WHY IS THE INFLUENCE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP ON ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS FOR CHANGE INSIGNIFICANT? THE MEDIATING ROLE OF WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY

The COVID-19 pandemic has exponentially accelerated the rate of change. Organizational readiness for change has become the mandatory requirement for most organizations to survive in this highly disrupted era. The purpose of this research is to investigate the influence of servant leadership and the mediating role of workplace spirituality on organizational readiness for change. Offices within a private university in Indonesia were used as the population for this research. 80 respondents from 40 offices participated in this research by filling online questionnaires. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Square–Structural Equation Modelling software. The results show that servant leadership does not influence organizational readiness for change directly butis fully mediated through workplace spirituality. This paper contributes to the organizational change theory by providing insight into what aspect of servant leadership may be lacking for an extreme organizational change process. It is the first study that validates the role of workplace spirituality as the mediator of the relationship between servant leadership and organizational readiness for change.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exponentially accelerated the rate of change. Organizational readiness for change has become the mandatory requirement for most organizations to survive in this highly disrupted era. The purpose of this research is to investigate the influence of servant leadership and the mediating role of workplace spirituality on organizational readiness for change. Offices within a private university in Indonesia were used as the population for this research. 80 respondents from 40 offices participated in this research by filling online questionnaires. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modelling software. The results show that servant leadership does not influence organizational readiness for change directly butis fully mediated through workplace spirituality. This paper contributes to the organizational change theory by providing insight into what aspect of servant leadership may be lacking for an extreme organizational change process. It is the first study that validates the role of workplace spirituality as the mediator of the relationship between servant leadership and organizational readiness for change.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….... Introduction:-
Industrial revolution 4.0, boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic, has brought changes in nearly all aspects of our life. Change has become the reality of life, it is everywhere and has become the new normal. While sustainable competitive advantagewas predicted to be irrelevant (McGrath, 2013), it has become a reality today. In this hyper disruptive era, organizations need to have the ability to constantly and quickly adapt to change. Organizational readiness for change (ORC) has become the new competitive advantage (Reeves & Deimler, 2011). The source of an organization's competitive advantage comes from its ability to adapt to change faster, better, and with fewer resources (Goldsworthy & McFarland, 2017).Meanwhile, leadership is acknowledged to be one of the major antecedents of success in implementing change. Strong leadership is needed for an organization to be able to maneuver towards the desired direction (Hao & Yazdanifard, 2015). Based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) of social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964), we are inclined to pay back the good deed others have done for us. In the same way, servant leadership (SVL), a leadership style that focuses on the development of their employees, should generate social-emotional resources in the form of approval and support or even commitment to the changes they initiated. However, research on the influence of SVL on ORC is scarce and has not been conclusive. Past research found that SVL significantly influences ORC (Brummelhuis, 2012), others found the influence of SVL on Commitment to Change (CTC), a dimension of ORC, was insignificant (Gile, 2011;Schulkers, 924 2017). Meanwhile, some researchers found a significant but weak relationship between SVL and CTC (Gowdy, 2015;Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012).
The purpose of the study is to answer the research question:First, why is the influence of SVL on ORC insignificant. Second, what will mediate the relationship? In this empirical research, the SET and SVL theory will be used to analyze and predict the hypothesis and the mediating relationship to fill the research gap. Workplace spirituality (WS) is proposed and examined as the bridge to mediate the relationship between SVL dan ORC. This research has collected data from one of the top three private universities in Indonesia in 2020, ranked by the Indonesian Ministry of Education, where 80 respondents from 40 offices of that private university participated in this empirical research. This research uses structural equation modeling for the inferential data analysis and the PLS-SEM software to process the data.

