Journal Article Assignment
Man123
servantleadershipandemployeeextrarolebehavior.pdf
Toward an Understanding of When and Why Servant Leadership Accounts for Employee Extra-Role Behaviors
Author(s): Alexandra Panaccio, David J. Henderson, Robert C. Liden, Sandy J. Wayne and Xiaoyun Cao
Source: Journal of Business and Psychology , December 2015, Vol. 30, No. 4 (December 2015), pp. 657-675
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24634422
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and Psychology
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�����4:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
DOI 10.1007/s 10869-014-9388-z \MJ CrossMark ORIGINAL PAPER
Toward an Understanding of When and Why Servant Leadership Accounts for Employee Extra-Role Behaviors
Alexandra Panaccio • David J. Henderson •
Robert C. Liden • Sandy J. Wayne • Xiaoyun Cao
Published online: 27 November 2014
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract
Purpose This research aims to contribute to servant lead ership theory by applying social exchange theory to examine why and under what conditions servant leadership is related to employee extra-role behaviors. Specifically, we examined the psychological contract (PC) as a mediating mechanism between servant leader behaviors and two forms of
employee extra-role behaviors: organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and innovative behaviors. Furthermore, we examined employee extraversion, collectivism, and proactive personality as boundary conditions. Design/methodology/approach We used time-lagged data collected from 101 supervisor-subordinate dyads. Findings We found that PC fulfillment mediated the relationships of servant leadership with innovative behav iors, and with individual initiative and loyal boosterism forms of OCB. In addition, extraversion and collectivism
moderated the relationship between servant leadership and PC fulfillment, such that it was stronger among individuals low on these characteristics.
Implications This study suggests that PC fulfillment is a key process through which servant leadership influences follower engagement in extra-role behaviors, and sheds light as to when leadership matters most in terms of
motivating employee outcomes through behaviors associ ated with greater PC fulfillment. Originality/value This is an important contribution, as servant leadership research has been largely void of clari fying the psychological mechanisms and boundary condi tions through which servant leader behaviors influence follower well-being and associated outcomes.
A. Panaccio (E3) Department of Management, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455, de Maisonneuve blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada e-mail: [email protected]
D. J. Henderson
Cass Business School, London, UK
R. C. Liden ■ S. J. Wayne ■ X. Cao University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Keywords Leadership • Servant leadership • Psychological contract ■ Organizational citizenship behaviors • Innovative behaviors • Employee dispositions
Partly in response to evidence that many leaders focus primarily on their own self-interest (O'Reilly et al. 2014), advocacy for an opposite form of leadership has arisen. This alternative perspective views the role of leaders to be based on service to followers, as opposed to service to self whereby effort is geared toward maximizing benefits for the leader or the organization in which the leader is embedded. A growing group of leadership scholars argue that effective leadership processes are founded upon leader behaviors that are reflective of self-sacrificing motives, and seek to explore this issue through the lens of servant leadership theory (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart 2004; Graham 1991; Hu and Liden 2011; Hunter et al. 2013; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b; Neubert et al. 2008; Rus sell and Stone 2002; Schaubroeck et al. 2011; van Diere ndonck et al. 2014; Walumbwa et al. 2010).
Servant leadership philosophy (Greenleaf 1970, 1977) contends that when leaders' attitudes and actions manifest
a desire to serve the interests of all stakeholders (as opposed to primarily serving self-interests), followers experience increased well-being and growth, and them selves adopt a serving-others orientation similar to that of
■£) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
658 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
their leader. As a consequence, they are more likely to transcend transactional or self-seeking orientations toward their work.
While academic research on servant leadership is still limited, a growing body of empirical studies shows that servant leadership is related to important organizational outcomes (e.g., Ehrhart 2004; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b). However, this research has been largely void of clarifying the psychological mechanisms by which, and the boundary conditions in which, servant leader behaviors influence
follower well-being and associated outcomes (Avolio et al. 2009; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b; Yukl 2006). Our purpose in this study is thus to enhance servant leadership theory by integrating social exchange theory (SET; Blau 1964) and servant leadership theory in order to identify mediating and
moderating mechanisms through which servant leadership behaviors prompt employees to act in ways that transcend a transactional orientation to the employment relationship.
Drawing on a review of the servant leadership literature Liden et al. (2008) identified seven behaviors of servant
leaders, for which they developed a psychometrically sound multidimensional measure (van Dierendonck 2011). These include: (1) putting followers first—manifesting through actions and words that satisfying the needs of followers is a top priority; (2) creating value for the com munity—showing a genuine concern for helping the com munity surrounding the organization; (3) emotional healing—attending to the emotional needs of organiza tional members (particularly immediate followers); (4) empowering—providing organizational members (particu larly followers) with control to identify and solve organi zational problems; (5) helping followers grow and succeed—showing genuine concern for followers' career growth and development by providing support and men toring; (6) behaving ethically—interacting openly, fairly, and honestly with organizational members; and (7) con ceptual skills—possessing adequate knowledge of the organization and tasks at hand so as to be able to effec tively support the growth and well-being of organizational members. In accordance with this framework, we define
servant leadership as a serving-others orientation in lead ership, manifested through these seven behaviors and attributes. We use the terms "servant leadership" or "ser vant leader behaviors" to designate the enactment of leadership behaviors which correspond to the servant leadership philosophy.
The mediating variable examined in this study is psy chological contract (PC) fulfillment. The PC is defined as "individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization" (Rousseau 1995, p. 9), and PC fulfill ment refers to perceptions that this exchange agreement has
been fulfilled by the employer. In other words, PC
fulfillment reflects the degree to which employees view their employers as meeting implicit promises in the employment relationship (Rousseau 1995). Because the terms of these implicit promises are not defined and the time-line of their delivery potentially ambiguous, theory argues that they represent the conditions of a social exchange between employees and their organizations (Dulac et al. 2008). We argue that servant leadership behaviors are positively associated with employees' per ceptions of PC fulfillment. As such, servant leadership behaviors are positively related to employee perceptions of a positive social exchange relationship with the organiza tion. A contribution of our investigation is to test whether servant leadership accounts for variance in PC fulfillment beyond that which is explained by the alternative expla nations of LMX or transformational leadership. We con tend that servant leaders contribute to followers'
perceptions of PC fulfillment, because servant leaders place an emphasis on fulfilling others' needs and are therefore highly motivated to enhance followers' PC fulfillment.
Through PC fulfillment, we further contend that, in accordance with SET and the reciprocity norm (Gouldner 1960), servant leaders motivate followers to engage in behaviors that go beyond their contractually defined obli gations in the employment relationship, namely innovative behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Prior theoretical and empirical work in the servant leadership literature has not examined how servant lead ership practices influence the employee-organization exchange relationship and, via reciprocity, associated out comes. In doing so, we address the need to theoretically clarify the manner in which these leadership practices enhance follower well-being and contributions to stake holder value creation (Avolio et al. 2009).
A second contribution of our study, as shown in Fig. 1, is to consider boundary conditions for the relation between servant leader behaviors and employee perceptions of PC fulfillment. Yukl (2006) questioned whether boundary conditions exist in the ability of servant leadership behaviors to elicit positive follower outcomes. Yet, this question has been unaddressed by servant leadership theory or extant research. In line with substitutes-for-leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier 1978), we propose and examine employee characteristics as factors influencing the rela tionship between servant leadership behaviors and employees' PC fulfillment. Our contention is that, when followers perceive or have the ability to obtain the resources and rewards that contribute to PC fulfillment
from sources other than their leaders, the relationship between servant leadership behaviors and PC fulfillment is weakened. Certain individual differences will impact the likelihood that followers perceive they are able to obtain these resources. We thus examine follower characteristics
<£] Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 659
Fig. 1 Hypothesized model: the influence of servant leadership on psychological contract fulfillment, organizational citizenship behav iors, and innovative behaviors. S Variable reported by subordinates,
M variable reported by managers, 77 variable measured at Tl, 72 variable measured at T2
as boundary conditions that help us explain when servant leadership enhances perceptions of PC fulfillment in the employment relationship, prompting greater levels of employee contributions that transcend contractual obliga tions in the employment relationship.
