Research Question 2

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and Voice and Antisocial Behaviors

Émilie Lapointe1 • Christian Vandenberghe2

Received: 14 June 2015 / Accepted: 17 December 2015 / Published online: 26 December 2015 ! Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract This study examines the relationships of ser- vant leadership to organizational commitment, voice

behaviors, and antisocial behaviors. Adopting a multi-

faceted approach to commitment, we hypothesized that servant leadership would be positively related to affective,

normative, and perceived sacrifice commitment, but unre-

lated to few alternatives commitment. We further hypoth- esized that affective commitment would be positively

related to voice behaviors, controlling for the other com-

mitment components, and would mediate a positive rela- tionship between servant leadership and voice behaviors.

Similarly, we hypothesized that normative commitment

would be negatively related to antisocial behaviors, con- trolling for the other commitment components, and would

mediate a negative relationship between servant leadership

and antisocial behaviors. These predictions were tested using matched data from a sample of 181 Canadian cus-

tomer service employees and their managers. Results lar-

gely supported the above predictions. Importantly, affective commitment mediated a positive relationship

between servant leadership and voice behaviors. Yet, while servant leadership was positively related to normative

commitment and the latter was negatively related to anti-

social behaviors, the indirect effect of servant leadership on these behaviors through normative commitment was

nonsignificant. Theoretical implications and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords Antisocial behaviors ! Organizational commitment ! Servant leadership ! Voice behaviors

Introduction

Following highly mediatized corporate scandals (e.g.,

Kirchner 2010; McLean and Elkind 2003), recent research has emphasized the importance for leaders to behave eth-

ically (Dinh et al. 2014) and for organizations to give back

to the community in which they operate (Sun 2013). Researchers and practitioners alike have also shown

increased interest in the development of leaders who put

the interests of their followers and organizations ahead of their own (e.g., Arkin 2009; Boyatzis and McKee 2005;

George 2003; Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck 2011). In

the same vein, followers are increasingly seeking leaders who take care of their relationship with them, demonstrate

trustworthiness, build loyalty in their teams, and focus on

followers’ growth (e.g., Carter and Baghurst 2014; Nichols and Cottrell 2014). As a response to these emerging trends

and expectations, scholars (e.g., Liden et al. 2008, 2014; Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dierendonck 2011) have

recently rediscovered and turned to servant leadership

(Greenleaf 1970, 1977), a model of leadership that con- centrates on the development of employees’ full potential,

as an approach to leadership that has the capacity to meet

the above challenges. Servant leadership depicts leaders’ first purpose as

serving more than leading, stresses the importance of

personal integrity, and acknowledges that organizations’ responsibilities should extend to the community and the

& Émilie Lapointe [email protected]

1 Nottingham University Business School China, The University of Nottingham Ningbo China, 199 Taikang East Road, Ningbo 315100, China

2 HEC Montréal, 3000 Chemin de la Côte Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC H3T 2A7, Canada

123

J Bus Ethics (2018) 148:99–115

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3002-9

society (Carter and Baghurst 2014; Graham 1991; Green-

leaf 1977, 1998; Liden et al. 2008, Parris and Peachey 2013). Servant leadership also focuses on the development

of strong, long-term relationships between leaders and

employees (Liden et al. 2008). Because leaders personify the organization (Eisenberger et al. 2002; Liden et al.

2004), servant leaders also contribute to strengthen the

relationship between employees and the organization (e.g., van Dierendonck et al. 2014). Yet, as employee–organi-

zation relationships are multifaceted (Coyle-Shapiro and Shore 2007; Meyer and Allen 1991; Shore et al. 2009; Tsui

et al. 1997), the nature and strength of the relationship with

the organization that servant leaders come to develop among their followers remains unclear. Furthermore, the

fact that servant leaders aim to influence followers’ atti-

tudes and behaviors without relying on positional or authoritative power (Carter and Baghurst 2014) raises

questions regarding how they ‘‘lead’’ employees to posi-

tively contribute to the organization and refrain from engaging in negative behavior (Neubert et al. 2008; van

Dierendonck et al. 2014). Accordingly, this paper aims to

explore the relationships between servant leadership and organizational commitment components, which capture

different bases for employees’ relationship with the orga-

nization (i.e., affective, normative, and continuance, the latter including ‘‘perceived sacrifice’’ and ‘‘few alterna-

tives’’ dimensions; Bentein et al. 2005; Meyer and Allen

1991), voice behaviors, which refer to the expression of constructive ideas to improve work procedures (Van Dyne

and LePine 1998), and antisocial behaviors, which repre-

sent behaviors that cause harm to others or the organization (Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998).

Using Meyer and Allen’s (1991; see also Meyer and

Herscovitch 2001) three-component model of commitment, we contend that servant leadership will foster affective

commitment (i.e., an employee’s sense of emotional

attachment to the organization), normative commitment (i.e., an employee’s sense of loyalty based on perceived

obligation toward the organization), and perceived sacrifice

commitment (i.e., an employee’s sense that organizational membership provides valuable benefits). These predictions

are based on the idea that servant leaders provide

employees with positive and favorable experiences, which should foster emotional attachment to the organization

through a social exchange process (Meyer and Allen 1991;

Meyer et al. 2002), generate feelings of indebtedness and moral obligation toward the organization (González and

Guillén 2008; Meyer and Parfyonova 2010), and raise

employees’ awareness regarding what they stand to lose in case of leaving (Powell and Meyer 2004; Vandenberghe

and Panaccio 2012; Vandenberghe et al. 2011), leading to

affective, normative, and perceived sacrifice commitment, respectively. We do not expect servant leadership to foster

few alternatives commitment, as this commitment com-

ponent is based on external contingencies (i.e., employ- ment opportunities; Powell and Meyer 2004;

Vandenberghe et al. 2011).

Second, based on the premise that distinct motivational forces underlie commitment components (Meyer et al.

2004), we postulate that affective commitment will be

positively related to employee voice behaviors and that normative commitment will be negatively related to

employee antisocial behaviors, controlling for the other commitment components. As affective commitment is

rooted in a desire to proactively serve the organization’s

interests (Meyer et al. 2004), affectively committed employees should be particularly willing to make con-

structive suggestions that improve organizational efficiency

(Morrison 2011; Van Dyne and LePine 1998). Relatedly, normative commitment is based on a concern about the

rightness of one’s behaviors and moral rectitude toward the

organization (González and Guillén 2008; Meyer et al. 2004; Meyer and Parfyonova 2010). Hence, employees

with strong normative commitment should be inclined to

refrain from engaging in behaviors that would damage the organization’s property or hurt its members (Hershcovis

et al. 2007; Robinson and Bennett 1995; Robinson and

O’Leary-Kelly 1998). By extension, we also argue that (a) affective commitment will mediate a positive relation-

ship between servant leadership and employee voice

behaviors and (b) normative commitment will mediate a negative relationship between servant leadership and

employee antisocial behaviors.

We contend that the present investigation is a worth- while and timely research endeavor. As highlighted by

Beck (2014), Hunter et al. (2013), and Parris and Peachey

(2013), recent servant leadership research has mainly focused on the development of measurement instruments

rather than on understanding servant leadership’s implica-

tions for employee attitudes and behavior. First, the present study goes beyond the rare research endeavors targeting

servant leadership’s relationships to organizational com-

mitment components (Miao et al. 2014) by distinguishing between perceived sacrifice and few alternatives as distinct

dimensions within continuance commitment. As such, this

study intends to show that the absence of a significant relationship between servant leadership and continuance

commitment (Miao et al. 2014) may be caused by the two

subcomponents being confounded within a general mea- sure of the construct. In doing so, the discriminant validity

of commitment components, which has been questioned

(Bergman 2006; Jaros 1997; Ko et al. 1997; Powell and Meyer 2004), will be further clarified.