Theoretical Review
Organizational Readiness for Change John Kotter, in his book Leading Change (2012), argued that more than 70% of necessary change fails. The reasons vary, from an organization's inability to begin even when they are convinced about the need for change, shortfall to finish the necessary change even though they have put their best endeavors, to completing the necessary change but going over the allocated budget. Past research found that the number one cause of failure in implementing change is the lack of CTC from the people involved (Conner & Patterson, 1982). Based on classical change theory, there are three change steps: unfreeze, change, and refreeze (Lewin, 1951). Several change management scholars propose various strategies to create readiness by unfreezing the existing mindset and creating motivation for readiness and present a new construct, called ORC, to represent the readiness for the organization to change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Based on the theory of organizational readiness for change, ORC is the psychological readiness level of an organization's members to embrace change and the confidence in their capability to implement change (Weiner, 2009). Alternatively, ORC is the psychological state where the members of the organization are committed to implementing the organizational change and are confident with their collective capability as an organization to make it happen. High levels of ORC should lead to a higher probability for organization members to initiate the change. They will also make more efforts to make the change thrive, show higher endurance,and have a more cooperative behavior. Overall, these things will make the planned change implementation endeavor more effective (Weiner et al., 2009). On the other hand, organizations with low ORC tend to look at changes as undesirable and avoid or even resist the planned initiatives to change and thus refuse to take part in the change process. ORC is a multi-level construct that can be found in individuals, groups, departments, or even on an organizational level (Weiner, 2009). It is not only a multi-level construct but also a multi-dimensional construct. ORC has two main dimensions, the commitment dimension, and the efficacy dimension. The commitment dimension represents the shared psychological assurance of the change benefit and the collective desire of an organization's members to make the change initiatives happen. The efficacy dimension represents the collective capability to implement the change that includes: the know-how, the resources, and pre-condition required for the change. ORC emphasizes the collective effort of all organization members, where everyone is expected to contribute to the change implementation endeavor.Serious complications will occur when not all organization members desire and are committed to the change initiatives. As an organization-level construct, ORC points to the collective readiness of an organization's members to be committed to the implementation of the changes and has the collective confidence in their capability to make the change.
ORC levels can vary as a function of members' appreciation level toward change and how confident are they on the three following matters: task requirement, availability of resources, and situational factors. Consistent messages and actions from the leadership through social exchange and shared experiences from past changes can influence the ORC level of an organization (Holt et al., 2007;Weiner et al., 2009). Broad organization processes, such as talent recruitment, selection, development, promotion and organization restructuring, or downsizing were found to influence ORC (Jones et al., 2005). The lack of consistency in communicating the message of change will impact the uniformity of ORC. The same result also holds whenevergroups within an organization do not have the opportunity to interact or share information, or when they do not have the same basis of past change experiences. The ORC perception difference between groups in an organization also correlates to lower ORC.

Servant Leadership (SVL)
Leadership is the most important element needed in the change management process to mobilize the organization towards the desired change (Kotter & Cohen, 2012). Without effective leadership, organizational change will not prevail as expected (Ajmal et al., 2012;Kotter, 1990). Leadership is defined as the process to influence others so that they will understand what is supposed to be done, how to do it, and the process to facilitate individual and group efforts to achieve the common goal (Yukl, 1993, p. 7). However, other scholars argue that the determinant of employee willingness to follow their leader hinges on how they perceive whether or not their leaders care for them. A leader's effectiveness is mostly determined by the quality of the relationship between them and their members, which will help the leaders to be able to influence their members better (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;Martin, 2013). This is in line with the SVL theory, which states that the most effective leaders are servants of their people. These leaders get results for their organizations when they give their attention to their people's needs wholeheartedly (Burkus, 2010).
According to Robert Greenleaf (2016), the first to coin servant leadership, SVL is not just a management technique, but it is a lifestyle. A servant leader starts with awareness of being a servant first and begins with the natural desire of a person to first serve. It is more being than doing, its emphasis is more on identity rather than what is done. This is why the term being used is servant leadership, instead of service leadership. The awareness of being a servant in a leadership position has become the basis for leadership action that is oriented toward the followers (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Servant leaders will use all the available resources to intentionally serve the needs of their followers to maximize their potentials (van Dierendonck, 2011). This does not mean that the leader pampers them, but a servant leader will give directions, provide challenges and responsibilities, while at the same time supply feedback in the form of both physical and emotional resources, such as empathizing, when the followers encounter difficulties. Servant leaders will create an environment and organizational climate that makes their followers feel empowered and important. The fundamental difference between SVL and other leadership styles is the target of leadership, while other leadership styles tend to focus on targetsthat benefit the organization, SVL will focus entirely and sincerely on the care to serve the followers (Stone et al., 2004).
Van Dierendonck (2011) provides a conceptual model of SVL (see figure 1) that will help us understand SVL theory holistically. This model combines several SVL viewpoints and study results, yet differentiates antecedents, behavior, mediating processes, and outcomes. This conceptual model emphasizes the fact that SVL is the combination between the motivation to lead and the need to serve. This model also recognizes individual characteristics and cultural aspects as the antecedents of SVL. In this way, this model proposes two mediating variables: the first is the servant-leader and follower relationship and the second variable is psychological climate.These variables will mediate the relationship betweenSVL and its outcome. There are three dimensions of follower outcomes: personal growth in terms of self-actualization; becoming healthier, wiser, free, and more autonomous in terms of positive job attitudes; and becoming servants themselves in terms of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and collaborative teamwork. On the organizational outcomes, SVL will bring sustainability and corporate social responsibility. This model also stresses the importance of the iteration process or reciprocal nature of the process from the follower back to the leader. 926

