Alexandria University

Faculty of Business

Business Administration Department

The Determinants and Consequences of Servant Leadership

Behaviors: A Multi-Level Analysis and Theoretical Extension

A Research Proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirement for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration

Submitted by
Hadeer Atef Mustafa El-dokani

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Aly Abdel-Hady Messallam Dr. Ghada Adel Atteya

Prof. of Organizational Studies Associate Professor

Business Administration Department Business Administration Department

2024

1
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Research Problem 3
3. Research Objectives 7
4. Research Importance
4.1 Theoretical Importance 7
4.1 Practical Importance 9
5. Theoretical Background 10
5.1 Servant Leadership Behaviors 10
5.1.1 Social Exchange Theory 13
5.1.2 Social Learning Theory 14
5.1.3 Conservation of Resources Theory 14
5.2. Determinants of Servant Leadership Behaviors
5.2.1 Leaders‘ Personality traits 16
5.2.2 Motivation to serve 20
5.2.3 Follower‘s Proactive Personality 22
5.2.4 Follower‘s perception of person-supervisor fit 23
5.3 Consequences of Servant Leadership Behaviors
5.3.1.1 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors 25
5.3.1.2 Follower‘s Creativity 26
5.3.2.1 Team Performance 28
5.4.1 Team Trust Climate in the Relationship between Servant Leadership Behaviors 30
Follower and Team Outcomes
6. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
6.1 The relationship between personality traits and servant leadership behaviors 33
6.2 The relationship between motivation to serve and servant leadership behaviors 35
6.3 The relationship between follower‘s proactive personality and servant leadership 36
behaviors
6.4 The relationship between followers‘ perceptions of person –supervisor fit and 38
perception of servant leadership behaviors.
6.5 The relationship between servant leadership behaviors, follower‘s and team‘s 39
outcomes:
7. Proposed Conceptual Framework 47
8.Research Methodology 48
8.1 Study variables: Conceptual definitions and operationalization 48
8.2Population and Sampling 52
8.3 Data Collection Methods 53
8.4 The Pilot Study 53
8.5 Statistical Analysis techniques 53
8.6 Structure of the thesis 55
9. References 56
10. Appendices 67

2
1. Introduction:

The success of all economic, political, and organizational systems depends on the effective
and efficient guidance of their leaders (Parris & Peachey, 2013). In recent decades, organizations
worldwide have restructured work around teams to enable more flexible responses to changing
and complex work environments (Chiniara & Bentein, 2018). As a result, leaders must mobilize
not only individuals but also each team as an entity. According to the resource-based view,
leadership is a source of competitive advantage for firms because of its influence on both
individuals‘ and teams‘ work behaviors (Chen, Zhu & Zhou, 2015). Indeed, organizations need
an effective leadership that is responsive to the demands of the changing business climate
dominated by aspects of uncertainty (Setiawan & Irawanto, 2020).

During the past few years, leadership studies have clearly moved away from a strong focus on
traditional leadership concepts that are primarily associated with the exercise of power to a
stronger emphasis on a shared and relational perspective, where the interactions between leaders
and followers are basic elements (e.g., Liao, Lee, Johnson, & Lin, 2021). Specifically, servant
leadership has attracted research interests in the field of organizational studies, with a special
focus on the leader‘s role as a servant, prioritizing the needs of followers to enhance positive
organizational outcomes (Saleem, Zhang, Gopinath & Adeel, 2020; Newman, Schwarz, Cooper,
& Sendjaya, 2017). It provides leaders with the opportunity to put an alternative thought process
into practice to face the challenge of a changing world (Modise & Raga, 2023). Hence, serving
others has dramatically shifted center of leadership studies from solely leading (e.g., charismatic
and transformational) to balancing the paradox of leading and serving simultaneously. In this
context, the conceptual distinctiveness of servant leadership, coupled with its strong correlations
with a wide range of outcomes, make it attractive to future researchers and practitioners alike
(Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, & Wu, 2018).

Despite its ancient roots, the concept of servant leadership appears to be more relevant today
than ever before. After years of receiving little to no attention, the servant leadership approach
has recently been revisited and recognized as a leadership philosophy that addresses ethics and
morality (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020; Saleem et al., 2020). Specifically, the servant leadership
approach involves serving followers in multiple dimensions (e.g., relational, ethical, emotional,

3
spiritual) and empowering them to develop into "servant leaders" themselves. Furthermore,
servant leaders aim to cultivate followers based on their altruistic and ethical orientations. They
view themselves as stewards of the organizations (van Dierendonck, 2011; Greenleaf, 1977),
responsible for growing the financial, physical, human and other resources entrusted to them.
Therefore, servant leaders prioritize sustainable performance in the long run. As a result,
researchers have shown increased interest in the development of servant leaders who prioritize
the motivation, commitment, and performance of their followers above their own (e.g., Van
Dierendonck 2011; Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018; Amah, 2018).

Additionally, research indicates that followers are seeking leaders who demonstrate
trustworthiness and prioritize followers' growth (Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018). Followers
are motivated to emulate their servant leaders and extend their service to a wide range of
individuals, including coworkers, customers, the community, and society as a whole (Bao, Li, &
Zhao, 2018). Essentially, the true test of a servant leader is whether their followers themselves
become servants (Greenleaf, 1977). Therefore, encouraging followers to engage in servant
behaviors towards their colleagues is a challenging task, particularly due to the competitive
mentality fostered by most organizations' appraisal systems.

Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, Van Dierendonck, and Liden (2019) have indicated that the theoretical
basis for servant leadership research can be fruitfully expanded beyond social exchange, social
learning, and identity theories. For instance, the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989)
helps in understanding the consequences of utilizing a servant leadership, and how the negative
consequences can be mitigated and positive outcomes enhanced. In addition to that, scholars
have investigated specific mechanisms such as LMX, trust climate, psychological capital in the
relationship between servant leadership behaviors and followers‘ outcomes (e.g., citizenship
behaviors, voice behaviors, employee engagement, and team potency) (Eva et al., 2019). Despite
the growing attention from scholars and practitioners, servant leadership is still an under-
researched topic, and empirical studies remain limited (Langhof, & Güldenberg, 2020).
Specifically, researchers have shown that there is a gap in understanding the determinants of
servant leadership due to the lack of a guiding theory. On the other hand, the notion that servant
leaders seek to influence followers‘ behaviors without relying on positional or authoritative
power (Carter & Baghurst, 2014) raises questions regarding how they ‗‗lead‘‘ followers to

4
positively contribute to the organization in terms of an enhanced level of performance (Van
Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema, 2014).

It is important to mention that servant leadership behaviors positively affect outcomes across
multiple organizational levels including the individual level, team level, unit level and
organizational level (Williams, Randolph-Seng, Hayek, Haden & Atinc, 2017; Bavik, 2020).
Additionally, without clear evidence of the specific factors influencing servant leadership
behaviors, recipients of these behaviors may be reluctant to express gratitude in exchange for this
potential enactment of leader behaviors. Therefore, the current study aims to develop and test a
multi-level framework that assesses the determinants of servant leadership behaviors, the
mediating psychological processes through team trust climate, and their effects on both
individuals and teams outcomes.

2. Research Problem:
Scholars have demonstrated that empirical research on servant leadership primarily relies on
limited set of social-based theories (Eva et al., 2019; Schwarz, Newman, Cooper & Eva, 2016).
First, social exchange theory focuses on the norm of reciprocity, in which servant leaders and
followers provide valued resources in exchange for resources and support received from their
dyadic relationship (Blau, 1964). Second, social learning theory suggests that when followers
perceive their leader as a credible role model, they are more likely to observe and imitate the
leader's behaviors. While Social exchange theory and social learning theory have traditionally
been served as foundations for servant leadership research, scholars have demonstrated that
additional theoretical perspectives are needed as research delves into the antecedents of servant
leadership and the psychological mechanisms underlying its effects on followers' and teams‘
outcomes (Eva et al., 2019; Ruiz‐Palomino, Linuesa‐Langreo, & Elche, 2021).

Additionally, it has been noted that there is a lack of research on the determinants of Servant
Leadership (Eva et al., 2019; Paas, Poell, & Batistič, 2020). This gap in understanding the factors
influencing servant leadership behaviors has been well-established in the literature, with
numerous scholars calling for further studies to explore these determinants (Langhof &
Güldenberg, 2020; Eva et al., 2019; Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser, 2014). Therefore, given the
under-researched determinants of servant leadership behaviors, more research is still needed.

5
Based on a review of the literature and addressing the aforementioned research gap, several
important notes have been identified, as follows:

Scholars have shown that there are limited empirical studies examining the relationship
between personality traits and servant leadership (Eva et al., 2019; Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020;
Sun & Shang, 2019). In particular, the motivation of servant leaders stems from personality traits
that are naturally inclined toward developing positive relationships, highlighting the relevance of
the trait of agreeableness. Conversely, leaders may be reluctant to engage in servant leadership
behaviors. For instance, existing literature has demonstrated that the personality trait of
agreeableness is positively associated with servant leadership behaviors, while extroversion
discourages the adoption of servant leadership behaviors. Put another way, extraversion is related
to status striving and dominance within a status hierarchy (Hunter, Neubert, Perry, Witt, Penney,
& Weinberger, 2013). Hence, based on this limited evidence, the current study aims to examine
the role of personality traits in relation to servant leadership behaviors.

Scholars have also revealed that a leader‘s Emotional Intelligence (EI) is generally related to
effective leadership, and the components of EI have theoretical connections with servant
leadership (e.g., Goleman & Boyatzis 2017; Barbuto, Gottfredson & Searle, 2014). First, leaders
can manage their emotions are likely to exhibit self-control and able to delay gratification for the
benefit of their followers. Second, leaders can understand the emotions of others should be able
to respond quickly and accurately to the needs of their followers (Barbuto et al., 2014). However,
despite the growing number of studies examining the link between EI and servant leadership, a
meta-analytic review reveals that the empirical landscape of this relationship is mixed and
fragmented (Miao, Humphrey, & Qian, 2021). This calls for further research to investigate the
relationship between emotional intelligence and servant leadership behaviors.

Although rarely mentioned, Eva and colleagues (2019) have also indicated that servant
leadership is directly connected to Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Scholars believe that
utilizing SDT as a framework can help investigate the antecedents of servant leadership. Hence,
the lack of a guiding theory may be responsible for the gap in understanding the determinants of
servant leadership may be due to the lack of a guiding theory, and SDT may help bridge this gap.
Thus, SDT can be utilized to understand why leaders engage in pro-social behaviors. Therefore,

6
the current study argues that individuals who are inclined to find enjoyment in practicing servant
leadership (i.e. motivation to serve) are more likely to become servant leaders.

Furthermore, in order to challenge the conventional assumption that servant leadership is

solely a manifestation of the traits of the leader, it is important to investigate the role of
followers' characteristics in the leadership process (Torres, 2014; Wu, 2019). Indeed, scholars
have provided legitimacy to the role of followers' personal characteristics, such as proactive
personality and person supervisor fit. First, proactive employees are self-initiated, future-
focused, and highly value resources that can enhance their performance (Marstand, Martin, &
Epitropaki, 2017). Second, followers who have a high person-supervisor fit can be valuable
resources for a leader, as they can contribute to creating value for the organization (Grant, Gino,
& Hoffman, 2011). Consequently, leaders may be inclined to engage in servant leadership
practices in order to retain such followers.

Another rarely-discussed framework in the servant leadership literature is Aristotelian virtue

theory (Aristotle, 2004), which emphasizes actions guided by the practice of virtue. According to
Aristotle (2004), virtue involves desires and actions that promote personal and social good,
maximizing the well-being of individuals and communities (Sison & Fontrodona, 2011). Ruiz‐
Palomino and colleagues (2021) have suggested that virtue ethics theory could be applied to the
leadership–team performance relationship, indicating that both leaders (as servants) and
followers (in terms of their citizenship behaviors and creativity) are thought to engage in their
respective behaviors due to the intrinsic rewards associated with behaving virtuously (Wang &
Hackett, 2016). In organizational contexts, leaders, followers, and teams have the potential to act
for the common benefits.

Therefore, it would be argued that leaders as (servants), followers as (citizenship behaviors

and creativity), and the team as (performance) are thought to engage in their respective behaviors
for the intrinsic rewards associated with behaving virtuously. Scholars have provided empirical
evidence of the relationship between servant leadership, individual OCB and team performance
(Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018; Eva et al., 2019), however, it is important to mention that
although empirical results have revealed evidence of servant leadership's influence on individual
performance; scholars have only begun to investigate a relationship between servant leadership
and team performance (Chiniara & Bentein, 2018). Furthermore, while some empirical studies

7
have demonstrated a positive correlation between servant leadership and follower‘s creativity
(e.g., Zada, Khan, Saeed, & Zada, 2023), other researchers have revealed that the relationship is
not statistically meaningful (Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014).