Second, the emerging work on servant leadership’s

workings has essentially focused on servant leaders’ ability to promote positive behaviors (e.g., in-role performance

100 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

and customer service behaviors; Chen et al. 2015; Liden

et al. 2014). This study extends this work by looking at relationships to employee voice, i.e., a specific form of

extra-role behavior, and antisocial behaviors, and how

commitment components intervene in these linkages. Thus, the present investigation explores a wider array of behav-

iors (positive and negative) that can potentially be influ-

enced by servant leadership and looks at the psychological mechanisms involved in these influences. This should

expand our view of servant leadership’s implications (Hunter et al. 2013) and contribute to identify the specific

mechanisms associated with the emergence of voice and

antisocial behaviors (Hershcovis et al. 2007; Van Dyne and LePine 1998) (see also Dalal 2005).

Third, this study uses data collected among Canadian

customer service departments in which employee reports of their commitment to the organization and manager’s ser-

vant leadership behaviors are matched to managers’ reports

of employee voice and antisocial behaviors. The use of a Canadian sample contributes to a trend toward studying

servant leadership’s influence across cultures (Hale and

Fields 2007; Pekerti and Sendjaya 2010) while the context of customer service has been suggested to be particularly

suitable to study servant leadership’s effects (Carter and

Baghurst 2014; Jaramillo et al. 2009a, b; Liden et al. 2014; Wu et al. 2013). Using matched data from employees and

their managers is also in line with recent calls toward going

beyond single-level, self-reported data in this area of research (e.g., Chen et al. 2015; Liden et al. 2014; Newman

et al. 2015). We now turn to the presentation of this study’s

theoretical background and hypotheses.

Theory and Hypotheses

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership was first introduced by Greenleaf in the

1970s (Greenleaf 1970, 1977). Viewing servant leadership

as a way of living more than a way of managing people, Greenleaf (1977) emphasized the fact that servant leader-

ship should begin with ‘‘the natural feeling that one wants

to serve, to serve first’’ (p. 7). Although ground-breaking, Greenleaf’s early work (1970, 1977) reflected more a ser-

vant leadership philosophy than a servant leadership theory

characterized by specific dimensions and theoretical propositions (Liden et al. 2015). Such developments were

initiated more recently (see Parris and Peachey 2013, for a

review). One of the most compelling frameworks of ser- vant leadership has been proposed by Liden et al. (2008;

see also Liden et al. 2015).

According to Liden and colleagues, servant leadership consists of seven dimensions: emotional healing or being

sensitive to the personal concerns of followers; creating

value for the community or demonstrating a conscious, genuine concern for helping the community; conceptual

skills or showing knowledge about the organization and the

tasks that are prerequisites for providing help to followers; empowering followers or encouraging and helping fol-

lowers to identify and solve problems, as well as to

determine when and how to complete work tasks; helping followers grow and succeed or demonstrating a genuine

concern for followers’ career growth and development; putting subordinates first or using actions and words to

make it clear to followers that satisfying their work needs is

a priority; and finally, behaving ethically or interacting openly, fairly, and honestly with others.

As Liden et al. (2015, p. 254) posited, through the above

facets, servant leaders have the potential to influence the behavior of employees as well as the well-being of orga-

nizations because they promote integrity, concentrate on

helping others, and give high priority to ‘‘bringing out the full potential of followers.’’ Thus, together, these dimen-

sions capture the essential behaviors that servant leaders

should demonstrate and, as such, they can be combined to investigate global servant leadership (Hu and Liden 2011;

Liden et al. 2015). As this study aims to examine the

effects and workings of global servant leadership rather than those of specific servant leadership dimensions,

adopting Liden et al.’s (2008; see also Liden et al. 2015)

framework appears appropriate.

Servant Leadership and Employee Organizational Commitment

According to Meyer and Allen (1991; see also Meyer et al.

1993; Meyer and Herscovitch 2001), organizational com- mitment is a multifaceted construct capturing the strength

and nature of employees’ relationship with the organiza-

tion. As Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) emphasized, organizational commitment represents a force that binds an

individual to the organization and to a course of action of

relevance to that target. Yet, this force is associated with different mindsets reflecting the bases of employees’ rela-

tionship to the organization (Meyer and Allen 1991; Meyer

and Herscovitch 2001). Affective commitment captures employees’ emotional attachment to the organization

(Meyer and Allen 1991; Meyer and Herscovitch 2001),

normative commitment reflects employees’ feeling of obligation toward the organization (Meyer and Allen 1991;

Meyer and Herscovitch 2001), while continuance com-

mitment, which subsumes two subcomponents (Bentein et al. 2005; McGee and Ford 1987; Meyer et al. 1990),

refers to employees’ perception of (a) the cost associated

with leaving the organization (i.e., perceived sacrifice commitment) or (b) the lack of alternative employment

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 101

123

opportunities (i.e., few alternatives commitment) (Meyer

and Allen 1991; Meyer and Herscovitch 2001). Thus, commitment components represent distinct, yet related

bases or motives that are used by employees to make sense

of their behavior within and toward the organization. Affective commitment, normative commitment, and

perceived sacrifice commitment have in common that they

are all influenced by work and/or socialization experiences, whereas few alternatives commitment is based on external

contingencies pertaining to employment opportunities (e.g., economic conditions; Powell and Meyer 2004; Van-

denberghe et al. 2011). As servant leadership is aimed at

fostering followers’ holistic development (Beck 2014; Hunter et al. 2013; Liden et al. 2008), it should primarily

strengthen affective commitment. Indeed, servant leaders

are thought to provide followers with support (emotional healing dimension) and opportunities to learn new skills

(helping subordinates grow and succeed dimension), self-

develop, and actively participate in decision-making and problem solving (empowering dimension) (Liden et al.

2008; Page and Wong 2000). These behaviors are likely to

make the experience of work more challenging and rewarding. As leaders usually represent the organization in

the eyes of employees (Eisenberger et al. 2002; Liden et al.

2004), subordinates may feel compelled to become emo- tionally attached to the organization as a result of these

experiences, as social exchange theory would predict

(Settoon et al. 1996). This should lead to increased affec- tive commitment.

Similarly, servant leadership has a strong ethical com-

ponent and promotes engagement in prosocial behaviors benefiting others or the community (behaving ethically and

creating value for the community dimensions). These

aspects convey high moral standards, which are naturally appealing to normatively committed individuals (González

and Guillén 2008). Through these behaviors, servant

leaders may thus instill a sense of moral rectitude and perceived obligation to the organization, which should lead

to increased normative commitment (González and Guillén

2008; Meyer and Parfyonova 2010). We also argue that servant leadership will lead to

increased perceived sacrifice commitment by raising

employees’ awareness of the costs of discontinuing the relationship with the organization (Powell and Meyer

2004). As described above, servant leaders provide

employees with positive work experiences by, for example, making their work more interesting (helping subordinates

grow and succeed and empowering dimensions) and

meaningful (behaving ethically and creating value for the community dimensions). In addition to instilling a sense of

emotional attachment and perceived obligation to the

organization (i.e., affective and normative commitment),

these positive experiences may be perceived by employees as valuable benefits or ‘‘side bets’’ (cf. Becker 1960;

McGee and Ford 1987). Such benefits make organizational

membership a worthwhile investment and make it more costly for employees to leave the organization, therefore

leading to perceived sacrifice commitment (Powell and

Meyer 2004). This rationale is further supported by the fact that perceived sacrifice commitment correlates positively

with affective and normative commitment (Meyer et al. 2002) and the fact that affective, normative, and perceived

sacrifice commitment display a comparable pattern of

relationships with commitment antecedents (e.g., perceived organizational support; Panaccio and Vandenberghe 2009;

Vandenberghe et al. 2007).

Furthermore, meta-analyses (DeGroot et al. 2000; Ger- stner and Day 1997; Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Meyer et al.