Theory and Hypotheses
Servant leadership theory (Greenleaf 1970, 1977) is unique in its focus on how leaders' behaviors that manifest a
commitment to prioritizing service to others above self influence employee contributions in the employment rela tionship (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart 2004; Gra ham 1991; Neubert et al. 2008; Russell and Stone 2002;
Liden et al. 2008). While servant leadership was initially slow to attract attention from scholars, there has been a
recent increase in scientific interest in this theory. Reviews of the servant leadership literature have been conducted (e.g., Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dierendonck 2011), models have been proposed (Liden et al. 2014a), and measures of servant leadership behaviors have been developed (Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011). Studies have found positive relationships between servant leadership and important outcomes, such as in-role individual performance (Liden et al. 2008), team perfor mance (Schaubroeck et al. 2011), unit performance (Liden et al. 2014b), firm performance (Peterson et al. 2012), organizational commitment (Liden et al. 2008; van Diere ndonck et al. 2014), team potency and team OCB (Hu and Liden 2011), even when controlling for transformational leadership and/or leader-member exchange (LMX) (Liden et al. 2008; Peterson et al. 2012; Schaubroeck et al. 2011). Notably, an emerging line of work has uncovered positive relationships between servant leadership, various forms of
employee well-being (Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dier endonck and Nuijten 2011), employee innovation (Neubert et al. 2008), and OCB (Ehrhart 2004; Neubert et al. 2008; Walumbwa et al. 2010)—behaviors that reflect transcen
dence from a transactional (or self-interested) employee organization relationship.
Servant leadership theory proposes that when leaders behave in a manner that is consistent with a drive to adopt and enact a leadership role for the purpose of maximizing stakeholder as opposed to self-interest, followers experi ence increased growth and well-being. As a result, follower commitment and contributions to organizational and soci etal goal attainment surpass self-seeking or transactional orientations toward their work. Indeed, a transactional
employment relationship is defined as one in which employees view the employment relationship as a tit-for-tat economic exchange whereby their commitment and con tributions to the organization are constrained to fulfilling basic obligations in a transactional manner (Morrison and Robinson 1997). In such an employment relationship, employees give what has been explicitly asked of them in the employment contract in pursuit of or in response to their employers' delivery of contractually defined obliga tions to them. By contrast, followers of servant leaders, as
they become servant leaders themselves, likely see beyond their own self-interests and the immediate repayment of obligations, which is characteristic of relational (vs. transactional) exchanges (Morrison and Robinson 1997). Research supports this aspect of the theory, as a serving culture has been found to be an immediate result of servant
leadership (Liden et al. 2014b). Another consequence of servant leadership is that fol
lowers manifest greater commitment and contribution to
stakeholder value creation. Within the theory, stakeholders are defined as organizational owners, members, and the
Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
660 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
larger community touched by organizational activity. Ser vant leaders see the fulfillment of stakeholders' needs as an
end in itself, rather than a means for contributing to organizational success. This emphasis on fulfillment of others' needs as well as the devotion to improve society through organizational activity (as opposed to enhancing organizational outcomes without considering societal needs) differentiates servant leadership from the related theory of transformational leadership, currently the domi nant leadership paradigm in management research (Avolio et al. 1999; Dinh et al. 2014; Podsakoff et al. 1996).
A handful of studies have examined the processes through which servant leadership may relate to outcomes. Neubert et al. (2008) offered (and found support for) employees' promotion focus—a focus on growth and achievement at work—as a mechanism accounting for relationships between servant leadership and employee helping behaviors and innovation. Ehrhart (2004) found that unit-level procedural justice climate partially mediated the relationship between unit-level perceptions of servant leadership and unit-level OCB. Extending this research, Walumbwa et al. (2010) found procedural justice climate and service climate to mediate the relationships between servant leadership and OCB at the group level, while self efficacy and commitment to the supervisor were mediators at the individual level. However, no support was found for the proposed moderating effect of procedural justice cli mate and service climate. Mayer et al. (2008) found indi vidual perceptions of overall organizational justice and overall need satisfaction to mediate the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. Research has also suggested that servant leadership may influence follower- and team-performance outcomes via role mod eling and employee identification (Liden et al. 2014b). However, little light has been shed on how, why, and under what conditions servant leader behaviors, those that reflect
a prioritization of service to others above self in the lead ership role, indeed nurture follower well-being and behaviors that surpass a transactional, or tit-for-tat employment relationship (Avolio et al. 2009). This may be especially salient for discretionary behaviors, such as OCBs, given that required job performance may be seen as an obligation for many employees, an obligation dutifully carried out as part of a transactional exchange.
Servant leadership has been distinguished conceptually from transformational leadership theory. First, as leader ship scholars have noted, transformational leadership the ory does not address how leaders' self- versus stakeholder focused motives to adopt and enact a leadership role affect their subsequent behavior in their roles, or how these behaviors influence follower attitudes and contributions
(Ehrhart 2004; Graham 1991). Second, while transforma tional leaders ultimately seek to advance organizational
interests (Bass 2000; Podsakoff et al. 1990), servant leaders
emphasize serving followers and society as their direct goals (Graham 1991). Despite the clear focus of servant leaders on serving followers, available empirical findings support the contention that servant leadership indirectly boosts organizational performance as a result of attitudinal
and behavioral benefits that followers reap from servant leaders (Peterson et al. 2012).
Complementing the theoretical distinction between servant and transformational leadership, research has demonstrated empirical separation between the two con structs as well. Specifically, servant leadership, opera tionalized via Liden et al.'s (2008) seven dimensions, has been shown to contribute incremental variance in subor
dinate outcomes above that which is explained by trans formational leadership (Liden et al. 2008: Schaubroeck et al. 2011).
Servant Leadership and PC Fulfillment
Given that servant leadership theory focuses on nurturing stakeholder well-being, it is appropriate to consider how this leadership approach influences follower perceptions of PC fulfillment, which captures cognitive appraisals of well being in the employment relationship. Although the PC is composed of perceived obligations of the organization (and of the employee), the organization is necessarily repre sented by agents, primarily supervisors (e.g., Liden et al. 2004; Tekleab and Taylor 2003), in its exchange relation ship with the employee. Indeed, immediate leaders are seen
as the "chief agent for establishing and maintaining the psychological contract" (Shore and Tetrick 1994, p. 101; see also Lester et al. 2002). We propose that servant leaders are particularly well positioned to fulfill followers' per ceived organizational promises, as long as circumstances outside of leaders' and followers' control, such as avail ability of resources, do not prevent both parties from ful filling contractual promises. We contend that defining behaviors of servant leaders, particularly their prioritization of follower needs, desires, and best interests, are perfectly suited for following through on the delivery of perceived organizational promises (Ehrhart 2004; Graham 1991; Liden et al. 2008). Indeed, "putting followers first" and "helping followers grow and succeed" are dimensions of servant leadership that speak directly to the fulfillment of
follower needs that comprise the PC. In order to prioritize the needs of followers, leaders obviously need to be aware of those needs. Servant leaders, through listening to fol lowers and expressing empathy (Greenleaf 1970), develop a generally accurate idea of their followers' PC expecta tions given their high degree of awareness (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006) and the trust that characterizes their rela tionships with followers (Greenleaf 1970; Schaubroeck
<£_) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 661
et al. 2011). Actively attempting to develop a thorough understanding of each follower's unique needs and poten tial positions servant leaders to be able to provide the support necessary to fulfill follower needs. Delivering on promises made is also consistent with an emphasis on ethical behavior, another dimension of servant leadership (Liden et al. 2008), as ethical behavior includes fair treatment of employees (Brown et al. 2005) and broken promises may create perceptions of unfairness (Gopinath and Becker 2000).
Hypothesis 1 Supervisors' servant leadership behaviors are positively related to their followers' PC fulfillment.
PC Fulfillment as a Mediator of Servant
Leadership—Outcomes Relationships
Drawing upon SET, from which PC theory derives many of its propositions, we contend that PC fulfillment serves as a critical mediator of the process through which servant leadership behaviors positively influence employee extra role behaviors. SET is often invoked to account for
employee outcomes tied to evaluations of the PC (Coyle Shapiro and Conway 2004) as the PC reflects expectations in a social, rather than economic exchange with one's employer. Blau (1964) differentiated between social and economic exchanges. Social exchanges entail behaviors that generate obligations for future, yet not explicitly defined repayment, whereby the timing of their delivery is
not precisely specified. Because the PC has been concep tualized as comprising implicit, as opposed to explicitly defined terms (Rousseau 1995), it can be viewed as per ceptions of the terms of a social exchange between an employee and his or her employer. The PC represents employee perceptions of what should or might happen as opposed to direct promises. Thus, it is an underlying norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960) as opposed to tit-for-tat exchange that guides receiving and giving. Tit-for-tat would imply that exact terms have been identified. How ever, social exchange—particularly as it relates to the PC—would mean that employees give to their organiza tions with the belief that at some point in the future they will be rewarded from their organizations. PC fulfillment implies that employees perceive beneficial cycles of social exchange. This forms the global belief that as one gives to the organization, one receives positive rewards in return.
