The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9792.htm

The influence of servant leadership The influence

of servant
on employees’ outcomes leadership

via job embeddedness in

hospitality industry
Muhammad Qamar Zia, Muhammad Naveed and Received 6 January 2021
Revised 23 February 2021
Muhammad Adnan Bashir 5 April 2021
Accepted 10 April 2021
College of Business Management, Institute of Business Management,
Karachi, Pakistan, and
Asif Iqbal
College of Management and Sciences, Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology,
Pakistan Air Force, Karachi, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – Drawing from social exchange theory, the purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of
servant leadership on organizational citizenship behavior, turnover intentions and work performance through
mediating role of job embeddedness.
Design/methodology/approach – The data were gathered from 252 frontline employees of Pakistan’s hotel
industry in two-time lags with an interval of two months by using purposive sampling. PLS-SEM was applied
for the analysis of data and hypothesis testing.
Findings – The study ascertained that job embeddedness is a potent mediator between the nexus of servant
leadership and aforementioned work outcomes. The study results portray that servant leadership promotes job
embeddedness, OCB, work performance and reduces turnover intentions.
Research limitations/implications – Hotel management can use job embeddedness to boost servant
leadership and reduce turnover intentions. In addition, management should also increase servant leadership by
organizing training and workshops for their managers, which ultimately improves followers’ organizational
citizenship behavior and work performance.
Practical implications – Hotel management can use job embeddedness to boost OCB, work performance and
reduce turnover intentions. In addition, management should also increase servant leadership by organizing
training and workshops for their managers, which ultimately improves followers’ citizenship behavior and
work performance.
Originality/value – There are numerous calls for research to ascertain as well as sparse literature available
whether job embeddedness act as a mediator in the nexus of servant leadership and work outcomes or not. The
current study fills these voids and contributes to the literature by empirically examining the mechanism of job
embeddedness between servant leadership and the work outcomes.
Keywords Servant leadership, Work performance, Job embeddedness, Turnover intentions, Organizational
citizenship behavior
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The culture of hospitality industry is unique from other industries as frontline employees
play an imperative role in organizational effectiveness and performance (Cheng and Yi, 2018;
Terglav et al., 2016). In the current dynamic, proliferate changing and hyperactive markets, a
central question arises how to support and improve frontline employees’ performance. The
organizations typically focus on human capital as the workforce is considered a significant
factor of constant and long-standing competitive edge (Baskentli et al., 2019). Leadership is a Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Insights
prevailing aspect that infiltrates beliefs, values, and goals which further stimulates followers © Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
to precipitate performance and varies from person to person (Burke et al., 2006). DOI 10.1108/JHTI-01-2021-0003
JHTI Servant leadership (SL) is a successful leadership style practiced by numerous
organizations irrespective of type and size (Bavik, 2020; Ling et al., 2016). Over the last
few decades, SL is a promising leadership style and dynamic research topic which triggered
great interest in the tourism and hospitality industry (Kaya and Karatepe, 2020; Ling et al.,
2016; Qiu et al., 2020; Brownell, 2010). In hospitality industry, servant leaders’ main concern is
to provide services to the followers with ethical behavior (Brownell, 2010), has significant
impact on in-role and extra-role service delivery of frontline workers (Wang et al., 2018). Thus,
it is crucial for hospitality organizations to train managers’ attributes and behavior
concerning SL (Qiu et al., 2020).
Despite the significance of SL in hospitality research, the phenomena of how SL
manipulates hospitality employees’ outcomes is relatively sparse (Bouzari and Karatepe,
2017; Hsiao et al., 2015), especially employee attitude and behavior-related outcomes narrowly
focused in prior research (Ling et al., 2017). Eva et al. (2019) in an integrative review of 285
articles categorized SL in three types: behavioral, attitudinal and performance. However, this
study highlighted that limited studies investigated different facts of outcomes
simultaneously.
In general, SL is an employees’ oriented leadership approach that has a significant impact
on organization’s functioning and employee performance (Bavik, 2020; Eva et al., 2019;
Koyuncu et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2019), organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) (Amah, 2018)
and particularly reduces employees’ turnover intentions (Hunter et al., 2013). Recent
hospitality studies on SL also emphasized the need and importance of work outcomes among
service workers (Bouzari and Karatepe, 2017; Gui et al., 2020). The present study mainly
investigate three outcomes of SL; OCB (behavioral), turnover intentions (attitudinal) and
work performance (performance). Furthermore, the investigation about the impact of SL on
work outcomes will not only help to respond to the future calls of Bavik (2020) about the role
of SL and its outcomes in hospitality sector rather it will also bridge the gap pertaining to
behavioral, attitudinal and performance outcomes.
On the other hand, job embeddedness (JE) is another nascent construct which reflects the
sum of forces that restrain an individual to quit the job and he feel like part of the organization
(Crossley et al., 2007). The role of JE in the hospitality industry is also well recognized (Afsar
et al., 2018; Yam et al., 2018) and projected to perform a critical role between leadership style
and job outcomes (Lee et al., 2019). Although, SL and JE are burgeoning research areas for
practitioners and scholars (Lee et al., 2019), the linkage of these two concepts is inadequately
investigated in existing literature (Eva et al., 2019). Currently, two recent studies provided
most compelling support about the relationship (Elsaied, 2020; Huning et al., 2020). However,
the impact of SL on JE in hospitality industry is still lacking and studies suggested to
investigate such relationship (Bavik, 2020; Kaya and Karatepe, 2020).
Furthermore, Eva et al. (2019) indicated various mediators linking SL and job outcomes
but found no evidence about JE as mediator. Later, Huning et al. (2020) from a sample of
graduate students found that JE mediates the linkage between SL and turnover intentions.
However, literature contends that there is no evidence from hospitality industry about the
relationship between SL, JE and work outcomes (Bavik, 2020; Kaya and Karatepe, 2020) but
this may be the case as scholars suggested to empirically examine the mechanism of JE in
presence of SL (Eberly et al., 2017; Kaya and Karatepe, 2020; Lee et al., 2019).
Grounded on the above backdrop, the aim of the study is to investigate the effect of SL on
OCB, turnover intentions and work performance via JE. In doing so, this study provides
insight on how employee outcomes can be enhanced through SL in hospitality industry. In
addition, the authors seek to make the contribution by providing empirical evidence about
mechanism of JE between SL and employee outcomes in hospitality context. The study used
age, gender and organizational tenure as control variables (Bouzari and Karatepe, 2017; Kaya
and Karatepe, 2020).
Theoretical background The influence
The present study used social exchange theory (SET) as the guiding framework (Figure 1). SET of servant
is widely used in leadership literature and proposes reciprocity, which contends that
individuals are motivated to endeavor for the organization in reciprocation to the organization’s
leadership
treatment (Blau, 1964). In connection with leadership, the theory postulates that leaders’
positive behavior towards their followers improves employees’ attitudes, and they reciprocate
with positive work outcomes (Blau, 1964; Zhang and Jia, 2010). The positive approach and
relationships of the leaders with followers would enhance individual’s positive action
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), and the employee will repay the organization in shape of
positive work outcomes such as OCB, work performance and negative turnover intentions. SET
supports the conceptual model of study and explains how employee work outcomes improve
with servant leader support. When organizations stimulate the working behavior of the
employees with the support of servant leaders, they will reciprocate to bring positive attitude at
the workplace. The relationship between SL and employee retention is high; thus, based on SET
it is expected that JE will mediate the relationship between SL and work outcomes.
Servant leadership and job embeddedness
Servant leaders are servant first, and serving is a natural phenomenon that gradually entails
leaders in leading positions (Greenleaf, 1977). SL mainly focuses on serving of the followers
for their improvement and building relationship with followers and employees (Koyuncu
et al., 2014). JE is relatively a new breed of the outcome and refers to perceptual and contextual
force that encourage an employee to stay within organization and has three dimensions: links
(relation with persons and organization), fit (compatibility with the organization) and
sacrifice (perceived cost of leaving organization) (Ferreira, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2001). Based
on the SET, literature has established the association between different types of leadership
and JE (Erkutlu and Chafra, 2015, 2017; Huning et al., 2020). The existing empirical studies
signified that employees feel obligated to reciprocate in response to positive leader’s behavior
(Eva et al., 2019) and employee feels constantly developed and safe which reduces turnover
(Chon and Zoltan, 2019). Thus it is hypothesized that:
H1. SL positively influences JE.
Servant leadership and OCB
Organ (1988) defined OCB as a type of personal behavior that is discretionary and not
acknowledged by the official reward system neither directly nor explicitly and this behavior
arises when employee feels obligation of reciprocation and it may occur through SL (Elche
et al., 2020). Literature indicated that OCB is an imperative topic in management and
psychology that extensively focused by recent scholars especially in the hospitality context
(Ahmad and Zafar, 2018; Elche et al., 2020; Teng et al., 2020). SL aims to provide help others
which is more relevant to OCB and OCB is recognized as a crucial outcome of SL which
enhances firm performance (Amah, 2018; Zhao et al., 2016). Although OCB is being frequently
investigated as behavioral outcome, Chon and Zoltan (2019) suggested to investigate through
different mediations in hospitality sector. Accordingly:
H2. SL positively influences OCB.
Servant leadership and work performance
Work performance refers to a person’s ability to carry out tasks that contribute to the
development of the organization’s technical core (Santos et al., 2018). Work performance is
greatly influenced by managers’ support, behavior and job environment (Diamantidis and
Chatzoglou, 2019). The literature reinforced that SL enhances organizational effectiveness by
facilitating job performance (Liden et al., 2008). Prior research established a positive and
significant association between SL and work performance (Stollberger et al., 2019; Liden et al.,
 JHTI