2002) report significant relationships between leadership

style or leader behaviors (e.g., charismatic leadership, leader communication, leader consideration, leader initi-

ating structure, leader–member exchange, participative

leadership, or transformational leadership) and commit- ment components. However, findings remain contradictory

regarding continuance commitment, because research

scarcely distinguished perceived sacrifice commitment from few alternatives commitment (see Meyer et al. 2002,

for a discussion). Regarding servant leadership specifically,

research has essentially focused on the relationship with affective commitment, without considering other commit-

ment components (e.g., Cerit 2010; Jaramillo et al. 2009a,

b; Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck et al. 2014). The only exception is Miao et al.’s (2014) study, which inclu-

ded affective, normative, and continuance commitment.

Yet again, that study did not distinguish between perceived sacrifice and few alternatives commitment. In an attempt to

fill that gap in the literature and clarify contradictory

findings, we predict, based on the theoretical arguments developed above, that servant leadership will be positively

related to affective, normative, and perceived sacrifice

commitment. As few alternatives commitment is based on external contingencies (Vandenberghe et al. 2011), no

relationship is expected with servant leadership. Thus, the

following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 1 Servant leadership is positively related to affective commitment.

Hypothesis 2 Servant leadership is positively related to normative commitment.

Hypothesis 3 Servant leadership is positively related to perceived sacrifice commitment.

102 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

Servant Leadership, Employee Organizational Commitment, and Employee Behaviors

As mentioned previously, commitment components repre-

sent distinct, yet related facets of the employee–organiza-

tion relationship. They are related in that, as suggested by the above discussion, they share some common ante-

cedents. They are distinct in that, according to Meyer et al.

(2004), different motivational forces underlie commitment components, which suppose that they may affect different

outcome variables. Based on this premise, in the next

sections, we develop hypotheses suggesting that solely affective commitment is related to voice behaviors and

mediates the servant leadership–voice behaviors relation-

ship and solely normative commitment is related to anti- social behaviors and mediates the servant leadership–

antisocial behaviors relationship. In order to capture the

unique effect of affective and normative commitment, we will examine these relationships while controlling for the

other commitment components. This approach is

acknowledged in the commitment literature as being well suited to isolate the unique effects of each commitment

component (e.g., Bentein et al. 2005; Lapointe et al. 2011;

Panaccio and Vandenberghe 2009; Stinglhamber et al. 2002; Vandenberghe et al. 2007).

Servant Leadership, Affective Commitment, and Voice Behaviors

According to Meyer and Herscovitch (2001; see also Becker 1992; Becker et al. 1996), affective commitment

stems from a sense of identification with the organization,

being involved with it, and sharing its values. Employees with high levels of affective commitment genuinely desire

to remain with their organization. They feel autonomously

motivated to serve important and valued purposes and tend to seek novelty and challenges in their role (Meyer et al.

2004). They follow an ideal and are seeking personal

accomplishment and self-growth (Higgins 1998; Meyer et al. 2004; see also González and Guillén 2008). They

should therefore be likely to seek opportunities to con-

tribute to the organization and should be willing to put forward their ideas such as through demonstrating voice

behaviors (Morrison 2011; Van Dyne and LePine 1998).

Voice refers to behaviors through which employees proactively make suggestions or recommendations that can

enhance organizational efficiency and express concerns

about current and potential problems in the organization (Morrison 2011; Van Dyne and LePine 1998). As such, it

goes beyond merely criticizing and is aimed at changing things for the good of the organization (Van Dyne and

LePine 1998). Voice behaviors are important for organi-

zations’ performance and contribute to continuous

improvement and learning (Detert and Burris 2007; Mor-

rison 2011; Nemeth and Staw 1989). As these behaviors are intended to aid organizational success (Van Dyne and

LePine 1998) and as affective commitment primarily fos-

ters proactive contribution to the organization, those who, as a result of the positive experiences provided by servant

leaders, are affectively committed to their organization,

should be particularly motivated to engage in voice behaviors.

To our knowledge, our study is the first to examine the servant leadership–voice behaviors relationship. However,

previous studies examined the relationships between ser-

vant leadership and various forms of organizational citi- zenship behaviors (e.g., Chen et al. 2015; Ehrhart 2004; Hu

and Liden 2011; Hunter et al. 2013; Jaramillo et al. 2009a;

Liden et al. 2008; Neubert et al. 2008; Newman et al. 2015; Reed 2015; Walumbwa et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2013). For

example, research reported a positive association between

servant leadership and citizenship behaviors directed toward the team (Hu and Liden 2011) and customers (Chen

et al. 2015), and between servant leadership and helping

behaviors (Neubert et al. 2008). As these behaviors and voice behaviors are all falling within the broad category of

discretionary or extra-role behaviors (i.e., they all go

beyond individuals’ formal job responsibilities and con- tribute to organizational success; Dalal 2005; Organ 1988;

Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009), servant leadership

plausibly contributes to facilitate employee voice behav- iors. However, as discussed above, it is likely that this

relationship will be mediated through affective commit-

ment. This indirect relationship seems plausible in light of Si and Li’s (2012) study, which, although it did not control

for the influence of other commitment components, found a

significant relationship between affective commitment and voice behaviors. Thus, we formulate the following

hypotheses.

Hypothesis 4 Affective commitment is positively related to employee voice behaviors, controlling for the other

commitment components.

Hypothesis 5 Affective commitment mediates a positive relationship between servant leadership and employee

voice behaviors, controlling for the other commitment components.

Servant Leadership, Normative Commitment, and Antisocial Behaviors

Unlike the other commitment components, normative commitment is loyalty-driven and stems from the inter-

nalization of certain norms concerning appropriate con-

duct, the terms of the psychological contract, and the need to reciprocate favorable treatment (Meyer and Herscovitch

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 103

123

2001; Scholl 1981; Weiner 1982). Employees with high

levels of normative commitment remain with their orga- nization as a mean to fulfill felt indebtedness toward the

organization. Their behaviors at work are determined by

their need to avoid feelings of guilt or anxiety or to gain others’ respect (Meyer et al. 2004; Ryan and Deci 2000).

They prefer to play safe and do what they feel they ought to

do as organizational members (González and Guillén 2008; Meyer and Parfyonova 2010; Meyer et al. 2004). Norma-

tively committed individuals should therefore be less likely to move away from accomplishing their tasks to voluntarily

enact behaviors that could, in one way or another, harm the

organization or its members, such as antisocial behaviors (Dalal 2005; Hershcovis et al. 2007; Robinson and Bennett

1995; Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998).

In its broadest sense, the term ‘‘antisocial behavior’’ (or ‘‘deviant behavior’’) refers to negative or destructive

behaviors in organizations (Hershcovis et al. 2007;

Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998). Of critical importance, antisocial behaviors are intended to hurt the organization

and/or its members and thus threaten their well-being

(Giacalone and Greenberg 1997; Gill et al. 2011; Robinson and Bennett 1995; Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998). For

example, employees display antisocial behaviors when

they purposely damage the organization’s property or when they intentionally try to hurt others at work via their words

and actions (Bennett and Robinson 2000; Robinson and

O’Leary-Kelly 1998; Stewart et al. 2009; Warren 2003). As these behaviors are fundamentally detrimental to others

(Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998) and as normative

commitment primarily reflects a concern for the moral significance of one’s actions toward the organization or its

members, employees who, as a result of the positive

experiences provided by servant leaders, become norma- tively committed to their organization, should be less likely

to engage in antisocial behaviors.

In support of our contention, previous self-reported studies found negative links between normative commit-

ment and interpersonal forms of antisocial behaviors (e.g.,

Ménard et al. 2011a, b). Previous research in related domains (e.g., unethical behaviors and unethical decision-

making; Detert et al. 2008; Welsh et al. 2015) also suggest

that actions potentially detrimental to others are influenced by moral obligation processes. In addition, previous

research (e.g., Brown and Treviño 2006; Mayer et al. 2009;

Neubert et al. 2008; Tepper et al. 2008, 2009; Thau et al. 2009; van Gils et al. 2015) has demonstrated that the way a

leader behaves or his/her leadership style can influence

followers’ likelihood to engage in antisocial behaviors. Thus, theoretical arguments and empirical findings concur

to suggest that normative commitment will be negatively

related to employee antisocial behaviors and that normative commitment should mediate the relationship of servant

leadership to these behaviors. This leads to the following,

remaining hypotheses.