In light of the conservation of resources theory, an alternative rarely mentioned theory in the
servant leadership context, followers tend to take a proactive resource gain strategy and invest
their resources in behaviors above minimum expectations such as voluntary, extra-role behaviors
as well as sharing resources with other members (Hobfoll, 2018). Furthermore, servant
leadership practices nurture the formation of a trusting climate within the team (Setiawan &
Irawanto, 2020). The current study will focus on the team trust climate as a resource gained from
servant leadership behaviors for the following reasons: First, scholars have shown that trust in
leadership is an important area for research for both individual and team outcomes (Bligh, 2016).
Second, In the process of serving and interacting with the followers, the leader develops in a high
level of interaction with them and would, therefore, influence the level of trust and relationship
(Schwarz et al., 2016). Third, team trust climate receives less attention than individual trust in
leadership (Jaiwal & Dhar, 2017). Thus, the current study focuses mainly on the mediating role
of team trust climate in the relationship between servant leadership behaviors, follower‘s
citizenship behaviors, and team performance.

Based on the above discussion and in response to research gap, the current study aims to
answer the following questions:
Q1: What are the determinants of servant leadership behaviors?
Q2: Do followers, while being served, become more likely to engage in organizational
citizenship behaviors?
Q3: Do followers, while being served, become more likely to exhibit high level of creativity?
Q4: Do teams, while being served, become more likely to exhibit a higher level of performance?
Q5: Does team trust climate mediate the relationship between servant leadership behaviors and
individual level variables (e.g., follower‘s OCB and follower‘s creativity)?
Q6: Does team trust climate mediate the relationship between servant leadership behaviors and
team level variable (e.g., team performance)?

8
3. Research Objectives:
Building on Self-Determination Theory, Conservation of Resources, and Virtue theory, the
current study aims to provide a theoretical extension of servant leadership by addressing the
following:
1. Investigating the determinants of servant leadership behaviors.
2. Examining the potential of servant leaders in encouraging followers to engage in
citizenship behaviors.
3. Examining the potential of servant leaders in encouraging follower‘s creativity.
4. Identifying the role of servant leadership behaviors in enhancing team performance.
5. Investigating some of the mediating variables (e.g., team trust climate) relating servant
leadership to follower‘s and team outcomes.

4. Research Importance:
This study has both theoretical and practical importance:

4.1 Theoretical Importance:

The current study seeks to provide a theoretical extension of servant leadership by including
variables of two levels of analysis: the individual and team. Hence, this study builds upon the
following:

First: research on servant leadership can be classified into three phases (Eva et al., 2019). The
first has emphasized the conceptual development of servant leadership. As a result, influential
scholars have developed different definitions representing a wide range of servant leadership
practices (e.g., Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson, 2008; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Second, the
measurement phase focuses on developing measures of servant leadership and testing the
relationship between servant leadership and outcomes. Specifically, it is important to mention
that the majority of studies on servant leadership have concerned with the development of
measurement instruments rather than understanding servant leadership‘s implications for
employee behaviors. (i.e., there are currently 16 measures in the extant literature) (Lapointe &
Vandenberghe, 2018; Parris & Peachey, 2013). Finally, the third phase rests on model
development where different complex research designs are utilized to go beyond simple
relationships to understand the antecedents, mediating mechanisms, and consequences of servant

9
leadership. Notably absent from the above streams are empirical studies that explore servant
leadership theory in a given organizational setting (Eva et al., 2019). Thus, depending on the
third phase, there is a compelling need for validated empirical study building on a theoretical
framework that incorporates key determinants of servant leadership behaviors, underlying
processes, and consequences. In particular, this study responds to several calls by researchers to
study the antecedents of servant leadership behaviors (Pass et al., 2020; Eva et al., 2019; Liden et
al., 2014).
Second: scholars have indicated that the multi-level effects of servant leadership are rarely
examined in the servant leadership literature (Chiniara & Bentein, 2018; Eva et al., 2019; Ruiz‐
Palomino et al., 2021; Zhang, Zheng, Zhang, Xu, Liu, & Chen, 2021). Thus, the current study
answers calls to examine the influence of servant leadership behaviors on multi-level constructs:
individual-level follower‘s OCB and creativity and the team level performance in a unified
model. Additionally, this study provides new insights into the ―role of higher-level phenomena
(i.e., team servant leadership behaviors) in the emergence, change, or behavior of the individuals
and teams. Indeed, scholars have demonstrated that studying servant leadership at the team
level may provide more valuable insights into predicting the behavior of team members (e.g.,
Yoshida et al., 2014).
Third: in line with Eva et al.‘s (2019) call to expand the range of theories in the context of
servant leadership, the current study will demonstrate how the virtue ethics of servant leaders
(e.g., courage, justice, and fairness) contribute to the positive functioning of servant leadership.
Indeed, scholars indicate that the modeling of servant leader-related virtues provides the basis for
the flourishing of both followers‘ citizenship behaviors and team performance and thus helps
meet the broader needs of the community (Sison & Fontrodona, 2011). Furthermore, scholars
have shown that servant leaders may contribute to a rise in followers‘ intrinsic motivation to
involve in creative activities (Khan et al., 2021). In other words, servant leadership practices
offer a context in which both team members and leaders have the opportunity to behave
virtuously to the mutual benefit of everyone involved.
Additionally, by testing motivation to serve as an antecedent of servant leadership behaviors,
a concept derived from self-determination theory, the current study elucidates why leaders
engage in servant leadership practices. Furthermore, in the context of conservation of resources
theory, the current study contributes to the servant leadership literature by investigating whether

10
a team trust climate can enhance the effectiveness of servant leadership. Specifically, servant
leaders have the responsibility of creating a trustful environment where the employees can thrive
and grow (Modise & Raga, 2023). This in turn extends researcher‘s understanding of the
emergence and prevalence of servant leadership and addresses the sustainability of servant
leadership in organizations. Furthermore, the current study advances the literature on servant
leadership by focusing on the role of followers' personal characteristics as antecedents to servant
leadership behaviors. Most of the available literature primarily assumes that servant leadership
solely manifests through the traits of the leader (Wu & Snell, 2024). Hence, this study examines
followers' proactive personality and person-supervisor (PS) fit as antecedents, rather than
outcomes, of servant leadership behaviors
Fourth: most of the studies in the context of servant leadership have been conducted in the
Western world e.g., USA (e.g., De Clercq, Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Matsyborska, 2014; Liden et
al., 2008; Newman et al., 2017) where employee relations and their preferences are already at the
highest priority for their organizations. Relative to the USA, Egypt has high power distance and
high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2019) which could leave employees feeling
uncomfortable with the egalitarian, empowering orientation of servant leaders. Hence, little is
known about the extent to which US-based findings linking servant leadership to OCB and team
performance extend to other cultures, including Egypt, where these relationships could be
weaker, which warrants a detailed investigation of this phenomenon. Accordingly, the current
study findings will be a valuable addition to the existing literature about servant leadership,
specifically from the Egyptian perspective.
4.2 Practical Importance:
The current study provides avenues for effectively preparing and supporting servant
leadership behavior. It is based on the following:

First: considering the organizational costs involved in leadership development practices (Day,
2000), organizations remain uncertain and face challenges about how to identify the potential
servant leadership behaviors during recruitment and about how to train supervisors to become
servant leaders (Barbuto et al., 2014). Thus, the current study provides insights into the
determinants of servant leadership behaviors that enable human resource

11
management/development practitioners to screen and select individuals for their SL potential
effectively and thus enhance the success rate of their leadership development practices.

Second: directing the organization‘s attention towards changing its way of leading employees
through involving followers in decision-making, encouraging followers to take initiative, and
being ready to support followers not only to improve the performance of the firm but also to
transform them into servant colleagues who are ready to manifest the same serving behavior
depicted by their leaders.

Third: the implementation of servant leadership practices plays a crucial role in fostering an
environment that encourages employees to embrace an innovative mindset when it comes to
problem-solving and the exploration of novel work approaches. This, in turn, cultivates a culture
characterized by innovation and imagination, which has the potential to lead to the creation of
new products, services, and procedures.

Fourth: working alongside the servant leader in an organization fosters a positive work
environment and climate of trust where interactions are more productive, and encourages
followers to become servants of the organization. In this sense, this study will help managers to
identify ―what‖ they can do (e.g., develop and use servant leadership skills) to enhance
followers‘ citizenship behaviors and team performance.

5. Theoretical Background:
5.1 Servant Leadership Behaviors:
Servant leadership can be defined as an (1) other-oriented approach to leadership (2)
manifested through one-on-one prioritizing of follower individual needs and interests, and (3)
outward reorienting of their concern for self towards concern for others within the organization
and the larger community (Eva et al., 2019:114). Interestingly, researchers have shown that
servant leadership behaviors overlap with other idealized styles of leadership (e.g.,
charismatic/transformational, ethical, and authentic leadership) (Brown & Trevin˜o, 2006).
However, scholars have indicated that servant leadership theoretically differs from traditional
approaches to leadership in several important ways: first, servant leadership emphasizes the
moral component, personal integrity, and forming solid long-term relationships with

12
subordinates, these concepts lacking from popular leadership theories, such as charismatic and
transformational leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2010; Liden et al., 2008). Second, although
ethical and authentic leadership involve moral dimensions (e.g., Brown & Trevin˜o, 2006),
servant leadership is distinctly concerned with the success of all organizational stakeholders. In
other words, it extends outside the organization—servant leaders serve multiple stakeholders
(Graham, 1991; Liden et al., 2008). Third, servant leaders act in the best interest of the followers,
focusing on followers‘ individual growth and development as an end in it-self (Smith, Montagno,
& Kuzmenko, 2004). On the contrary, other leadership behaviors, such as charismatic and
transformational leadership behaviors, focus on inspiring and engaging followers as the means to
achieve organizational goals (Bass, 1985).

Additionally, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) can be distinguished from servant leadership

in two ways: First: the central tenet of LMX is the perceived quality of the leader–follower
relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), whereas servant leadership emphasizes more on the
perceived quality of followers' development in various dimensions of self (e.g., emotional,
spiritual). Besides, servant leaders are usually viewed by followers as ―principled decision-
makers‖ who are concerned with the development of strong interpersonal relationships between
servant leaders and their followers thus enhance LMX (Newman et al., 2017). Second: LMX
differs from servant leadership in one of the same ways that it differs from transformational
leadership; a servant leader has the responsibility towards different organizational stakeholders
beyond his/her subordinates. Third: a key tent of servant-leadership is the ethical behavior of the
leader; this aspect is indirectly included in LMX theory. Based on the above discussion, it seems
that servant leadership uniquely involves a ―combined motivation to be a leader with a need to
serve‖. Besides, it highlights multiple aspects that are not fully tackled in alternative leadership
constructs (Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011). Accordingly, leadership scholars have called attention to
the implicit connection between servanthood and leadership (i.e., servant leadership) (e.g.,
Langhof & Guldenberg, 2020).

It is important to mention that the term of ―servant leadership‖ has been coined by Robert
Greenleaf (1904-1990) in his seminal work ―The Servant as Leader,‖ first published in 1970.
Greenleaf (1977) has defined servant leadership in a descriptive manner and has indicated that
servant leadership is not just a management technique utilized by organizations but a way of life

13
that begins with ‗‗the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first then a conscious
choice brings one to aspire to lead, That person is sharply different from one who is leader first‖.
In particular, the servant leader is an empathetic leader who needs to be a good listener, develops
and fosters a culture of shared learning and helps to develop creative insights at the workplace.
Hence, Greenleaf (1977) has emphasized ―going beyond one‘s self-interest‖ as a core
characteristic of servant leadership. Additionally, a servant-leader has the role of a steward who
holds the organization in trust and goes beyond self-interest and the need for power. However, it
is important to note that servant leadership does not imply an attitude of servility in the sense that
the power lies in the hands of the followers or that leaders would have low esteem. Instead,
servant leaders contribute to increasing the autonomy and responsibility of followers, to
encourage them to think for themselves (Van Dierendonck, 2011).

Van Dierendonck, (2011) has indicated that Greenleaf‗s (1977) definition of servant leadership
lacks accuracy, leading to numerous interpretations that represent a wide range of behaviors. As
a result, influential scholars have developed different definitions. For instance, Spears (1995),
who gained his knowledge from practice rather than empirical research, is one of the first and
most influential individuals to translate Greenleaf‘s ideas into a model that characterizes the
servant-leader. Spears identified ten characteristics of servant leaders, including listening,
empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, philosophy, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship,
commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears, 1995). Another
significant researcher in defining servant leadership is Laub (1999). Laub described six key
variables of an effective servant-led organization: (a) valuing people (b) developing people by
providing learning and growth opportunities (c) building community by developing strong
collaborative and personal relationships; (d) displaying authenticity by being open, accountable,
and willing to learn from others; (e) providing leadership by foreseeing the future, taking
initiative, and establishing goals; and (f) shares leadership by facilitating and sharing power.