In essence, SET argues that as cycles of reciprocity benefit partners, they exhibit greater propensity to offer contributions that surpass contractual obligations in the relationship. Otherwise said, as partners perceive benefit and/or well-being in a social exchange relationship, they are more likely to engage in acts that have not been con tractually defined (Blau 1964; Henderson et al. 2008).
Reciprocity, rather than contractual obligation, is the mechanism that is offered to account for continued
exchange. As individuals receive, they reciprocate by giving. As such, it is not surprising that positive relation ships between PC fulfillment and employee attitudes and behaviors that surpass economic employment relationships have been discovered through meta-analyses (Zhao et al. 2007).
Employees' OCBs and innovative behaviors represent two such examples. OCBs are behaviors that contribute to organizational effectiveness, but are generally not explic itly required of employees nor formally rewarded (Organ 1997). In the current study, we rely on Moorman and Blakely's (1995) conceptualization of OCB (based on Graham 1989), which comprises four types of behavior: interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism. Interpersonal helping refers to helping coworkers in their jobs; individual initiative focuses on communicating ideas or opinions intended to improve individual or group performance (or encouraging these opinions from others); personal industry addresses performance above and beyond the call of duty; and loyal boosterism refers to promoting the image of the organiza tion to outsiders. These behaviors were examined as out
comes in the present study because, along with innovation, they are manifestations of a willingness to go beyond contractually defined pursuits in the employment relation ship. Importantly, these four behaviors have different organizational constituencies as their primary beneficiary. Indeed, interpersonal helping primarily benefits the employee's coworkers, while loyal boosterism benefits the organization as a whole. As for individual initiative and personal industry, they benefit both the leader, as enhanced subordinate individual and team performance reflects pos itively on the leader, and the organization as a whole. Because servant leaders are thought to instill in followers a desire to serve similar to their own (Greenleaf 1970; Liden et al. 2008; Liden et al. 2014b), the reciprocation which we expect to occur in response to servant leadership behaviors is likely to go beyond behaviors that primarily benefit the leader. Thus, reciprocation of PC fulfillment resulting from servant leadership likely includes behaviors that benefit these different constituencies.
Employees' innovative behaviors reflect the generation, testing, and implementation of novel ideas (Krause 2004). Similar to OCBs, they are beneficial to the organization, but are generally not specifically required in the formal employment contract (Basu and Green 1997). For example, Neubert et al. (2008) found a positive relationship between servant leadership and self-reported innovative behaviors. Consistent with arguments that followers' well-being accounts for their positive responses to servant leadership practices (Graham 1991; Greenleaf 1970, 1977; Neubert
<£) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
662 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
et al. 2008), as well as the tenets of SET, we anticipate PC fulfillment to mediate relationships between servant lead ership and employees' OCBs and innovative behaviors.
Hypothesis 2 Employees' PC fulfillment mediates posi tive relationships between supervisors' servant leadership behaviors and employees' (a) interpersonal helping, (b) individual initiative, (c) personal industry, (d) loyal boosterism, and (e) innovative behaviors.
The Moderating Effect of Subordinate Characteristics
It has been questioned whether servant leadership practices are equally effective across situations (Yukl 2006). For instance, follower-level dispositional factors may shape the degree to which such an altruistic and service-focused model of leadership influences PC fulfillment. We contend that some followers, due to particular characteristics, have greater access to alternate sources of PC fulfillment, such as other powerful individuals within the organization, mentors, or coworkers. Among these followers, low levels of servant leadership behaviors may thus be compensated by other sources of PC fulfillment. This argument is con sistent with substitutes-for-leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier 1978), which proposes that leadership influence is contingent upon, among other factors, individual charac teristics of subordinates.
Kerr and Jermier (1978) initially identified subordinates' need for independence, professional orientation and indif ference toward organizational rewards as subordinate characteristics likely to neutralize the effect of relationship oriented leadership, a leadership style similar to servant leadership as it is described as a supportive, people-cen tered leadership characterized by consideration, support and concern for the subordinate's welfare. However, the
moderating effect of these subordinate characteristics has not received empirical support (Dionne et al. 2002; Pod sakoff and Mackenzie 1997). One reason for this may be that the relevant subordinate characteristics, those likely to be substitutes for leadership in a particular situation, depend on the criterion variable. Thus, it may be important to examine subordinate characteristics which, with regards
to a particular criterion, may substitute for leadership behaviors. In the current study, extraversion, proactive personality and collectivism were examined as potential moderators of the relationship between servant leader behaviors and PC fulfillment, because these characteristics
relate to the degree to which followers have access to rewards and resources that contribute to PC fulfillment
from sources other than their leaders. These traits should
thus result in these followers being less dependent upon their leaders to obtain resources and rewards that contribute
to PC fulfillment.
The broad trait of extraversion has been conceptualized as containing an agency component, which involves ambition, dominance and reward sensitivity, and an affili ation component, comprised of sociability, enjoying and valuing relationships with others (Bauer et al. 2006; Depue and Collins 1999). Extroverts are thus sociable, assertive, and ambitious (Barrick et al. 2001). As they are sociable, they likely develop relationships with an extended network of individuals throughout the organization (Kalish and Robins 2006). As they are ambitious, they may specifically target people in positions of power—individuals who are in
a position to provide resources and fulfill expectations. This is in line with research suggesting extroverts are more likely to build social capital than introverts (e.g., Okun et al. 2007). Because they are assertive, they likely ver balize their expectations in the employment relationship, including terms of the PC and whether they perceive promises have been fulfilled. As a result, extroverts may have at their disposal an extended network of people in the organization (Bauer et al. 2006), who are able to act as agents in assisting with the fulfillment of perceived orga nizational promises, making them less dependent upon servant leadership behaviors for that purpose.
Proactive personality refers to the proclivity to take initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones (Crant 2000). Proactive individuals adopt an active role in their approach toward work, actively seeking information and opportunities and removing obstacles which prevent job and career satisfaction (Crant 2000; Erdogan and Bauer 2005). They are more likely to use voice—constructive, change-oriented communication intended to improve the situation (LePine and Van Dyne 2001)—to signal opportunities for improvement (Fuller and Marler 2009), which makes them more likely to express their level of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) regarding fulfillment of their PC. Further, like extroverts, these individuals are particularly inclined to engage in networking to develop their social capital (Thomas et al. 2010; Thompson 2005), because it offers a way to improve one's situation within the organization. Their networking efforts, especially those directed toward higher level alters in different functional areas of the organization (Seibert et al. 2001), may make them likely to win powerful allies— individuals who are in a position to contribute to fulfilling
their PCs. Finally, proactive employees build relationships with coworkers early in the employment relationship (Chan and Schmitt 2000), which may also contribute in expanding the network of individuals able to help fulfill their PC.
Lastly, collectivism is the degree to which individuals view themselves as interdependent with selected others (Triandis 1995). Often studied at the societal level, col lectivism can also be examined as an individual-level
variable given the existence of within-country
<£) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 663
heterogeneity (Oyserman et al. 2002; Triandis et al. 1985). Collectivistic individuals place high value on establishing and maintaining strong ties with group members (Boya cigiller and Adler 1991). Research suggests they have more informal contacts with their coworkers, know the staff
better, are more likely to work in teams (Bochner and Hesketh 1994), and receive more social support (Triandis et al. 1985) than individualists. We argue that collectivistic individuals are thus more likely to have invested time and effort into developing relationships with other individuals in the organization—such as coworkers—who can con tribute to fulfilling their PC, thus making their PC fulfill ment less associated with leader behavior.
In sum, based on the substitutes for leadership frame work, we propose that individuals who are higher on extraversion, proactive personality, and collectivism rely less on the leader in fulfilling their PCs. Specifically, we expect that servant leadership behaviors are less strongly related to perceived PC fulfillment among followers high on extraversion, proactive personality, and collectivism; these individual differences serving as boundary conditions for the impact of servant leadership on PC fulfillment.