Hypothesis 6 Normative commitment is negatively related to employee antisocial behaviors, controlling for the other commitment components.

Hypothesis 7 Normative commitment mediates a nega- tive relationship between servant leadership and employee antisocial behaviors, controlling for the other commitment

components.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The study was conducted among the employees working

for the customer service departments of five Canadian

companies. We contacted and obtained the agreement of the managers of these departments for surveying employ-

ees about servant leadership practices of the manager and

employee organizational commitment, among others, as well as demographics (age, gender, and organizational

tenure). Researchers distributed hard copies of the ques-

tionnaire to employees on-site. A cover letter explained the purpose of the study and advised respondents that partici-

pation was voluntary and responses would be kept confi-

dential. In parallel, department managers received a packet including questionnaires that addressed, among other

things, employee voice and antisocial behaviors. A cover

letter attached to these questionnaires described the pur- pose of the study and invited managers to rate each of their

employees. All questionnaires were coded so as to allow

employee and manager responses to be matched. The codes were employees’ identification numbers, which were

known of the employees and managers only. Specifically,

employees and managers completed their questionnaires separately and reported the target employee’s identification

number on top of the relevant questionnaires. Employee

and manager questionnaires were completed during work- ing hours and were collected by the researchers.

The companies to which employees and managers

belonged operated in a variety of industries including telecommunications (n = 2), insurance (n = 1), electricity

(n = 1), and marketing services (n = 1). The number of

employees (all employed in customer service) per depart- ment ranged from 40 to 70 (M = 52.20; SD = 13.91).

Among the 261 employees who were contacted for par-

ticipation, usable questionnaires were obtained from 181 employees (a 69.35 % response rate; the rates effectively

ranged from 48.57 to 84.44 % across departments) and

their managers (all managers provided performance ratings for the 181 employees). In this sample, 46.70 % of the

104 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

employees were female, average age was 34.96 years

(SD = 7.96), and average organizational tenure was 4.32 years (SD = 5.52). Among managers, 3 (60 %) were

men, average age was 44.80 years (SD = 7.09;

range = 40–57), and average organizational tenure was 14.80 years (SD = 9.23; range = 6–30).

Measures

Servant leadership and commitment variables were asses- sed through employee reports while voice and antisocial

behaviors were rated by managers. As the study was con-

ducted in French-speaking work contexts, we translated English-language items into French through a translation-

back-translation procedure (Brislin 1980).

Servant Leadership

We used a slightly modified version of Liden et al.’s (2015) 7-item scale, which is a global and shortened servant lead-

ership measure developed from Liden et al.’s (2008) 28-item

multidimensional measure. Liden et al. (2015) reported strong evidence for the convergent validity of the short form

of their instrument with the full scale, the internal consis-

tency of the short form, as well as its predictive validity with regard to in-role performance, organizational citizenship

behavior, and creativity. The 7-item scale of servant lead-

ership is composed of items with the strongest loadings on their respective factor (one item per dimension) as reported

in Liden et al. (2008). For example, the item ‘‘I would seek

help from my manager if I had a personal problem’’ captures emotional healing, the item ‘‘My leader emphasizes the

importance of giving back to the community’’ captures

creating value for the community, and the item ‘‘My leader would NOT compromise ethical principles in order to

achieve success’’ captures behaving ethically. Note that,

because the latter item was negatively worded, we replaced it by ‘‘My manager is always honest’’ (see Liden et al. 2008) in

this study. The full list of items used in this study to measure

servant leadership is provided in the Appendix. All items were rated using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability coefficient for

this scale in this study (a = .82) was comparable to relia- bility coefficients reported in Liden et al. (2015; as = .80– .90).

Several scales of servant leadership are available in the literature (e.g., Ehrhart 2004; Liden et al. 2008, 2015;

Sendjaya et al. 2008; van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011).

Among them, we selected Liden et al.’s (2015) measure for theoretical and practical reasons. From a theoretical per-

spective, our study did not aim to look at the relationships

between specific dimensions of servant leadership and out- come variables. Rather, we explored the relationships

between servant leadership behaviors as a whole and

employee commitment and behavior. In this context, employing a measure specifically designed to capture global

servant leadership, rather than specific servant leadership

dimensions, is warranted. Liden et al.’s (2015) scale is specifically designed to capture global servant leadership,

whereas the other available measures (e.g., Ehrhart 2004;

Liden et al. 2008; Sendjaya et al. 2008; van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011) are multidimensional in nature. From a

practical perspective, Liden et al.’s (2015) 7-item scale is the most concise servant leadership measure currently available.

In comparison, Ehrhart’s (2004) scale comprises 14 items,

Sendjaya et al.’s (2008) scale has 35 items, and van Dierendonck and Nuijten’s (2011) scale includes 30 items.

As survey fatigue represents a threat to the integrity of par-

ticipants’ responses and thus, to the validity of a study’s conclusions (Credé 2012), we opted for the more concise

(yet rigorously developed and well-validated) measure from

Liden et al. (2015; see also Liden et al. 2014).

Organizational Commitment Components

Organizational commitment components were measured

using Bentein et al.’s (2005) version of Meyer et al.’s (1993)

scales. Affective commitment and normative commitment scales each comprised 6 items, while perceived sacrifice

commitment and few alternatives commitment scales

included 3 items. A 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used for all

items. A typical item for affective commitment is ‘‘I really

feel that I belong in this organization’’ while a sample item for normative commitment is ‘‘I think I would be guilty if I

left my current organization now.’’ Typical items for per-

ceived sacrifice and few alternatives commitment include ‘‘I would not leave this organization because of what I would

stand to lose’’ and ‘‘I have no choice but to stay with this

organization,’’ respectively. The reliability coefficients for affective (a = .93), normative (a = .87), perceived sacrifice (a = .81), and few alternatives (a = .82) commitment were all satisfactory and comparable to those reported by Bentein et al. (2005; as = .81, .78, and .83 for affective commitment; .91, .92, and .92 for normative commitment; .74, .78, and .81

for perceived sacrifice commitment; .81, .83, and .83 for few alternatives commitment).

Voice Behaviors

Managers provided ratings of employee voice behaviors

using the 6-item scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998), which was based on previous work by Van Dyne

et al. (1994) and Withey and Cooper (1989). A 5-point

frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often) was used for these items. Sample items include ‘‘develops

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 105

123

and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect

his/her work group’’ and ‘‘speaks up and encourages others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the

group.’’ The reliability coefficient for this scale (a = .96) was comparable to the reliability coefficient reported by Van Dyne and LePine (1998) for their supervisor-rated

measure of employee voice behaviors (a = .94).

Antisocial Behaviors

Managers rated employees’ antisocial behaviors using an

11-item measure. This scale comprised Robinson and

O’Leary-Kelly’s (1998) 9-item scale that we adapted to fit the supervisor’s perspective and was supplemented by two

items from Stewart et al. (2009), which were developed

based on Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) work on inter- personal deviance. The 9 items from Robinson and

O’Leary-Kelly (1998) measured various antisocial behav-

iors, while the two items from Stewart et al. (2009) specifically measured personal aggression. The combina-

tion of these two sources into an overall scale of 11 items

helped to obtain a balance between organization-directed deviance and interpersonal deviance content. Managers

were asked to rate the frequency to which their subordi-

nates demonstrated each of the behaviors described using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (every week).

Sample items from Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly’s (1998)

scale are ‘‘damaged property belonging to the organiza- tion’’ and ‘‘said or did something to purposely hurt some-

one at work,’’ while the two items from Stewart et al.

(2009) are ‘‘lost his/her temper while at work’’ and ‘‘made fun of someone at work.’’ The reliability coefficient for the

11-item measure of antisocial behaviors was .72, which

falls in the range of internal consistencies found in Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998; .68, .75, and .81).