It is important to note that servant leadership was introduced into an organizational context
through Greenleaf‘s three foundational essays: The Servant as Leader (1970), The Institution as
Servant (1972a), and Trustees as Servants (1972b). As a result, Greenleaf‘s early work (1970)
reflected more of a servant leadership philosophy than a servant leadership theory characterized
by specific dimensions and theoretical framework (Liden, Wayne, Meuser, Hu, Wu, & Liao,

14
2015). Consequently, researchers have begun to develop compelling frameworks of servant
leadership in the organization context (e.g., Liden et al. 2008; Liden et al. 2015). Liden and
colleagues (2008) has revealed that servant leadership consists of seven dimensions: A)
emotional healing, which involves being sensitive to the personal concerns of followers; B)
creating value and concern for the community; C) conceptual skills, which include showing
knowledge about the tasks needed to provide help to followers; D) empowering followers to
identify and solve problems and to determine when and how to complete work tasks; E)
demonstrating concern for followers’ career growth and development; F) prioritizing the
satisfaction of followers‘ work needs; and finally, G)behaving ethically, interacting fairly, and
honestly with others.

Although numerous scholars have focused on the dimensions of servant leadership behaviors,
the servant leadership theory is still under-defined. Hence, scholars have indicated that the
theoretical frameworks for empirical research on servant leadership predominately draw from
social-based theories which are based on the norm of reciprocity in which followers feel obliged
to reciprocate the positive leader behaviors with positive follower behaviors of their own. Thus,
the following sections will provide the theoretical foundation of social exchange theory and
social learning theory, which are regarded as important bases for servant leadership research.

5.1.1 Social Exchange Theory:

According to social exchange theory, social exchange involves an expectation of

reciprocation, so that both parties find the relationship rewarding and worthwhile to continue
(Blau, 1964). In the context of servant leadership, followers must maintain a balanced social
exchange with their servant leader by being emotionally close to their leaders (i.e. high quality of
leader member exchange), and reciprocating with positive job attitudes and behaviors. This
includes: employee‘s voice behavior (Song, Tian, & Kwan, 2022), follower‘s engagement (Bao
et al., 2018), and affective trust in the leaders (Schaubroeck, Lam & Peng, 2011). This viewpoint
is consistent with Greenleaf (1991)‘s argument that servant leaders have the potential to
transform their followers into servant leaders themselves, as explained by the social learning
theory.

15
 5.1.2 Social Learning Theory:

According to social learning theory, an employee‘s behavior is reshaped by their social

environment. Specifically, this theory proposes that individuals learn by observing and emulating
the attitudes, values and behaviors of their leaders (Bandura, 1977). Compared to other
leadership styles, servant leaders are more likely to be viewed as credible role models (Schwarz
et al., 2016). Therefore, within the context of servant leadership, leaders who prioritize their
follower‘s needs by empowering them and engaging them in social welfare work for the
community serve as ideal role models for their followers. It has been observed that followers
who perceive their leader as a source of inspiration eventually imitate their behaviors, leading to
increased productivity and a display of helpful behavior towards a broader range of stakeholders
(Kumari, Abbas, Hwang, & Cioca, 2022; Liden et al., 2008). This observation aligns with the
fundamental principle of servant leadership, where leaders consider multiple stakeholders,
including the larger society (Liden et al., 2008). Moreover, the impact of role-modeling is
consistent with Greenleaf‗s (1977) servant leadership theory, which posits that the true test of a
servant leader lies in whether their followers themselves become servants.

Although servant leadership framework is primarily built upon the fundamental principles of
social learning theory and social exchange theory, Scholars have demonstrated that the
theoretical foundation for servant leadership research can be expanded beyond these theories. In
other words, while these theories help explain and understand the processes through which
servant leadership behaviors influence follower behaviors, additional theoretical perspectives are
required as research moves beyond servant leadership dimensions to follower outcomes to
explore determinants of servant leadership behaviors, psychological mechanisms, and follower
outcomes. To address this need, the current study, drawing on Eva and colleagues‘ (2019)
literature review, aims to incorporate conservation of resources, self-determination theory, and
virtue theory into the theoretical framework for servant leadership research.

5.1.3 Conservation of Resources Theory

Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) posits that individuals strive to
acquire and safeguard personal, social, and material resources that they highly value. At its core,
COR theory is a motivational theory that elucidates human behavior by emphasizing the

16
accumulation of resources to meet future needs and cope with work-related challenges (Hobfoll,
Halbesleben, Neveu, & Westman, 2018). Drawing on COR theory, scholars argue that servant
leadership provides followers and teams with resources that contribute to positive outcomes,
such as follower engagement (Zeeshan, Ng, Ho, & Jantan, 2021), team creativity (Yang, Liu, &
Gu, 2017), and organizational citizenship behavior (Saleem et al., 2020). However, Newman and
colleagues (2017) have demonstrated that the mechanisms underlying the link between servant
leadership and organizational citizenship behavior are still poorly understood.

Servant leaders' emphasis on follower development also contributes to the enhancement of

followers' personal resources, encompassing physical, intellectual, social, and psychological
resources, thereby expanding the scope of attention and cognition (Yoshida et al., 2014).
Moreover, servant leaders possess the potential to cultivate a servant mindset in their followers,
encouraging them to assist colleagues and the organization in finding creative solutions to
address specific work problems (Malingumu, Stouten, Euwema, & Babyegeya, 2016).
Consequently, this study deliberately focuses on examining the extent to which servant leaders
enhance team performance

Furthermore, based on servant leadership and trust theory, this study proposes team trust
climate as a mediator in the relationship between servant leadership and team performance.
According to social exchange theory, servant leaders enhance the quality of social exchange
relationships characterized by high levels of trust and interaction, thereby promoting positive
work outcomes for followers. Empirical studies have supported this notion, revealing that servant
leaders generate strong personal motivation in followers and teams, resulting in higher levels of
citizenship behaviors and performance, respectively (e.g., Yoshida et al., 2014; Malingumu et al.,
2016).

5.2. Determinants of Servant Leadership Behaviors:

This section discusses the determinants that encourage leaders to engage in servant leadership
behaviors, including the leader's attributes, such as personality traits, emotional intelligence, and
motivation to serve, as well as followers' attributes, such as proactive personality and person-
supervisor fit.

17
First: Leader’s Attributes:

5.2.1 Leader’s Personality traits:

Scholars have demonstrated that the most comprehensive framework for studying servant
leadership revolves around the domain of personality (e.g., servanthood, integrity, & humility)
(Politis & Politis, 2012). In essence, organizations need to appoint leaders with a specific set of
personalities that will reflect servant leadership attributes. Hence, the current study attempts to
gain more theoretical and practical insights on how leaders‘ personality traits affect servant
leadership practices. Personality traits reflect an individual's inherent tendencies to behave in
certain ways and are generally stable and resistant to change (Khan et al., 2021). Specifically,
personality traits influence the level of intensity and effort individuals invest in different
situations over time (Parks & Guay, 2009). Previous studies have demonstrated the significance
of personality traits in determining leaders' behaviors. Specifically, the big five personality traits
could determine the leaders‘ effectiveness and their behaviors toward others (Politis & Politis,
2012). However, limited empirical research has investigated the impact of personality traits on
servant leadership behaviors. Scholars have shown that, of the five factors of personality,
agreeableness and extraversion are the most likely to be associated with servant leadership (Sun,
Gergen, Duncan, Hinojosa, & Green, 2017; Eva et al., 2019). In this regard, this study will enrich
the scholarly understanding of the role of personality factors in developing servant leadership
practices.

Accordingly, consistent with previous research, this study proposes that agreeableness and
extraversion, two of the Big Five personality traits, are particularly relevant to servant leadership
(e.g., Hunter et al., 2013). Scholars have indicated that both agreeableness and extraversion play
important roles as antecedents of servant leadership because they are associated with
motivational tendencies that align with being a servant leader (Hunter et al., 2013).
Agreeableness is characterized by empathetic concern for others, while extraversion reflects a
propensity for sociability, assertiveness, talkativeness, and activity (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Specifically, agreeable leaders demonstrate genuine interest in their followers' work, well-being,
and development, investing considerable energy and effort into cultivating positive relationships
(Hunter et al., 2013). Therefore, scholars have identified agreeableness as an important

18
individual characteristic of servant leaders (Sun & Shang, 2019). In contrast, extraverts tend to
seek influence, strive to assert their ideas over others, engage in more talking than listening, and
generally dominate social interactions (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011; Hunter et al., 2013).
Based on these considerations, the current study suggests that agreeableness is positively
associated with servant leadership behaviors, while extraversion is negatively associated with
servant leadership practices.

Another potential antecedent of servant leadership behaviors is emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence is a form of social intelligence that involves the capacity to recognize and
understand one's own emotions, as well as the emotions, beliefs, and internal states of others, in
order to guide one's own actions and the actions of others (Goleman, 1995). The study of
emotional intelligence has expanded across various fields, including health, education, human
resources, and psychology. This growth has also led to the development of numerous validated
instruments designed to measure emotional intelligence (Fernández-Berrocal & Extremera,
2006).

Different theoretical models have been proposed to explain the emotional components that
underlie emotionally intelligent individuals and to identify the mechanisms and processes that
facilitate the utilization of these abilities in everyday life. The EI ability-based model, first
proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), considers emotional intelligence as a cognitive ability. It
encompasses the ability to accurately perceive, evaluate, and express emotions, the ability to
utilize emotions to facilitate thinking, the ability to integrate emotions into various cognitive
processes and decision-making, and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and
personal growth. Researchers have primarily focused on designing and developing measures of
these abilities, as evidenced by the creation of the MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2003), which assesses emotional intelligence
through performance-based measures.

Second, Bar-On‘s (2006) Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI) model is more comprehensive

than Mayer and Salovey‘s model (1997). In particular, emotional intelligence is a combination of
emotional and social competencies and skills that determine how effectively individuals
understand and express themselves and others and cope with daily demands (Bar-On, 2006).
Hence, emotional intelligence consists of five high level factors, which are subdivided in 15

19
sub-factors: 1) Intrapersonal Skills refers to the ability of being aware and understand emotions
in the self, and it is subdivided into the 5 sub-factors (e.g., self regard, Emotional Self
Awareness, Assertiveness, Independence, and Self-Actualization; 2) Interpersonal Skills refers to
the ability of being aware and understanding emotions in the others, and it is subdivided into the
three sub-factors (e.g., Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal Relationship); 3)
Adaptability refers to the ability to accept to change our feelings depending on the situations,
and includes the 3 sub-factors Reality-Testing, Flexibility, and Problem-Solving; 4) Stress
Management refers to the ability to cope with stress and control emotions, it consists of Stress
Tolerance and Impulse Control; and lastly, 5) General Mood refers to the ability of expressing
positive emotions, and comprises the Optimism and Happiness (Bar-On, 2006).

Third, Goleman‘s model of Emotional Intelligence: is a model of competencies focused on the

workplace: According to Goleman, (2001), emotional competence is ―a learned capability that
results in outstanding performance at work. It has been indicated that emotional intelligence
consists of four essential dimensions, which are: 1) Self-Awareness, comprising emotional self-
awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-confidence; 2) Social Awareness comprising
empathy, service orientation, and organizational awareness; 3) Self-Management consisting of
self-control, trustworthiness, adaptability, and Initiative; and finally, 4) Relationship
Management which comprises developing others, building bonds, teamwork and collaboration.
According to Goleman‘s model of emotional intelligence, each one of these four dimensions
contributes to developing other learned abilities or competencies necessary in the workplace.
However, Fernández-Berrocal, and Extremera, (2006) have demonstrated that Goleman‘s model
of Emotional Intelligence lacks empirical support.

Scholars have demonstrated that emotional intelligence has traditionally been measured both
as a set of personality traits/ behavioral tendencies and as a set of cognitive abilities which
creates some confusion because the two measurements assess different constructs (MacCann &
Roberts, 2008). According to Meyer, Caruso, and Salovey‘s study (2000), emotional intelligence
assesses four emotion-related abilities namely: (a) the perception and expression of emotions; (b)
the integration of emotions into thought processes; (c) understanding the relations between
emotions and circumstances; and (d) the management of emotions to moderate negative, and
enhance positive emotions (The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; MSCEIT;

20
Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003). Hence, MacCann and Roberts (2008) have
revealed that MSCEIT scores are more strongly related to cognitive ability than understanding
the theoretical base of emotional intelligence (i.e., emotional intelligence is more like test effects
rather a construct effects) .Therefore, to address this issue, two alternative tests are developed to
assess EI—the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) and the Situational Test of
Emotion Management (STEM)—to address the appraisal of emotional understanding per se,
indicating that emotional intelligence should be distinct from personality traits and be considered
part of the intelligence domain.

Building on the above discussion, it seems that the diversity of the efforts made regarding the
definition and the assessment of the concept demonstrates a satisfactory scientific explanation of
the relationship between emotional intelligence and different outcomes at the workplace. Hence,
emotional intelligence has been studied and identified as an antecedent to various leadership
types (e.g., Barbuto et al., 2014). In particular, scholars believe that emotional intelligence is
both theoretically and practically relevant to servant leadership. Theoretically, a servant leader‘s
sensitivity to others‘ feelings and beliefs should influence the leader‘s desire to exhibit servant
leadership behaviors. In practice, emotional intelligence is considered an important trait-like and
skill-like quality, making it potentially useful for selection, training, and development of leaders
(Barbuto et al., 2014). Indeed, scholars suggest several commonalities between SL and EI like
empathy, trust and the ability to develop and maintain healthy relationships with others in
organizations (e.g., Sendjaya & Pekerti, 2010).