structural
Figure 1.

regression path
Modified structural
equation model with
Time 1 Time 1 Time 2
Leadership Type Mediating Variable Out comes

R2 = 0.25

H2, β = 0.23**, t = 2.54 Organizational

Citizenship
.73 Behavior
,t =3
.3 2**
=0
a, β
H5 R2 = 0.31
Servant H1, β = 0.65**, t = 15.59 Job H5b, β = –0.39**, t = 4.86 Turnover
Leadership Embeddedness Intentions
H3, β = –0.23**, t = 2.75 H5
c, β
=0
.47
**,
t= R2 = 0.54
7.3
8
H4, β = 0.34**, t = 4.58 Work
Performance

β t-value
H6a:- Servant leadership → Job embeddedness → Organizational Citizenship Behavior 0.21 3.78
H6b:- Servant leadership → Job embeddedness → Turnover Intentions –0.25 4.51
H6c:- Servant leadership → Job embeddedness → Work Performance 0.31 6.39
2008). Despite the growing body of research highlighting that SL positively impacts work The influence
performance, yet this linkage has been narrowly focused in hospitality literature (Ling et al., of servant
2017). Thus, this study postulates that:
leadership
H3. SL positively influences work performance.

Servant leadership and turnover intentions

Employee turnover intentions refer to an individual’s propensity to leave the organization
voluntarily and actively search for a position in other organizations (Blau, 2007). Employee
turnover is considered as a prevailing problem worldwide (Vasquez, 2014). Specifically, the
hospitality business has comparatively higher turnover nearly double of other industries
with increasing trend and reached to astonishing level of 72% (Malek et al., 2018; Ruggless,
2016). Myatt (2008) deduced that leadership style could be a prominent reason for turnover
intentions. Leaders’ pro-employee behavior also manipulates the turnover intentions of
workers (Jaramillo et al., 2009). Turnover intentions reduces with behavior of servant leaders
as they empower their followers by delegating authority to them, providing direction and
humility (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Prior studies also supported the negative association of SL
and turnover intentions (Jang and Kandampully, 2018; Zhao et al., 2016). Thus, we propose
the following hypothesis:
H4. SL negatively influences turnover intentions.