Control Variables

We controlled for age, gender, and organizational tenure as

these variables have been found in the past to be related to organizational commitment components, voice behaviors,

and antisocial behaviors (Berry et al. 2007; Gao et al. 2011;

Hershcovis et al. 2007; Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Meyer et al. 2002; Ng et al. 2014; Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly

1998; Vandenberghe et al. 2011).

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to examine the distinctiveness of our study variables. Data

were analyzed using LISREL 8.80 and the maximum

likelihood method of estimation. To examine which model was the best fit to the data, we used v2 difference tests and compared more parsimonious models with our hypothe-

sized 7-factor solution (Bentler and Bonnett 1980). As can be seen from Table 1, the hypothesized model yielded a

good fit to the data: v2 (254) = 433.67, p \ .001, non- normed fit index (NNFI) = .95, comparative fit index (CFI) = .96, incremental fit index (IFI) = .96, root mean

square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .063, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .061.

This model also proved superior (p \ .001; see Table 1) to more parsimonious 6-factor models in which variables were combined on a two-by-two basis and a 1-factor

model. These results suggest that the study variables were

distinguishable.

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study

variables are presented in Table 2. All variables displayed

good internal consistency (as [ .70). Of interest, servant leadership was positively related to affective commitment

(r = .26, p \ .01), normative commitment (r = .29, p \ .01), and (marginally) perceived sacrifice commitment (r = .14, p \ .10). Servant leadership was also positively related to voice behaviors (r = .18, p \ .05) and nega- tively related to antisocial behaviors (r = -.15, p \ .05). Finally, affective commitment was positively related to

voice behaviors (r = .44, p \ .01), while normative com- mitment was negatively related to antisocial behaviors (r = -.17, p \ .05).

Hypothesis Testing

As the data were nested (managers rated the performance

of multiple employees), these data were likely noninde- pendent (Bliese and Hanges 2004). Therefore, we used

random coefficient modeling (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002)

to examine our hypotheses. As recommended by Bliese (2000), predictors were grand-mean centered. We first

examined the relationship of servant leadership to organi-

zational commitment components, over and above employee demographics (age, gender, and organizational

tenure). Results are presented in Table 3. As can be seen

(Table 3, Model 2s), servant leadership was positively related to affective commitment (c = .18, p \ .001), nor- mative commitment (c = .24, p \ .001), and perceived sacrifice commitment (c = .13, p \ .05). Hypotheses 1–3 are thus supported.

Next, we examined how servant leadership and com-

mitment components predicted voice and antisocial behaviors. Again using random coefficient modeling,

106 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

employee demographics were introduced in the first step,

servant leadership was added in the second step, and the

four commitment components were added in the third step. Entering all commitment components in the same step

enables us to capture the unique effect of each commitment

component. Results are presented in Table 4. As can be seen, servant leadership was positively related to employee

voice behaviors (c = .15, p \ .05; Model 2) but this rela- tionship became nonsignificant (c = .05, ns; Model 3) when the four commitment components were introduced in

the model. Among commitment components, affective commitment was the single significant and positive pre-

dictor of employee voice behaviors (c = .38, p \ .001; Model 3). Hypothesis 4 is thus supported.

As servant leadership was positively related to affective

commitment (c = .18, p \ .001; Table 3, Model 2) and the

latter was positively associated with voice behaviors

(c = .38, p \ .001; Table 4, Model 3), it was reasonable to expect affective commitment to act as a mediator between servant leadership and employee voice behaviors. To for-

mally test this hypothesis, we used the Monte Carlo-based

simultaneous regression procedure developed by Bauer et al. (2006) (for the computer software, see Preacher and

Selig 2010) to test indirect effects in the context of mul- tilevel models. This analysis indicated that the indirect

effect of servant leadership on employee voice behaviors

through affective commitment was significant and positive (.09; Monte Carlo confidence interval [.03–.17], p \ .05). Hypothesis 5 is thus supported.

Table 4 also shows that servant leadership was mar- ginally negatively related to employee antisocial behaviors

(c = -.02, p \ .10; Model 2), but this relationship became

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis results: Fit indices

v2 (df) NNFI CFI IFI RMSEA SRMR Dv2 (Ddf)

1. Hypothesized seven-factor solution 433.67*** (254) .95 .96 .96 .063 .061 –

2. Combining voice and antisocial behaviors 630.42*** (260) .90 .91 .91 .087 .084 196.75*** (6)

3. Combining servant leadership and voice behaviors 1108.17*** (260) .77 .80 .80 .130 .120 674.50*** (6)

4. Combining servant leadership and antisocial behaviors 640.88*** (260) .90 .91 .91 .089 .089 207.21*** (6)

5. Combining perceived sacrifice and few alternatives commitment

460.16*** (260) .95 .95 .95 .065 .062 26.49*** (6)

6. Combining affective and normative commitment 627.76*** (260) .90 .91 .91 .099 .085 194.09*** (6)

7. Combining servant leadership and commitment components

1236.05*** (272) .75 .77 .77 .170 .130 802.38*** (18)

8. One-factor model 1969.95*** (275) .56 .60 .60 .200 .150 1536.28*** (21)

N = 180

NNFI non-normed fit index, CFI comparative fit index, IFI incremental fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, SRMR standardized root mean square residual

*** p \ .001

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 34.96 7.96 –

2. Gender 1.53 .50 .32** –

3. Organizational tenure 4.32 5.52 .56** .01 –

4. Servant leadership 4.50 1.22 -.09 -.09 .02 (.82)

5. Affective commitment 3.91 .90 .07 -.04 .08 .26** (.93)

6. Normative commitment 3.41 .99 .13! -.03 .18* .29** .56** (.87)

7. Perceived sacrifice commitment

3.24 1.06 .14! .01 .14! .14! .22** .47** (.81)

8. Few alternatives commitment 2.83 1.37 .08 -.05 .23** .09 .09 .44** .67** (.82)

9. Voice behaviors 2.82 1.05 .29** -.05 .38** .18* .44** .40** .27** .26** (.96)

10. Antisocial behaviors 1.09 .20 -.02 .19* -.11 -.15* -.17* -.27** -.08 -.12 -.22** (.72)

Ns = 177–180. For gender, 1 = female, 2 = male. Reliability coefficients are reported in parentheses on the diagonal ! p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 107

123

nonsignificant (c = -.01, ns; Model 3) when commitment components were introduced in the equation. Among commitment components, normative commitment was the

single significant (negative) predictor of employee antiso-

cial behaviors (c = -.05, p \ .05; Model 3). Hypothesis 6 is thus supported.

As servant leadership was positively related to norma-

tive commitment (c = .24, p \ .001; Table 3, Model 2)

and as the latter was negatively linked to antisocial

behaviors (c = -.05, p \ .05; Table 4, Model 3), norma- tive commitment could mediate the relationship between

servant leadership and employee antisocial behaviors. We

examined this possibility using the same Monte Carlo- based simultaneous regression procedure (Bauer et al.