Hypothesis 3 Extraversion (a), proactive personality (b) and collectivism (c) moderate the indirect relationship between supervisors' servant leadership behaviors and employee outcomes (interpersonal helping, individual ini tiative, personal industry, loyal boosterism, and innovative behaviors) through PC fulfillment, such that these rela tionships are weaker among individuals high on these characteristics.
Methods
Sample and Procedure
Data were collected at two points in time, separated by 4 months, from supervisors and subordinates of two loca tions of a production and distribution company—both of which were located in the Midwestern USA. The main
purpose of the multiple-time period design was to reduce same-source common method variance (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The 4-month lag was identified as being long enough to reduce the likelihood that responses coexist in short-term memory or that common contextual cues influ
ence responses, but not so long that it masks relationships between variables. This time lag was also chosen to pro duce the highest response rates (we collected the data at times of the year when the employees tended to be less busy). All organizational members were invited to partic ipate in the research project and participation was com pletely voluntary. All participants were asked to complete
written surveys during paid working hours in the presence of one of the researchers. Supervisors and subordinates completed their surveys in separate rooms. Absentee packets were left for organizational members who were unable to attend one of the data collection sessions. These
packets included copies of the survey and stamped enve lopes addressed to the principal investigator.
At Time one (Tl), 164 subordinates (response rate = 56.9 %) and 25 supervisors (response rate = 86.2 %) participated. At Time two (T2), all orga nizational members, regardless of their participation at Tl were invited to participate, yielding responses from 200 subordinates (response rate = 67.3 %) and 26 supervisors
(response rate = 86.7 %). No significant jdifferences were found for the variables included in this study between individuals who responded at both Tl and T2 and those who only responded at Tl. Of those individuals who par ticipated at both time periods, complete data on all vari ables of interest were available for 101 supervisor subordinate dyads, contained in 23 supervisor work groups (effective response rate = 34 % inclusive of 23 supervisors).
The average relationship tenure of the supervisor-sub ordinate dyads included in our analysis was 2.3 years. Subordinates reported an average organizational tenure of 6.7 years and average job tenure of 3.6 years. Their aver age age was 37.6 years and 69.3 % were male. Regarding the highest level of education attained, 5.1 % reported holding no degree, 59.2 % reported a high school diploma, 15.3 % had completed a professional training program, 11.2 % held an associate's degree, and 9.2 % had earned a bachelor's degree. Among subordinates, 9.0 % indicated their race as African American, 7.0 % Hispanic/Latino/ Latina, and 83.0 % Caucasian. Supervisors reported an average organizational tenure of 12.8 years and average job tenure of 4.6 years. Their average age was 41.1 years and 82.4 % were male. Among supervisors, 5.9 % indi cated their race as African American, 5.9 % Hispanic/ Latino/Latina, 5.9 % Asian/Pacific Islander, and 82.4 % Caucasian. With regards to education, 52.9 % indicated their highest educational level was a high school diploma, 29.4 % reported completing a professional training pro gram, and 17.6 % held an associate's degree.
Measures
At Tl, subordinates provided ratings of their characteristics
and their supervisors' servant leadership behaviors. At T2, subordinates provided ratings of their PC fulfillment. Also
at T2, supervisors provided ratings of subordinates' OCBs and innovative behaviors. Unless otherwise indicated, responses to all measures were elicited on 7-point Likert
<£) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
664 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
type scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
Servant Leadership
We measured servant leadership with a 28-item multidi mensional scale (Liden et al. 2008), comprised of four items for each of its seven dimensions, that was summed to
generate one composite servant leadership score. This scale measures seven dimensions of servant leadership (emo tional healing, creating value for the community, concep tual skills, empowering subordinates, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, and behaving ethically) that Liden et al. (2008) theoretically identified and then validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Higher-order CFA results presented by Hu and Liden (2011, p. 855) demonstrated that the seven dimensions load onto a second (or higher)-order factor, thus providing empirical support for combining all 28 items to create a global index of servant leadership. Support for the latent, higher-order servant leadership construct has also been demonstrated by Schaubroeck et al.
(2011) with a sample of 999 financial services employees representing Hong Kong and USA offices of the same organization.
Thus, the 28 items were summed to create one com
posite variable. An example item from this scale is "My manager sacrifices his/her own interests to meet my needs" (a = .94).
Psychological Contract Fulfillment
We adapted and built upon Rousseau's (1990) measure of employers' obligations in the employment relationship to derive a 10-item measure of PC fulfillment. Rousseau
identified seven currencies of exchange (promotion opportunities, fair pay, pay based on my current level of performance, training, long-term job security, career development and support with personal problems) that employees may perceive as obligated to them in the PC. To better tap the construct domain, we added three additional
items (interesting work, sufficient power and responsibility,
and authority to make decisions) that have been shown to correlate with satisfaction with work (Loher et al. 1985)
and therefore may well also represent dimensions of the PC. On a scale ranging from 1 (provided much less than promised) to 5 (provided much more than promised), we asked respondents to indicate the degree to which the organization had fulfilled its perceived promises along these ten currencies.
Because we slightly altered Rousseau's (1990) scale, we conducted a principal axis factor analysis given our hypothesized one-factor solution. The results of this factor
analysis suggested a two-factor solution, with three items cross-loading at above .3. These three items were deleted from the analysis, and the principal axis factor analysis was rerun. In this instance, a clean one-factor solution with no
cross-loadings emerged that explained 51.92 % of the variance. We therefore summed these seven items into a
composite measure' (a = .88).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Supervisors were asked to rate subordinates on four dimensions of OCB (interpersonal helping, individual ini tiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism) using the multidimensional scale developed by Moorman and Blak ely (1995) based on Graham's (1989) conceptualization of OCB. The scale was employed without modification except that one of the items presented by Moorman and Blakely (1995) to capture loyal boosterism—"This individual encourages friends and family to utilize organization pro ducts"—was omitted because it would not have been
meaningful to the sample used in this study. Summated scale scores were created for each dimension of OCB
captured by the full scale. Example items are "This indi vidual goes out of his/her way to help coworkers with work-related problems" (interpersonal helping; a = .83); "This individual often motivates others to express their ideas and opinions" (individual initiative; a = .86); "This individual rarely misses work even when he/she has a legitimate reason for doing so" (personal industry, y. — .78); "This individual shows pride when representing the organization in public" (loyal boosterism, a. — .80).
Innovative Behaviors
Five items were employed to measure employees' inno vative behaviors. Four items were taken from Scott and
Bruce's (1994) innovative behavior measure. The fifth item ("This individual wins the support of others necessary for his/her ideas to succeed") was added to better capture the construct and further assess the degree to which an indi vidual is willing to seek sponsorship for his or her ideas— which is theoretically part of the construct definition (Kanter, 1988). An example item from the Scott and Bruce (1994) measure is "This individual searches out new
1 Although the results presented here are based on this composite measure, as a check on the veridicality of our revised measure, we conducted the same set of analyses using our 10-item composite scale and Rousseau's (1990) seven-item PC measure. Specifically, we tested our mediation hypotheses following Bauer et al.'s (2006) approach and tested the moderation effects using HLM. The results using different PC measures are not significantly different and are available from the authors upon request.
<£] Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psycho! (2015) 30:657-675 665
technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas' (a = .89).
Extraversion
We measured extraversion using the eight items capturing this construct from Saucier's (1994) 40-item short form of
Goldberg's (1992) 100-item scale. On a scale of 1 (extre mely inaccurate) to 7 (extremely accurate), respondents were asked to indicate how accurate items (which are adjectives in this scale) were in describing them. Example items are talkative and shy (reverse-coded) (a = .77).
Proactive Personality
Proactive personality was measured using Parker's (1998) six-item short form of Bateman and Crant's (1993) mea
sure. These six items showed good internal consistency in the Parker study (a = .85). An example item for this measure is "No matter what the odds, if I believe in
something I will make it happen" (a = .87).
Collectivism
We used two high-loading items from Earley's (1993) instrument to assess individual-level collectivism. We
selected these items on the basis of how well they repre sented an individual's desire for a more collective, rather
than individual, approach to work as well as one's prefer ence for a more collective than individual work identity. An example item is "One does better work working alone than in a group" (reverse-coded) (r = .59, p < .01).