Additionally, Barbuto and colleagues (2014) have indicated that there are several theoretical
rationales to explain the relationship between emotional intelligence and servant leadership
behaviors. First, leaders can manage their emotions are likely to exhibit self-control and able to
delay gratification for the benefit of their followers. Second, leaders can understand the emotions
of others should be able to respond quickly and accurately to the needs of their followers
(Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000; Barbuto et al., 2014). For instance, in the context of social
learning theory, servant leadership behaviors may be associated with emotional intelligence
(Malik, Muneeb, Khan, Usman, & Latif, 2022). The social learning theory assumes that employees‘
behavior is changed by observing the behavior of others or learning from them. Hence, the
theory focuses on a social learning and cognitive progression in one‘s personality who first

21
observes and then imitates before finally adopting or adapting the behaviors of others. Hence,
for leaders to put the interests of followers before their own, they should have the ability to avert
their own interests, emotions, and needs.

5.2.2 Motivation to Serve

Self- determination theory (SDT) is a general theory of human motivation that is fully applied
to the study and prediction of human behavior (Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010). It
uniquely treats behavior as genetic and coming from intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
SDT proposes that motivation is crucial to how people stimulate themselves and others to act
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). Besides, it indicates that individuals are capable of, from their desire,
deciding what behaviors to exhibit, thus emphasizing the role of psychological needs satisfaction
in an individual‘s behavioral change. More specifically, Deci and Ryan (1985) have indicated
that the Psychological Needs Satisfaction (PNS) includes three dimensions: autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. Autonomy: facilitates making personally relevant choices and
exerting self-direction. Competence: involves an employee‘s knowledge, skills, and abilities,
leading to successful fulfillment of responsibilities. Relatedness: depends on reciprocity among
employees when they feel a sense of connectedness and positive interpersonal relationships. SDT
suggests that meeting the three fundamental psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness contributes to developing intrinsic motivation toward effective behavior (Deci,
Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017).

Hence, maintaining a high level of PNS is fundamental to achieving high levels of intrinsic
motivation as PNS facilitates internalization (i.e., the extent to which an individual experiences a
motivation as being fully self-determined versus being externally controlled by extraneous
contingencies), in turn induces that servant leaders indirectly serve their own psychological
needs, through serving those of others. In other words, satisfying the ―need to serve‖ fuels
leader‘s motivation to expend energy into the growth of followers (Greenleaf, 1970). In this
sense, SDT explains this self-motivation to serve, putting forward that individuals will
internalize behaviors that align with their personality traits, values and past experiences (Paas et
al., 2020).

22
 In the context of servant leadership, servant leaders require self-knowledge, which makes the
fulfillment of one‘s basic psychological needs essential for being a servant leader, as suggested
by self-determination theory (van Dierendonck & Heeren, 2006). In addition, as servant
leadership theory assumes a self-deterministic process in the leader‘s prioritization of others‘
needs over their own. SDT is, therefore, well-equipped to enhance our understanding of the
emergence of servant leadership practices as a consequence of intrinsic motivation. However,
scholars have shown that the ―motivation to serve‖ has only been conceptualized, rather than
being tested empirically (Paas et al., 2020). Accordingly, the current study aims to investigate the
role of ―motivation to serve‖ in enhancing servant leadership practices. Motivation to serve can
be described as ―a leader‘s inclination or willingness to promote the interest of his or her
subordinates‖ (Ng, Koh, & Goh, 2008: 128). Indeed, Greenleaf (1977) has revealed that
motivation to serve should drive servant leadership. In this sense, empirical studies have revealed
that leaders that possess high levels of motivation to serve would be more likely than those that
do not to demonstrate servant leadership behaviors (e.g., Pass et al., 2020).

Second: Follower’s Attributes

To better adopt a serving behavior, leaders pay attention to the specific kind of followers they
are leading. They are more likely to be motivated and encouraged by proactive and value-
congruent followers compared to leaders with other leadership styles that are leader-focused.
Therefore, the current study will specifically examine the effect of followers' proactive
personality and person-supervisor fit on promoting servant leadership. In essence, the majority of
leadership research has primarily focused on examining leaders' characteristics, skills,
perceptions, and behaviors that impact their preferences for a particular leadership style (Torres,
2014). As organizational structures become flatter, more responsibilities are delegated to
followers. Consequently, researchers have shifted their focus towards followership by exploring
how followers' characteristics influence leaders' effectiveness (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber,
2009). This line of research has often been referred to as "Followership," which is defined as "the
extent to which individuals believe that the follower role involves partnering with leaders to
advance the mission and achieve optimal levels of productivity" (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012, p.
211).

23
 Kelley (1988) has recognized the need for followers focus in leadership research and has
proposed a comprehensive followership model based on two behavioral dimensions of
followership: the first dimension emphasizes on the degree to which a follower exercise
independent and critical thinking and the other measures the followers based on passive or active
scale of engagement. Additionally, Chaleff (1995) has proposed that leadership research should
incorporate a dynamic model of followership, embracing the identity of followers. Hence,
scholars have provided a legitimacy of the role of followers in the leadership process.

It seems that the concept of servant leadership shares many characteristics with followership.
Specifically, Servant leadership is a follower-based leadership style in which leaders aim to serve
followers‘ needs first and recognize their potential develop them into servant leaders (Greenleaf,
1977). Thu, to gain a better understanding of followers‘ roles in the leadership process, the
current study will examine the personal characteristics of followers that are related to servant
leadership practice. Building on this discussion, the current study aims to investigate the role of
follower‘s personal characteristics (e.g., proactive personality) on servant leadership practices.

5.2.3 Follower’s proactive personality:

Proactive personality refers to a behavioral tendency to identify opportunities for change and
actively manipulate the environment to act on those opportunities (Crant, 2000). Individuals with
a proactive personality, in contrast to more passive individuals, actively search for new ideas to
improve work practices, proactively change their circumstances, and invest in skill development
(Newman et al., 2017). Previous studies have provided support for the association between
followers' personal characteristics and their preferences for specific leadership styles (Torres,
2014). Therefore, similar to research conducted on other leadership approaches; the current study
anticipates finding a positive influence of followers' proactive personality on their perceptions of
servant leadership behaviors.

According to followership literature, proactive followers are considered "active participants"

in the leadership process, as they take initiative to shape their circumstances instead of being
passively influenced by others (Bakker et al., 2012). Furthermore, followers with a proactive
personality are more likely to exert influence on their leaders, advocating for their needs to
preserve existing resources or prevent resource loss. Proactive followers are driven by concerns

24
for the benefits of their department or organization. Additionally, their proactive personality
encourages them to develop social networks and foster high-quality leader-member exchange
relationships with their leaders. Consequently, proactive followers are able to leverage their
existing resources to persuade leaders to engage more in servant leadership practices. In other
words, these positive aspects of proactive followers empower them to expand their resource
reservoir and convince leaders to empower them as well, fostering their growth and success (
Wu, 2019).

5.2.4 Follower’s perception of person-supervisor (PS) fit:

Person-supervisor fit refers to the perceived match between employees‘ and supervisors‘
characteristics (values, personality, and behavioral styles) (Van Vianen, Shen, & Chuang,
2011).The concept of fit concerns the extent to which employees perceive that their
characteristics (e.g., personalities and values) are similar to those of their environment.
Employees may perceive fit with their job (person-job fit), with their supervisor (person–
supervisor fit), with their coworkers (person-group fit) and the culture of the organization
(person–organization fit) (Van Vianen et al., 2011). Scholars have indicated that one type of fit
may strengthen or weaken the effect of another type of fit (Van Vianen et al., 2011). In the
context of servant leadership, the current study will focus on the followers‘ perception of person-
supervisor fit.

Northouse (2013) has indicated that follower receptivity is an important determinant of

servant leadership behaviors. Actually, not all followers want to work with servant leaders. They
don‘t want their leaders to get to know them on a higher level. Consistent with Northouse (2013),
the followership literature necessitates the importance of considering the follower‘s impact on
servant leadership. Thus, followers with value congruence with their leaders (high person-
supervisor fit) are more likely to understand, accept and appreciate leaders‘ serving behaviors
(Wu, 2019).

The person-supervisor fit is related to the value congruence of the followers with their leaders.
Wu (2019) has shown that sharing common values with leaders is regarded a personal resource
for followers as it helps followers to obtain more psychical and emotional resources to maintain
their current resources and accumulate further resources. By implication, scholars have provided

25
support for the relationship between followers‘ person-supervisor (PS) fit and servant leadership.
First, followers with high PS fit are motivated to identify how they are treated by leaders without
being misunderstood because they have similarities. Second, the existence of high PS fit
contributes to positively influence leaders and help leaders understand follower‘s concerns and
needs. This is because value congruence and shared standards can promote intercommunication
and enhance interpersonal attraction and trust between leaders and followers (Kim & Kim,
2013). Third, followers with high PS fit have greater acceptance of servant leadership behavior
by their leader, which reinforces servant leadership practices (Wu, 2019).

Accordingly, building on followership and servant leadership literature, the current study aims
at providing a rich understanding of servant leadership development. More specifically, this
study aims at investigating the role of followers‘ proactive personality and person supervisor fit
on the adoption of servant leadership practices.

5.3 Consequences of Servant Leadership Behaviors

Several studies have recognized the capability of servant leaders to create benefits for
individuals, teams, and organizations (Eva et al., 2019). In particular, servant leadership has been
considered as a strong determinant of followers‘ organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa
et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2016). However, the conditions under which this link is enhanced have
received little research attention (Hunter et al., 2013; Walumbwa et al., 2010; Thao, & Kang,
2020). Scholars have indicated that servant leadership has direct ties to Aristotelian virtue theory
(Ruiz‐Palomino et al., 2021). In particular, the conceptualization of servant leadership involves
courage, justice, fairness and humanity (i.e., creating a sense of community among employees,
concern for subordinates‘ personal development, and encouraging community service) (Ehrhart,
2004). When leaders model these virtues, they are emulated by followers and team members in a
manner that is positively related to the performance of all involved (Wang & Hackett, 2016).
Therefore, the modeling of these virtues by servant leaders is likely to foster virtuous individual-
level OCB, creativity and team performance (Ruiz‐Palomino et al., 2021). In this regard, the
following section will explain the theoretical foundation of follower‘s OCB, creativity, and team
performance and the mechanism that may explain the relationship between servant leadership
behaviors and follower‘s and team‘s outcomes.

26
 5.3.1 Individual-level variables:

5.3.1.1 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Scholars have indicated that the relationship between servant leadership behaviors and
citizenship behaviors is critical for servant leadership research because it is the core proposition
in servant leadership theory that explains the main reason why servant leadership can be
effective (Eva et al., 2019; Si, Shi, Zhou, & Cai, 2023) Accordingly, organizational citizenship
behaviors is a theoretically expected consequence of servant leadership behaviors (Si et al.,
2023). Organizational citizenship behavior is defined as ―individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the
aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization‖ (Organ, 2014). It captures
employees‘ behaviors that support the social and psychological environment at work (Organ,
1988), which is aligned with the core characteristic of servant leadership (i.e., promoting others‘
welfare) (Si et al., 2023). The current study will specifically focus on individual-level OCB,
that is, servant leaders‘ ―one-on-one prioritizing of follower individual needs, interests, and
goals‖ (Eva et al., 2019, p. 114) should stimulate individual-level OCB (as opposed to team-level
OCB) among their followers (Ruiz‐Palomino et al., 2021).

Scholars have shown that servant leadership creates a social context that positively affects
employees‘ attitudes and behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2010). In particular, servant leader
behaviors provide situational cues from which followers interpret and understand their
environment (Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009), which influences employee attitudes and
behaviors. Drawing on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and social exchange theory (Blau,
1964), scholars have illustrated how servant leadership behaviors are related to employee
attitudes and behaviors (e.g., OCB). More specifically, from the lens of social learning theory,
individuals learn by ―paying attention to and emulating the attitudes, values and behaviors of
attractive and credible models‖ (Brown & Trevin˜o, 2006). Thus, servant leadership practices
enhance followers‘ OCB because servant leaders set an example and build follower‘s confidence
in serving others (Si et al., 2023). In essence, followers perceive servant leaders as attractive
because servant leaders focus on the development of others and place the interests of those over
their own interests (Hale & Fields, 2007). From the perspective of social exchange theory,

27
followers engage in OCB to reciprocate the benefits provided by servant leadership (e.g.,
Newman et al., 2017; Walmbwa et al., 2010).

Consistently, according to signaling theory (Spence, 1973), supervisors' behavioral tendencies

send signals to subordinates about their preferences for proactive versus reactive approaches to
business. Followers then process the cues from their supervisors, which affects their comfort in
behaving proactively (Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997). In support of this
perspective, the current study suggests that leaders are powerful signalers of desirable
subordinate behaviors (e.g., citizenship behaviors). Although, the relationship between servant
leadership and OCB is commonly examined relationship in the servant leadership research (Eva
et al., 2019), the current study aims to test a cross level model investigating the extent to which
team trust climate mediates the relationship between servant leadership at team level and
individual OCB.