2006; Preacher and Selig 2010) used above. This analysis

revealed that the indirect effect of servant leadership on

Table 3 Multilevel estimates of random coefficient modeling analyses for organizational commitment components

Variable Affective commitment Normative commitment Perceived sacrifice commitment Few alternatives commitment

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Intercept 3.72*** 2.79*** 3.16*** 1.95*** 2.86*** 2.17*** 3.03*** 2.60***

Age .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .02 -.01 -.01

Gender -.16 -.13 -.18 -.15 -.14 -.13 -.16 -.15

Organizational tenure .00 .00 .02 .02 .01 .01 .05* .05*

Servant leadership .18*** .24*** .13* .08

R2 .02 .08 .04 .12 .03 .05 .05 .06

DR2 .02 .06 .04 .08 .03 .02 .05 .01

Deviance 416.36 406.73 372.97 362.47 372.97 362.47 372.97 362.47

Deviance Dv2 test 4.95* 9.62** 35.02*** 10.50** 35.02*** 10.50** 35.02*** 10.50**

Ddf 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

N at Level 1 = 174; N at Level 2 = 5. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Deviance tests and R2 values are obtained using a comparison with an intercept-only model. DR2 = increase in variance explained; proportions of variance explained are computed as the relative reduction in the Levels 1 and 2 variance components of commitment components across models (Snijders and Bosker 2012)

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 4 Multilevel estimates of random coefficient modeling analyses for voice and antisocial behaviors

Variable Voice behaviors Antisocial behaviors

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Intercept 2.22*** 1.46** -.05 1.01*** 1.13*** 1.23***

Age .02! .02* .02 .00 .00 .00

Gender -.25 -.23 -.15 .08* .08* .07*

Organizational tenure .05** .05** .04** .00 .00 .00

Servant leadership .15* .05 -.02! -.01

Affective commitment .38*** -.01

Normative commitment .10 -.05*

Perceived sacrifice commitment .02 .02

Few alternatives commitment .08 -.01

R2 .14 .17 .32 .05 .07 .12

DR2 .14 .03 .16 .05 .02 .05

Deviance 416.36 406.73 392.86 372.97 362.47 355.08

Deviance Dv2 test 4.95* 9.62** 13.87*** 35.02*** 10.50** 7.39*

Ddf 3 1 4 3 1 4

N at Level 1 = 174; N at Level 2 = 5. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Deviance tests and R2

values are obtained using a comparison with an intercept-only model. DR2 = increase in variance explained; proportions of variance explained are computed as the relative reduction in the Levels 1 and 2 variance components of voice and antisocial behaviors across models (Snijders and Bosker 2012) ! p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

108 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

employee antisocial behaviors through normative com-

mitment was nonsignificant (-.02; Monte Carlo confidence interval [-.05 to .01], p \ .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 7 is not supported.

Discussion

This paper examined the relationships of servant leadership

to organizational commitment, voice behaviors, and anti-

social behaviors. Adopting a multifaceted approach to organizational commitment, we argued that servant lead-

ership would strengthen employees’ affective, normative, and perceived sacrifice commitment but would not be

related to few alternatives commitment. Based on the

notion that different motivational forces underlie commit- ment components, we further argued that affective and

normative commitment would predict employee voice and

antisocial behaviors, respectively, and mediate the rela- tionship between servant leadership and these behaviors.

We tested these predictions on matched data from Cana-

dian customer service employees and their managers. Results from random coefficient modeling analyses largely

supported these predictions, except that normative com-

mitment did not act as a mediator between servant lead- ership and antisocial behaviors. The present findings offer a

number of theoretical implications and future research

directions for servant leadership and commitment research, which we discuss below. We then present the limitations

and practical implications of this study.

Theoretical Implications

First, our results indicate that servant leaders influence the nature and strength of the relationship that employees

develop with their organization, as examined through

Meyer and Allen’s (1991; see also Meyer and Herscovitch 2001) commitment model. More precisely, servant leaders

likely provide employees with positive and satisfying work

experiences, which instill a sense of emotional attachment to the organization (affective commitment), create feelings

of obligation toward the organization (normative commit-

ment) and an awareness of the costs associated with leav- ing the organization (perceived sacrifice commitment)

(Meyer et al. 2002; Powell and Meyer 2004). Results are

therefore consistent with previous studies emphasizing the key role played by leaders in creating strong relationships

between employees and organizations (e.g., DeGroot et al.

2000; Gerstner and Day 1997; Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Meyer et al. 2002).

It is interesting to note that servant leadership appears

significantly associated with both normative (c = .24, p \ .001) and affective commitment (c = .18, p \ .001).

This finding is worth mentioning as the vast majority of

studies examining the servant leadership–commitment relationship did not consider normative commitment (nor

continuance commitment subcomponents) (e.g., Cerit

2010; Jaramillo et al. 2009a, b; Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck et al. 2014). As affective commitment is the

best commitment predictor of employee behaviors (Meyer

et al. 2002), researchers tend to limit their investigation to this component. From a theoretical perspective, it makes

sense to assume that servant leaders, who strive to foster employees’ holistic development (Beck 2014; Hunter et al.

2013; Liden et al. 2008), contribute to develop employees’

emotional attachment to their organization. However, the primacy of this reasoning may be questioned. It is likely

that servant leaders, through their selfless and generous

attitude, primarily make employees feel indebted toward the organization (which may be accompanied by a sense of

guilt; Meyer et al. 2004; Ryan and Deci 2000). The sense

of obligation instilled by servant leaders is in line with viewing normative commitment as linked to self-sacrifice

(Weiner 1982) and with Greenleaf’s (1970, 1977; see also

Liden et al. 2014) core assumption that servant leaders make followers more likely to prioritize the needs of others

above their own and become servants themselves.

Furthermore, the fact that servant leadership was sig- nificantly related to perceived sacrifice commitment but not

to few alternatives commitment underlines the importance

of distinguishing among perceived sacrifice and few alternatives commitment (Powell and Meyer 2004; Van-

denberghe and Panaccio 2012; Vandenberghe et al. 2011).

Indeed, such distinction is warranted because few alterna- tives commitment incorporates employee’s need to remain

in the organization based on the lack of employment

opportunities, something that is largely out of the man- ager’s and the organization’s control (Powell and Meyer

2004; Vandenberghe et al. 2011). It also involves the idea

that employees feel ‘‘trapped’’ in the organization and that organizational membership is, in itself, an aversive expe-

rience (Powell and Meyer 2004; Vandenberghe et al. 2007,

2011). Servant leadership may have little influence on this psychological state. Thus, the present findings indicate that

nonsignificant results previously reported regarding the

link between servant leadership and continuance commit- ment (e.g., Miao et al. 2014) may be due to considering

continuance commitment as a unitary construct.

At first glance, the positive relationship between servant leadership and perceived sacrifice commitment may appear

to contradict servant leadership’s tenets. Indeed, servant

leaders should help followers develop their full potential (Greenleaf 1977; Liden et al. 2008) while perceived sac-

rifice commitment is rooted in a relatively calculative

approach to the employee–organization relationship (Becker 1960; Meyer et al. 2002). Yet, recent research

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 109

123

(Powell and Meyer 2004; Vandenberghe and Panaccio

2012) suggests that the benefits or ‘‘side bets’’ (cf. Becker 1960; McGee and Ford 1987) underlying perceived sacri-

fice commitment are not exclusively instrumental. For

example, Powell and Meyer (2004) found that enjoying satisfying work conditions (e.g., enjoying one’s tasks or

having good working relationships) is positively related to

perceived sacrifice commitment. In the same vein, Van- denberghe and Panaccio (2012) reported a positive rela-

tionship between job scope and perceived sacrifice commitment, suggesting that rich, complex, and challeng-

ing tasks are part of the benefits that give rise to this

commitment component. Thus, perceived sacrifice com- mitment also derives from the social and more intrinsically

satisfying aspects of organizational membership that are

usually associated with deeper, emotional forms of employee–organization relationships (Coyle-Shapiro and

Shore 2007; Meyer and Allen 1991; Shore et al. 2009; Tsui

et al. 1997). Another finding was that servant leadership fostered

employees’ emotional attachment to the organization (i.e.,

affective commitment), which, in turn, motivated them to proactively make suggestions and recommendations to

address organizational issues (i.e., voice behaviors; Meyer

et al. 2004; Morrison 2011). The fact that servant leader- ship indirectly influenced employee behavior is consistent

with recent research on servant leadership’s workings (e.g.,

Chen et al. 2015; Liden et al. 2014; Newman et al. 2015). In particular, the mediating effect of affective commitment

suggests that proactive motivation is an alternative mech-

anism to others that have been identified, such as role modeling (Liden et al. 2014), social exchange (Newman

et al. 2015), and social identification (Chen et al. 2015),

through which servant leaders influence employee behav- iors. Proactive motivation is indeed a central aspect of

affective commitment (Meyer et al. 2004) and would

explain how servant leadership encourages the expression of voice: servant leaders typically help employees to

proactively serve and develop their environment (Liden

et al. 2015) and would indirectly encourage them to speak up and voice their ideas.