Control Variables
Because our participants were employed in two distinct facilities, it was necessary to consider the potential effects that plant location may have had on the dependent vari ables we measured. A dummy-coded variable was created to capture subordinates' work locations, such that mem bership in location one was contrasted with membership in location two. Furthermore, LMX quality, or the quality of the interpersonal exchange relationship between a leader and a follower, has been shown to be significantly related to both PC fulfillment (Henderson et al. 2008) and employees' extra-role behaviors at work (Hies et al. 2007). Therefore, LMX quality was also included as a control and was measured using Liden and Maslyn's (1998) 12-item scale (a = .91). An example item is "I like my manager very much as a person." Finally, transformational leader ship, the dominant approach to leadership in the manage ment literature, might well lead to increased levels of PC fulfillment as well as followers' extra-role behaviors
(Podsakoff et al. 1996). Transformational leadership was also therefore included as a control variable to rule out this
alternative explanation. We measured transformational leadership using the 20-item transformational leadership scale from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio et al. 1995). An example item is "My manager talks optimistically about the future" (a = .92).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs)
Liden et al. (2008) examined the appropriateness of their scale for measuring distinct dimensions of servant leader ship, and Hu and Liden (2011) demonstrated that these dimensions were reflective of a higher-order latent con struct. We chose to conduct two CFAs to determine the
degree to which the seven dimensions represented a higher order construct of servant leadership in our data. We compared a seven-factor model whereby all items loaded onto their respective factors (/2 (329) = 517.13, CFI = .96, NFI = .90, SRMR = .08) to a second model in which the seven factors were indicative of a higher-order construct (x2 (343) = 531.44, CFI = .95, NFI = .90, SRMR = .08). While the Chi square of the second model was slightly higher than that of the first, their difference was not significant (Ax2 (14) = 14.31, p > .05). Further more, some have argued that the Chi square test is prob lematic—particularly when sample sizes are small as in this research—and instead suggest examining the differ ences between models' AIC (Akaike Information Criterion;
Vandenberg and Grelle 2009). AIC is a comparative measure of model fit that assesses the degree to which the fitted values deviate from a saturated model. Lower values
of AIC indicate a better fitting model. The AIC of the higher-order servant leadership model was lower (657.44) than that of the model that did not include the higher-order
latent factor (671.13), indicating that the model that included the higher-order factor is indeed the better fitting model.
Moreover, we conducted CFAs to determine whether the
measures of OCB constructs (interpersonal helping, indi vidual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism) and innovative behaviors captured distinctive constructs. The first CFA specified five factors with all items loaded on their respective dimensions. This five-factor model yielded good fit, x2 (220) = 461.45, CFI = .93, NFI = .88, SRMR = .09, AIC = 573.45. This model was superior to alternative models with fewer factors (for the two-factor model, where OCB and innovative behaviors were two
distinct factors, AIC = 851.82; for the 1-factor model, where all items are loaded on the same factor, AIC = 912.85). The five-factor model also better fits the
data than models with one higher-order factor (when all items are loaded on their respective factors, and four OCB
<£) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
666 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
dimensions loaded on one higher-order factor, AIC = 588.48; when all items are loaded on their respec tive factors, and all five factors loaded on one higher-order factor, AIC = 588.47). These results indicate that accept able discriminant validity existed for our key outcome variables.
Data Analysis
To test our hypothesized relationships, we incorporated the stepwise procedure described by Baron and Kenny (1986) and facilitated estimation of the indirect effects through the
application of parametric bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs). The present data contained a hierarchical structure in which responses of individual-level variables are nested within work teams. Therefore, we followed Bauer et al.'s
(2006) guidelines to estimate our hypothesized mediation relationships simultaneously using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The use of HLM allowed us to account for any potential dependencies in the data due to similar workgroup membership and therefore control for any group-level influences on the dependent variables. The Monte Carlo method recommended by Preacher et al. (2010) was also used to estimate confidence intervals for
the hypothesized mediated relationships to determine their significance.2
In our data, 101 subordinates constituted the level-one
(LI) cases nested within the level-two (L2) workgroups (n = 23). For all models tested, the hypothesized LI pre dictors were entered grand mean centered with the excep tion of the interaction terms as they were products of grand mean centered variables.
LI slopes were fixed across all L2 units. Fixing the slopes did not inhibit the adequate testing of our hypoth eses (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Full maximum likeli hood estimation was used so that deviance tests could be
conducted to indicate effect size (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Deviance tests are analogous to Chi square tests in structural equations modeling or R2 tests in ordinary least squares regression.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations
among the study variables are presented in Table 1. We first ran fully unconditional models, equivalent to
one-way ANOVAs, for all of the dependent variables in our study to explore the within and between-group vari ability in these observations. Perceptions of PC fulfillment
2 An open-source software R-based simulator can be found at http:// www.quantpsy.org.
(Too = 05, z2(22) = 28.03, p > .05; ICC = .09) did not exhibit significant between-group variability, but the results did indicate significant between-group variability in
supervisor ratings of subordinate interpersonal helping (Too = .38, x\22) = 94.37, p < .01; ICC = .46), individ ual initiative (too = -47, £2(22) = 93.94, pc.Ol; ICC = .52), personal industry (t00 = -65, £2(22) = 197.00, p < .01; ICC = .66), loyal boosterism (too = -71, *2(22) = 126.26, p < .01; ICC = .62), and innovative behaviors (too = -59, 22) = 80.91, p < .01; ICC = .45). These results suggested the presence of a significant nesting effect within the data (101 subordinates constituted the level-one cases nested within the 23 level
two workgroups) and the need for using multilevel mod eling to account for group or supervisor level factors that were not hypothesized which may have influenced our findings.
Before testing the hypothesized model, we examined the relationships between the control and dependent variables. All control variables (plant location, LMX, and transfor mational leadership) were entered simultaneously as level one predictors of the dependent variables. While work groups were, themselves, nested in two distinct locations, the number of locations (n = 2) was too small to support the adequate examination of a three-level model (Rau denbush and Bryk 2002). Therefore, to examine the influ ence of subordinates' work locations on the dependent variables, we employed the OLS regression technique of entering a dummy-coded variable at LI (Cohen et al. 2003). The results suggested a significant relationship between plant location and personal industry (y — —.71, p < .05), and loyal boosterism (y — —.69, p < .05). Therefore, location was retained when examining the relationships concerning personal industry and loyal boosterism. Transformational leadership also emerged as having a significant relationship with innovative behaviors (y = .47, p < .05) and was therefore retained when examining relationships concerning innovative behaviors.
Supporting Hypothesis 1, the results presented in Table 2 reveal a significant positive relationship between servant leadership at T1 and PC fulfillment at T2 (yio = -44, p < .01). Model deviance was significantly reduced by the inclusion of servant leadership into the model (*2(1) = 29.49, p < ,01).3
3 It should be rioted that although we decided not to include control variables that did not exhibit significant relationships with the dependent variables in the models used for hypothesis testing, we did examine the relationship between servant leadership and PC fulfill ment in a model that included plant location, LMX, and transforma tional leadership as predictors of PC fulfillment, given the importance of this variable in the model. The results of this analysis indicated a significant and positive relationship between servant leadership and PC fulfillment (y = .62, p < .01), and model deviance was signifi cantly reduced by the addition of this predictor (y2(\) = 10.12,
Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 667
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Location 1.30 0.46
2 Leader-member exchange 5.41 1.01 -.01
3 Transformational leadership 4.91 0.93 .01 * * Tl OO
4 Servant leadership 4.81 0.89 -.09 83** .87**
5 Extraversion 4.76 0.88 .14 .14 .17 .18
6 Proactive personality 5.42 0.88 .02 .45** .46** 40** .21*
7 Collectivism 3.98 1.43 -.10 .05 .00 .08 .09 -.08
8 Psychological contract fulfillment
3.21 0.75 -.11 .41** .53** .24* 29** .14
9 Interpersonal helping 5.23 0.86 -.10 .14 .18 .23* .10
.05 .15 .19
10 Individual initiative 4.89 0.86 .15 .14 .26* .24* .12 .07 .12 .22* .68**
11 Personal industry 5.31 0.93 37**
.02 .11 .10
.11
.01 .07 .11 .55** 39**
12 Loyal boosterism 4.82 0.93 32**
-.04 .06 .13 .02 -.03 .15 .24* .37** 49** .26**
13 Innovative behaviors 4.62 1.06 -.13 .09 .25* .24* .08 .14 .13 .32** .66** .67** .64** .48**
n = 101
* p < .05
** p < .01
Table 2 The relationship between servant leadership and psycho logical contract fulfillment
Variable Psychological contract fulfillment
Intercept
Servant Leadership Deviance
A Deviance df (1)
3.21**
44**
200.36
29.49**
n = 101 (LI); 23 (L2)
** p < .01
To explore Hypotheses 2a through 2e regarding the mediating role of PC fulfillment between servant leader ship at T1 and the subordinate outcomes at T2, we first examined the direct relationships between servant leader ship and the outcomes. These results are presented in Table 3. Servant leadership only exhibited significant and
direct relationships with interpersonal helping (y = .18, p < .05) and individual initiative (y = .21, p < .05).