Job embeddedness and employees’ outcomes

JE is a kind of protective strategy of employee retention and numerous theoretical
frameworks considered turnover intentions as an immediate outcome of JE (e.g. Afsar et al.,
2018; Holtom et al., 2008). The meta-analysis also provided ample evidences that a higher level
of JE mitigates turnover intentions among employees (Jiang et al., 2012). Moreover, JE
aggravates OCB and work performance among employees (Afsar and Badir, 2016; Lee et al.,
2004). Besides, literature also provided evidences that JE decreases turnover intentions in the
hospitality sector (Afsar et al., 2018; Ferreira et al., 2017; Karatepe and Ngeche, 2012),
enhances creative performance (Karatepe, 2016), job performance (Karatepe and Ngeche,
2012) and customer service performance (Chan et al., 2019). In conclusion, the efforts of
servant leaders to develop a sense of belonging positively impacts on employee retention and
citizenship (Lee et al., 2004). Thus, it is posited:
H5. JE is positively related to (a) OCB, (b) turnover intentions and (c) work performance.

The mediating role of JE

JE is a strong mediator among employee attitude and job aspects (Holtom and Inderrieden,
2006). Hospitality literature also extrapolated that JE was empirically examined as mediator
in some recent studies (Chan et al., 2019; Ferreira et al., 2017; Karatepe, 2016; Karatepe and
Ngeche, 2012). There is also growing evidence available that links JE to OCB, turnover
intentions and work performance (Lee and Yom, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2001). Additionally,
employees receiving support from the organization show a high level of embeddedness to the
organization (Mitchell et al., 2001). Research has shown that there are ample justifications
available about the mediating mechanism of JE. However, hospitality research has not
directly examined meditating role between SL and work outcomes but according to recent
calls this may be the case in hospitality context (Bavik, 2020; Kaya and Karatepe, 2020). Other
than hospitality literature, two studies provided the most compelling support for JE as
mediator when SL was independent variable (Elsaied, 2020; Huning et al., 2020). Keeping in
JHTI view the significance of the mediating role of JE, it is projected that SL will impact job
outcomes through the mediation of JE.
H6. JE mediates the relationship between (a) SL and OCB, (b) SL and turnover intentions
and (c) SL and work performance.

Method
Sample and data collection
The study data gathered from full-time frontline employees including desk clerks,
receptionists and guest relations representatives working in different four and five-star
hotels of Pakistan. Prior studies also conducted frontline employees of three to five stars
hotels in Pakistani context (Nawaz and Sandhu, 2018; Sarwar and Muhammad, 2020). After
taking the necessary approval from hotel management, data were gathered from thirty hotels
located in five big cities of Pakistan (Karachi, Islamabad, Lahore, Faisalabad and Peshawar).
The selected cities are the hub for tourists and hosted different business, academics, social
and cultural events in the last few years (Majid et al., 2019). The data were gathered through a
questionnaire on the paper format to test the proposed theoretical framework. The survey
was conducted in English language as it is official language of Pakistan and majority of
frontline employees have bachelor degree (Nawaz and Sandhu, 2018; Sarwar and
Muhammad, 2020). A form of non-probability “purposive sampling” was used to gather
the data as database of all hotel employees was not available. Further purposive sampling
allows researcher to select the respondents that can answer the research questions according
to study objectives (Saunders et al., 2009).
The study used various approaches to control the common method variance by following
guidelines of Podsakoff et al. (2012). First, after taking due permissions and procedures,
questionnaires were distributed to the participants, and respondents (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Second, to mitigate the problem of common method bias, the questionnaire includes reverse
items and items of instrument were arranged randomly. Third, the anonymity of all
respondents were ensured and questionnaire were personally handed over to each
respondent. Finally, data were collected in two-time lags with a gap of two months in line
with prior research. In Time 1, the data of SL and JE were collected and in Time II, data of
OCB, work performance and turnover intentions were gathered. In order to match the
questionnaire, respondents were asked to write the name of their maternal grandparents as
the same method was adopted by Zia et al. (2021).
A total of 350 questionnaires were circulated and 290 complete responses were received in
time 1 survey. The same 290 employees were again contacted after two months and a total of
265 questionnaires were returned in second wave. Finally, during data screening, 13 surveys
were excluded due to missing information. Consequently, 252 surveys (response
rate 5 71.4%) were used for further analysis. Kline (2005) reported that the sample size
for SEM-based studies should not be less than 200 and PLS-SEM is recommended for small
sample sizes (Sarstedt et al., 2017). Table 1 shows that majority of the respondents were male
(72%) and this is because that the number of male employees are high than female and
previous studies conducted in hospitality sector of Pakistan also faced the similar issues
(Majid et al., 2019; Sarwar and Muhammad, 2020). Further details are summarized in Table 1.