Normative commitment was found to be negatively

related to employee antisocial behaviors. Thus, the moral underpinnings of normative commitment draw employees’

attention to the moral significance of their actions toward

the organization and its members (González and Guillén 2008; Meyer et al. 2004; Meyer and Parfyonova 2010),

therefore making them less likely to voluntarily harm them

(i.e., through antisocial behaviors; Hershcovis et al. 2007; Robinson and Bennett 1995; Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly

1998). The significant relationships between normative

commitment and antisocial behaviors on one hand, and between affective commitment and voice behaviors on the

other hand support the discriminant validity of these

components, which has been questioned in the past (e.g., Bergman 2006). These findings also provide some pre-

liminary evidence that voice and antisocial behaviors,

while opposite in nature, can be associated with distinct antecedents (Dalal 2005; Van Dyne and LePine 1998). Yet,

the indirect effect of servant leadership on employee

antisocial behaviors through normative commitment was nonsignificant. This may be due to these behaviors being

relatively infrequent (M = 1.09, SD = .20), causing range restriction among them. As antisocial behaviors are often

covert and hidden to external observers (Liao et al. 2004;

Sackett and DeVore 2001), using supervisor reports of such behaviors has limitations. It might be interesting to deter-

mine whether servant leadership leads to less frequent

antisocial behaviors through increased normative commit- ment when employee reports of their own antisocial

behaviors are used—even if self-reports of antisocial

behaviors also have limitations (Bordia et al. 2008; Fox and Spector 2005; Podsakoff et al. 2012; Stewart et al.

2009).

Directions for Future Research

Servant leadership research is still in its infancy (Parris and Peachey 2013). There are thus many research directions

that can be pursued. In connection with this study’s find-

ings, future research could examine how affective and normative commitment intervene in explaining servant

leadership’s effects on other outcomes reflecting these

commitments’ motivational bases (Meyer et al. 2004). For example, as affective commitment reflects a motivation to

proactively contribute to the organization (Higgins 1998;

Meyer et al. 2004), outcomes such as individual initiative (Bolino and Turnley 2005) and behavioral proactivity and

adaptivity (Griffin et al. 2007) could be investigated.

Similarly, research looking at the mediating role of nor- mative commitment could focus on behaviors that possess

a moral significance (Meyer et al. 2004; Scholl 1981;

Weiner 1982) such as unethical behaviors (Welsh et al. 2015). More specific forms of antisocial behaviors such as

aggression and retaliation (Fox and Spector 1999; Skarlicki

and Folger 1997; Skarlicki et al. 1999) or more specific targets of antisocial behaviors such as customers (Green-

baum et al. 2013) could also be examined as outcomes.

It would also be worth examining the moderating role of variables reflecting individual differences in motivational

orientation. For example, proactive personality (Seibert

et al. 1999) may moderate the relationship between affec- tive commitment and voice behaviors, as well as the

indirect effect of servant leadership on voice behaviors

through affective commitment. People who are naturally proactive are particularly sensitive to the effects of intrinsic

110 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

motivation (Fuller and Marler 2009) and may thus be more

inclined to make suggestions to improve organizational functioning (i.e., through voice behaviors; Morrison 2011;

Van Dyne and LePine 1998) when experiencing affective

commitment. In a similar way, moral identity (Aquino and Reed 2002; Greenbaum et al. 2013) may affect the strength

of the relationship between normative commitment and

antisocial behaviors. Individuals with high levels of moral identity should be less likely to engage in impulsive reac-

tions and experience normative commitment as being more consistent with their moral standards (Aquino and Reed

2002; Greenbaum et al. 2013; Meyer et al. 2004). Hence,

there should be a stronger negative relationship between normative commitment and antisocial behaviors among

individuals holding high levels of moral identity.

Finally, as servant leaders are expected to support fol- lowers’ involvement in the community (Liden et al. 2008;

van Dierendonck 2011), an extension of this study would

be to examine whether servant leadership influences com- mitment to the community. Doing so would respond to

recent calls to recognize the impact of servant leadership

beyond organizations’ boundaries (van Dierendonck 2011; Zhang et al. 2012). Research on union commitment (e.g.,

Bamberger et al. 1999; Cohen 2005; Fullagar et al. 2004;

Monnot et al. 2011; Redman and Snape 2005) could be used as a starting point for this line of inquiry.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be

acknowledged. First, as all the data have been collected at the same time, we cannot draw causal inferences regarding

the relationships among variables. For example, we cannot

rule out the possibility that voice behaviors lead to affec- tive commitment rather than the reverse. On theoretical

grounds, we are however confident that the causal direction

hypothesized in this study is more likely. That being said, longitudinal research would be necessary to confirm the

causal ordering of constructs. The fact that the data have

been collected at the same time also raises concerns regarding common method variance. However, the use of

supervisor reports of employee behavior along with

employee reports of servant leadership and commitment reduces the likelihood of this bias (Podsakoff et al. 2012).

As subjective measures still have limitations (as discussed

above), more objective measures of employee behaviors such as those obtained via organizational records should be

used whenever possible. Finally, the current findings were

obtained from Canadian employees working in the for- profit customer service industry, and as such may not be

generalizable to nonprofit organizations, in which servant

leaders are plausibly more prevalent and accepted (Carter

and Baghurst 2014), and to other cultures (Hale and Fields

2007; Pekerti and Sendjaya 2010).

Practical Implications

This study’s results emphasize the important role of servant

leaders in fostering voice behaviors and reducing antisocial

behaviors. Organizations should thus encourage managers to adopt servant leadership behaviors when dealing with

their teams. One way to achieve this goal is through implementing training and mentoring programs specifically

targeted at managers (Liden et al. 2014; Peterson et al.

2012; Wu et al. 2013). Managers should be trained to demonstrate personal consideration (emotional healing

dimension), give feedback to employees on their perfor-

mance and keep them informed about development opportunities in the organization (helping subordinates

grow and succeed dimension), and establish fair and open

rapports with people in the organization (behaving ethi- cally dimension), among other behaviors. As this study

found that servant leadership’s effects were transmitted

through organizational commitment, training programs directed at managers should focus on the critical role they

play as representatives of the organization (Eisenberger

et al. 2002; Liden et al. 2004) and make sure that managers endorse the values of the organization.

Similarly, organizations may want to develop a serving

culture (Liden et al. 2014) in which attention to the needs of others and serving attitudes come to represent core

values of the organization. To further promote servant

leadership, organizations should adjust performance appraisal systems so as to incorporate serving as an

important criterion against which managers’ performance

will be evaluated (Liden et al. 2008; Peterson et al. 2012; Wu et al. 2013). Organizations would also be well-ad-

vised to pay attention to how managers are selected and

consider that some individual dispositions likely inhibit or facilitate servant behaviors among managers, such as

narcissism (inhibiting factor) or self-esteem and altruism

(facilitating factors) (Beck 2014; Peterson et al. 2012; Sun 2013). Attention paid to these factors would allow that

managers most likely to engage in servant leadership

behaviors be recruited. Finally, servant leadership is of worth to organizations as it helps to simultaneously build

employees’ attachment to the organization, promote

speaking up and engagement in positive change, as well as refrain employees from engaging in antisocial behav-

iors. As the latter outcomes are likely to improve orga-

nizational functioning and make work climate more attractive, organizations should see advantages to pro-

moting servant leadership behaviors among their

managers.

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 111

123

Conclusion

Researchers and practitioners alike have recently shown increased interest in servant leadership (Liden et al. 2008;

Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dierendonck 2011). This

study adds to the literature by looking at servant leader- ship’s effects on employee commitment and behaviors.

Based on data from employees and managers from Cana-

dian customer service departments, servant leadership was found to predict employees’ affective, normative, and

perceived sacrifice commitment. Furthermore, affective

commitment positively mediated the relationship between servant leadership and voice behaviors. While normative

commitment negatively predicted antisocial behaviors, it

did not mediate the relationship of servant leadership to antisocial behaviors. We hope the present findings will

encourage future research on servant leadership’s workings

and relationships to a wide array of employee outcomes.