Next, both servant leadership at T1 and PC fulfillment at T2 were entered as LI predictors (along with the associated control variables, when appropriate) of the T2 subordinate outcomes. These results are presented in Table 4. When controlling for servant leadership at Tl, PC fulfillment demonstrated significant effects on subordinates' individ ual initiative (y10 = .27, p < .05), loyal boosterism 0/3o = .27, p < .05), and innovative behaviors (y30 = .44, p < .01) at T2. The inclusion of PC fulfillment resulted in a significant reduction in model deviance from models con taining only servant leadership and the appropriate controls for the following models: ^2(1) = 5.41 p < .05 for loyal boosterism; and y2(\) = 9.90, p < .01 for innovative behaviors. PC fulfillment was not significantly related to interpersonal helping (y20 = .15 p > .05) or personal industry (730 = .06 p > .05).
Furthermore, we formulated the mediation models with
a single LI equation through the use of selection variables (Bauer et al„ 2006), and estimated the mediation rela tionships simultaneously in HLM. With 10,000 Monte Carlo replications, results showed that there was a positive
indirect relationship between servant leadership at Tl and subordinates' individual initiative (indirect effect = .13, 95 % bias-corrected bootstrap CI [.005, .272]), and inno vative behaviors (indirect effect = .19, 95 % bias-cor rected bootstrap CI [.054, .343]) at T2 via PC fulfillment.
Footnote 3 continued
p < .01). None of the other predictors (plant location, LMX, or transformational leadership) exhibited a significant relationship with PC fulfillment when they were included simultaneously with servant leadership. These findings provide further evidence that servant leadership explains variance in PC fulfillment beyond what is explained by these alternative explanations. They also further suggest that any mediating effect of PC fulfillment between servant leadership and the associated outcomes cannot be explained by these other factors.
^ Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
668 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
Table 3 The direct relationship between servant leadership and the subordinate level outcomes
n = 101 (LI); 23 (L2)
* p< .05
** p < .01
Variable Interpersonal Individual Personal Loyal Innovative helping initiative industry boosterisni behaviors
Intercept 5.35** 4.91** 5.43** 4.83** 4.73**
Plant location -.76* -.68*
Transformational leadership .16
Servant leadership .18* .21* .02 .09 .07
Deviance 233.31 235.73 219.11 243.53 285.34
A Deviance df (\) 3.66 5.37** 2.30* 1.86 .66
Table 4 The mediating role of psychological contract fulfillment
Variable Interpersonal helping Individual initiative Personal industry Loyal boosterism Innovative behaviors
Intercept 5.35** 4.90** 5.43** 4.82** 4.72**
Plant location — .74** -.61*
Transformational leadership .25
Servant leadership .13 .11 .00 -.01 -.18
Psychological contract fulfillment .15 .27* .06 .27* 44**
Deviance 235.90 233.78 219.76 238.12 275.44
A Deviance df (1 )a -2.59 1.95 -.65 5.41** 9.90**
n = 101 (LI); 23 (L2)
* p<. 05
** p < .01
J The deviance of the hypothesized model was compared against the deviance of a model which included only servant leadership and the appropriate control variables as LI predictors
However, the indirect effects on loyal boosterism (indirect effect = .11, 95% bias-corrected bootstrap CI ( — .027, .256]), interpersonal helping (indirect effect = .08, 95 % bias-corrected bootstrap CI [—.029, .190]), and personal industry (indirect effect = .02, 95 % bias-corrected boot strap CI [—.096, .131]) were not supported by the Monte Carlo confidence intervals (CIs).
Together, our analyses and these results offer support for Hypotheses 2b and 2e. Partial support was found for Hypothesis 2d. No support was found for Hypotheses 2a and 2c.
Finally, we examined the hypotheses pertaining to the moderated relationship between servant leadership at T1 and PC fulfillment at T2. The results of the models used to
explore these hypotheses are presented in Table 5. Support was found for Hypothesis 3a as the servant leadership by extraversion interaction term was significantly related to PC fulfillment (y30 = — .16, p < .05) and model deviance was significantly reduced by its inclusion (x2(l) = 5.44, p < .05). To better understand the nature of the interaction, the relationship between servant leadership and PC ful fillment was plotted at high and low (±1 SD) levels of extraversion. These results are depicted in Fig. 2. As shown, servant leadership is more strongly and positively
related to perceptions of PC fulfillment when extraversion is low. Hypothesis 3c also received support, as the servant leadership by collectivism interaction term was signifi cantly related to PC fulfillment (730 = —.21, p < .01) and model deviance was significantly reduced by its inclusion (j2(l) = 6.85, p < .01). To better understand the nature of the interaction, we plotted the relationship between servant leadership and PC fulfillment at high and low (±1 SD) levels of collectivism. These results are depicted in Fig. 3. As shown, servant leadership is more strongly and posi tively related to perceptions of PC fulfillment when col lectivism is low. No support was found for Hypothesis 3b, as the interaction term of proactive personality and servant leadership was not significantly related to PC fulfillment (y30 = .02, p > .05).
Discussion
Servant leadership theory suggests that servant leaders' motives place others' interests above their own, resulting in followers with enhanced growth and well-being and strong desires to engage in behaviors that benefit stakeholders as well (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart 2004; Graham
Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 669
Table 5 The moderated relationship between servant leadership and psychological contract fulfillment
Variable Psychological contract fulfillment as outcome
Extraversion as moderator Proactive personality as moderator Collectivism as moderator
Intercept 3.24** 3.20** 3.23**
Servant leadership 38** 41** .41**
Moderator .12 .09 .05
Servant leadership x moderator -.16* .02 -.21**
Deviance 197.01 205.93 198.39
A Deviance df (If 5.44* -1.53 6.85**
n = 101 (LI); 23 (L2)
* p < .05
** p < .01
a The deviance of the hypothesized model was compared against a model that included only servant leadership and the direct effect of the appropriate moderating variable as LI predictors
Fig. 2 The moderating role of extraversion in the relationship between servant leadership and psychological contract fulfillment. SL Servant leadership, PC psychological contract
1991; Neubert et al. 2008; Russell and Stone 2002; Liden
et al. 2008). This study sought to enhance servant leader ship theory by drawing upon SET (Blau 1964) to under stand why, and under what conditions, servant leadership behaviors motivate followers to engage in extra-role behaviors in the workplace. Specifically, we proposed that servant leadership, conceptualized as leader behavior that reflects a prioritization of stakeholder over self interests in the leadership role (Greenleaf 1970, 1977), enhances fol lower well-being through PC fulfillment and, in turn, fol lowers' extra-role contributions. Moreover, we proposed that individual differences which predispose followers to have access to rewards and resources from sources other
than their leader, thus making them less dependent upon their leaders for PC fulfillment, constitute boundary con ditions which influence the strength of the relationship
4-' 1
3.9
Low SL High SL
Fig. 3 The moderating role of collectivism in the relationship between servant leadership and psychological contract fulfillment. SL Servant leadership, PC psychological contract
between servant leadership behaviors and follower outcomes.
Theoretical Implications
Contributing to the PC, organizational citizenship, inno vation, and servant leadership literatures, our results iden tified PC fulfillment as a key process through which servant
leadership influences follower engagement in personal initiative and boosterism citizenship behaviors as well as innovative behaviors. We suggest that servant leaders ful fill followers' PCs in two ways: (1) by engaging in behaviors that meet their followers' needs as represented by their PCs, and (2) by creating a social exchange and thus, the expectation that obligations will be fulfilled in the future (if they have been missed in the present). In terms of
•£) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
670 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
the first process, there are a number of servant leader behaviors that likely contribute to the fulfillment of their followers' PCs. In particular, servant leaders put followers first, listen to followers' needs and concerns, and maintain
high ethical standards. These qualities imply that servant leaders engage in a high level of effort to recognize, understand, and fulfill their employees' PCs, as evidenced in our study. Often, miscommunication and inaccurate expectations are causes of low PC fulfillment (Tekleab and Taylor 2003), and these are less likely to be experienced by followers of servant leaders. Other servant leader behaviors
that are likely to enhance PC fulfillment are empowering their subordinates and helping them grow and succeed. Theoretically, this suggests that servant leaders communi cate and understand their followers' expectations, follow through on commitments, and fulfill their followers' expectations. It also suggests that servant leadership is more than verbal statements, but rather involves behaviors
that followers desire and recognize as fulfillment of their PCs. An explanation for these findings is that servant leader
behaviors align closely with followers' expectations or qualities they desire in a leader. Future research should examine our supposition that the behaviors followers desire and expect from their leaders are those associated with servant leadership. This may provide greater insights into whether and why servant leadership is associated with greater PC fulfillment.