5.3.1.2 Follower’s Creativity

Due to its strong ties with organizational creativity and competitive advantage, employee
creativity is regarded as a critical economic asset. Follower creativity refers to the production of
ideas about products, practices, processes or procedures that are novel and potentially useful to
the organization (Aboramadan, 2020). The leadership literature suggest that servant leaders‘
qualities are effective in enhancing individual outcomes including satisfaction (Al-Asadi,
Muhammed, Abidi, & Dzenopoljac, 2019), engagement (Bao, Li, & Zhao, 2018), and work-life
balance (Haar, Brougham, Roche, & Barney, 2017). Recently, scholars have been focusing
increasingly on the effects of servant leadership behaviors on employee creativity (Yang et al.,
2017; Eva et al., 2019). However, limited number of empirical studies goes into investigating the
servant leadership–creativity relationship. Moreover, a dearth of studies remains on the
underlining mechanisms through which servant leadership practices influence follower‘s
creativity (Aboramadan, 2020; Ruiz-Palomino & Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2020). This
suggests that more studies of the underlining mechanisms of this relationship would be
significant. Hence, in this study, the researcher aims to unlock the servant leadership–creativity
relationship by closely examining the role of team trust as a mediating factor.

28
 To date, Ruiz-Palomino and Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara (2020) have revealed that various
leadership approaches have been associated with employee creativity including supportive
(Amabile et al., 2004); benevolent (Wang and Cheng, 2010), and transformational (Wang et al.,
2014). However, unlike servant leadership, which is other-centered, most of these approaches
are leader-centric in nature. In other words, leaders focus mainly on encouraging followers to
effectively achieve group or organizational goals rather than on the followers‘ own development
per se (Wu et al., 2013). Hence, servant leadership emphasizes uniquely on promoting others‘
interests and growth above those of the leader or the organization (Ruiz-Palomino & Zoghbi-
Manrique-de-Lara, 2020).

Servant leadership practices contribute to the establishment of a supportive and empowering

workplace environment that fosters learning, experimentation, and positive reinforcement (Zada
et al., 2023). According to the social learning theory, by observing and emulating the behaviors
of servant leaders, such as engaging in open communication, promoting collaboration, and
embracing risk-taking (Liden et al., 2014), followers can develop the skills, attitudes, and
behaviors necessary for creative thinking and problem-solving (Suhartanti & Prasetyanto, 2021).
Therefore, by implementing servant leadership techniques such as empowering employees,
focusing on meeting their needs and encouraging them to reach their full potential, organizations
can potentially enhance followers' participation in creative endeavors (Batool, Mohammad, &
Awang, 2022).

Accordingly, the current study assumes that servant leadership may emerge as a useful tool to
foster creativity. The reasons servant leadership influences followers‘ creativity lies in the
following: first, servant leaders promote a sense of psychological safety that encourages
followers to engage in mutual support exchange. Second, they also tend to improve their
subordinates‘ capacity to exercise creative approaches and to assume greater responsibilities.
Third, by stratifying follower‘s needs, they feel unconstrained when suggesting solution to
problems. As a result, the risks associated with seeking creative methods to solve problems
would be reduced and followers‘ creativity would be enhanced (Liden et al., 2014; Ruiz-
Palomino & Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2020).

However, some scholars have argued that servant leadership may influence employee
creativity indirectly. For instance, Yang and colleagues (2020) have pointed out that servant

29
leadership impact team identification, which further promote employee creativity. Moreover,
Moreover, Neubert and colleagues (2016) have shown the effect of servant leadership on creative
behavior is contingent upon contextual factors such as organizational structure. Accordingly,
scholars have indicated the importance of focus on the mediating and moderating variables in the
relationship between servant leadership and employee creativity.

Based on the above discussion, the current researcher predicts that servant leaders empower
followers and maximizes their full energy. Consequently, servant leaders motivate followers to
engage in creative actions. Furthermore, servant leaders are successful in creating an atmosphere
that is characterized by mutual trust and psychological safety (Yoshida et al., 2014). Particularly,
followers who perceive their leaders as servants are more likely to share information and care for
each other through a mutual support exchange. As a consequence, the risk of seeking creative
methods for problem-solving would be minimized (Liden et al., 2015). It is important to mention
that the relationship between servant leaders and follower‘s creativity can be explained by social
exchange theory, as followers are more likely to reciprocate the positive behaviors of servant
leaders with more creative behaviors. It seems that servant leaders show a genuine concern and
respect for followers, which lead employees to view themselves having good relationship with
their leaders (Yoshida et al., 2014). Hence, having a good relationship with leaders, encourage
followers to search for creative solutions to perform their work. In this condition, those
employees would feel the superiority and respect, which in turn improve followers‘ creativity in
return.

5.3.2 Team level Variable

5.3.2.1 Team Performance

Team performance originates in the behaviors of employees, is amplified by their interactions,

and manifests as a high- level and collective phenomenon (Ruiz- Palomino et al., 2021). The
current study will specifically focus on team performance because previous studies have revealed
that when leadership and performance are examined, results show an effect size at the group
level of analysis that is double in magnitude relative to the effect size at the individual level
(DeGroot et al. 2000). Therefore, evidence suggests that leadership and team performance may
be a fruitful area for further exploration (Ruiz- Palomino et al., 2021).

30
 Scholars have indicated that social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) has typically been used as a
basis for expecting positive relationships between servant leadership and team performance (Eva
et al., 2019). More specifically, followers feel the need to reciprocate when they see servant
leaders are highly attentive to their needs, and ensuring that the followers have the adequate
resources and support needed to perform well. Hence, followers tend to view their relationship
with the servant leader as one of high quality that enhances their job performance as a way in
which they can reciprocate (Yan & Xiao, 2016).

Scholars have also indicated that servant leadership is regarded as a climate in which an
overall leadership pattern of altruistic and ethical behaviors creates a context that should
positively influence group-level outcomes. In specific, servant leadership offers the necessary
support, resources and direction to all followers, to enhance both team task performance and
OCB (Chiniara, & Bentein, 2018). Consistently, researchers have also demonstrated that virtue
ethics theory (Aristotle, 2004) can be applied to illustrate the relationship between leadership and
team performance. More specifically, both servant leaders and their followers are thought to
engage in their respective behaviors for the intrinsic rewards associated with behaving virtuously
(Wang & Hackett, 2016). Hence, as servant leaders model virtues that are emulated by followers,
it leads to positive consequences for all involved in terms of enhanced level of performance
(Wang & Hackett, 2016).

It is important to note that the empirical studies support the positive relationship between
servant leadership and team performance. For instance, using a multilevel structural equation
modeling, Ruiz- Palomino and colleagues (2021) have found a positive team-level association
between servant leadership and team performance, mediated by individual-level OCB. In
addition, Subsequent researchers have revealed a positive relationship between team-level
servant leadership and team performance, mediated by affective-based trust in the leader and
team psychological safety (Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Accordingly, building on the social
exchange theory and virtue ethics theory the current study suggests, to the extent that servant
leaders are also models of virtue, it is expected that followers will strive for excellence in their
teams (Wang & Hackett, 2016).

Scholars have conducted a systematic literature review and have shown that follower trust in
leadership relies on the leader‘s behavior. In particular, servant leaders‘ skills in listening,

31
empathy, emotional healing, developing followers‘ growth, and building community would
enhance the harmony of the relationship between leaders and their followers and thus enhance
followers‘ trust in the leadership. Consequently, developing high-performing teams that can
fulfill their demanding and dynamic tasks requires an atmosphere of trustful environment where
team members accept criticism easily, discuss mistakes, and express their thoughts freely. Hence,
researchers have shown that there should be strong social interaction among team members to
perform well. The most critical factor in creating this interaction is the existence of a climate of
trust (Setiawan & Irawanto, 2020).

The mediating role of Team Trust Climate in the Relationship between

Servant Leadership Behaviors, Follower and Team Outcomes:

5.3.1 Team Trust Climate

Extant literature calls for a better understanding of the underlying mechanism for servant
leadership to positively affect performance-related outcomes (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016; Saleem
et al., 2020). Previous Studies have examined the effect of various mediating variables to explain the
effects of servant leadership practices on performance including Leader-member exchange
(Newman et al., 2017), employee engagement (Sendjaya et al., 2018), and psychological safety
(Chughtai, 2016). Trust, despite its great relevance within a humanistic paradigm of
organizations (i.e., servant leadership) (van Dierendonck, 2011), has not yet been studied as a
mediating variable between servant leadership and performance (Saleem et al., 2020).

In addition, Zhou, Gul, and Tufail (2022) have indicated that team trust climate has been an
important area for research studies especially for various work outcomes such as organizational
citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job performance and proactive
behavior. Hence, Scholars have revealed that trust climate plays an important role in predicting
both individual and teamwork outcomes (Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009), however,
it receives less attention than individual trust in leadership research. Thus, the current study
focuses mainly on the trust climate at the team level that can play a mediating role in the
relationship between servant leadership and follower‘s and team‘s outcomes.

32
 From a social exchange perspective, frequent exchange builds trust between leaders and
followers (Cherry, 2000). Trust is defined as ―the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995:711). It is the level of confidence
that an employee has in another‘s competence and his or her willingness to act in a fair, ethical,
and predictable manner (Nyhan & Marlowe, 1997). Servant leadership research has been
developed with the emergence of servant leadership models from Russell and Stone (2002) and
Sendjaya and Sarros (2002), as well as the development of numerous instruments by Laub
(1999), Page and Wong (2000). More specifically, in each of the servant leadership models
presented by these researchers, trust is a common variable (Joseph & Winston, 2005).

Accordingly, trust has been regarded as central to servant leadership since leadership
legitimacy begins with trust (Greenleaf, 1977). In the context of the relationship between leaders
and followers, Mayer and colleagues (1995) have developed a model to explain the dyadic trust
in an organizational context. The researchers have proposed that trust in the leader is a function,
in part, of the leader‘s perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity.

The relationship between servant leadership and trust has been theoretically conceptualized
and empirically tested in previous research (Joseph, & Winston, 2005). Theoretically, Russell
and Stone‘s (2002) model of servant leadership has proposed trust as one of the functional
attributes of servant leadership. Besides, Russell and Stone (2002) have suggested that servant
leaders‘ concern for people and the practice of integrity are critical for building interpersonal
trust and organizational trust. Empirically, servant leadership has been found to positively
correlate with both leader trust (Joseph & Winston, 2004). The researchers have also revealed
that organizations that are led by servant leaders exhibit higher levels of trust than organizations
that are led by non-servant leaders. Hence, previous studies support the theoretical premise that
servant leaders are better at cultivating trust than other types of leaders.

It is important to mention that trust is a multidimensional construct involving trust in leaders

(Nyhan& Marlowe, 1998), and organizational trust (Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000). In the
context of servant leadership, the current study is concerned particularly with trust in the leader.
More precisely, scholars have revealed that trust in leadership involves affect-based trust and
cognition-based trust (Azizi et al., 2021). According to social exchange theory, affective trust is

33
related to the emotional bonds between leader and followers, while the cognition based trust
stems from the leader‘s characteristics ( e.g., knowledge, competencies, and integrity)( (Su et al.,
2021). Zhou and colleagues (2022) have proposed that a servant leader‘s communicative and
supportive behaviors can develop a good relationship and affect followers‘ trust in the leader and
thus urge followers to reciprocate the leaders in the same way.

Building on the previous discussion, the current study will specifically investigate the
mediating role of team trust climate between servant leadership, individual level variables (e.g.,
citizenship behaviors and creativity) and team level performance for three reasons: first, team
trust climate makes followers feel a sense of importance placed on their well-being by the leader,
thus they try to reciprocate through citizenship behavior. Second, servant leaders promote a
favorable and safe working environment that urges followers and teams to show positive
behaviors (citizenship behaviors, creativity and enhanced level of performance) (e.g., Miao et al.,
2014; Newman et al., 2017; Saleem et al., 2020). Third, higher level of team trust climate may
positively affect followers‘ perception of leader characteristics such as authenticity, fairness and
interpersonal acceptance, thus influencing followers‘ and teams‘ behaviors (Goodwin et al.,
2011). Fourth, followers exhibit readiness to face vulnerability due to their positive perception of
leader‘s intentions and behaviors (Zhang & Zhou, 2014). Fifth, a high positive correlation
between servant leadership practices and team trust climate indicates that servant leaders build a
trustful atmosphere where followers are free to experiment and feel safe (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017).
In this regard, the current study will emphasize on examining the role of team trust climate as a
mediating variable, which helps assess the prominence of social exchange theory, which has
been widely used to explain the influence of leadership on both followers‘ and teams‘ outcomes.