Servant Leadership (SVL) Influence on Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC)
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964;Cropanzano et al., 2017) argues that the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) naturally guides social exchanges between two actors (i.e. the first actor may feel obliged to return the good deed that the second actor did for them). Because servant leaders most of the time work with their followers, the followers tend to be greatly influenced by such leaders, which means that any follower's performance is highly influenced by the servant leader's behaviors. These behaviors include: first, the desire to have their subordinates improve for their good and view the development of their followers as an end in and of itself, not merely a means to reach the leader's or organization's goals (Ehrhart, 2004). Second, they tend to put their followers first (Eva et al., 2019). Third, they are genuinely concerned about their followers' personal and professional successes (Greenleaf, 1998). With those kinds of behaviors, servant leaders are likely to engage in empowering and helping activities, such as inspirational appeals and consultations or coordinating work assignments to suit both the followers' needs and the organizational objectives. Therefore, followers of servant leaders are involved in the organization's decision-making processes with authentic support from their leaders and therefore feel a sense of power over both their task operations and outcomes (Hunter et al., 2013). The result of this exchange should increase the ORC among followers. Based on the above theory, the following hypothesis could be drawn: H1: SVL has a positive and significant influence on ORC.

Workplace Spirituality (WS)
WS is not in the context of any religious practice or theology (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). If religion is more understood as an organized belief system, WS works to find meaning and feeling like part of the working community (Duchon & Plowman, 2005). WS is the acknowledgment that a human being has an inner life that nurtures and is being nurtured by meaningful work in the context of their communities (Poole, 2009). A leader who develops WS understands that a human being needs to find meaning in their workplace and need to be connected with others as part of a community. These leaders will reap the benefits in the form of loyalty, commitment, greater 927 retention, connection to work and others, superior ethics, virtue development, increase performance, productivity, and creativity of their followers (Bandsuch & Cavanagh, 2005).
As servant leaders provide inspirational appeals and consultations for their followers, while coordinating work assignments to suit both the followers' needs and organizational objectives, the meaning of work and alignment of values dimensions of WS will increase. Moreover, a servant leader will create an environment and organizational climate that makes their followers feel empowered and important. This feeling should also increase the sense of community dimension of WS. Past research found that SVL influenced significantly WS (Hosseini et al., 2016).A positive impact of WS on many aspects of the organizationwas also found in past studies, from improving intrinsic motivations and pro-environmental behaviors (Afsar et al., 2015). For example, job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, employee well-being, and organizational citizenship behavior ( . In line with that, an individual's spirituality at work was also found to positively influence attitudes toward change (Mercer, 2016). Based on these past research and theories, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2: SVL has a positive and significant influence on WS. H3: WS has a positive and significant influence on ORC.

Mediating Role of Workplace Spirituality (WS)
Based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) of SET (Blau, 1964), andSVL that cares for their employees should provide a psychological obligation for the employee to return it by supporting the change initiative championed by the leader. However, the influence of SVL on ORC has not been conclusive. Brummelhuis(2012), found that SVL significantly influences ORC, in contrast, Gile (2011) and Schulkers (2017) found that the influence of SVL on CTC, the dominant dimension of ORC, was insignificant. On the SVL conceptual model (figure 1), it is also mentioned that to have the expected attitudes, there needs to be a mediating psychological climate that consists of trust and fairness. Trust and fairness feelings are seen as essential components of a safe psychological climate to handle challenging times (van Dierendonck, 2011). This psychological climate has a lot in common with the definition of WS. Based on this similarity, the following hypothesis is proposed: H4: WS mediates the relationship between SVL and ORC.