Measures
A self-reported instrument was used for data collection. All instruments were adapted from
existing empirically studies and scales were also previously used in hospitality studies. The
participants indicated their responses to scale items on a five-point Likert scale of 1 “strongly
disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.” For measurement of SL, the scale developed by Liden et al. (2015)
Demographics Type Frequency %
The influence
of servant
Gender Male 181 71.8 leadership
Female 71 28.2
Marital Status Married 167 66.27
Unmarried 77 30.55
Divorced 8 0.04
Age Less than 25 years 45 17.9
25–34 years 106 42.1
35–45 years 64 25.4
45–55 years 28 11.1
Over 55 years 9 3.6
Organizational tenure Less than 5 years 66 26.2
6–12 years 109 43.3
13–18 years 28 11.1
19–24 years 38 15.1 Table 1.
25 years and above 11 4.4 Respondents profile

which is a short version of Liden et al. (2008) and previously used in hospitality study by Kaya
and Karatepe (2020). The scale consists of seven items and a sample item is: “My leader puts my
best interests ahead of his/her own.” JE scale is a seven-item scale developed by Crossley et al.
(2007) and used in hospitality research by (Karatepe, 2016), an item of JE includes “I feel attached
to this hotel”. OCB was assessed through 14-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson
(1991). The sample items is “My attendance at work is above the norm” and previously used in
hospitality context by Teng et al. (2020). Work performance was assessed by using the 6-item
scale on prior work. The study instrument was used by Kuvaas (2011) and a sample item is “I
often expend extra effort in carrying out my job.” Turnover intentions were assessed through 3-
Item scales developed by Singh et al. (1996). The scale was also previously used in the hospitality
context (Karatepe, 2013; Karatepe and Ngeche, 2012). Example item is “I often think about
quitting.”

Data examination
Smart PLS 3.0 was applied to evaluate measurement and structural model based on certain
reasons. First, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) does not require
the normal distribution of data and recommended as a suitable method of data analysis for
the hospitality sector (Usakli and Kucukergin, 2018). Second, the sample size of the study was
small and PLS-SEM is recommended for such sample and complex models (Sarstedt
et al., 2017).

Results
Measurement model
The study analyzed both measurement and structural models through PLS-SEM. The
measurement model was assessed through reliability and validity of constructs by following
the recommendations of Hair et al. (2019) and Sarstedt et al. (2017). The factor loading results,
composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) are presented in Table 2.
The required threshold value of factor loading is 0.60 (Hair et al., 2018) and due to low factor
loading, one item of the JE scale (JE6) and four items of the OCB scale (OCB5, OCB8, OCB13,
OCB14) were dropped. The composite reliability was used for internal consistency, and it was
also above the threshold value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2018).
JHTI Construct Indicator Std L CR AVE

Servant leadership SL1 0.722 0.909 0.589

SL2 0.804
SL3 0.802
SL4 0.787
SL5 0.737
SL6 0.767
SL7 0.750
Job embeddedness JE1 0.785 0.904 0.610
JE2 0.817
JE3 0.801
JE4 0.751
JE6 0.751
JE7 0.779
Organizational citizenship behaviour OCB1 0.794 0.931 0.575
OCB2 0.710
OCB3 0.758
OCB4 0.758
OCB6 0.745
OCB7 0.724
OCB9 0.850
OCB10 0.724
OCB11 0.756
OCB12 0.754
Turnover intentions TI1 0.750 0.820 0.603
TI2 0.749
TI3 0.828
Work performance WP1 0.777 0.911 0.632
WP2 0.818
Table 2. WP3 0.741
Factor loading, WP4 0.801
reliability and average WP5 0.816
variance WP6 0.814
extracted (AVE) Notes: Std L 5 Standard loading, CR 5 Composite reliability, AVE 5 Average variance extracted

The construct validity was further assessed through convergent and discriminant validity.
AVE was used for establishing the convergent validity and results show that the value of
AVE exceeds the threshold level of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2018). The
uniqueness of each construct is determined through discriminant validity and Table 3
confirms that average shared variance of the constructs is less than the square root of
average variance extracted (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Structural model
PLS-SEM is prediction oriented and prior to examination of the proposed hypotheses, its
prediction fits like the coefficient of determination (R2), predictive relevance (Q2) and effect
sizes (f2) were assessed. Falk and Miller (1992) stated that the recommended value of R2
should exceed 0.10. Table 4 presents the values of R2 ranges from 0.25–0.54. The value of Q2
was attained through the blindfolding procedure in smart PLS 3.0. Hair et al. (2019)
recommended that the Q2 value higher than zero shows the structural model’s predictive
accuracy. The values of Q2 ranges from 0.13–0.32 and f2 values ranges from 0.042–0.73.
Cohen (1988) recommended that value of f2 greater than 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 represents small,
medium and large effect sizes.
 Construct 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8
The influence
of servant
1 Age 1 leadership
2 Tenure 0.833** 1
3 Gender 0.280** 0.211** 1
4 SL 0.039 0.005 0.068 0.767
5 JE 0.051 0.019 0.011 0.587** 0.781
6 ToI 0.064 0.034 0.046 0.410** 0.461** 0.777
7 OCB 0.057 0.010 0.103 0.403** 0.439** 0.229** 0.758
8 WP 0.117 0.063 0.017 0.588** 0.628** 0.257** 0.452** 0.795
Mean 2.40 2.33 1.30 3.35 3.13 2.93 3.23 3.25
SD 1.01 1.22 0.51 0.73 0.92 0.87 0.69 0.78 Table 3.
Note(s): **p < 0.01; square root of average variance extracted (AVE) is italic; SL 5 Servant Leadership, Descriptive statistics,
JE 5 Job Embeddedness, OCB 5 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, ToI 5 Turnover Intentions, correlations and
WP 5 Work Performance discriminant validity

Relationships β t-values p-values R2 Q2 f2

SL → JE 0.652 15.585 0.000 0.42 0.23 0.739

SL → OCB 0.233 2.543 0.011 0.25 0.13 0.042
JE → OCB 0.316 3.728 0.000 0.077
SL → ToI 0.226 2.748 0.006 0.31 0.17 0.043
JE → ToI 0.385 4.856 0.000 0.124
SL → WP 0.339 4.579 0.000 0.54 0.32 0.145
JE → WP 0.470 7.377 0.000 0.279
Controls paths
Age → JE 0.052 0.551 0.582
Age → OCB 0.136 1.232 0.219
Age → ToI 0.038 0.305 0.761
Age → WP 0.123 1.393 0.165
Gender → JE 0.023 0.42 0.675
Gender → OCB 0.158 2.09 0.037
Gender → ToI 0.011 0.161 0.872
Gender → WP 0.048 1.014 0.311
Tenure → JE 0.025 0.274 0.784
Tenure → OCB 0.070 0.612 0.541
Tenure → ToI 0.001 0.002 0.998
Tenure → WP 0.033 0.365 0.715
Estimates of indirect paths β t-value Low CI High CI
SL → JE → OCB 0.206** 3.737 0.104 0.320
SL → JE → ToI 0.251** 4.511 0.363 0.150
SL → JE → WP 0.306** 6.389 0.217 0.406 Table 4.
Note(s): **p < 0.01; SL 5 Servant Leadership, JE 5 Job Embeddedness, OCB 5 Organizational Citizenship Results of complete
Behaviour, ToI 5 Turnover Intentions, WP 5 Work Performance, CI 5 Confidence Interval structural model