34
 6. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development:

First: the relationship between leader’s attributes and servant leadership

behaviors

6.1 The relationship between personality traits and servant leadership

behaviors:

Researchers have provided evidence to highlight the significance of personality traits in the
development of servant leadership practices. Specifically, they have noted that leaders who
exhibit high levels of agreeableness tend to show a genuine interest in the well-being of their
subordinates. These leaders are more adept at meeting the emotional and task-related needs of
their team members. Moreover, agreeable leaders are likely to invest efforts into developing their
followers, prioritizing follower satisfaction and fostering goodwill. These behaviors align closely
with the characteristics commonly associated with servant leadership. Empirical studies have
supported the connection between agreeableness and followers' perceptions of servant
leadership. For example, Washington, Sutton, and Field (2006) conducted research involving a
social organization and two municipal organizations in the USA, which all had a primary focus
on serving their local community. The findings of this study revealed a positive correlation
between supervisors' agreeableness and servant leadership behaviors.

Likewise, Hunter and colleagues (2013) have conducted a study involving employees
working in sales positions at various stores. Their findings have indicated a positive relationship
between leader agreeableness and followers' perceptions of servant leadership. Similarly, Sun
and Shang (2019) have gathered data from a sample comprising leaders who have participated in
executive education courses at a university in New Zealand, as well as their followers. The
researchers have found a positive association between a leader's agreeableness and the
manifestation of servant leadership behaviors.

Conversely, extraversion has been found to be linked to motivational intentions that may
conflict with the values and behaviors of servant leaders (Greenleaf, 1991; Ehrhart, 2004; Liden
et al., 2008; Sendjaya et al., 2008). Specifically, leaders who are low in extraversion (i.e.,
introverts) are more likely to be perceived as exhibiting servant leadership qualities. On the other

35
hand, extraverts tend to enjoy being the center of attention, engage in more talking than listening,
and often dominate social interactions (Grant et al., 2011). Scholars have conducted research
involving store managers and their employees in retail organizations, and their findings indicate
a negative relationship between leader extraversion and follower perceptions of servant
leadership (Hunter et al., 2013).

In contrast, a study conducted by Politis and Politis (2012) using a sample of managers and
their employees in a transportation organization in the UAE revealed a positive correlation
between extraversion and servant leadership practices. However, Krekeler (2010) collected data
from pastoral leaders at churches in New York and found no significant relationship between
extraversion and servant leadership practices.

Indeed, the current research on the relationship between extraversion and servant leadership
behaviors has produced conflicting findings, and there is a scarcity of empirical studies
addressing this specific area (Eva et al., 2019). Therefore, to address the gaps in previous
research regarding the connection between personality type and servant leadership and in
response to previous studies ( e.g., Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020), the current study proposes
that, in accordance with the characteristics associated with servant leadership, such as supporting
follower growth, active listening, and effective communication, introverted leaders may exhibit
behaviors that demonstrate their openness to the ideas and input of their followers. In contrast,
extraverted leaders, who may be more inclined to dominate social interactions, might be
perceived as less aligned with the servant leadership style compared to introverted leaders.

In relation to the present study, scholars have also established a theoretical link between
Emotional Intelligence (EI) and servant leadership (Barbuto et al., 2014). As a result, several
empirical studies have investigated the association between EI and servant leadership.
Specifically, leaders with high emotional intelligence are more likely to comprehend the needs
and emotions of their followers and fulfill their expectations (Hur, van den Berg, & Wilderom,
2011).

Contrarily, Barbuto and colleagues (2014) conducted a study to explore the correlation
between emotional intelligence and the five dimensions of servant leadership behaviors, namely
altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom, and organizational

36
stewardship. Their findings revealed that, according to the leader's perspective, emotional
intelligence had a positive association with four out of the five dimensions of servant leadership
behaviors (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, and organizational stewardship).
However, when examining the followers' perspectives, the relationship between emotional
intelligence and the dimensions of servant leadership behaviors was not supported.

Despite the evidence of the relationship between EI and servant leadership, a meta-analytic
review has indicated that the empirical evidence of this relationship is mixed and fragmented due
to differences in national culture, rating methods of servant leadership, and servant leadership
scales (Miao et al., 2021). Thus to address this gap, the current study argues that the orientation
toward emotional healing and the mental well-being of the leaders is an important trait to engage
in servant leadership behaviors. Accordingly, building on the above discussion, the current study
aims at testing the following hypotheses:

H1: There is a relationship between Leader’s personality traits and follower’s perception of
Servant Leadership Behaviors

H1a: Leader’s Agreeableness is positively related to follower’s perception of Servant

Leadership Behaviors

H1b: Leader’s Extraversion is negatively related to follower’s perception of servant leadership

Behaviors

H1c: Leader’s Emotional Intelligence is positively related to the follower’s perception of Servant
Leadership Behaviors.

6.2 The relationship between motivation to serve and servant leadership

behaviors:
Motivation to serve is deeply embedded in the SL philosophy as one of the principal
constructs that conceptually separate SL from all other theories of leadership (Van Dierendonck,
2011). Beck (2014) has conducted a mixed method study (i.e., quantitative followed by
qualitative) to investigate the antecedents of servant leadership. The study findings reveal that an
individual‘s motivation to engage in voluntary service is positively related to SL behaviors.
Similarly, Paas et al‘s study (2020) has shown that individuals with high levels of motivation to
serve are more likely to demonstrate servant leadership behaviors as a result.

37
 Other researchers have examined the role of servant leadership behaviors in enhancing
follower‘s pro-social motivation. For instance, Xu, Loi and Chow (2022) have shown that
servant leadership moderates the relationship between employee proactive personality and pro-
social motivation at work. Furthermore, previous studies have revealed that servant leadership
can provoke employees' pro-social motivation (e.g.,Veres, Eva & Cavanagh, 2020). In a similar
vein, scholars have revealed that servant leadership is positively related to motivation to lead and
motivation to serve (Amah, 2018).

Furthermore, using hierarchical regression, Bao and colleagues (2018) have conducted a study
on employees working in public and private sectors to test the mediating role of public service
motivation between servant leadership behaviors and employee work engagement. The study
findings show that a servant leader who puts the interest of the employees, the community and
the public above his or her own would be a good role model and help enhance followers‘ public
service motivation.

Hence, it seems that little is known about the role of a leader‘s motivation to serve as an
important antecedent of servant leadership. In this sense, the current study argues that leaders
who possess high levels of motivation to serve will be more likely than those who do not
demonstrate a servant mindset in their leadership role, thus engaging in servant leadership
behaviors. Thus the following hypothesis is formulated:

H2: Leader’s Motivation to Serve is positively related to follower’s perception of Servant

Leadership Behaviors.

Second: The relationship between follower’s attributes and servant leadership

behaviors:

6.3 Studies examining the relationship between follower’s proactive

personality and perception of servant leadership practices:
In the context of the present study, scholars have mainly focused on examining the role of
servant leadership as either a moderator or mediator variable in the relationship between
follower‘s proactive personality and various outcomes. For instance, Xu and colleagues (2022)
have collected three-wave data from 614 employees working in 211 stores of a grocery retail

38
chain located in China. The study findings have revealed that servant leadership moderates the
relationship between employee proactive personality and pro-social motivation at work.
Additionally, using a multilevel analysis, Song and Lee (2020) have collected data from 79
subway stations to investigate the moderator role of servant leadership in the relationship
between follower‘s proactive personality and psychological withdrawal. The study findings
indicate that followers under high servant leadership are likely to exhibit a stronger negative
relationship between proactive personality and psychological withdrawal.

On the other hand, researchers have also investigated the moderator role of employee
proactive personality in the relationship between servant leadership and various outcomes. For
instance, collecting data from 283 employees working in IT companies, Wang, Yu, Xi, and
Zhang (2019) have indicated that proactive personality moderates the association between
servant leadership and career skills. Consistently, Newman and colleagues (2017) have collected
data from 30 teams within a large Chinese multinational firm. The scholars have shown that
Proactive personality moderate the mediating effects of servant leadership on citizenship
behaviors.

Taking a different perspective, based on both quantitative and qualitative data (i.e., using
mixed method design) to examine the antecedents of servant leadership behaviors, Wu (2019)
has collected data from 44 teams working in different industries including finance, hotels, and
manufacturing. The study findings show that follower‘s proactive personality positively
influences leaders‘ servant leadership behaviors. Specifically, leaders and followers both
perceived that follower proactivity is critical reasons for inducing leaders‘ servant leadership
behaviors.

Despite the fact that scholars have established that servant leadership practices contribute to
more proactive followership behavior (Reed 2015), few studies have examined whether a
follower‘s proactive personality encourages leaders to engage in servant leadership behaviors.
Indeed, proactive personality provides followers with more resources to influence their leaders to
tailor action plans to their needs. According to conservation of resources theory, proactive
followers are regarded as supportive resources for leaders. Leaders would like to protect these
valued followers by understanding and serving their needs (Wu, 2019). Indeed, leaders rely on
proactive followers to take initiative and create constructive change (Grant, Gino, & Hoffman,

39
2011). Accordingly, leaders are motivated to provide emotional healing, empowering, and
growing opportunities for proactive followers.

In conclusion, it seems that little is known regarding follower‘s proactive personality as an

important determinant of servant leadership practices. By implication, from the followers‘
perspective, proactive personality represents a personal resource to help followers elicit servant
leadership behaviors through inducing good shaping to leaders and the organization. From
leaders‘ perspective, having proactive followers is a fruitful resource for them to better deal with
job demands, so that leaders would like to engage in servant leadership behaviors to maintain
such followers. Hence, based on the above discussion, it is expected that:

H3: Followers’ proactive personality is positively related to servant leadership behaviors

6.4 Studies examining the relationship between followers’ perceptions of

person –supervisor fit and perception of servant leadership behaviors.
Followers with high person-supervisor fit trust leaders' authenticity in fulfilling their needs
instead of serving their own needs. Actually, they are more appreciative of servant leaders
because the servant leaders' behaviors are consistent with such followers' self-concepts and
values (Kim & Kim, 2013). Using online surveys, Wu (2019) conducted a study on a sample of
328 followers and their 44 direct supervisors from 10 organizations. The study findings indicate
that both leaders and followers mutually influence and reinforce each other. Consistently, using
the convenience sampling technique, Wu and Snell (2024) collected data from 365 subordinates
and 60 supervisors working in different industries (e.g., mobile phones, financial, and hotels).
The researchers have shown that followers' perception of person-supervisor fit positively impacts
servant leadership behaviors.

Additionally, scholars have demonstrated that employees who experience a fit with their
supervisors and perceive similarity in values tend to develop strong emotional ties and personal
bonds with them. This, in turn, positively affects employees' commitment and loyalty to their
supervisors (Van Vianen et al., 2011). Similarly, employees who perceive similarities with their
supervisors tend to have positive perceptions of their leader-member exchange and enhance
employees' affective reactions toward the supervisor (Vandenberghe et al., 2004). Under such
circumstances, leaders would be motivated to practice the servant leadership style.

40
 As a follower-centric form of leadership, follower characteristics are regarded as a major
source of positive energy for their leaders, and the resulting energy constitutes servant leadership
practices. Specifically, building upon followership and conservation of resources theory, leaders
are more likely to be motivated to preserve followers with a high person-supervisor fit (Grant,
Gino, and Hoffman, 2011).

The existing literature has primarily focused on examining leaders' attributes as antecedents of
servant leadership practices. Consequently, there is limited knowledge regarding how followers
can influence servant leadership behaviors. Furthermore, the implications of followers' role in
the leadership process remain restricted. Additionally, the investigation of the antecedents of
servant leadership has been primarily limited to conceptual papers. Accordingly, to address this
research gap, the current study aims to explore the following hypothesis:

H4: Followers’ person-supervisor fit is positively related to servant leadership behavior.

6.5 The relationship between servant leadership behaviors, follower’s and

team’s outcomes:

6.5.1 The relationship between perceived servant leadership behaviors and

follower’s citizenship behaviors:

Empirical research on servant leadership behaviors has mainly focused on examining their
consequences, including follower outcomes such as job engagement (De Clercq et al., 2014), as
well as group-level outcomes such as group service performance (Hu & Liden, 2011). Servant
leadership rests on developing followers which is a relevant domain in which to investigate
servant leadership‘s association with follower OCB (e.g., Liden et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al.,
2010).). Additionally, previous studies have investigated the relationship between servant
leadership behaviors and multiple forms of organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Chen et al.,
2015; Hu and Liden 2011; Hunter et al. 2013; Newman et al., 2017). For instance, scholars have
a positive association between servant leadership behaviors and citizenship behaviors directed
toward the team (Hu and Liden 2011), customers (Chen et al., 2015), and organizations
(Newman et al., 2017).