Research Framework: Population and Sample
This paper usesthe organization unit level to analyze all the constructs. Offices from one of the 2020 top three private universities in Indonesia, ranked by Indonesian Ministry education, were used as the population of this research. A university can be treated as a corporation with many strategic business units (Collis & Montgomery, 2005, p. 10). School of accounting will have different sets of customers, staff, resources, and strategies from the school of engineering and university publisher.Each office is an organization by itself. To determine the minimum number of samples required, this paper uses the Slovin formula, shown below: To reducethe common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012) and to have respondents that represent the office well, this research randomly selects 2 voluntary anonymous respondents from each office that meet the following criteria:First, the respondent must be a direct subordinate of the office head and has been working under the office head for at least one year. Second, the respondent must be a full-time worker. 80 respondents from 40 offices participated in this research. The data collected from the respondents from the same office were averaged to represent the sample from one office. The frequency of the respondents' profiles is displayed in Table 1. Respondents in this study were comprised of 52.5% females and 47.5% males, only 2.5% are millennials between 21-30 years old. In terms of the respondents' education level, 13.75% of the respondents possess an undergraduate degree, 55% with a master's education, and 30% currently have Ph.D. qualifications. The least in the distribution accounted for a mere 1.25% were at a diploma level.

Questionnaire and Measurements
The questionnaire begins the first section with the demographic profile, followed by the proposed latent variables in this study. All latent variables were measured based on previously validated measurements. The employeeswere to assess their office leaders'SVL (α=0.881) using SL-7, the short form of Servant Leadership Scale (Liden et al., 2008(Liden et al., , 2015. ORC (α=0.881) was measured with 5 items adopted from the organizational readiness for implementing change scale (ORIC scale) (Shea et al., 2014). WS (α=0.889) was measured with 6 items adopted from Ashmos & Duchon (2000). All three latent variables (i.e.,SVL, WS, and ORC) were all measured using a 5point Likert scale.

Data Analysis
Structural Equaling Modelling (SEM) software was used for data analysis throughout this research report. SEM is also known as a second-generation method that offers simultaneous modeling of relationships among multiple independent and dependent variables (Gefen et al., 2000). Compared to CB-SEM, PLS-SEM was chosen as it is better suited to the predictive-oriented design of this study (Hair et al., 2017). The measurement model assessment results are displayed in Table 2. All three latent constructs in this research fulfilled the requirements, whereby all the indicators loading exceeded a value of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2009), all-composite reliability (CR) were above the minimum threshold of 0.7 and all AVEs (Average Variance Exacted)s were greater than 0.5.
As a result, all constructs met the reliability and convergent validity requirements. This paper also assesses the discriminant validity, a measure to make sure that the construct is distinctively different from other constructs (Hair et al., 2011), by making sure that the indicator's outer loadings of the associated construct should be higher than all of its cross-loading from the other constructs. As shown in Table 3, all values of the indicator's outer loadings of the associated construct are greater than all of its cross-loading from the other constructs.  The Goodness of Fit Model: The theoretical model of this research is considered to be fit when the R-square values for each exogen variable are greater than 0. From Table 4, it can be concluded that the theoretical model is considered fit. Predictive relevance was evaluated using Stone-Geisser's Q² (Geisser, 1974(Geisser, , 1975Stone, 1974). The Q² values for ORC was 1 x (1-0.655) x (1-0.557) = 0.847. It was larger than 0, thus indicating the model's predictive relevance and validity.

Structural Equation Model
The structural equation model for this research is presented below.

Hypothesis testing
Path-coefficient was assessed to examine the significance of the hypotheses using the bootstrap resampling technique (5000 re-sample). Based on the results in Table 5, two out of three direct relationship hypotheses were supported. The results illustrated that SVL exhibited a direct influence on WS (β=0.750, t=10.727, p<0.005) and WS also exhibited a direct influence on ORC (β=0.691, t=5.121, p<0.005), thus H2 and H3 weresupported. In contrast, there was an insignificant relationship between SVL and ORC (β=0.155, t=0.972, p>0.005), therefore H1 was rejected.