Path coefficient is used to assess the relationship between the constructs and acceptance or
rejection of hypothesis is subject to significance values. Furthermore, the significance of the
hypothesis is based on t and p-value. Figure 1 present the results of the hypothesized model. A
bootstrapping in PLS 3.0 was used by employing replications of 5,000 to test the proposed
hypothesis (Hair et al., 2018). Table 4 and Figure 1 portrays the results of direct hypothesis
with the t-values and p-values and all direct hypotheses were accepted as t-values were above
1.96 with 0.05 significant levels. Table 4 and Figure 1 further describes that SL has positive
JHTI and significant impact on JE (β 5 0.652, p < 0.001), work performance (β 5 0.34, p < 0.001),
OCB (β 5 0.23, p 5 0.011) and negative impact on turnover intentions (β 5 0.23, p 5 0.006)
supporting hypothesis 1–4. JE also has positive and significant impact on work performance
(β 5 0.47, p < 0.001), OCB (β 5 0.32, p 5 0.011) and negative relationship with turnover
intentions (β 5 0.23, p 5 0.006) supporting hypothesis 5a, 5b and 5c. The findings presented
(Table 4) that none of the demographic characteristics had a significant association with JE,
OCB, work performance, and turnover intentions in terms of control variables. The study’s
structural model was assessed with inclusion and exclusion of control variables and it was
noted that control variables had no impact on the findings.
The study used the Preacher and Hayes (2008) method for mediation analysis as it is
considered an important technique for evaluation of mediation effect (Rungtusanatham et al.,
2014). Table 4 indicates that SL has a positive and significant indirect effect via JE on OCB
(β 5 0.21; CI 5 0.104; 0.320), work performance (β 5 0.31; CI 5 0.217; 0.406) and negative
indirect effect on turnover intentions (β 5 0.25; CI 5 0.363; 0.150). The study established
that SL and the aforementioned work outcomes are fully mediated by JE, supporting
hypotheses 6a, 6b and 6c.

Discussion and conclusions

Conclusion
The present study contributes to the body of SL knowledge (in the context of the hospitality
industry) that JE mediates the relationship of SL and employees’ outcomes. The finding of the
study not only filled the gap but also responded to numerous recent calls about the impact of
SL on outcome variables via JE specifically in hospitality context (Eberly et al., 2017; Karatepe
and Talebzadeh, 2016; Kaya and Karatepe, 2020). On the relationship between SL and
employee outcomes, the findings supported the theoretical arguments embedded in SET
(Blau, 1964), in which frontline employees reciprocated to leaders’ behavior with positive
outcomes. As servant leaders think more about their followers by emphasizing on their
development; thus, they empower them and meet their expectations (Eva et al., 2019; Liden
et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011), and resultantly employees feel obliged and reciprocate
with more positive behavior in the organization (Zhang and Jia, 2010). The results also help to
understand the mechanism of JE and found that SL has an indirect effect on OCB, work
performance and turnover intentions. Consistent with SET, the study found that when
employees provided with facilitating role of leaders, they will reciprocate and their JE will be
high which ultimately improve the attitude and performance of the individual. Thus, this
study provided an understanding about how to embed the employees, improve the work
outcomes through SL.

Theoretical implications
The present study offers different theoretical contributions. First, the study examined
simultaneously positive and negative outcomes as well as behavioral, attitudinal and
performance outcomes of SL. It is pertinent to note that, the authors failed to find any existing
empirical study that has examined these outcomes simultaneously in the hospitality context
and evoked to investigate in recent studies (Bavik, 2020; Kaya and Karatepe, 2020). The
findings of this study explained that how SL is important for embedding employees,
enhancing citizenship behavior, improving performance and decreasing turnover intentions.
These findings can be explained with the support of SET (Blau, 1964) and prior studies which
found that managers SL behavior towards employees made them feel obliged to perform, and
stay in the organization (Stollberger et al., 2019; Huning et al., 2020) and particularly recent
evidence about the impact of SL on OCB (Elche et al., 2020)
 Second, the study contributes to hospitality literature; specifically, the indirect impact of SL The influence
on work performance, OCB and turnover intentions through JE. The theoretical foundation for of servant
this impact rests on SET (Blau, 1964) which contends that if employee perceive that their
leaders supports them and their expectations are met, they feel obligated to the company to
leadership
meet organizational demands and reflect positive behavior (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
Previously in hospitality sector, the mechanism of JE between SL and outcomes has not been
identified and this study is in response of researchers’ calls (Eva et al., 2019; Kaya and Karatepe,
2020; Lee et al., 2019). The results supported the mediating mechanism and findings are
indirectly consistent with previous studies (Ferreira et al., 2017; Huning et al., 2020; Karatepe,
2013) which states that JE mediates between leadership style and work performance, OCB and
turnover intention. The results indicated that JE hinders the relationship with turnover
intentions and employees with higher perception about JE have lower turnover.
Third, our research provides additional evidences about the impact of JE on various
outcomes in hospitality context, and especially hospitality industry in Asian context
(Pakistan). The empirical evidences supported that JE has a direct impact on work
performance, OCB and turnover intentions. The findings were also supported with lens of
SET and this implies that when employee perceives to be embedded with their organization,
they will reciprocate positive intentions towards the organizations which increase work
performance, OCB and decrease turnover intentions. The findings are consistent to prior
studies (Afsar et al., 2018; Afsar and Badir, 2016).
Finally, for methodological concern, current study conducted in time lags to avoid
common method bias as suggested by Eva et al. (2019) to understand SL and its
consequences. Moreover, the view of the existing literature of hospitality suggests that few
empirical studies discussed and analyzed the data through PLS-SEM. The significance of
PLS-SEM is recognized in the hospitality context (Ali et al., 2018; Assaf and Tsionas, 2019;
Usakli and Kucukergin, 2018).