41
 In conducting a study on 123 work groups working in multinational companies in Kenya,
Walumbwa and colleagues (2010) have developed and tested a cross-level model in which
servant leadership influences employee attitudes (e.g., commitment to supervisor) and group
climates (e.g., service climate) simultaneously. This model also shows how these variables, in
turn, influence follower‘s OCB. The study findings show that servant leadership behaviors are
positively associated with OCB. Additionally, using data collected from a sample of 343 work-
group-level (supervisors) and 835 individual-level (employees) from a sample of 171 hotels,
Elche, Ruiz-Palomino, and Linuesa-Langreo (2020) have revealed a positive relationship
between servant leadership behaviors and employee OCB that is fully mediated by employee
empathy – at the individual level – and service climate – at the group level. Besides, in
conducting a study on a sample of teachers working in secondary high schools, Ghalavi and
Nastiezaie (2020) have revealed that servant leadership behaviors are positively related to
organizational citizenship behaviors both directly and indirectly with the mediating role of the
psychological empowerment. Accordingly, building on the previous studies, the following
hypothesis is established:

H5: Perceived Servant Leadership Behaviors are positively related to follower’s

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

Scholars have shown that the mechanisms underlying relationship between servant leadership
and citizenship behaviors remain poorly examined (e.g., Newman et al., 2017; Mostafa, & El-
Motalib, 2019). Therefore, scholars have examined some of the psychological mechanisms. For
instance, Newman and colleagues (2017) have collected data from 446 supervisor–subordinate
dyads in a large Chinese state-owned enterprise and show that leader-member exchange mediates
the relationship between servant leadership behaviors and follower OCB. Consistently, Mostafa
and El-Motalib (2019) have conducted a study on a sample of nurses in a large Egyptian public
hospital and have revealed that LMX mediates the relationship between servant leadership and
Proactive behavior. In a similar vein, a meta-analytic study conducted by Zhang and colleagues
(2021), shows that the effect of servant leadership on citizenship behaviors is mediated by a
leader-member exchange.

On the other hand, researchers have examined the important role of trust climate in the
context of servant leadership. Through conducting a study on a sample of employees and their

42
managers who are working in service departments from five organizations in Malaysia, scholars
have shown that trust in the leader is positively related to various outcomes such as
organizational citizenship behaviors (Asgari, Silong, Ahmad, & Samah, 2008). Furthermore,
using data from 202 employees of three types of organizations public sector in Pakistan, namely
banking, education and transport, Abid, Gulzar, and Hussain (2015) have revealed that trust in
leadership mediates the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship
behavior.

In a similar vein, using a quantitative approach, Amir (2019) has conducted a study on a
sample of employees who are working for organizations in Indonesia. The study findings have
confirmed the role of trust climate as a mediator in the relationship between servant leadership
behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. This is consistent with a Chraim‗s (2016)
study that shows that servant leadership fosters trust climate within the followership, which in
turn encourages followers to engage in altruistic extra-role behaviors.

Additionally, Saleem and colleagues (2020) have conducted a study on a sample of 233 heads
of department and faculty member dyads from four public universities located in Pakistan, they
have shown that servant leadership strongly predicts affective trust and organizational citizenship
behaviors affective trust fully mediated servant leadership‘s effect on task performance while
partially mediates servant leadership‘s effect on follower‘s OCB. In contrast, cognitive trust
doesn‘t mediate servant leadership‘s effect on either OCB or task performance.

Building on the above discussion, it can be hypothesized that servant leaders are perceived as
trustworthy because honesty and integrity are believed to be part of their core attributes. Besides,
servant leaders‘ practices that place the followers‘ self-interests as priorities, elicit trust from the
followers for the leaders. Hence, servant leaders create a nurturing environment that encourages
followers to engage in citizenship behaviors as a specific form of exchange in response to the
servant leaders‘ behaviors. Based on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H6: Team Trust Climate mediates the relationship between Perceived Servant leadership
Behaviors and follower’s Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

43
 6.5.2 The relationship between perceived servant leadership behaviors and
follower’s creativity:

Recent scholars have revealed a significant impact of servant leadership practices on

follower‘s positive outcomes compared to other leadership constructs (e.g., Ruiz-Palomino &
Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2020; Yang et al., 2020). Among the critical aspects that followers
can offer their leaders is the development of novel ideas, procedures and processes oriented
towards enhancing the organizational functioning. Building on social exchange theory, by
providing support, empowerment, and focusing on the developmental aspects of followers as
well as showing a strong interest in fulfilling their followers‘ needs (Yang et al., 2017), followers
tend to reciprocate their leaders and organizations through engaging in more creative behaviors.

Yang and colleagues (2020) have conducted a study using data collected from 11 banks in
China, which has revealed that the behaviors of servant leadership have a positive impact on
employee creativity. Similarly, Aboramadan (2021) has investigated a sample of 232 employees
working in 70 Palestinian hotels and demonstrated that the practices of servant leaders
significantly influence the creative behaviors of their followers. Furthermore, Ruiz-Palomino and
Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara (2020) have distributed questionnaires to employees of Spanish hotels
and found that servant leadership plays a crucial role in enhancing the level of creativity among
employees. However, despite recent findings that servant leaders inspire followers and influence
their cognition and behavior (Hunter et al., 2013), only a limited number of studies have
examined the connection between servant leadership and employee creative behavior (Jaiswal &
Dhar, 2017).

Moreover, recent empirical studies have yielded inconsistent results (Yang et al., 2020). Some
researchers have demonstrated a positive relationship between servant leadership practices and
follower creativity, other scholars have demonstrated that this relationship is not significant
(Newman et al., 2017). Accordingly, the lack of this conclusive finding suggests further
examination of the servant leadership–employee creativity relationship (e.g., Neubert, Hunter, &
Tolentino, 2016; Newman et al., 2017; Karatepe, Ozturk, & Kim, 2019), such as the mediating
mechanisms that could explain any association between servant leadership and employee
creativity.

44
 In sum, drawing support from the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) which argues that
individual behavior at workplace results from the social exchange between leaders and followers
generate obligations for individuals to behave in a particular way (Blau, 1964). Hence, the
current study assumes that, when followers perceive that their work environment supports
empowerment and information sharing, at the same time acknowledges their efforts, they
become more inclined to engage in creative actions. Given the previous discussion and response
to scholarly calls (e.g., Zada et al., 2023; Jaiswal, & Dhar, 2017), the researcher predicts the
following hypothesis:

H7: Perceived Servant Leadership Behaviors are positively related to Follower’s Creativity.

Although researchers have sought to examine the possible links between servant leadership
and followers‘ creativity, it has been shown that there is no consensus on how servant leadership
actually affects creativity (Newman et al., 2017). Hence, in understanding how individual
creativity develops, scholars have investigated numerous mechanisms including servant attitude
(Ruiz-Palomino & Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2020), team identification (Yang et al., 2020);
climate for creativity (Aboramadan, 2021), team reflexivity (Wang, Guan, Cui, Cai, & Liu,
2021). However, few empirical studies have investigated the mediating role of team trust climate
in the relationship between servant leadership and creativity (e.g., Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017).

Extant literature provides evidence that trust in leadership mediates the effects of leadership
on various work-related outcomes (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017). More specifically the current study
aims to investigate the mediating role of trust in the leader between servant leadership and
individual creative behavior for three reasons. First, follower trust in the leader builds within
followers a willingness to face risk and uncertainty while performing creatively. Second,
followers show motivation to face vulnerability due to their positive perception of servant
leaders' intentions and behaviors (Zhang and Zhou, 2014). Third, higher trust in the leader is
positively associated with followers' perception of supervisor characteristics such as authenticity
and fairness, influencing job attitude and performance (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017).

Research suggests that creativity is influenced by both the leader and the followers' work
context, including factors such as available resources and the overall work environment (Ruiz-
Palomino & Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2020). The context itself is shaped by the practices of

45
leaders, highlighting the important role they play. Leaders are responsible for creating a
trustworthy environment that enables servant leaders to bring out the best in their followers and
encourages them to freely experiment and feel secure. Greenleaf (1998) emphasized that servant
leaders have the ability to inspire trust among their followers, which in turn motivates them to
reciprocate by delivering superior performance outcomes.

Building on the previous argument, researchers have emphasized the significance of trust as a
fundamental aspect of the leader-follower relationship and highlight its importance in studying
this relationship (Jaiswal and Dhar, 2017). Servant leaders reinforce the value of their employees'
contributions by empowering them. In response, employees develop a stronger commitment to
the organization by providing input and making decisions that impact its success and well-being.
This type of environment encourages followers to share ideas, unleash their creativity, and feel
more comfortable exploring new ways to generate innovative ideas and actively participate in
driving improvements (Chen & Hou, 2016). Notably, employees working in challenging work
environments require learning opportunities, personal growth, rewards, and support. Establishing
a climate of trust is crucial in meeting these needs. Therefore, based on the theories of servant
leadership and trust, the present study predicts the following:

H8: Team trust climate mediates the relationship between Perceived Servant Leadership
Behaviors and Follower’s Creativity.

6.5.3 Studies examining the relationship between perceived Servant leadership

behaviors and team performance:

Servant leadership behaviors contribute to satisfying the needs of employees to maximize

their potential (Williams et al., 2017). Hence, scholars have investigated the relationship between
servant leadership and team performance. Using data from 343 teams from various departments
at 171 hotels in Spain, Ruiz‐Palomino and colleagues (2021) have indicated that team servant
leadership is positively related to team performance. Consistently, Nauman, Bhatti, Imam, and
Khan (2022) have conducted a study on a sample of 70 project teams and have shown that
Individual-level servant leadership is significantly related to project team performance.

46
 Furthermore, using a sample of 233 pairs of subordinates and their supervisors (i.e., heads of
departments with faculty members working under them) from four public universities located in
Pakistan, Saleem and colleagues (2020) have demonstrated that servant leader‘s subordinates
have high levels of engagement which can potentially enhance individual performance. In a
similar vein, Chiniara and Bentein (2018) have conducted a study on 67 teams working in a large
North American company that designs and manufactures high-technology products. The study
findings reveal a positive relationship between servant leadership and team task performance and
service OCBs. Accordingly, by empowering followers, servant leaders affirm the value of the
contribution of their followers and team as a whole. Teams in turn develop deeper commitments
by providing input and making decisions that affect the organization‘s success and prosperity.

Additionally, using a sample of 288 employees working in non-governmental organizations n

Pakistan, Zada, Khan, Saeed, and Zada (2023) have shown that servant leaders create a sense of
obligation among followers to put more efforts into their jobs which contributes to project
effectiveness. On the contrary, a research conducted by Sihombing, Astuti, Al Musadieq,
Hamied, and Rahardjo (2018) have revealed that servant leadership has had no impact on
employee job performance.

Building on the above discussion, the current study argues that servant leaders eliminate
barriers that may encounter follower while performing their jobs. Servant leadership practices
contribute to building a collaborative atmosphere where team members can interact and
exchange knowledge that guarantee effective performance. Specifically, Servant leaders are
usually perceptive, open to their teams‘ and followers‘ concerns and often settle problems before
they arise (Malik et al., 2022). As a result, a servant leader‘s team would have high levels of
engagement and loyalty which can potentially contribute toward higher levels of productivity.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H9: Perceived Servant Leadership Behaviors are positively related to Team Performance

Recognizing the paradoxical nature of servant leadership (i.e., balancing the paradox of
leading and serving at the same time), researchers have emphasized the need to focus on how the
underlying mechanisms of servant leadership behaviors influence team performance (Chiniara &
Bentein, 2016; Van Dierendonck, 2011) including serving culture (Liden et al., 2014),

47
knowledge-sharing climate (Song, Park, & Kang, 2015; Nauman et al., 2022 ), collaborative
culture (Nauman et al., 2022), group- level internal social capital (Ruiz‐Palomino et al., 2021),
team cohesion (Chiniara & Bentein, 2018). Of these mechanisms, trust has been recognized as
an important part of mediating processes for the impact of servant leadership on behavioral
outcomes (van Dierendonck, 2011).

A line of research has investigated the role of servant leadership in enhancing trust within the
team. For instance, using data from faculty staff members working in two educational
institutions in Indonesia, Senjaya and Pekerti (2010) have shown that followers who perceive
high levels of servant leadership behaviors, have significantly higher trust levels compared with
those who perceive low levels of servant leadership practices. Consequently, despite mixed
results, scholars have indicated that team trust is beneficial for team performance. In conducting
a study on 50 teams comprising 279 team members, Erdem and Ozen (2003) have demonstrated
a positive relationship between cognitive and affective trust and team performance. Similarly,
utilizing a meta-analytic design, scholars have revealed that team trust enables team members to
work together more efficiently and effectively and contribute to team performance (De Jong,
Dirks, & Gillespie, 2016; Morrissette, & Kisamore, 2020).

Accordingly, scholars have investigated the mediating role of trust in the relationship between
servant leadership and team performance. For instance, Saleem and colleagues (2020) have
revealed that affective trust fully mediates the relationship between servant leadership and task
performance while partially mediates the effect of servant leadership on subordinates‘
organizational citizenship behaviors. On the contrary, the study findings show that cognitive trust
doesn‘t mediate servant leadership‘s effect on either OCB or task performance.

Building on the above discussion, the current study hypothesizes that perceived team trust in
the servant leader mediates the relationship between servant leadership practices and team
performance. More specifically, the presence of trust can reap important benefits for the
organization. Trust in the servant leader encourages members to allocate their energy and
exchange their resources thus making the exchange easier and less costly. On the contrary, a lack
of trust leads team members to emphasize more on their personal interests and thereby consume
valuable resources that could otherwise be spent on team goal achievement. Hence, it has been
suggested that trust, being the core of the leader-follower relationship, must be taken into

48
consideration while studying this relationship (Jaiswal and Dhar, 2017). Thus, based on servant
leadership theory and trust theory, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H10: Team Trust Climate mediates the relationship between Perceived Servant leadership
behaviors and Team Performance.