In addition to PC fulfillment being related to servant leadership, we also found PC fulfillment to mediate the relations between servant leadership and two forms of citizenship behavior and innovative behavior. Prior research has found support for a relation between aggre gated servant leadership and OCB at the group level (Ehrhart 2004), and individual level servant leadership and innovation (Neubert et al. 2008). Our results extend these
findings by identifying the processes through which servant leadership affects these outcomes. Consistent with SET, our results suggest that servant leadership enhances fol lowers' PC fulfillment and, in turn, followers reciprocate with behaviors that benefit the organization and that go beyond their contractual obligations. These include OCBs and innovative behaviors, which are typically not man dated, but are beneficial to organizational functioning.
A surprising finding was that PC fulfillment was related to only two of the four OCBs. PC fulfillment was not related to interpersonal helping, or to personal industry. One potential explanation for the nonsignificant effect for interpersonal helping is based on the target similarity model (Lavelle et al. 2007), which suggests that individuals develop distinct perceptions and attitudes toward different
targets such as the organization, leaders, and coworkers. In turn, individuals' perceptions of a target influence their citizenship behavior toward that particular target. Thus,
followers tend to reciprocate for PC fulfillment in terms of behaviors that more directly benefit the leader and orga nization overall, rather than coworkers in particular (Turnley et al. 2003). Among the OCBs examined in our study, interpersonal helping directly benefits coworkers, whereas the other OCB dimensions are less specific in terms of the beneficiary target. So, although followers reciprocate for favorable treatment (i.e., servant leadership behavior) by their leader in terms of outcomes that benefit the organization, it does not appear that reciprocation includes behaviors that directly benefit coworkers. Because leaders are often viewed as agents of the organization with responsibility for fulfilling the PC (Shore and Tetrick 1994), PC fulfillment is more likely to relate to behaviors that benefit the organization rather than a specific group such as coworkers.
The other OCB dimension that was not related to PC
fulfillment was personal industry. These behaviors consist of: rarely missing work; performing duties with unusually few errors; performing duties with extra care; and always meeting or beating deadlines for completing work. A potential explanation for these nonsignificant results is that these behaviors may have been viewed as in-role rather than extra-role behavior in the participating organization. Morrison (1994) found that employees often rated behav iors from common measures of citizenship as in-role rather than extra-role behaviors and they were more likely to engage in behaviors defined as in-role. Behaviors com prising personal industry may have been viewed as in-role and less discretionary, especially given the participating organization's industry (production and distribution), and thus may not have been viewed as appropriate behaviors for reciprocating for enhanced treatment or well-being.
The present findings extend prior research in several ways. First, it is important to note that PC fulfillment may not prove explanatory in terms of how leaders influence all types of citizenship behavior. Rather, PC fulfillment may increase OCB to the extent that the extra-role behavior
benefits the leader or symbolic "organization," rather than coworkers. Second, the results support the social exchange (Blau 1964) and norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960) framework as the basis for the servant leadership employee outcomes linkage. Not only does PC fulfillment enhance trust between the parties, but employees may view the relationship as more long term in nature. Consistent with this perspective, Joireman et al. (2006) found that the likelihood of engaging in OCB was higher for those who had adopted a long-term time horizon within their organi zation. Thus, PC fulfillment may increase employees' desire to remain with their organizations and view of the relationship as a long-term commitment.
In addition to investigating PC fulfillment as an explanatory mechanism for the relation between servant
<£) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 671
leader behavior and follower contributions, another
important theoretical contribution of our research was the identification of key boundary conditions for when servant leader behavior impacts PC fulfillment. Drawing from substitutes-for-leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier 1978), we proposed that the extent to which servant leadership impacts PC fulfillment depends on followers' extraversion, proactive personality, and collectivism. In doing so, we answered calls to examine subordinate characteristics other
than the ones initially identified by Kerr and Jermier as leadership substitutes (Podsakoff et al. 1996). Extraversion and collectivism were found to moderate the relationship in the expected direction, as individuals low on these traits tended to benefit more from servant leaders (in terms of PC
fulfillment) compared to highly extroverted and highly collectivistic individuals. Based on substitutes for leader
ship theory, it appears that extroverts may be able to net work and gain social capital that provides some of the benefits of a servant leader (Bauer et al. 2006). On the other
hand, introverts may lack this skill and consequently experience greater benefits from a servant leader. Simi larly, collectivistic individuals, who value cooperation, harmony, and self-sacrifice in favor of in-group members, may have developed strong ties with members of their work groups who are able to provide some of the benefits of a servant leader. By contrast, individualists, who value autonomy, freedom, and competition (Triandis 1995), may have put less effort into developing such ties. This study's results are consistent with findings in the social networks' literature that show extroverts and collectivists to have
stronger, denser networks than introverts and individualists
(Kalish and Robins 2006). The nonsignificant effects for proactive personality imply that followers, irrespective of their propensity to act upon their environment, may benefit
from servant leadership. This could be due to the fact that proactivity may, in some cases, involve the use of aggressive tactics such as self-promotion and ingratiation (Crant 2000), which may not be effective across all orga nizational settings in developing the relationships neces sary to obtain fulfillment of PC terms.
In addition to contributing to the servant leadership lit erature, our findings also shed light on the more general question of when leadership is most influential in stimu lating positive evaluations of PC fulfillment. Dulac et al. (2008) theorized and found evidence to suggest that lea der-follower relational processes impact evaluations of PC fulfillment. Also, some scholars have argued that employ ees are likely to view their immediate supervisors as the agents who are primarily responsible for fulfillment of the PC (Shore and Tetrick 1994). However, there has been a lack of research examining conditions under which lead ership behavior might be more or less important as an antecedent of PC fulfillment perceptions. This study
contributes to theoretical development in this domain by suggesting that for some types of employees (those high on extraversion and collectivism) servant leadership behaviors are less important determinants of PC fulfillment percep tions, which may be due to their ability to seek PC ful fillment from sources other than their leader. Broadly speaking, we contribute to enhanced understanding of when leadership matters most in terms of stimulating positive employee outcomes, such as innovation and OCB through engaging in behaviors that might by typically associated with higher levels of PC fulfillment.
Strengths and Limitations
The results of this study should be interpreted in light of its
strengths and weaknesses. One strength of the study is that it focuses on an emerging area of leadership research, servant leadership. Not only is servant leadership distinct from more established theories such as transformational
leadership (e.g., Ehrhart 2004; Liden et al. 2008; Schau broeck et al. 2011), it is compatible with contemporary perspectives on organizations with its focus on multiple stakeholders, including the community. An additional strength of our investigation was the cross-lagged design in which servant leadership and the employee characteristics were measured 4 months prior to the PC fulfillment and employee outcome variables. This design strength enabled us to assuage concerns that the relation between servant leadership and PC fulfillment is inflated due to same-source common method variance, as these measures were both
completed by subordinates but at two different time peri ods. In terms of the PC fulfillment to outcome relation
ships, PC fulfillment was based on subordinate reports, and all outcomes were reported by supervisors, thus eliminating the possibility of inflation of the relationships between PC fulfillment and the outcomes due to same-source bias. A
final strength is that the study utilized a measure of servant leadership that was developed through a rigorous scale development and validation process (Liden et al. 2008). These methodological strengths enable us to state with greater confidence that servant leadership influences criti cal employee perceptions and behaviors and is deserving of further attention by leadership scholars.