Practical implications
The findings presented above demonstrate an important practical implication for hospitality
employees. First, servant leaders are important assets for the hospitality sector, and
organizations need to create such an environment that fosters SL. In the presence of servant
leaders, employees feel empowered and obligated to perform better which ultimately results
in higher organizational performance. Therefore, in hospitality context, management should
facilitate this phenomenon and encourage supervisor/ mangers to perform their role as
servant leader. For this purpose, management can take specific measure like arranging
workshops, organizing training, specific courses and case studies to train their employees
and leaders about how to practice empowerment. Parris and Peachey (2013) stated that some
top hospitality organization like Starbucks and Southwest Airlines adopted already such
practices.
Second, the study results present that JE plays a critical mediating role concerning SL and
its outcomes. JE increases with strength of its elements: links, fit and sacrifice. These element
can be improved with the attitude and behavior of leaders to the followers. Thus, hotel
management should strength these elements to retain employees because the hospitality
industry is facing a big challenge of employee turnover. Furthermore, the organization
should completely evaluate the employee profile before his/her recruitment and selection and
preference should be given to those employees who are more supportive for organization
(Hughes and Rog, 2008). In addition, the organization should also take specific measures like
controlling the irregular working hours, unique working conditions and empowering
employees in building JE because employee empowerment can help impart a sense of
obligation (Bal et al., 2010). Furthermore, the meta-analysis of (Jiang et al., 2012) also stated
that JE can reduce turnover.
JHTI Finally, supervisors/ managers apply SL strategy to show concern for their employees’
well-being and empowering them as a result it creates a sense of obligation among employees’
to find themselves useful and meaningful at work and to avoid their potential negative
outcomes.

Limitations and future research

Inevitably, numerous limitations draw attention for future research related to SL and
employees’ JE. First, this study considered only frontline employees which are raising the
concern for common variance bias. However, study data were collected in two waves to
reduce the issue of method bias. Furthermore, to get the data without bias, it is recommended
that should be gathered from different level of hierarchy through three waves. Second, the
study also collected and analyzed the data from one source of respondents; future research
should analyze the data from a cross-level investigation by collecting the data of SL from
employees and employee’s performance should be measured by the supervisors or managers.
Third, this study has not considered the influence of group variables like age, gender and
experience. These factors can be investigated as a moderator in future research as several
studies have indicated them as good moderators (Afsar and Badir, 2016; Karatepe, 2012).
Finally, future studies should also examine the impact of SL on work outcomes through
different mediators that are related to employee development and self-initiatives such as self-
development, informal learning and ongoing learning (Zia et al., 2020, 2021).

