregory Stone, A. (2002). A review 

of servant leadership attributes: developing a 
practical model. Leadership & Organization 
Development Journal, 23(3), 145–157. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210424 

Saleem, F., Zhang, Y. Z., Gopinath, C., & Adeel, A. 
(2020). Impact of Servant Leadership on 
Performance: The Mediating Role of Affective 
and Cognitive Trust. SAGE Open, 10(1). 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900562 

Sanyal, S., & Hisam, M. W. (2018). The Impact of 
Teamwork on Work Performance of 
Employees: A Study of Faculty Members in 
Dhofar University Entrepreneurship in the 
Middle East. IOSR Journal of Business and 
Management, 20(3), 15–22. 
https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-2003011522 

Wei, L. Q., & Lau, C. M. (2012). Effective teamwork 
at the top: The evidence from China. 
International Journal of Human Resource 
Management, 23(9), 1853–1870. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.6103
43 

Wong, A., Liu, Y., Wang, X., & Tjosvold, D. (2018). 
Servant leadership for team conflict 
management, co-ordination, and customer 
relationships. Asia Pacific Journal of Human 
Resources, 56(2), 238–259. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12135