Mediation Analysis
Bootstrapping procedures were also applied to examine the mediation effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Mediation analysis was performed to assess the mediating role of WS on the relationship between SVL and ORC. The result displayed in Table 6

Discussion:-
This study revealed the effects of SVL on WS and ORC. First, SVL was found to have an insignificant relationship with ORC (therefore H1 was rejected). Similarly, Gile (2011) and Schulkers (2017) discovered that SVL did not influence CTC, the main dimension of ORC. The insignificant relationship most probably happens due to the lack of confidencein the leadership's ability to lead the change implementation. By definition, ORC is the organization members' level of psychological readinessto embrace change and their confidence in their capability to implement change (Weiner, 2009). However, none of the SVL dimensions used in this study expresses implementation capability. In this case, it could be argued that SVL does not directly influence ORC due to the lack of implementation capability measured by the SVLconstruct. This argument is in line with other scholars and research that states SVL is unsuitable in environments of extreme change that require the leadership to have the boldness to take risks in making quick decisive decisions (Quain, 2018;Schneider & George, 2011). This argument is also supported since this study was conducted during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia when universities are required to close their campus without any certainty when they can re-open and they were only allowed to conduct online learning. Most higher education institutions all over the world facedvolatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) conditions that forced them to drastically change their business model. This current VUCA conditionneeds decisive leadership with high execution capability.
Second, respondents acknowledged that SVL has a direct influence on WS. This finding is in line with Hosseini et al., (2016). The finding shows that the effort of a servant leader to create an organizational climate that makestheir followers feel empowered and important indeed directly influences positively the WS. Third, this study also found that WS has a direct influence on ORC. This is also in line with another research by Mercer (2016) that also found individual spiritual at work influence positively attitude toward change.
Forth and Lastly, this research also found that WS fully mediates the relationship between SVL and ORC. This finding fills the current research gap by validating that the influence of SVL on ORC is fully mediated through WS. In other words, for servant leadership to have an impact on ORC, it needs to make sure first that the WS in the organization is in place. By building a working environment that helps their followers find meaning in their work, have a sense of community, and align them with the organization's values, the servant leaders will influence the organization to be ready for change initiatives.

The Study Implication
To the extent of theoretical implication in this study, the researcher applied SET and SVLtheory to strengthen the understanding of the relationship between SVL and ORC and the mediating role of WS in this relationship. This research contributes to the theories by validating that mediation is needed to bridge the relationship between SVL and ORC. WS was introduced as the intervening variable and it was found to fully mediate the relationship. This finding at the same time also fills in the existing research gap on the relationship between SVL and ORC.
This research finding has an important practical implication for all levels of organizational leaders. To prepare their organization to be ready for change initiatives, they need to realize that their leadership alone is not enough, WS needs to be put in place first. Leaders need to prepare a WS that will help their followers find the meaning of their work, a sense of community, and for them to be aligned with the organization's values. Company policies that provide an opportunity for employees to make decisions and at the same time give enough room for mistakes and then learning from them, will increase their value alignment with the organization. Early, authentic, and clear communications concerning the time, risk of not changing, and the benefit of the change initiatives from the leaders will also increase the trust of their employees and in the end will increase their readiness for change. Fair remuneration and career system and no discrimination policy should be in place to increase the level of the value alignment. Internal campaign programs on the company vision, mission, and values need to be conducted regularly so that the employees are aligned with organizational values. A company-wide human development program on self-identity, life, and work meaning will help increase the meaning of the work dimension of WS. A company social responsibility program that involves employees and forming a company sports team will also increase the sense of community dimension of WS. Along with exercising their servant leadership, servant leaders that have these programs and activities in place will have a better opportunity to significantly influence the ORC.

Limitation and Suggestion for Future Research
In this study, the data should primarily have a larger sample size to explore this topic and ultimately produce highly extensive results. The study method, a cross-sectional study, was also a restricting factor, as it is a snapshot of the change process that is going on. Therefore, the impact of SVL on WS and ORC might not yet be in full effect due to the reciprocal nature of SVL to the outcomes. Future studies should expand the number of office samples and a wider range of organizations, to achieve a set of more credible findings. Besides, the respondents' questionnaire answers were generally based on their previousexperiences regarding the organizational change. As an example, respondents with previous positive or negative experiences regarding organizational changewould inevitably be influencedin their perception of their readiness for change. This could lead to a high probability of bias in the questionnaire answers, hence highly impacting the collected data. Future research can consider administering a longitudinal study method, to make sure that the previous experiencesare controlled to eliminate potential bias.

Conclusion:-
The paper aims to answer the inconclusive nature of the relationship between SVL and ORC. Using the social exchange theory and SVL theory, it is validated that mediation is needed in the relationship between SVL and ORC. WS is proposed and found to have a fully mediating role in the relationship between SVL and ORC. Several practical implications of building a WS will be necessary for servant leaders to get their organization to be ready for change initiatives.