Despite the strengths of our study, there are a number of
limitations. First, the sample size was rather small, as only 101 supervisor-subordinate dyads were included in our analyses. Indeed, all data were collected from a relatively small organization in the production and distribution industry, making it necessary for future research to attempt
replication in other industries and larger organizations. Furthermore, we adapted and built upon an existing mea sure to capture PC fulfillment, which may constitute a limitation as our measure had not previously been
<£) Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
672 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
validated. The high correlations among leadership vari ables represent another limitation. Nevertheless, the current
work, takes a first step at comparing leadership styles in the
employment relationship, and results of this exploratory study suggest servant leadership behaviors exert a unique influence on subordinate outcomes. Also, although the time-lagged design helped to enhance validity of the results, the time separation was only 4 months. Another limitation is that absolute inferences of causation cannot be
drawn due to the uncontrolled environment. In addition, the
current investigation focused on actual leader behaviors that reflect a desire to prioritize service to others; future research might directly examine followers' perceptions of their leaders' motives. Servant leadership theory contends that servant leader behavior is based on a motive to acquire and exert power for maximizing stakeholders' interests rather than self-interests. The assumption is that followers respond more positively to leaders who are engaging in behaviors that benefit others. However, empirical research has not fully investigated this aspect of the theory, or the effects of multiple motives. Additional studies are needed that examine followers' perceptions of their leaders' motives in order to provide more evidence of the impor tance of leaders prioritizing others' interests.
Servant leadership theory proposes that a servant lea der—one who prioritizes service to others in the leadership role—can motivate followers to engage in extra-role behaviors in their work. The results of our study shed light as to how and why this occurs; however, additional research is needed to confirm this assertion. Specifically, a longer-term longitudinal design than the one employed here, which examines whether servant leaders are able to
change employee-organizational exchanges from eco nomic to social exchanges, would provide further evidence of the beneficial impact of servant leaders on their followers.
Practical Implications
Although tangible or financial rewards are often viewed as critical to fulfillment of organizational promises, our results
suggest the importance of less-tangible resources, such as leader behavior that reflects a prioritization of followers' interests. Followers with servant leaders experienced greater PC fulfillment compared to those who did not have servant leaders. Organizations may be able to use servant leadership as a conduit for fulfilling employees' promises, as servant leader behavior is an interpersonal, social resource, often valued by employees. Because servant leadership impacted three of the five follower behaviors through PC fulfillment, the obvious implication is that organizations should attempt to increase servant leadership
behavior. Yet, the steps for accomplishing this are unknown as research has not extensively explored the antecedents of servant leadership. The extent to which servant leadership is driven by personality may indicate whether selection based on personality traits versus train ing or both is the appropriate path for increasing servant leadership in organizations.
A second important implication of our results is based on our significant interactions between servant leadership and extraversion and collectivism on PC fulfillment. Indi
viduals low on extraversion or low on collectivism report greater fulfillment of their PCs when their leaders engage in servant leadership. Thus, leaders should be aware of the power of servant leadership in fulfilling employee expec tations, especially for employees who are low on these characteristics.
This suggests another question to be addressed by future research: To what extent is servant leadership driven by personality, situational factors, or both? Stewardship theory (Davis et al. 1997) may be particularly beneficial in developing the nomonological net of factors predictive of servant leadership. Stewardship theory "defines situations in which managers are not motivated by individual goals, but rather are stewards whose motives are aligned with the objectives of their principals." (1997, p. 21). Given the choice of maximizing self-serving goals or the goals of the organization, the steward will choose behavior that benefits
the organization. The theory identifies psychological (e.g., motivation, identification, and power) and situational fac tors (e.g., management philosophy and cultural differences) predictive of stewardship. Given the underlying focus on serving others, stewardship theory shows promise in terms of providing a strong theoretical foundation for identifying predictors of servant leadership.
Conclusion
Our study underscores the importance of servant leader ship in the employment relationship. Specifically, servant leadership impacts two forms of citizenship behavior, and innovation through fulfillment of followers' PCs, even when controlling LMX and transformational lead ership. Extraversion and collectivism are boundary con ditions, such that individuals low in these characteristics
benefit to a greater extent from having a servant leader compared to those high in extraversion and collectivism. Our findings demonstrate that servant leadership is deserving of continued attention by scholars particularly interested in linking ethical leader behavior to followers' attitudes and contributions in the employment relationship.
*£] Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 673
References
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M„ & Jung, D. I. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. 1. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. L. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Orga nization Management, 31, 300-326.
Baron, R. M.. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Barrick, M. R„ Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 7, 18—40.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of inno vative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B„ Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: LMX, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 298-310.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/ collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 233-257.
Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Man agement Review, 16, 262-290.
Brown. M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 190-210.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the lens of social exchange. In J. A.-M. Coyle Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 5-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435-462.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D.. & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491-569.
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W., 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, 36-62.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James, L. R.
(2002). Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory: Leader ship effects and common-source bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 454-464.
Dulac, T.. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Henderson, D. J., & Wayne, S. J. (2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: The intercon nection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1079-1098.
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319-348.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859-891.
Fuller, B., & Marler. L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329-345.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. L. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 63-83.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University of Chicago.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspira tional and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as a leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M„ Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multi-level examina tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1208-1219.
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, 851-862.
Hunter, E. M., Mitchell, J., 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, 316-331.
Hies, R„ Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.
Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1307-1320.
Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2006). Psychological predispositions and network structure: The relationship between individual
^ Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
674 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675
predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28, 56-84.
Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169-211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375—403.
Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors:
An empirical investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79-102. Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci
approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33, 841-866.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psy chology, 86, 326-336.
Lester, S. W., Tumley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23, 39-56.
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 organization. In J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 226-250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
Liden, R. C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S. J. (2014a). Servant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and out comes. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 357-379). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao. C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014b). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1434-1452.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multilevel assessment. Leadership Quarterly. 19, 161-177.
Loher, B. T„ Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L„ & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289.
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 180-197.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizen ship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226-256.
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, 1220-1233.
O'Reilly, C. A. I. I. I.. Doerr. B., Caldwell, D. F., & Chatman, J. A. (2014). Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation. Leader ship Quarterly, 25, 218-231.
Okun, M. A., Pugliese, J., & Rook, K. S. (2007). Unpacking the relation between extraversion and volunteering in later life: The role of social capital. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1467-1477.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical
assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835-852.
Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 377-393.
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm perfor mance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565-596.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership model: Background, empirical assess ment, and suggestions for future research. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 117-125.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B„ & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M„ MacKenzie, S. B„ Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
Raudenbush. S. W„ & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 289-400.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Russell, R. F„ & Stone, G. A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 145-157.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-5 markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior
influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863-871.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-607.
<£j Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 675
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219-237.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. Cooper & D. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 91-109). New York: Wiley.
Tekleab, A. G„ & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren't there two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agreement on contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 585-608.
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275-300.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011-1017.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Triandis, H. C„ Leung, K„ Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and dis criminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395-415.
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187-206.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 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, 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, 544-562.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Grelle, D. (2009). Alternative model specifi cations in structural equation modeling: Facts, fictions, and truth. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Received doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 167-193). New York: Routledge.
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, 517-529.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647-680.
Springer
This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
- Contents
- p. [657]
- p. 658
- p. 659
- p. 660
- p. 661
- p. 662
- p. 663
- p. 664
- p. 665
- p. 666
- p. 667
- p. 668
- p. 669
- p. 670
- p. 671
- p. 672
- p. 673
- p. 674
- p. 675
- Issue Table of Contents
- Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 4 (December 2015) pp. A1-A6, 621-812
- Front Matter
- Is Being a Jerk Necessary for Originality? Examining the Role of Disagreeableness in the Sharing and Utilization of Original Ideas [pp. 621-639]
- Understanding the Effects of Self and Teammate OCB Congruence and Incongruence [pp. 641-655]
- Toward an Understanding of When and Why Servant Leadership Accounts for Employee Extra-Role Behaviors [pp. 657-675]
- To Guide or to Divide: The Dual-Side Effects of Transformational Leadership on Team Innovation [pp. 677-691]
- The Technological Age: The Effects of Perceived Age in Technology Training [pp. 693-708]
- A Tale of Two Transfers: Disentangling Maximum and Typical Transfer and Their Respective Predictors [pp. 709-732]
- Hope and Optimism in the Face of Change: Contributions to Task Adaptivity [pp. 733-745]
- Anger Suppression in Negotiations: The Roles of Attentional Focus and Anger Source [pp. 747-758]
- Examining the Energizing Effects of Humor: The Influence of Humor on Persistence Behavior [pp. 759-772]
- Entrepreneurial Self-Identity: Predictors and Effects Within the Theory of Planned Behavior Framework [pp. 773-794]
- When Rating Format Induces Different Rating Processes: The Effects of Descriptive and Evaluative Rating Modes on Discriminability and Accuracy [pp. 795-812]
- Back Matter