References
Afsar, B. and Badir, Y.F. (2016), “Person–organization fit, perceived organizational support, and
organizational citizenship behavior: the role of job embeddedness”, Journal of Human Resources
in Hospitality and Tourism, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 252-278.
Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A. and Shah, S.I. (2018), “Frontline employees’ high-performance work practices,
trust in supervisor, job-embeddedness and turnover intentions in hospitality industry”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 1436-1452.
Ahmad, I. and Zafar, M.A. (2018), “Impact of psychological contract fulfillment on organizational
citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald
Publishing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 1001-1015.
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Ryu, K. (2018), “An assessment of the use
of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 514-538.
Amah, O.E. (2018), “Determining the antecedents and outcomes of servant leadership”, Journal of
General Management, SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 126-138.
Assaf, A.G. and Tsionas, M.G. (2019), “Quantitative research in tourism and hospitality: an agenda for
best-practice recommendations”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 2776-2787.
Bal, P.M., Jansen, P.G., Van Der Velde, M.E., de Lange, A.H. and Rousseau, D.M. (2010), “The role of
future time perspective in psychological contracts: a study among older workers”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Elsevier, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 474-486.
Baskentli, S., Sen, S., Du, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2019), “Consumer reactions to corporate social
responsibility: the role of CSR domains”, Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, Vol. 95,
pp. 502-513.
Bavik, A. (2020), “A systematic review of the servant leadership literature in management and
hospitality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald
Publishing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 347-382.
Blau, G. (2007), “Does a corresponding set of variables for explaining voluntary organizational The influence
turnover transfer to explaining voluntary occupational turnover?”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Elsevier, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 135-148. of servant
Blau, P.M. (1964), “Social exchange theory”, Retrieved September, Vol. 3 No. 2007, p. 62.
leadership
Bouzari, M. and Karatepe, O.M. (2017), “Test of a mediation model of psychological capital among
hotel salespeople”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald
Publishing, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 2178-2197.
Brownell, J. (2010), “Leadership in the service of hospitality”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Sage
Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 363-378.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and Halpin, S.M. (2006), “What type of
leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Elsevier, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 288-307.
Chan, W.L., Ho, J.A., Sambasivan, M. and Ng, S.I. (2019), “Antecedents and outcome of job
embeddedness: evidence from four and five-star hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Elsevier, Vol. 83, pp. 37-45.
Cheng, J.-C. and Yi, O. (2018), “Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: the moderating
role of perceived organizational support”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Elsevier, Vol. 72, pp. 78-85.
Chon, K.K.-S. and Zoltan, J. (2019), “Role of servant leadership in contemporary hospitality”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 31
No. 8, pp. 3371-3394.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New
Jersey.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 874-900.
Crossley, C.D., Bennett, R.J., Jex, S.M. and Burnfield, J.L. (2007), “Development of a global measure of
job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, American Psychological Association, Vol. 92 No. 4, p. 1031.
Diamantidis, A.D. and Chatzoglou, P. (2019), “Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical
approach”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald
Publishing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 171-193.
Eberly, M.B., Bluhm, D.J., Guarana, C., Avolio, B.J. and Hannah, S.T. (2017), “Staying after the storm:
how transformational leadership relates to follower turnover intentions in extreme contexts”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Elsevier, Vol. 102, pp. 72-85.
Elche, D., Ruiz-Palomino, P. and Linuesa-Langreo, J. (2020), “Servant leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald
Publishing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 2035-2053.
Elsaied, M.M. (2020), “A moderated mediation model for the relationship between inclusive leadership
and job embeddedness”, American Journal of Business, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4,
pp. 191-210.
Erkutlu, H. and Chafra, J. (2015), “Empowering leadership and organizational job embeddedness: the
moderating roles of task interdependence and organizational politics”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, Vol. 210, pp. 3-10.
Erkutlu, H. and Chafra, J. (2017), “Authentic leadership and organizational job embeddedness in
higher education”, Hacettepe U€ niversitesi Egitim Fak€
ultesi Dergisi (HU Journal of Education),
€
Hacettepe Universitesi, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 413-426.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D. and Liden, R.C. (2019), “Servant leadership: a
systematic review and call for future research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Elsevier, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 111-132.
JHTI Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press, Akron, Ohio.
Ferreira, A.I. (2017), “Leader and peer ethical behavior influences on job embeddedness”, Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 345-356.
Ferreira, A.I., Martinez, L.F., Lamelas, J.P. and Rodrigues, R.I. (2017), “Mediation of job embeddedness
and satisfaction in the relationship between task characteristics and turnover”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 248-267.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Sage Publications Sage CA:
Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership, PaulistPress, New York.
Gui, C., Zhang, P., Zou, R. and Ouyang, X. (2020), “Servant leadership in hospitality: a meta-analytic
review”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Taylor and Francis, pp. 1-21.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Anderson, R.E. and Babin, B.J. (2018), Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.,
Cengage Learning EMEA.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Holtom, B.C. and Inderrieden, E.J. (2006), “Integrating the unfolding model and job embeddedness
model to better understand voluntary turnover”, Journal of Managerial Issues, JSTOR,
Vol. XVIII No. 4, pp. 435-452.
Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W. and Eberly, M.B. (2008), “5 turnover and retention research: a
glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future”, The Academy
of Management Annals, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 231-274.
Hsiao, C., Lee, Y.-H. and Chen, W.-J. (2015), “The effect of servant leadership on customer value co-
creation: a cross-level analysis of key mediating roles”, Tourism Management, Elsevier, Vol. 49,
pp. 45-57.
Hughes, J.C. and Rog, E. (2008), “Talent management: a strategy for improving employee recruitment,
retention and engagement within hospitality organizations”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 743-757.
Huning, T.M., Hurt, K.J. and Frieder, R.E. (2020), “The effect of servant leadership, perceived
organizational support, job satisfaction and job embeddedness on turnover intentions”,
Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 177-194.
Hunter, E.M., Neubert, M.J., Perry, S.J., Witt, L.A., Penney, L.M. and Weinberger, E. (2013), “Servant
leaders inspire servant followers: antecedents and outcomes for employees and the
organization”, The Leadership Quarterly, Elsevier, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 316-331.
Jang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2018), “Reducing employee turnover intention through servant
leadership in the restaurant context: a mediation study of affective organizational
commitment”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Taylor and
Francis, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 125-141.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D.B., Chonko, L.B. and Roberts, J.A. (2009), “Examining the impact of servant
leadership on salesperson’s turnover intention”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 351-365.
Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P.F., Lee, T.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (2012), “When and how is job
embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic investigation”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, American Psychological Association, Vol. 97 No. 5, p. 1077.
Karatepe, O.M. (2012), “The effects of coworker and perceived organizational support on hotel
employee outcomes: the moderating role of job embeddedness”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 495-516.
Karatepe, O.M. (2013), “High-performance work practices, work social support and their effects on job The influence
embeddedness and turnover intentions”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 903-921. of servant