Appendix

Items used to capture servant leadership in this study and

their associated dimension in the original servant leader- ship instrument (Liden et al. 2008, 2015).

Item Dimension

I would seek help from my manager if I had a personal problem

Emotional healing

My leader emphasizes the importance of giving back to the community

Creating value for the community

My manager can tell if something work related is going wrong

Conceptual skills

My manager gives me the freedom to handle difficult situations in the way that I feel is best

Empowering

My manager makes my career development a priority

Helping subordinates grow and succeed

My leader puts my best interests ahead of his/her own

Putting subordinates first

My manager is always honest Behaving ethically

References

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.

Arkin, A. (2009). Back-seat drivers. People Management, 15(10), 26–28.

Bamberger, P., Kluger, A., & Suchard, R. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of union commitment: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 304–318.

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142–163.

Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299–314.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32–40.

Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 232–244.

Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 464–482.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.

Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R., Vandenberghe, C., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationship between commit- ment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 468–482.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 645–663.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. K. Klein & S. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 400–417.

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initia- tive and role overload, job stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740–748.

Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1104–1117.

Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 137–164). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 954–962.

Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2014). The influence of servant leadership on restaurant employee engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453–464.

Cerit, Y. (2010). The effects of servant leadership on teachers’ organizational commitment in primary schools in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(3), 301–317.

112 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group competition climate, and customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 511–521.

Cohen, A. (2005). Dual commitment to the organization and the union: A multi-dimensional approach. Industrial Relations, 60(3), 432–454.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee– organization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17(2), 166–179.

Credé, M. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874–888.

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 357–371.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 50(4), 869–884.

Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of ante- cedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspec- tives. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62.

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contribu- tions to perceived organizational support and employee reten- tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration– aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 915–931.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fullagar, C. J., Clark, P. F., Gallagher, D. G., & Carroll, A. E. (2004). Union commitment and participation: A 10-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 730–737.

Fuller, J. B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change-driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329–345.

Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 787–798.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader– member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844.

Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gill, H., Meyer, J., Lee, K., Shin, K.-H., & Yoon, C.-Y. (2011). Affective and continuance commitment and their relations with deviant workplace behaviors in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(3), 595–607.

González, T., & Guillén, M. (2008). Organizational commitment: A proposal for a wider ethical conceptualization of normative commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 401–414.

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspira- tional and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105–119.

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., & Priesemuth, M. (2013). To act out, to withdraw, or to constructively resist? Employee reactions to supervisor abuse of customers and the moderating role of employee moral identity. Human Relations, 66(7), 925–950.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant-leadership. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interde- pendent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347.

Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397–417.

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press.

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851–862.

Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331.

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009a). Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 257–275.

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009b). Examining the impact of servant leadership on salesperson’s turnover intention. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(4), 351–365.

Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three- component model of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(3), 319–337.

Kirchner, B. (2010). The Bernard Madoff investment scam. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.

Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s three-component model of organizational commit- ment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 961–973.

Lapointe, E., Vandenberghe, C., & Panaccio, A. (2011). Organiza- tional commitment, emotional exhaustion and turnover: A conservation of resources perspective. Human Relations, 64(12), 1609–1631.

Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance. Personnel Psy- chology, 57(4), 969–1000.

Liden, R. C., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2004). The role of leader– member exchange in the dynamic relationship between employer and employee: Implications for employee socialization, leaders, and organizations. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, M. Taylor, & L. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 226–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 113

123

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL- 28. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254–269.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.

McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 638–642.

McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. New York: Penguin.

Ménard, J., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A. (2011a). Interpersonal workplace deviance: Why do offenders act out? A comparative look on personality and organisational variables. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 43(4), 309–317.

Ménard, J., Brunet, L., Savoie, A., van Daele, A., & Flament, A. (2011b). Crossnational deviance in the workplace: Diverging impact of organizational commitment in Canada and Belgium. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(2), 266–284.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A Three-Component conceptu- alization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Man- agement Review, 1(1), 61–89.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 710–720.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three- component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integra- tive model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Towards a general model. Human Resource Man- agement Review, 11(3), 299–326.

Meyer, J. P., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 283–294.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.

Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. (2014). Servant leadership, trust, and the organizational commitment of public sector employees in China. Public Administration, 92(3), 727–743.

Monnot, M. J., Wagner, S., & Beehr, T. A. (2011). A contingency model of union commitment and participation: Meta-analysis of the antecedents of militant and nonmilitant activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1127–1146.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.

Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 175–210). New York: Academic Press.

Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220–1233.

Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2015). How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behav- ior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics (Online first publication).

Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. (2014). Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behaviour: The moderat- ing effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 537–553.

Nichols, A. L., & Cottrell, C. A. (2014). What do people desire in their leaders? The role of leadership level on trait desirability. Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 711–729.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Page, D., & Wong, P. T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In S. Adjibolooso (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history and development (pp. 69–110). Washington, DC: American University Press.

Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and psychological well- being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(2), 224–236.

Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393.

Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(5), 754–780.

Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm perfor- mance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 565–596.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recom- mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.

Powell, D. M., & Meyer, J. P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three- component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 157–177.

Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2010, July). Monte Carlo method for assessing multilevel mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects in 1-1-1 multilevel models [Computer software]. http://quantpsy.org/.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2005). Unpacking commitment: Multiple loyalties and employee behaviour. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 301–328.

Reed, L. L. (2015). Servant leadership, followership, and organiza- tional citizenship behaviors in 9-1-1 emergency communications centers: Implications of a national study. Servant Leadership Theory and Practice, 2(1), 71–94.

114 É. Lapointe, C. Vandenberghe

123

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 658–672.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well- being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organi- zational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). London: Sage.

Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 589–599.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Man- agement Studies, 45(2), 402–424.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 81(3), 219–227.

Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Chen, X.-P., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Social exchange in work settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Management and Organization Review, 5(3), 289–302.

Si, S., & Li, Y. (2012). Human resource management practices on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Organizational commitment as a mediator. International Journal of Human Resource Manage- ment, 23(8), 1705–1716.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 416–425.

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 100–108.

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J., & McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self- report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 207–215.

Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the three-component model of commitment to five foci. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 123–138.

Sun, P. Y. T. (2013). The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 544–557.

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employ- ees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 156–167.

Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 721–732.

Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An Uncertainty

Management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 79–92.

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee–organization relation- ship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–1997.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.

van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249–267.

van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544–562.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765–802.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.

van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Ethical leadership and follower organizational deviance: The moderating role of follower moral attentiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 190–203.

Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., Michon, R., Chebat, J. C., Tremblay, M., & Fils, J. F. (2007). An examination of the role of perceived support and employee commitment in employee–customer encounters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1177–1187.

Vandenberghe, C., & Panaccio, A. (2012). Perceived sacrifice and few alternatives commitments: The motivational underpinnings of continuance commitment’s subdimensions. Journal of Voca- tional Behavior, 81(1), 59–72.

Vandenberghe, C., Panaccio, A., & Ben Ayed, A. K. (2011). Continuance commitment and turnover: Examining the moder- ating role of negative affectivity and risk aversion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), 403–424.

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.

Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 622–632.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 418–428.

Welsh, D. T., Ordóñez, L. D., Snyder, D. G., & Christian, M. S. (2015). The slippery slope: How small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 114–127.

Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), 521–539.

Wu, L.-Z., Tse, E. C.-Y., Fu, P., Kwan, H. K., & Liu, J. (2013). The impact of servant leadership on hotel employees’ servant behavior. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(4), 383–395.

Zhang, H., Kwong Kwan, H., Everett, A. M., & Jian, Z. (2012). Servant leadership, organizational identification, and work-to-family enrichment: The moderating role of work climate for sharing family concerns. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 747–767.

Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and… 115

123

Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved.