International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijh m

How and when servant leaders fuel creativity: The role of servant attitude and
intrinsic motivation
Pablo Ruiz-Palominoa,*, Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Larab
a
Department of Business Administration, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida de los Alfares, 42, Cuenca, Spain b
Department of Economics and Management, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, The Canary Islands, Spain

ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: Workplace creativity is critical to stay ahead in the current competitive hospitality industry. Recent research has suggested
Servant leadership that servant leadership fosters creativity. However, there is a lack of research into the mechanisms and situations that make
Workplace creativity Servant this link possible. This paper examines (1) employee servant attitude as a mediator in the servant leadership–employee
attitude creativity relationship, and (2) the role of intrinsic motivation in both the direct and the mediated relationship. Using structural
Intrinsic motivation equation modeling to analyze a sample of 259 hotel employees in Spain, we found that servant attitude is one of the
Moderated mediation mechanisms servant leaders use to foster creativity, and that this mediating role of servant attitude is strengthened as
employee intrinsic motivation increases. However, when intrinsic motivation decreases, the mediation reverts and the
leadership–employee creativity relationship becomes significant again. New light is shed on how and when servant leadership
is most effective in fostering hotel staff creativity.

1. Introduction leadership emerges as an inescapable contextual predictor of individual creativity (Amabile et al., 2004; Shalley et al., 2004; Shin and Zhou,
The new market scenario in the hospitality industry has led to 2003). The reason leadership influences followers’ individual creativity creativity being
highlighted as a critical issue (Hon and Lui, 2016; usually lies in satisfying the followers’ need to feel unconstrained (and Wang et al., 2014). Although employee
creativity is significant across even strongly supported) when suggesting solutions to problems and all sectors (Dul and Ceylan, 2011), the fact the hospitality
industry is when thinking divergently (Shalley and Gilson, 2004). While feeling confronted by new challenges (i.e., new technologies) presses hotels to
unconstrained or supported is important in providing novel ideas provide novel services and products which not only promote guest sa- (Shalley et al., 2004),
having a strong interest in helping others might tisfaction (Wikhamn, 2019) but also their e-satisfaction (Tran et al., play a greater role (Forgeard and Mecklenburg,
2013), especially in 2019). Hotel employees, by dealing with customers’ day-to-day re- hospitality, where quality service has been persistently underlined as
quirements, are in an optimal position to think of novel ideas to im- critical to meet and exceed customers’ needs, and thus become sucprove the service offered
(e.g., on-site farms that supply hotel restau- cessful (Kuo, 2009). However, existing research has largely ignored rants with organic products). It is of no surprise,
therefore, that other-centered mechanisms (e.g., compassion, Zoghbi-Manrique-defostering a creative hotel workforce continues to be the subject of much Lara
and Viera-Armas, 2019; empathetic concern, Kuo, 2009), as a way attention (Panayotis, 2017). Then, the aim of this paper is to answer to explain why leadership
might promote creativity among hotel emtwo key questions: How and when is servant leadership most effective ployees. Defined as any type of process or activity
based on other-inin fostering creativity in hotels? terest motivations, other-centered mechanisms seem particularly sui-
Creativity is the intellectual process of generating new and poten- table to explain the relationship between leadership and creativity in tially useful ideas (Hon
and Lui, 2016) and has been considered critical hotels. Specifically, servant leadership, which takes an “other-centered” for firms to gain long-term competitiveness
(Shalley et al., 2004; Hon approach to promote followers’ needs over other things (Wu et al., and Lui, 2016; Wikhamn, 2019). Creativity depends on both the in-
2013), could serve to activate other-centered mechanisms among emdividual and the context in which the employee works (e.g., job char- ployees (e.g., servant
attitude). Drawing on social learning theory (SLT, acteristics, resources, goals, work environment), with the context being Bandura, 1986), we argue that because
servant leaders are seen as principally shaped by leaders (Shalley and Gilson, 2004), which means credible role models to be emulated (Eva et al., 2019; Liden et
al., 2014)

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Pablo.Ruiz@uclm.es (P. Ruiz-Palomino), pablo.zoghbi@ulpgc.es (P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102537
Received 27 July 2019; Received in revised form 18 April 2020; Accepted 23 April 2020 0278-4319/ © 2020 Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.
Table 1
Most common leadership approaches positively related to employee creativity.
Leadership Representative studies Definition

Non-Controlling Hon (2012); Jeong et al. (2017). “…enables employees to feel safe and free to pursue new insights by granting autonomy” (Jeong et al., 2017, p. 651).
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537
Supportive Amabile et al. (2004). …provides “clear strategic direction and procedural autonomy in carrying out the work…” (Amabile et al., 2004, p.7).

Benevolent Wang and Cheng (2010). …offers “individualized care… such as allowing opportunities to correct mistakes…providing coaching and mentoring and
showing concern for subordinates’ career development” (Wang and Cheng, 2010, p. 107).
Facilitative Guastello (1995). “the goals of the group are jointly defined by the group and the leader whenever possible…by empowering and delegating
authority…to help others to attain their goals” (Guastello, 1995, p. 226).
Empowering Zhang and Bartol (2010); Hon (2012). …shares “power with a view toward enhancing employees’ motivation and investment in their work” (Zhang and Bartol,
2010, p. 108).
Ethical Javed et al. (2017). …involves “honesty, integrity, care for others, altruism, visibility, group determination, reliability…and supports proper
rights” (Javed et al., 2017, p.2).
Transformational Wang et al. (2014); Shin and Zhou (2003). …leads by “…broadening and elevating followers’ goals and providing them with confidence to perform beyond the
expectations” (Shin and Zhou, 2003, p. 703).
Servant Yang et al. (2017); Yoshida et al. (2014). “…their power becomes a means to serve others” (Yoshida et al., 2014, p. 1395), to “help employees strive and flourish”
(Yang et al., 2017, p. 2) by “…stimulating their full potential” (Yang et al., 2017, p. 4).

and first and foremost focus on serving followers, they can cultivate a servant
attitude in hotel followers by which these employees can better think of new
ways to meet customers’ needs. A servant attitude is defined as a concern for
the well-being of others, either internal or external to the organization (Ruiz
et al., 2010), under which individuals are more willing to serve and meet the
needs of others. Although closely related constructs (e.g., prosocial
orientation) have already been shown to enhance individual creativity (Grant
and Berry, 2011), whether servant leadership fosters employees’ individual
creativity by shaping a servant attitude is, to date, uncorroborated.
This linking mechanism, however, may not be free of boundary conditions.
The existing creativity literature is based on the view that creativity is an
interaction between individual-related or dispositional characteristics and the
work context (Shalley et al., 2009). Thus, some dispositional characteristics,
such as intrinsic motivation (i.e., the extent to which one does an activity for
the interest in and enjoyment of the work itself, Amabile et al., 1994), can
make individuals more curious, open, and willing to search for new approaches
(Hon, 2012) and could thus act as a boundary condition to explain creativity
(Ohana, 2016), especially in hotels (Wang et al., 2014). We draw on the
substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier, 1978) to support such a
prediction. This theory contends that the presence of some situational
characteristics, including those pertaining to the employee who is being led,
can influence ― and even replace ― the relationship between the leader’s
behavior and employee outcomes (Kerr and Jermier, 1978). As such, because
they work in socially-oriented workplaces, hotel employees may often be
arranged in homogeneous, supportive and cohesive teams (Bavik, 2016).
Hence, they might thus feel intrinsically motivated enough to self-manage (cf.,
Shalley et al., 2004) and be creative without the direct intervention of servant
leaders. In addition, the level of challenge in each hotel job (frontline jobs
involve more direct contact with customers and thus more motivating
characteristics, such as skill variety or autonomy, than routine-based back
office jobs, Wang et al., 2014) can decrease (or increase) hotel employees’
intrinsic motivation and thus lead them to need (or not) the presence of
servant leadership to perform creatively. Thus, if intrinsic motivation is high,
we predict indirect, positive effects of servant leadership on employee
creativity ― via servant attitude. However, if intrinsic motivation is low, we
expect the mediation of servant attitude to be reduced, and the direct, positive
effect of servant leadership on creativity to be reactivated. Previous research
supports this prediction by indicating that intrinsic motivation can further
predict creativity when combined with prosocial motivation (Grant and Berry,
2011) and may reduce the positive effect of the context on individual creativity
(Ohana, 2016). Although our model does not match the suggestions made by
Shalley et al. (2004) about the potential mediating role of intrinsic motivation,
it is in line with prior work supporting a moderating role of intrinsic motivation
(Dysvik et al., 2010; Ohana, 2016; Wang et al., 2014) and follows the call made
by Shalley et al. (2004) to explore other mediators that interact with intrinsic
motivation to explain employee creativity.
To summarize, the theory of substitutes for leadership (Kerr and Jermier,
1978) is applied in this study to test intrinsic motivation as a moderator in the
direct and indirect (via servant attitude) relationship of servant leadership on
employee creativity in the Spanish hotel industry. Investigating this model is
relevant to the hotel industry because hotel work has certain specificities (e.g.,
seasonality, long hours) (Zou et al., 2015) that may expose staff creativity to
the permanent threat of intrinsic motivation losses. If findings confirm our
paper’s thesis, this study may help hotel managers to better know whether
and when they have to adopt servant leadership to boost employee creativity.
This help may be especially appropriate in Spain, where power distance is
relatively high (i.e., greater controlling leadership is accepted, Hofstede
Center, 1967-2010), and servant leadership may emerge as a useful tool to
foster creativity.
Following this introduction, the theoretical background and hypotheses
are presented. The method and findings of the study are then described. The
final section of the paper presents the discussion and conclusions, including
limitations and future research opportunities.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Context, leadership, and employee creativity: the role of
servantleadership
While individual creativity depends on personal and contextual
characteristics (Shalley and Gilson, 2004; Shalley et al., 2004), existing research
has focused greatly on identifying contextual antecedents (e.g., relationships
with coworkers, rewards, diversity, job characteristics, role expectations and
goals, work climate, Shalley et al., 2004; Shalley and Gilson, 2004), among
which leadership emerges as an important element (Amabile et al., 2004). To
date, multiple leadership approaches have found to be related to employee
creativity (i.e., noncontrolling, Jeong et al., 2017; supportive, Amabile et al.,
2004; benevolent, Wang and Cheng, 2010; facilitative, Guastello, 1995;
empowering, Zhang and Bartol, 2010; ethical, Javed et al., 2017;
transformational, Wang et al., 2014; servant, Yang et al., 2017; Table 1).
However, unlike servant leadership, which is other-centered, most of these
approaches are leader-centric in nature (i.e., leaders focus mainly on
encouraging followers to effectively attain group or organizational goals rather
than on the followers’ own development per se, Wu et al., 2013). Thus, while
all these leadership approaches coincide in the need to care for employees’
needs, trusting their abilities and encouraging them to make decisions
autonomously (Table 1), servant leadership is genuinely focused on promoting
others’ interests and growth above those of the leader or the organization
(Yoshida et al., 2014), and could thus be more effective in fostering employees’
individual creativity, as described below.
2.2. Servant leadership and employee creativity: the mediating role
ofservant attitude
Recent research has revealed a greater impact of servant leaders on
followers’ positive outcomes compared to other similar leadership constructs
(i.e., ethical, authentic, transformational, Madison and Eva, 2019). This may be
due to the distinctive people-centered or othercentered nature of this
leadership approach. A leader who is servant begins “…with the natural feeling
that one wants to serve, to serve first” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 27), and thus
followers of servant leaders are likely to feel their leaders care about them
(Eva et al., 2019) and likely to feel an obligation to reciprocate (i.e., social
exchange theory, SET; Blau, 1964) by bringing out the very best in themselves.

2
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
Among the valuable aspects that employees can offer their leaders is the
development of novel ideas about products as well as about procedures and
processes oriented towards improving day-to-day organizational functioning.
By providing support and empowerment, as well as showing a strong interest
in fulfilling their followers’ needs (Yang et al., 2017), servant leaders are more
likely to gain trust from their followers, and generate high-quality leader-
member exchange relationships with them (Zou et al., 2015). As a result, social
exchange relationships are more likely to occur between the leader and the
followers (Colquitt et al., 2007; Zou et al., 2015), with followers thus being
more likely to engage in more creative behaviors as a way to reciprocate their
leader and the organization. Accordingly,
Hypothesis 1a. Servant leadership is positively related to employees’
individual creativity.
Given the strong other-centered nature of these leaders (Eva et al., 2019),
other-centered mechanisms could play a role in this relationship (Eva et al.,
2019). Rather than directing followers to accomplish group or organizational
targets, servant leaders focus on favoring service through their employees
(Yang et al., 2017; Liden et al., 2014), and, by motivating their followers to
deliver service beyond the call of duty (Zou et al., 2015), high levels of creativity
may be developed. For Greenleaf (1977), the best test for a leader to be a
servant is whether their followers, “…while being served, become healthier,
wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants”
(Greenleaf, 1977, p. 27), so servant leaders should transform followers’
attitudes in a servant manner (Eva et al., 2019). Social learning theory (SLT,
Bandura, 1986) helps support this notion. In effect, because servant leaders
manifest sincere concern for satisfying the needs of their followers (Eva et al.,
2019; Wu et al., 2013), servant leaders are more than likely to be attractive to
their followers (Liden et al., 2014). They also capture credibility, pleasantness
and agreeableness, all of which coincide with SLT recommendations regarding
the characteristics that others must show to serve as role models to be
emulated (Madison and Eva, 2019). As a result, we hypothesize that, following
a SLT logic, employees learn servant behaviors from their servant leaders (Eva
et al., 2019) and develop attitudes oriented toward serving others (i.e., servant
attitude), either internal or external to the firm (Liden et al., 2014), including
the broader society. Thus,
Hypothesis 1b. Servant leadership is positively related to employees’ servant
attitude.
In understanding how individual creativity develops, willing to and thinking
of how to solve the needs and problems of others is critical (Forgeard and
Mecklenburg, 2013; Grant and Berry, 2011; Polman and Emich, 2011). In
effect, prior research indicates that a strong desire to benefit others forms part
of how creative people construe their day-today actions (Forgeard and
Mecklenburg, 2013), leading to a willingness to adopt others’ viewpoints and
a better understanding of others’ needs, which ultimately favors creative
thinking (Grant and Berry, 2011). Furthermore, it has also been reported that
making decisions for others leads to the development of stronger processes of
abstraction intimately linked to creative cognition processes (Polman and
Emich, 2011). Therefore, rather than servant leadership directly, servant
attitude is what makes employees’ creativity emerge and flourish. A servant
attitude reflects a strong social and moral basis (Melé, 2009), which is key for
creativity to flourish (Forgeard and Mecklenburg, 2013; Grant and Berry,
2011). Thus, we hypothesize that servant leaders affect creativity because they
cultivate a servant attitude in their followers (Liden et al., 2014), involving, in
turn, a strong motivation to selflessly benefit others (Eva et al., 2019), which is
the key to servant leadership enhancing employee individual creativity.
Accordingly,
Hypothesis 2. The servant attitude of employees mediates the positive
relationship between servant leadership and employees’ individual creativity.
3
International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537
2.3. The moderating role of intrinsic motivation
Kerr and Jermier’s (1978) substitutes for leadership theory posits that the
impact of leadership behavior on certain job outcomes may be contingent on
certain factors. Given that creativity is typically viewed as an interaction
between the work context and dispositional or personrelated characteristics
(Shalley et al., 2009), this theory is particularly applicable to explaining
employee creativity. Intrinsic motivation ― an attitudinal and dispositional
factor (Ohana, 2016) ― has typically been viewed as intimately related to
creativity (Amabile et al., 1994; Ohana, 2016) and could serve as a moderator
to account for creativity (Dysvik et al., 2010; Ohana, 2016). Shalley et al. (2004),
for example, suggested that intrinsic motivation could interact with other
mediators to account for employee creativity. Thus, while intrinsic motivation
can be shaped by context (Shalley et al., 2004), it also involves a large
dispositional element (Kuvaas, 2006), and can be linked to job characteristics
(e.g., autonomy, feedback, skill variety, task identity and task significance
(Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Accordingly, the level of intrinsic motivation
may vary across both individuals (Kuvaas, 2006) and jobs. This is especially true
in hotels, where some jobs (frontline jobs) require more direct interaction with
customers and are thus more motivating than others (back office jobs) (Wang
et al., 2014). Thus, it is reasonable to think that intrinsic motivation could
moderate the positive impact of servant leadership on employee individual
creativity.
2.3.1. The enhancement of the indirect effect of servant leadership
oncreativity
Although having a strong servant attitude can explain why servant
leadership fosters employee creativity, novelty, which can be provided by
intrinsic motivation (Collins and Amabile, 1999), is also necessary for
individuals to have creative ideas (Shalley et al., 2004). Hence, servant
attitudes may need to interact with intrinsic motivation to help creativity
emerge. In effect, intrinsically motivated individuals are more involved in their
jobs (Gagné and Deci, 2005) and their excitement and enthusiasm about their
work is such that they are likely to be more curious and open to changing
traditional ways of doing things (Hon, 2012). As such, the more individuals are
intrinsically motivated, the more they show enhanced cognitive flexibility and
openness to complexity, thus expanding their access to novel solutions and
ideas (Gagné and Deci, 2005). Using a different but closely related construct to
servant attitude (i.e., prosocial motivation), Grant and Berry (2011) found that
intrinsic motivation and prosocial motivation jointly help explain creativity to
a greater extent than they do separately. We therefore hypothesize that
intrinsic motivation will act as a moderator that strengthens the expected
indirect relationship between servant leadership and employee creativity via
servant attitude. Accordingly, Hypothesis 3a. In high compared to low intrinsic
motivation conditions, the mediated relationship via follower servant attitude
between servant leadership and employees’ individual creativity is more
salient.
2.3.2. The reactivation of the direct link of servant leadership on creativity
When employees are intrinsically motivated, their effort in daily activities
is based on such strong interest and curiosity (Grant and Berry, 2011) that it
can be enough for their level of creativity to emerge (Amabile et al., 1994;
Ohana, 2016). Intrinsic motivation can thus act as an alternative to leadership,
leading employees not to need the extra stimulus of leadership to develop
positive behaviors (Ohana, 2016). Thus, under high intrinsic motivation
conditions, the behavior of the servant leader may be less salient in increasing
creativity levels in the workplace, in line with Kerr and Jermier’s (1978) theory.
In this situation, the influence of servant leadership on employee creativity is
realized via servant attitude. In contrast, under low intrinsic motivation
conditions, the direct action of the context (i.e., the leader, workplace fairness)
may lead employees to display positive behaviors (Kuvaas, 2006; Ohana,
2016). In these conditions, servant leaders might make employees feel they
are obliged to reciprocate creative performance for social exchange reasons
(Blau, 1964). Thus, the direct relationship between servant leadership and
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537

employee creativity may be reactivated under low levels of intrinsic motivation
while it may become non-significant under high levels of intrinsic motivation.
This is supported by prior research, which has, for example, shown how highly
intrinsically motivated employees are less likely to either take part in social
exchange relationships (Ohana, 2016) or need contextual stimuli such as
training to display a stronger work effort and quality (Dysvik et al., 2010). Thus,
Hypothesis 3b. In low compared to high intrinsic motivation conditions, the
direct positive relationship between servant leadership and employees’
individual creativity is more salient.
Fig. 1 summarizes the hypotheses proposed in this paper. The combination
of these hypotheses forms the theoretical model that will be tested in the
subsequent sections.
3. Material and methods
3.1. Sampling procedure and description
The data for this study were gathered through questionnaires distributed
to employees of Spanish hotel firms. Because the scales used in the
questionnaire were originally in English, Brislin's (1980) backtranslation
procedure was used so they could be read in Spanish. The questionnaire was
then pilot-tested with 7 Spanish hotel managers and 21 employees in five
focus groups and three cognitive individual interviews. The focus group
method has been widely used in previous research and allows questionnaire
items to be improved and evaluates their clarity or suitability to any particular
context (Choi et al., 2014). In our study, this technique involved the formation
of five groups of five participants each (employees and managers), who were
encouraged to (1) share their ideas concerning the suitability, readability and
clarity of the items of the questionnaire, and (2) verify their content validity or
how to improve these aspects otherwise. Three cognitive individual interviews
were also developed to gather more detailed information concerning whether
the questionnaire items presented interpretability problems (Ryan et al.,
2012). These cognitive interviews allowed us to capture participants’ reactions
to the questionnaire by asking them about what they were thinking when they
responded to a particular item (Ryan et al., 2012). None of these processes
revealed problems of clarity, comprehension, readability or suitability, so,
except for minor adaptations, the survey items remained unaltered.
Access to large and medium-sized hotels with a minimum of 3 stars (and
therefore containing a varied number of departments) was gained through
personal contacts (general managers) and through the snowball technique,
where contacts of contacts are targeted. An initial random sample of 29
general managers was asked to help contact the general managers of other
hotels. After gaining consent from 103 general managers, the questionnaires
were distributed to only one employee from each department of these 103
hotels. This meant that several employees per hotel (in some hotels only one
employee) were able to participate in the study, thus suggesting a nested
structure by hotel ― only one response per supervisor but in some cases, more
than one response per hotel. Several tests showed, however, that the firmlevel
effects were unimportant. First, a hierarchical linear model including a hotel
identification number variable as random effect revealed no significant effects
(p = .641) in an empty model including only the firm-level variable and the
dependent variable of the study (i.e., creativity). In addition, the intraclass
correlation (ICC) calculated in this simplest model revealed an ICC of .033, thus
indicating that firmlevel effects account for a near-zero variance of creativity.
Thus, the individual-level approach used in the present study appears to be a
parsimonious way to test our research model (Aguinis et al., 2013).
To collect a sample of employees who could evaluate the leadership
approach of their supervisors with the highest reliability, we considered the
length of time working in the hotel to be important, and so excluded
employees who had been with their hotel for less than a year. In total, of 371
surveys distributed, the final sample consisted of 259 employees who
evaluated their own respective supervisor (70 % response rate). Most
respondents were relatively young (45 % aged below 35, and only 5 % were
older than 55) and female (53 %). Finally, more than 55 % were highly qualified,
holding either a professional qualification or a university degree and a large
variety of hotel departments (restaurant, kitchen, cleaning, reception, etc.)
were represented (Table 2 for further details).

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

Table 2
Sample characteristics. N = 259.
Frequency % of Total Department Frequency % of Total

Age
< 20 years old
2 .80 %
20−25 years old 31 12.00 %

26−35 years old 84 32.40 %

36−45 years old 91 35.10 % Restaurant 57 22.00 %

46-55 years old 39 15.10 % Kitchen 28 10.80 %

> 55 years old 12 4.60 % Cleaning service 46 17.80 %

4
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020)
102537
Gender Reception 66 25.50 %

Male 123 47.50 % Maintenance 19 7.30 %

Female 136 52.50 % Administration/Revenue 35 13.50 %

Education Bar 2 .80 %

Primary studies 38 14.70 % Spa 4 1.50 %

Secondary studies 67 25.90 % Entertainment 2 .80 %

Intermediate vocational training 38 14.70 %

Advanced vocational training 47 18.10 %

Undergraduate degree 62 23.90 %

Postgraduate degree 7 2.70 %

3.2. Measures
The scales used seven-point Likert response formats (1 = “strongly
disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”) and had good internal consistency. Table 4
shows items, Cronbach alphas and composite reliabilities.
Servant leadership. We used Ehrhart’s (2004) 14-item servant leadership
scale to assess the extent to which employees rate their supervisors as servant
leaders. A sample item is “My department manager encourages staff to be
involved in community service and volunteer activities outside of work.”
Servant attitude. This variable comprised five items adapted from Page and
Wong (2000) and Dennis and Winston (2003). These items were selected by a
panel of three experts in the servant leadership field who thought they best
captured the respondents’ genuine willingness to put others’ needs before the
own. A sample item is “I am willing to make personal sacrifices in serving
others.”
Intrinsic motivation. This variable was measured with an adaptation of the
scale designed by Gagné et al. (2010). The respondents were asked to rate the
extent to which they did their work for its own sake, because it was enjoyable
to them. A sample item is “I have chosen this job because I enjoy it very much.”
Employee creativity. Because the feeling that one is creative is linked to the
inner self (Shalley and Gilson, 2004), and perceptions and beliefs are difficult
for others to know (e.g., managers), self-reports were used to measure this
aspect (Park et al., 2016). The participants used the three-item scale created
by Zampetakis et al. (2011) to rate their level of creativity. A sample item is “I
can easily think a lot of different and useful ideas at work.”
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix. N = 259.
Control variables. Age (1=younger, 6=older), gender (0=male, 1=female),
and education (1=lower level of education, 6=higher level of education) served
as control variables (Gong et al., 2009). Because respondents had to evaluate
their own servant attitude and creativity, we controlled for social desirability
bias (SDB). SDB was captured with the four-item scale by Deshpande et al.
(2006), where participants assessed their degree of familiarity (1=“not
familiar,” 7=“very familiar”) with items from different categories like movies,
dishwashing brands, TV shows, and designer labels. Because some of these
items were fake or nonexistent, the SDB score was calculated by adding up the
score on fake items and dividing it by the number of these items. In other
words, the participants had to evaluate their level of familiarity with two items
per category (e.g., dishwashing brands). Because one of these two items was
nonexistent (i.e., Fairy, a real dishwashing brand vs. Mr Soft, a nonexistent
brand), a respondent identifying this item as true indicates strong willingness
to appear a “know-it-all”. Higher scores indicate greater familiarity with
nonexistent items and therefore a stronger SDB. No participant was excluded
for this reason, with the variable serving, however, as a way to remove any
potential SDB effect from our results.
3.3. Common method bias (CMB)
To minimize CMB, several procedures were followed (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). First, we purposely included distracting variables in the questionnaire
that had little or nothing to do with our study (i.e., perceived unethical
behavior in the hotel, level of the respondent’s familiarity with a particular
film); these distracters were intermixed

Descriptive statistics and reliability

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Servant leadership 5.18 1.18 (.807)

2. Servant attitude 5.18 .97 .51** (.930)

3. Intrinsic motivation 5.28 1.17 .44** .50** (.737)

4. SDB 1.74 1.02 −.03 .06 .06 (.809)

5. Gender —— —— .03 −.06 −.04 .01 —

6. Age 3.65 1.04 −.03 .07 −.01 .02 −.04 —

7. Education 3.18 1.48 .15* −.04 .11 −.13* −.04 −.29** —

8. Employee creativity 5.18 1.05 .35** .54** .35** .04 −.09 .09 .07

Note: **p< .01; *p < .05 (two-tailed test). SD = Standard Deviation; SDB = Social Desirability Bias.

5
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537

The numbers in parentheses on the main diagonal are the square roots of the average -variance-extracted (AVE). Gender was coded as dichotomous (0=male, 1=female); 53 % of
participants were women. Ordinal scales were used for age (1=up to 19, 6=over 55), and level of education (1=primary studies; 6=postgraduate degree).
Table 4
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Factor loadings SMC Composite reliability AVE

(F1) Servant leadership .668 .904 .651

(Cronbach alpha = .963)

My department manager…
X01… spends the time to form quality relationships with department employees .854
X02… creates a sense of community among department employees .852

X03…(his/her) decisions are influenced by department employees’ input .780

X04… tries to reach consensus among department employees on important decisions .849

X05… is sensitive to department employees’ responsibilities outside the workplace .827

X06… makes the personal development of department employees a priority .803

X07… holds department employees to high ethical standards .877

X08… does what she or he promises to do .819

X09… balances concern for day-to-day details with projections for the future .866

X10… displays wide-ranging knowledge and interests in finding solutions to work problems .823

X11… makes me feel like I work with him/her, not for him/her .861

X12… works hard at finding ways to help others be the best they can be .837

X13… encourages staff to be involved in community service and volunteer activities outside of work .692

X14… emphasizes the importance of giving back to the community .678

(F2) Employee creativity .685 .867 .685

(Cronbach alpha = .870)

Y15… I think I am a very creative person .792
Y16… I like to try novel things despite the risk of failing .892

Y17… I can easily think of a lot of different and useful ideas at work. .795

(F3) Servant attitude .544 .856 .543

(Cronbach alpha = .850)

Y18… I am willing to find better ways of serving others and making them successful .682
Y19… I am willing to make personal sacrifices in serving others .798

Y20… I am willing to maintain a servant attitude, even though some people may take advantage of it .766

Y21… I seek to meet the best interests of others rather than self. .716

Y22… I seek to serve others rather than be served .717

(F4) Intrinsic motivation .668 .850 .655

(Cronbach alpha = .850)

I have chosen this job…
Y23… because I enjoy it very much. .743
Y24… because I have fun doing it .817

Y25… for the moments of pleasure that it brings me .864

Control variables C01…Gender(*)

—— —— —— ——
C02…Age(*) —— —— —— ——
C03…Education(*) —— —— —— ——
C04…SDB(*)(Cronbach alpha = .75). —— —— —— ——

(*) Control variables were entered in the CFA as observed variables co-varying with all of the four latent factors and indicators. N = 403; CMIN = 758.995; df = 373; p< .001; CMIN/df =
2.035; CFI = .927; SRMR = .056; RMSEA = .059.

6
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
Note: AVE = Average Variance Extracted; SMC = Squared Multiple Correlation. We entered residual correlations between the X1 and X 2, and X13 and X14 item-
errors. SDB = Social desirability bias.
with the predictors and criterion variables. Second, the cover story we used to
introduce the study variables also attempted to generate psychological
separation among the variables, lowering the probability of their being linked.
For example, between the predictor and the rest of variables (mediator,
moderator and dependent), we placed the following brief cover story: “In life,
you should not let yourself be influenced by other things; you have to be
yourself and what you do and the attitudes you have are key to reaching
personal fulfillment”. Third, the pilot test described above confirmed that the
items were simple, specific and concise; the focus groups and cognitive
interviews revealed clarity, comprehension or readability. Fourth, the titles of
the study variables were omitted to reduce the likelihood of guessing the
relationships to be tested.
Two post hoc tests confirmed that CMB was not a major problem for the
data. Harman’s one-factor test, for example, revealed an unrotated factor
solution involving seven factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining
over 72 % of total variance. Because the first factor explained 33 % (less than
50 %), CMB appears not to be a serious concern in this study (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable test confirmed these
results. The marker variable, theoretically unrelated to any of the main study
variables, was the level of familiarity of the respondents with a particular
product (1= “not familiar,” 7=“very familiar”). The second-smallest correlation
between the marker variable and the variables (rm = .02) was partialled out
from the uncorrected correlations to check for the significance of this bias
(Lindell and Whitney, 2001). After controlling for this bias, all previously
significant correlations remained significant, thus confirming that CMB is
unlikely to be a concern in this study.
3.4. Data analysis
The research model was tested in a two-stage procedure. The first stage
involved testing the main effect of servant leadership on employee creativity
and the mediating effect of servant attitude in this relationship, for which we
used AMOS 22 with bootstrapping (5000 subsamples). The second stage
involved testing the moderated mediation model. In this latter stage, AMOS
22 was used to test whether intrinsic motivation moderates the servant
leadership and servant attitude relationships to employee creativity; PROCESS
v 3.1 (Hayes, 2017) was also used to test whether intrinsic motivation
moderates both the direct and the indirect effect (via servant attitude) of
servant leadership on employee creativity.
Prior to proceeding with this two-stage procedure, we conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the four variables in this paper through
structural equation modeling (SEM). The SEM indices used included the
comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR),
and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). We also
performed a set of customary procedures to check for convergent and
discriminant validity of the scales (Hair et al., 2006). As the correlation matrix
shows (Table 3), the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE)
values for each construct were greater than the corresponding correlations,
7
International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537
thus indicating discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Convergent
validity was also supported as the AVE for each variable was between .543 and
.685, thus higher than .50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981, Table 4).
4. Results
4.1. Preliminary analysis
Means, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in Table 3. The
results of the CFA reveal that the planned four-factor solution is acceptable
(CMIN = 758.995; df = 373; p < .001; CMIN/df = 2.035; CFI = .927; SRMR = .056;
RMSEA = .059), with CFI over .90 and SRMR and RMSEA below 0.08, thus
providing support for the uniqueness of all the variables (Hair et al., 2006). In
addition, we raised the more strained parts of the CFA model by calculating
the modification index outputs. Thus, the residual correlations between the
residual terms of the e1 and e2, and e13 and e14 errors were considered.
4.2. Hypothesis testing
To test H1a, H1b and H2, we considered the SEM model in Fig. 2, which
shows the main effect of servant leadership on creativity and posits servant
attitude as a mediator between servant leadership and creativity. As shown in
Fig. 2, in a SEM model where servant attitude is omitted from the analysis,
servant leadership is positively related to employee creativity (B = .395; p <
.001), which supports H1a. Fig. 2 also shows that servant leadership positively
relates to servant attitude (B = .555; p < .001), in support of H1b.
Regarding H2, Fig. 2 shows that when servant leadership is jointly modeled
with servant attitude and creativity, the main effect of servant leadership on
creativity (B = .395; p < .001, Fig. 2) is no longer significant (B = .051; ns, Fig. 2),
thus supporting servant attitude as a mediator. To further corroborate this
mediation, we tested the significance of the indirect effect of servant
leadership on creativity, as recommended (cf., Cheong and Mackinnon, 2012).
The bootstrapping method via Amos 22.0 (with 5,000 bootstrap subsamples)
confirmed the significance of this indirect effect (standardized indirect effect
= .24, p < .01). Finally, we compared the hypothesized model in Fig. 2 (CMIN =
620.232; df = 298; p < .001; CMIN/df = 2.081; CFI = .933; SRMR = .057; RMSEA
= .060) to this same model without the direct path from servant leadership to
creativity. Because this alternative model is more constrained (df = 299) than
the hypothesized model in Fig. 2 (df = 298) and the fit indices remain the same,
our alternative model (without a direct path) fits better (CMIN = 620.747; df =
299; p < .001; CMIN/df=2.076; CFI=.933; SRMR=.057; RMSEA=.060). The
change in the chi-square test of the “smaller” model (hypothesized model
without a direct path) compared to the “larger” model was insignificant (χ 2d (1)
= .515; dfd = 1; p > .05), but the rule of thumb does suggest deleting the direct
path (fixed to zero) and supporting the hypothesized model without this direct
path (Werner and SchermellehEngel, 2010). The positive impact of servant
leadership on creativity is therefore better modeled indirectly ― via servant
attitude ― than directly, in support of H2.
We next tested whether the indirect effect of servant leadership on
creativity increases (H3a) and the direct effect decreases (H3b) across different
levels of employee intrinsic motivation. Thus, we ran a model
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537

Fig. 2. SEM model of the servant attitude as a mediator in the relationship of servant leadership to employee creativity.
Notes: N = 259; CMIN = 620.232; df = 298; p <.001; CMIN/df = 2.081; CFI = .933; SRMR = .057; RMSEA = .060; ***p < .001.
1
In brackets are the path and R2 coefficients obtained in a SEM model previously conducted to test the main effect of servant leadership on creativity (CMIN = 404.035; df = 190; p <
.001; CMIN/df = 2.126; CFI = .947; SRMR = .057; RMSEA = .061).

Fig. 3. Results for the moderated mediation model.

Note: N = 259; CMIN = 50.035; df = 13; p <.001; CMIN/df = 3.849; CFI = .949; SRMR = .061; RMSEA = .089; *p <.01; **p< .001.
where the mediation of servant attitude is fixed partially and where intrinsic
motivation and both “servant attitude x intrinsic motivation” and “servant
leadership x intrinsic motivation” two-way interactions are added (Fig. 3). We
averaged the items of the independent variables (i.e., servant leadership,
servant attitude, intrinsic motivation) and centered them to reduce
multicollinearity (Aiken and West, 1991). The various fit indices shown in Fig.
3 reveal an acceptable fit to the model (CMIN = 50.035; df = 13; p < .001;
CMIN/df = 3.849; CFI = .949; SRMR = .061; RMSEA = .089). The two-way
8
interaction between servant attitude and intrinsic motivation also had a
significant positive effect on creativity (B = .184; p < .01), and the two-way
interaction between servant leadership and intrinsic motivation had a
significant negative effect on creativity (B = −.207; p < .001) (Fig. 3), which
supports the interaction terms involved in H3a and H3b, respectively.
Interestingly, a non-significant effect of intrinsic motivation on employee
creativity in Fig. 3 (B = .058; ns) appears to support the research model
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
proposed in this study, with intrinsic motivation playing a moderating role,
rather than a mediating one.
To better interpret these findings, high versus low intrinsic motivation
regression lines (+1 and −1 standard deviation from the mean) were plotted
4
3
2 Intrinsic Motivation
1
Low Employee Servant
Attitude
Fig. 4a. Interacting effects of servant attitude with intrinsic motivation on employee creativity.
Notes: Results of the simple slope analysis (Aiken and West, 1991): (+1SD) B = .63, SE = .08, p <.001; (-1SD) B = .45, SE = .08, p< .001. SE = standard error.
(Figs. 4a and 4b ) and simple slope analyses conducted (Aiken and West, 1991).
On the one hand, regarding the “servant attitude x intrinsic motivation” term,
the graph shows that the higher the intrinsic motivation, the stronger are the
positive effects of servant attitude (Fig. 4a). In particular, the simple slope
analysis reveals that when employees are intrinsically motivated (+1SD), the
size of the effect of servant attitude on creativity is stronger (B = .63, SE = .08,
p < .001) than when intrinsic motivation is low (-1 SD) (B = .45, SE = .08; p <
.001). On the other hand, regarding the second interaction term (servant
leadership × intrinsic motivation), the higher the intrinsic motivation level, the
weaker are the positive direct effects of servant leader on creativity (Fig. 4b);
the simple slope of servant leadership onto creativity is positive and significant
when intrinsic motivation is low (−1SD) (B = .29, SE = .08, p < .001) but is not
significant when intrinsic motivation is high (+1SD) (B = .12, SE = .08, ns). While
these analyses showed significant interaction terms in line with the predictions
in H3a and H3b, they still require further analyses to test moderated
mediation.
As a definitive test to confirm both H3a and H3b, we ran bias-corrected
bootstrap analyses via PROCESS v.3.1 (using 5000 subsamples, Hayes, 2017) to
test whether the indirect and the direct effect of leadership on creativity differ
at different levels of the moderator (intrinsic motivation) (Table 5). Given that
the 95 % confidence interval for the index of moderated mediation does not
include zero (index = .06, SE = .02, CI = .02, .12; Table 5), H3a and H3b can both
be supported. In particular, concerning H3a, our findings reveal that at -1
standard deviation (low intrinsic motivation) the indirect effect is lower (B =
.15, SE = .04, 95 % CI = .07, .25) than at +1 standard deviation (high intrinsic
motivation) (B = .30, SE = .06, 95 % CI = .19, .43), but in both cases, significant
(Table 5). For H3b, the direct effect is only significant at low levels of intrinsic
motivation; the direct effect is positive and significant at -1 standard deviation
(low intrinsic motivation) (B = .20, SE = .06, 95 % CI = .07, .34), but is non-
significant at the mean (B = .05, SE = .05, 95 % CI = −.05, .16) and at +1 standard
deviation (B = −.09, SE = .07, 95 % CI = −.25, .05).
9
International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1. Theoretical contributions
Low Employee
Intrinsic Motivation
High Employee
High Employee Servant
Attitude
The main aim of this research was to test and explain the mechanisms and
contingencies of the relationship between servant leadership and employee
individual creativity. Our results lead to three main conclusions. First, servant
leadership is important in enhancing employees’ level of creativity. Second,
the servant attitude that servant leaders shape in their followers explains why
they positively influence followers’ creativity. Third, in situations where
employees’ intrinsic motivation is high, the indirect influence of servant
leaders through servant attitude is augmented whereas the direct positive
effect of servant leadership is null. However, when the intrinsic motivation of
employees is low, the direct path gains significance again. Given these
conclusions, the study provides important contributions.
First, although previous research points to the important role of servant
leadership in enhancing employee creativity (Yoshida et al., 2014), existing
knowledge has been unclear about ‘how’ this relationship occurs. In this
regard, our study makes an important contribution by supporting employee
servant attitude as a critical mechanism through which servant leaders
enhance employee creativity. Although awakening a servant attitude in
followers is a principal tenet of servant leadership literature (Greenleaf, 1977),
this theoretical relationship had not yet been empirically tested. A few
attempts have examined other variables (i.e., customer service behavior, Liden
et al., 2014; customeroriented OCB, Wu et al., 2013), but without using a
generic servant attitude measure like the one employed in this study.
Furthermore, this work is the first to suggest that, rather than being an
outcome resulting from experiencing this leadership approach (Liden et al.,
2014; Wu et al., 2013), a servant attitude may link servant leaders to other
valuable employee outcomes, such as individual creativity. Furthermore, while
previous research has suggested that willingness to benefit others can be
important to boost creativity (Grant and Berry, 2011), this study demonstrates
that a related dispositional construct (i.e., servant attitude) can also positively
impact individual creativity.
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537

Second, our study is unique in explaining ‘when’― in addition to ‘how’― direct relationship. This means that in low intrinsic motivation conditions
servant leadership enhances employee creativity; that is, the personal servant leadership would influence directly, without needing employees to
boundary conditions upon which this relationship develops. While research on develop servant attitudes. The current study thus expands on previous
servant leadership reveals great benefits in terms of organizational outcomes literature by identifying intrinsic motivation as a substitute for this relationship
(Eva et al., 2019), it has failed to examine the active role that dispositional and supports previous findings (Ohana, 2016) and the theory of substitutes of
aspects can have in augmenting or minimizing the positive influence of this leadership (Kerr and Jermier, 1978) regarding the existence of substituting
leadership. Our results found that intrinsic motivation moderates the effect of factors (employee intrinsic motivation) that make the intervention of
servant leadership on leadership behavior (servant leader behavior) unnecessary to enhance certain
Table 5 employee outcomes (individual creativity). It also confirms previous work
The moderated mediation analysis (N = 259). supporting a positive interaction between intrinsic motivation and a construct
Servant leadership–servant related to servant attitude, such as willingness to benefit others (i.e., prosocial
attitude–employee creativity motivation; Grant and Berry, 2011), in predicting creativity. Although prosocial
Moderator: Intrinsic motivation (H3a) Bootstrapping effect SE LL UL motivation certainly seems to entail others’ perspectives (Grant and Berry,
−1SD(-1.18) .15 .04 .07 .25 Mean (0) .22 .04 .15 .32 2011), a servant attitude involves far deeper concerns for the authentic human
+1SD(1.18) .30 .06 .19 .43 needs and good of others (Melé, 2009), thus involving sound ethical
connotations for the creative process involved. In addition to seeking mere
usefulness, searching for innovations that are good for the beneficiaries’
human growth also helps boost creativity. Thus, we qualify this interaction by
introducing the concept of servant attitude and lay the foundations for further
Bootstrapping effect SE LL UL
studies that aim to study creativity at work from a more human perspective.
(H3b)

−1SD(-1.18) .20 .06 .07 .34 5.2. Managerial implications

Mean (0) .05 .05 −.05 .16
+1SD(1.18) −.09 .07 −.25 .05
The findings of this study have important implications for managerial
Index of Moderated Mediation SE 95 % BCA
CI (LL, UL) practice. First, in nurturing creativity, not only does leadership matter but also
LL UL requires managers to act as servant coaches rather than controllers. More
.06 .02 .02 .12 particularly, it requires managers to display core features of servant
leadership, such as servanthood, unconditional love, humility, and empathy
(van Dierendonck, 2011). In addition, because servant leadership leads

4
Low Employee
Intrinsic Motivation
3
High Employee
2 Intrinsic Motivation

1
Low Servant Leadership High Servant Leadership
Fig. 4b. Interacting effects of servant leadership with intrinsic motivation on employee creativity.
Notes: Results of the simple slope analysis (Aiken and West (1991): (+1SD) B = .12, SE = .08, p >.05, non-significant; (-1SD) B = .29, SE = .08, p <.001. SE = standard error.
Note: BCA CI = Bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = employees to creativity through servant attitude, and according to our
upper limit. SE = Standard Error. Indirect/direct effects are significant at p < 0.05 when findings, a lack of servant attitude might neutralize this link under high intrinsic
the 95 % BCA CI does not contain zero (Hayes, 2017). motivation conditions, the development of a creative workplace needs to
foster human values related to service to others. We thus suggest that firms
individual creativity. In high intrinsic motivation conditions, the indirect should enroll their supervisors on training initiatives oriented towards
positive effect of servant leadership through servant attitude would be improving their servant leadership skills, but also that employees should
strengthened, whereas in low intrinsic motivation conditions, this mediating develop favorable servant attitudes in general. In this sense, due to servant
role of servant attitude would be reduced. Interestingly, our study leaders’ ethical orientation (i.e., integrity, honesty, authentic, caring; Eva et al.,
demonstrates that, in low intrinsic motivation conditions, the mediated path 2019; Melé, 2009), ethics training programs could greatly help. Training
between servant leadership and employee creativity declines sufficiently to initiatives could also teach supervisors “when” servant leadership behavior is
reactivate the direct path (see Fig. 2), thus shedding light on when the social needed. For example, these initiatives could help them to identify their
exchange perspective (Blau, 1964) becomes more salient in substantiating this
10
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
followers’ level of intrinsic motivation, so they can better interpret when they
need to act as servant leaders. Finally, we also suggest that organizations
encourage the use of hiring practices that identify potential or current servant
leaders, as well as followers with servant attitudes.
Despite servant leadership being important in encouraging creativity, the
positive influence of such a leadership approach may take different paths
according to the level of employees’ intrinsic motivation. For example, in the
case of employees with low intrinsic motivation levels, as, for example, in hotel
jobs where discretion or routinization is extremely low or high, respectively
(i.e., cleaning service, back office jobs; Wang et al., 2014), managers should
know that by using a servant leadership approach they will be effective in
enhancing the level of creativity of these employees. For employees with an
internal desire, passion or love for their work, managers may be interested in
using this leadership approach, but could also consider complementing it by
using other mechanisms. For example, managers should focus, first and
foremost, on modelling a servant attitude among their employees and make
them aware of the importance of being a servant in their dayto-day work
activities. Finally, given that according to the findings, intrinsic motivation is
central for creativity to emerge, Human Resource (HR) managers should
devote time and effort to designing the work of their employees in a way that
is intrinsically motivating. In doing so, HR managers can ensure that, in addition
to employees being managed by servant leaders, the activities these
employees undertake are attractive and rewarding, which should enhance
their creativity levels. HR managers may follow, for example, Hackman and
Oldham’s (1980) recommendations to design tasks with autonomy, feedback,
skill variety, task identity, and task significance. In this regard, options that
managers could use to make jobs motivating include task combination,
introducing opportunities for employees to be in contact and have
relationships with customers (internal or external to the firm), enriching the
job (additional autonomy), or the design of feedback channels. If possible, job
enlargement (additional tasks) and/or rotation (shifting from one job to
another), which adds challenge and task variety, is also stimulating. Both
options can raise intrinsic motivation and simultaneously help employees to
be more creative, by gaining a variety of experiences and insights that are
useful to improve current services or ways of doing novel things in the job and
in the entire hotel.
5.3. Limitations and further research directions
This study has several limitations. First, the data were cross-sectional, so
the results might yield spurious causal inferences. However, a proven
theoretical framework (i.e., Theory of Reasoned Action; Ajzen and Fishbein,
1980) suggests that causality runs from attitudes to behaviors, not vice versa,
thus giving support to the causal direction proposed in this study. In any event,
further longitudinal studies are recommended. Second, because, in some
cases, several respondents worked in the same hotel, the structure of our data
could be potentially nested within hotels. However, no firm-level effects were
found to explain the variance of the dependent variable, nor were firm-level
variables included in our research model. In several cases, there was also only
one participant per hotel, thus indicating a lack of a nested structure in some
of the sample hotels. Nonetheless, although our results seem not to have been
biased by this issue, future research could collect more raters per supervisor
(not only one rater as in this study) to obtain more reliable responses
concerning the extent to which each supervisor is a servant leader. This would
support the use of a multilevel modeling approach to address the hierarchical
structure of the data (team level, individual level) and the potential variance
in creativity explained by team-level differences. Third, the findings are based
on the specific cultural context of Spain, where power distance is relatively
high (Hofstede Center, 1967–2010Hofstede Center, -, 2010Hofstede Center,
1967–2010), and thus our findings could be influenced by employees viewing
more favorably a situation where supervisors exert control over them. In fact,
in high power distance countries, employees tend to show higher satisfaction
levels with autocratic management (Hofstede, 1984). Moreover, the relatively
high collectivist culture in Spain (Hofstede Center, 1967–2010Hofstede Center,
-, 2010Hofstede Center, 1967–2010), which leads people to feel more involved
11
International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537
in, and more willing to contribute to, others’ lives positively, could have
contributed to the mediating effect of servant attitude found in this study.
Thus, future research should design cross-cultural studies to control for the
context-sensitivity of this study’s findings and increase external validity and
generalizability. Moreover, only subjective self-perceptions of creativity were
measured in this study; future research could use more objective indicators
(i.e., innovative behavior) by using supervisors’ ratings about how the
creativity of the employees was applied to specific products, processes or
services during a period of time (e.g., last year). Finally, it is important that new
variables are modeled to better explain and/or qualify how servant leadership
enhances employees’ individual creativity. For example, to understand the
“servant leadership-employee servant attitude” link better, the degree of
person–supervisor fit might have helped. Although the closeness of servant
supervisors should promote behavioral similarities for social learning motives
(Bandura, 1986), the process of shaping a servant attitude among the
employees might be much easier and direct if the employees’ values fit those
of the supervisor (Ruiz-Palomino and Martínez-Cañas, 2014). In addition,
because social exchange theory (SET, Blau, 1964) helped us understand why
servant leadership is directly and positively connected with employee
creativity under low intrinsic motivation conditions, future research could
measure the quality of the leader–member relationship to examine whether
SET actually plays a mediating role in this relationship.
Funding
Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivenessand FEDER,
Grant/Award Number: Project ECO2016‐75781‐P.
References
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R.K., Culpepper, S.A., 2013. Best-practice recommendations for
estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. J. Manage. 39 (6), 1490–
1528.
Aiken, L., West, S., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage,
Newburg Park, CA.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour.
Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Amabile, T.M., Hill, K.G., Hennessey, B.A., Tighe, E.M., 1994. The work preference inventory:
assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 66, 950–967.
Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B., Kramer, S.J., 2004. Leader behavior and the work
environment for creativity: perceived leader support. Leadersh. Q. 15, 5–32.
Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Bavik, A., 2016. Developing a new hospitality industry organizational culture scale. Int. J.
Hosp. Manage. 58, 44–55.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York.
Brislin, R.W., 1980. Cross-cultural research methods. In: Altman, I., Rapoport, A., Wohlwill, J.F.
(Eds.), Environment and Culture. Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 47–82.
Cheong, J., Mackinnon, D.P., 2012. Mediation/indirect effects in structural equation modeling.
In: Rick, H.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. Guildford Press, London, pp.
417–432.
Choi, B., Ko, S., Dobson, M., Schnall, P.L., García-Rivas, J., Israel, L., Baker, D., 2014.
Short-term test-retest reliability of the Job Content Questionnaire and Effort-Reward
Imbalance Questionnaire items and scales among professional firefighters.
Ergonomics 57, 897–911.
Collins, M.A., Amabile, T.M., 1999. Motivation and creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.),
Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 297–312.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A., 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-
analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl.
Psychol. 92 (4), 909–927.
Dennis, R., Winston, B.E., 2003. A factor analysis of page and Wong’s servant leadership
instrument. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 24 (8), 455–459.
Deshpande, S.P., Joseph, J., Prasad, R., 2006. Factors impacting ethical behavior in hospitals. J.
Bus. Ethics 69, 207–216.
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., 2011. Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics 54 (1), 12–20.
Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., 2010. Trainee programme reactions and work performance: the
moderating role of intrinsic motivation. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 13 (4), 409–423.
Ehrhart, M.G., 2004. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level
organizational citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 57 (1), 61–94.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., Liden, R.C., 2019. Servant Leadership: a
systematic review and call for future research. Leadersh. Q. 30 (1), 111–132.
Forgeard, M.J.C., Mecklenburg, A.C., 2013. The two dimensions of motivation and a reciprocal
model of the creative process. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17 (3), 255–266.
P. Ruiz-Palomino and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara International Journal of Hospitality Management 89 (2020) 102537

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable Tran, T.T., Pham, M.T., Le, L.T., 2019. E-satisfaction and continuance intention: the moderator
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 23, 39–50. role of online ratings. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 77, 311–322.
Gagné, M., Deci, E.L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. van Dierendonck, D., 2011. Servant leadership: a review and synthesis. J. Manage. 37 (4),
Behav. 26, 331–362. 1228–1261.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M.H., Aubé, C., Morin, E., Malorni, A., 2010. The motivation at Wang, A.C., Cheng, B.S., 2010. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The
work scale: validation evidence in two languages. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 70 (4), 628–646. moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. J. Organ. Behav. 31, 106–121.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.C., Farh, J.L., 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational Wang, C.J., Tsai, H.T., Tsai, M.T., 2014. Linking transformational leadership and employee
leadership and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative selfefficacy. creativity in the hospitality industry: the influences of creative role identity, creative self-
Acad. Manag. J. 52 (4), 765–778. efficacy, and job complexity. Tour. Manage. 40, 79–89.
Grant, A.M., Berry, J.W., 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Werner, C., Schermelleh-Engel, K., 2010. Deciding Between Competing Models: Chisquare
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and Creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 54 Difference Tests. Goethe University.
(1), 73–96. Wikhamn, W., 2019. Innovation, sustainable HRM and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Hosp.
Greenleaf, R.K., 1977. Servant Leadership: a Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Manage. 76, 102–110.
Greatness. Paulist Press, New York. Wu, L.Z., Tse, E.C.Y., Fu, P., Kwan, H.K., Liu, J., 2013. The impact of servant leadership on hotel
Guastello, S.J., 1995. Facilitative Style, Individual Innovation and Emergent Leadership in employees’ servant behavior. Cornell Hosp. Q. 54 (4), 383–395.
Problem Solving Groups. J. Creat. Behav. 29 (4), 225–239. Yang, J., Liu, H., Gu, J., 2017. A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: The roles of
Hackman, R., Oldham, G.R., 1980. Work Redesign. Addison-Wesley, Quezon City. self-efficacy and power distance. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 38 (5), 610–629.
Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed. Yoshida, D.T., Sendjaya, S., Hisrt, G., Cooper, B., 2014. Does servant leadership foster creativity
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. J. Bus.
Hayes, A.F., 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: a Res. 67 (7), 1395–1404.
Regression-Based Approach. The Guilford Press, New York. Zampetakis, L.A., Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Moustakis, V., 2011. Creativity and
Hofstede, G., 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. entrepreneurial intention in young people. Empirical insights from business school
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. students. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 12 (3), 189–199.
Hofstede Center, 1967 and 2010. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. retrieved July 23, 2018, Zhang, X., Bartol, K.M., 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the
from. https://geert-hofstede.com/. influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation and creative process
Hon, A.H.Y., 2012. Shaping environments conductive to creativity: the role of intrinsic engagement. Acad. Manage. Rev. 53 (1), 107–128.
motivation. Cornell Hosp. Q. 53 (1), 53–64. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., Viera-Armas, M., 2019. Does ethical leadership motivate
Hon, A.H.Y., Lui, S.S., 2016. Employee creativity and innovation in organizations: review, followers to participate in delivering compassion? J. Bus. Ethics 154 (1), 195–210.
integration, and future directions for hospitality research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Zou, W.C., Tian, Q., Liu, J., 2015. Servant leadership, social exchange relationships, and follower’s
Manage. 28 (5), 862–885. helping behavior: positive reciprocity belief matters. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 51, 147–156.
Javed, B., Khan, A.A., Bashir, S., Arjoon, S., 2017. Impact of ethical leadership on creativity: the
role of psychological empowerment. Curr. Issues Tour. 20 (8), 839–851.
Jeong, S., McLean, G.N., McLean, L.D., Yoo, S., Bartlett, K., 2017. The moderating role of non-
controlling supervision and organizational learning culture on employee creativity: the
influences of domain expertise and creative personality. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 41, 647–666.
Kerr, S., Jermier, J.M., 1978. Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 22 (3), 375–403.
Kuo, C.-M., 2009. The managerial implications of an analysis of tourist profiles and
international hotel employee service attitude. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 28 (3), 302–309.
Kuvaas, B., 2006. Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and
moderating roles of work motivation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 504–522 17: 3.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Liao, Ch, Meuser, J.M., 2014. Servant leadership and serving culture:
Influence on individual and unit performance. Acad. Manage. J. 57 (5), 1434–1452.
Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in crosssectional
research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1), 114–121.
Madison, K., Eva, N., 2019. Social exchange or social learning: a theoretical fork in road for
servant leadership researchers. Leading for High Performance in Asia: Contemporary
Research and Evidence-Based Practices, 1st ed. Springer, Singapore, pp. 133–158.
Melé, D., 2009. Business Ethics in Action: Seeking Human Excellence in Organizations.
Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Ohana, M., 2016. Voice, affective commitment and citizenship behavior in teams: the
moderating role of neuroticism and intrinsic motivation. Br. J. Manage. 27, 97–115. Page, D.,
Wong, P.T.P., 2000. A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In: Adjibolosoo,
S. (Ed.), The Human Factor in Shaping the Course of History and Development. University Press
of America, Boston, MA.
Panayotis, G., 2017. Creativity in a Drug the Hotel Industry cannot live without, Hotel
Online The B2B News Source. Available from https://www.hotel-online.com/press_
releases/release/creativity-is-a-drug-the-hotel-industry-cannot-live-without/.
Park, N.K., Chun, M.Y., Lee, J., 2016. Revisiting individual creativity assessment: triangulation in
subjective and objective assessment methods. Creat. Res. J. 28, 1–10.
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. J.
Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Polman, E., Emich, K.J., 2011. Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37 (4), 492–501.
Ruiz, P., Martinez, R., Rodrigo, J., 2010. Intra-organizational social capital in business
organizations: a theoretical model with a focus on servant leadership as antecedent.
Ramon Llull J. Appl. Ethics 1, 43–59.
Ruiz-Palomino, P., Martínez-Cañas, R., 2014. Ethical culture, ethical intent, and organizational
citizenship behavior: the moderating and mediating role of person–organization fit. J. Bus.
Ethics 120, 95–108.
Ryan, K., Gannon-Slater, N., Culbertson, M.J., 2012. Improving survey methods with cognitive
interviews in small- and medium-scale evaluations. Am. J. Eval. 33 (3), 414–430.
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L., 2004. What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadersh. Q. 15, 33–53.
Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., Oldham, G.R., 2004. The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: where should we go from Here? J. Manage. 30 (6), 933–958.
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L., Blum, T.C., 2009. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work
context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Acad.
Manage. J. 52 (3), 489–505.
Shin, S.J., Zhou, J., 2003. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence
from Korea. Acad. Manage. J. 46 (6), 703–714.
12