Karatepe, O.M. (2016), “Does job embeddedness mediate the effects of coworker and family support on
leadership
creative performance? An empirical study in the hotel industry”, Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality and Tourism, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 119-132.
Karatepe, O.M. and Ngeche, R.N. (2012), “Does job embeddedness mediate the effect of work
engagement on job outcomes? A study of hotel employees in Cameroon”, Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 440-461.
Karatepe, O.M. and Talebzadeh, N. (2016), “An empirical investigation of psychological capital among
flight attendants”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, Vol. 55, pp. 193-202.
Kaya, B. and Karatepe, O.M. (2020), “Does servant leadership better explain work engagement, career
satisfaction and adaptive performance than authentic leadership?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 2075-2096.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York,
p. 59.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J., Astakhova, M., Eren, D. and Cetin, H. (2014), “Servant leadership and
perceptions of service quality provided by front-line service workers in hotels in Turkey”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Group Publishing,
Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1083-1099.
Kuvaas, B. (2011), “The interactive role of performance appraisal reactions and regular feedback”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 26 No. 2, p. 123.
Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A.W. and Knight, C. (2019), “Servant leadership: a meta-analytic
examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 1-44.
Lee, H.S. and Yom, Y.-H. (2015), “Role of self-leadership and social support in the relationship between
job embeddedness and job performance among general hospital nurses”, Journal of Korean
Academy of Nursing Administration, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 375-385.
Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J., Burton, J.P. and Holtom, B.C. (2004), “The effects of job
embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and
voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Briarcliff
Manor, NY 10510, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 711-722.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., Wu, J. and Liao, C. (2015), “Servant leadership: validation
of a short form of the SL-28”, The Leadership Quarterly, Elsevier, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 254-269.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H. and Henderson, D. (2008), “Servant leadership: development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment”, The Leadership Quarterly, Elsevier,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 161-177.
Ling, Q., Lin, M. and Wu, X. (2016), “The trickle-down effect of servant leadership on frontline
employee service behaviors and performance: a multilevel study of Chinese hotels”, Tourism
Management, Elsevier, Vol. 52, pp. 341-368.
Ling, Q., Liu, F. and Wu, X. (2017), “Servant versus authentic leadership: assessing effectiveness in
China’s hospitality industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Sage Publications Sage CA: Los
Angeles, CA, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Majid, A., Yasir, M., Yousaf, Z. and Qudratullah, H. (2019), “Role of network capability, structural
flexibility and management commitment in defining strategic performance in hospitality
industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Publishing,
Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 3077-3096.
Malek, K., Kline, S.F. and DiPietro, R. (2018), “The impact of manager training on employee turnover
intentions”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 203-219.
JHTI Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001), “Why people stay: using job
embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of
Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1102-1121.
Myatt, M. (2008), “How to reduce employee turnover”, Retrieved August, Vol. 11, p. 2008.
Nawaz, A. and Sandhu, K.Y. (2018), “Role stress and its outcomes: evidence from hotel industry of
Pakistan”, Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 49-60.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books/DC Heath and Com, Lexington.
Parris, D.L. and Peachey, J.W. (2013), “A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in
organizational contexts”, Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, Vol. 113 No. 3, pp. 377-393.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Annual
Reviews, Vol. 63, pp. 539-569.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Springer,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Qiu, S., Dooley, L.M. and Xie, L. (2020), “How servant leadership and self-efficacy interact to affect
service quality in the hospitality industry: a polynomial regression with response surface
analysis”, Tourism Management, Elsevier, Vol. 78, 104051.
Ruggless, R. (2016), “Hospitality turnover rose to 72.1% in 2015”, Nation’s Restaurant News, 23 March,
available at: http://nrn.com/blog/hospitalityturnover-rose-721-rate-2015.
Rungtusanatham, M., Miller, J.W. and Boyer, K.K. (2014), “Theorizing, testing, and concluding for
mediation in SCM research: tutorial and procedural recommendations”, Journal of Operations
Management, Elsevier, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 99-113.
Santos, A.S., Neto, M.T.R. and Verwaal, E. (2018), “Does cultural capital matter for individual job
performance? A large-scale survey of the impact of cultural, social and psychological capital on
individual performance in Brazil”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1352-1370.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2017), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling”, in
Handbook of Market Research, Springer Heidelberg, Vol. 26, pp. 1-40.
Sarwar, A. and Muhammad, L. (2020), “Impact of organizational mistreatment on employee
performance in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 513-533.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed.,
Pearson Education, London.
Singh, J., Verbeke, W. and Rhoads, G.K. (1996), “Do organizational practices matter in role stress
processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketing-oriented boundary spanners”,
Journal of Marketing, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 69-86.
Stollberger, J., Las Heras, M., Rofcanin, Y. and Bosch, M.J. (2019), “Serving followers and family? A
trickle-down model of how servant leadership shapes employee work performance”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Elsevier, Vol. 112, pp. 158-171.
Teng, C.-C., Lu, A.C.C., Huang, Z.-Y. and Fang, C.-H. (2020), “Ethical work climate, organizational
identification, leader-member-exchange (LMX) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 212-229.
Terglav, K., Ruzzier, M.K. and Kase, R. (2016), “Internal branding process: exploring the role of
mediators in top management’s leadership–commitment relationship”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Elsevier, Vol. 54, pp. 1-11.
Usakli, A. and Kucukergin, K.G. (2018), “Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in The influence
hospitality and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Emerald Publishing, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 3462-3515. of servant
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011), “Servant leadership: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management,
leadership
Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1228-1261.
Vasquez, D. (2014), “Employee retention for economic stabilization: a qualitative phenomenological
study in the hospitality sector”, International Journal of Management, Economics and Social
Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Wang, Z., Xu, H. and Liu, Y. (2018), “Servant leadership as a driver of employee service performance:
test of a trickle-down model and its boundary conditions”, Human Relations, Sage Publications
Sage UK: London, England, Vol. 71 No. 9, pp. 1179-1203.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Sage
Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-617.
Yam, L., Raybould, M. and Gordon, R. (2018), “Employment stability and retention in the hospitality
industry: exploring the role of job embeddedness”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality
and Tourism, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 445-464.
Zhang, Z. and Jia, M. (2010), “Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of high-performance
human resource practices on corporate entrepreneurship: evidence from China”, Human
Resource Management, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 743-765.
Zhao, C., Liu, Y. and Gao, Z. (2016), “An identification perspective of servant leadership’s effects”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 31 No. 45, pp. 268-946.
Zia, M.Q., Bashir, M.A., Mangi, R.A. and Shamsi, A.F. (2021), “A person-situation perspective of
informal learning: the role of supervisor feedback environment”, European Journal of Training
and Development, Emerald Publishing.
Zia, M.Q., Naveed, M., Bashir, M.A. and Shamsi, A.F. (2020), “The interaction of situational factors on
individual factors and self-development”, European Journal of Training and Development,
Emerald Publishing, Vol. 44 Nos 4/5, pp. 509-530.

Further reading
Ye, Y., Lyu, Y. and He, Y. (2019), “Servant leadership and proactive customer service performance”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 1330-1347.

Corresponding author
Muhammad Qamar Zia can be contacted at: ammarzia5@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com