7. Proposed Conceptual Framework

49
 8. Research Methodology:

Research Methodology is divided into five sections. The first section includes the variables‘
conceptual and operational definitions. The study‘s population and sampling are mentioned in
the second section. As for section three, it provides data collection methods. The fourth section
involves an explanation for the pilot study which was carried out. The statistical techniques are
explicated in section five.

8.1 Study variables: Conceptual definitions and operationalization:

Servant Leadership Behaviors: refer to (1) other-oriented approach to leadership (2)

manifested through one-on-one prioritizing of follower individual needs and interests, (3) and
outward reorienting of their concern for self towards concern for others within the organization
and the larger community (Eva et al., 2019: 114). This study will use a slightly modified version
of Liden et al.‘s (2015) 7-item scale, which is a shortened servant leadership measure developed
from Liden et al.‘s (2008) 28-item multidimensional measure. Liden et al. (2015) and Anton and
Flotman (2020) reported strong evidence for the convergent validity of the short form of their
instrument with the full scale, the internal consistency of the short form, as well as its predictive
validity with regard to in-role performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and creativity.
Team members will rate each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 ―strongly disagree‖ to 5
―strongly agree‖. Examples of items include:‖ My Leader can tell if something work-related is
going wrong‖. Some researchers have proposed that studying servant leadership at the team level
may provide more valuable insights into predicting the behavior of team members (e.g., Yoshida
et al., 2014). Thus, the followers‘ ratings of servant leadership practices within each team will be
averaged.

8.1.1 Independent Variables

First: Leader’s attributes: include four dimensions

Leader’s Personality traits

Agreeableness: relates to trustworthiness, morality, altruism, and decency (McCracken

&Roth, 1989).

50
 Extraversion: can be defined as ―how much a person is outgoing and sociable in adopting or
changing sustainable behaviors (Khan et al., 2021).

Both Agreeableness and extroversion will be measured using John and Srivastava‘s (1999)
10-item subscales for the Big Five trait taxonomy. Khan and colleagues (2021) have indicated
that it is frequently adopted and highly recommended by numerous researchers (e.g., Rammstedt
& John, 2007; DeYoung et al., 2007). Examples of items include: ―The leader is generally
trusting‖ (Agreeableness) and ―the leader generates a lot of enthusiasm‖ (Extraversion). Leaders
will be asked to rate the personality traits of agreeableness and extraversion on a five-point scale
ranging from 1 ―strongly disagree‖ to 5 ―strongly agree‖.

Emotional Intelligence: refers to is the ability to monitor and control the feelings, beliefs,
and internal states of oneself and others (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). 16-items will
be used to measure Emotional Intelligence (EI), which are developed by Wong and Law (2002).
The EI variable comprised four subscales, which included self-emotional appraisal, others‘
emotional appraisal, use of emotions, and regulation of emotions. Each subscale will be
measured using four items. Examples of the items include‖ I have a good sense of why I have
certain feelings most of the time‖. Leaders will be asked to rate their emotional skills on a five-
point scale ranging from 1 ―strongly disagree‖ to 5 ―strongly agree‖.

Motivation to Serve: is defined as ―the desire to serve others through one‘s future career‖
(Duffy & Raque-Bogdan, 2010). Motivation to serve will be measured using the 6-item Service
Motivation Scale developed by Duffy and Raque-Bogdan (2010). A sample item includes ―I
think it is important to use my career to serve others. Leaders will be asked to rate their level of
motivation to serve followers on a five-point scale ranging from 1 ―strongly disagree‖ to 5
―strongly agree‖.

Second: Follower’s Attributes

Proactive personality: refers to a behavior tendency focusing on enacting or changing one‘s

environment (Bateman and Crant, 1993). Proactive personality will be measured using the 6-item
proactive personality scale developed by Bateman and Crant (1993). Followers will be asked to
rate their level of proactive personality on a five-point scale ranging from 1 ―strongly disagree‖

51
to 5 ―strongly agree‖. Sample items include ―I am always looking for better ways to do things‖,
and ―If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen‖.

Person-supervisor fit: refers to the perceived match between employees‘ and supervisors‘
characteristics (values, personality, and behavioral styles) (Van Vianen et al., 2011). Person-
supervisor fit will be measured using the 3-three-item person-supervisor fit scale developed by
Cable and DeRue (2002). Followers will be asked to rate their perceptions of person-supervisor
fit on a five-point scale ranging from 1 ―strongly disagree‖ to 5 ―strongly agree‖. The items
comprised: ―My supervisor‘s values provide a good fit with the things that I value in life‖, ―The
things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my supervisor values‖, and ―My
personal values match my supervisor‘s values‘‘.

8.1.2 Dependent variables:

Individual level variables:

First: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB): is defined as ―individual behavior that is

discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate
promotes the effective functioning of the organization‖ (Organ, 2014) Organizational citizenship
behaviors will be measured using a 16-item scale developed and validated by Lee and Allen
(2002). Sample items for OCB-I include: ‗Helps others who have been absent‘ and ‗Goes out of
way to make new employees feel welcome in the work group.‘ Sample items for OCB-O
include: ‗Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image‘ and ‗Offer
ideas to improve the functioning of the organization. Supervisors will rate the OCB of their
followers on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Consistent with
Ruiz‐Palomino and colleagues‘ study (2021) and for the study purpose, the referent in the OCBO
items will be changed from the organization to the team.

Second: Follower’s creativity: refers to ―the intellectual process of generating new and
potentially useful ideas‖ (Hon and Lui, 2016). Leaders will rate their level of creativity using a
five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Follower‘s creativity will be
measured using 9-item scale from Tierney, Farmer, and Graen, (1999). A sample item is ―Took
risks in terms of producing new ideas in doing job‖.

52
Team level variable:

Team Performance: Team performance can be defined as ―the extent to which a team
accomplishes its goal or mission‖ (Devine & Philips, 2001). Team performance will be measured
using Li, Chen, Bai, Liden, Wong, and Qiao, (2023) s‘ six-item scale (2022). Supervisors will
assess team job performance based on criteria such as on-time task completion, meeting the
standards of safety and quality, work productivity, and problem-solving of the teams.
Supervisors will rate the team performance of their followers on a five-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Examples of items include: ―This team met or exceeded
its goals‖

8.3 Mediating Variable:

Team Trust Climate: is defined as an employee‘s psychological state, which involves positive
expectations about the leader‘s intentions or behaviors in situations entailing risk (Gao et al.,
2011). Trust in leaders will be measured using a scale developed by (McAllister, 1995). The
scale consists of two dimensions: cognition-based trust is ―grounded in individual beliefs about
peer reliability and dependability‖, whereas affect-based trust is ―grounded in reciprocated
interpersonal care and concern‖ (McAllister, 1995, p. 25). The cognitive aspect of trust is related
to the leaders‘ knowledge and competence whereas the affect-based aspect of trust is associated
with the emotional bond between leader and followers. The measure consists of 11 items, 6
assessing levels of cognition-based trust, and 5 assessing affect-based trust. Examples of items
include: Affect-based trust ―We have a sharing relationship. We can both freely share our ideas,
feelings, and hopes‖ and cognition-based trust ―This person approaches his/her job with
professionalism and dedication‖. Followers will rate the team creativity on a five-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Control Variables:

Age, gender, and organizational tenure of leaders will be included as control variables (Elche
et al., 2020). Gender will be coded as dummy variable (0 = ‗female‘ and 1 = ‗male‘), Tenure will
be assessed as numbers of years worked in the organization.

53
8.2 Population and Sampling:

The study population consists of all nurses and their supervisors who are working in
Alexandria University Hospitals. The reason for choosing the nursing staff is that: first, servant
leadership is especially appropriate in sectors where outstanding customer service is critical for
competitiveness. Besides, scholars have indicated that the values concerned with servant
leadership could be beneficial for those who are leaders within healthcare (Mcquade, Harrison,
& Tarbert, 2021). Indeed, the context of customer service has been suggested to be particularly
relevant to studying servant leadership‘s effects (e.g., Carter & Baghurst 2014; Liden et al. 2014;
Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018). Second, to achieve excellence in customer service, nursing
teams are essential for operating and leading internal change processes to provide the services.
Third, Leaders in health care organizations might consider compassion and service to others as
essential in the fight against work-related issues (Dwivedi et al., 2020). Fourth, servant
leadership is critical in the health care context because it encourages collaboration, trust, and
respect between health care professionals and their patients (Mostafa & El-Motalib, 2019).
Hence, servant leadership practices are essential for improving the quality of services and
promoting sustainability.
A consensus sampling technique will be utilized. Building on previous studies, team leaders
and all team members will be invited to participate in the survey, and only a team with a
minimum member 2 will be included in the analyses (Yoshida et al., 2014; Wang, Guan, Cui,
Cai, & Liu, 2021). More precisely, team members will be invited to complete a survey that
contains questions about their attributes (e.g., proactive personality), the display of servant
leadership by their leaders, the level of trust in their leaders, and their level of creativity. Also,
leaders will complete a survey that involves questions about some of their personality traits, their
motivation to serve the team members, and the assessment of their follower‘s OCB and team
performance. A cover letter explains the purpose and scope of the study and assures the
respondents the anonymous character of the data and the voluntary nature of their participation in
the study.

54
8.3 Data Collection Methods:

A self-administrated questionnaire will be adopted for data collection after being translated
into Arabic using translation-back-translation method to maintain the equivalence of the
questionnaire in the target language. Data collection will be preceded by informal interviews
ranging from 5-10 minutes with the leaders and followers to explain the purpose of the study.
The participation in the study is entirely voluntary. In addition, it will be assured that the data
collected is treated with great confidentiality. Two different sets of questionnaires will be
distributed to team leaders and team members to minimize common source bias effects between
independent and dependent variables (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2010; Yoshida
et al., 2014). The survey‘s information sheet will include information on the study objectives,
confidentiality, and voluntary participation. Each survey will uniquely identifiable (with an
allotted number) and later links to the respective participant‘s information. This approach will
helps in providing anonymous protection to respondents and allows for the matching of
respondents with teams in further analyses.

8.4 The Pilot Study

After several attempts to apply the study in the field of research groups and the industrial
companies, the researcher faced difficulty in implementing the study, either due to the study's
lack of suitability for application or the shortage of teams in the organization. Thus, a pilot study
was carried out to explore the phenomena of servant leadership in the context of nursing. The
pilot study was preceded by informal interviews from 5-10 minutes that were conducted with the
supervisors and the contacted nurses to explain the purpose of the study. An accessible sample
of nurses and their supervisors working in the faculty of Dentistry was used to collect the data. A
total of 6 teams (6 supervisors and 39 nurses) participated in the pilot study. The responses from
the survey indicated that the participants meet the necessary criteria for carrying out the research.

8.5 Statistical Analysis Techniques:

A number of statistical techniques are used to satisfy the objectives of the research:

First: Descriptive statistics are used to describe the main features of the study sample in
quantitative terms. These included the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum.

55
Second: To examine whether the data structures are adequate for aggregation, the current study
will utilize a random-effects analysis of variance (Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC)
values of servant leadership, team trust climate, and team creativity. ICC is a type of correlation
that describes how strongly subjects in the same team resemble each other. It operates on data
structured as groups rather than data structured as paired observations. The value of an ICC can
range from 0 to 1, with (0) indicating no reliability among raters and (1) indicating perfect
reliability among raters (Liljequist, Elfving, Skavberg, & Roaldsen, 2019). Hence, the results of
ICC will support whether servant leadership, team trust climate, team creativity differ across
teams.

Third: The data involves two hierarchical structures such that individuals are nested within their
teams. Furthermore, most of the hypotheses are multilevel in nature, since they depict
relationships between team-level variables (Level 2), such as team trust climate, and individual
level variables (Level 1), such as motivation to serve.

Researchers have indicated that the multilevel modeling and the structural equation modeling
produced virtually identical estimates for a basic model. However, the structural equation
modeling approach allowed more realistic assumptions on measurement errors and factor
loadings, rendering better model fit indices (Hong & Kim, 2019). Structural equation
modeling (SEM) is a multivariate statistical technique for testing hypotheses about the influences
of sets of variables on other variables; hypotheses can involve correlational and regression-like
relations among observed variables as well as latent variables. In conventional structural
equation models, all latent variables and indicators vary between units (typically subjects) and
are assumed to be independent across units. This assumption is violated in multilevel settings
where units are nested in clusters, leading to within-cluster dependence (Rabe-Hesketh,
Skrondal, & Zheng, 2007).

Accordingly, scholars have indicated that Structural Equation Modeling can be utilized to
estimate parameters for multi-level data, and this approach is especially useful when latent
variables are involved. Thus, Multilevel regression models can be utilizes when the data
structure is hierarchical with elementary units at level 1 nested in clusters at level 2 and so on (
Rabe-Hesketh, Skrondal, & Zheng, 2007). Hence, to test the hypotheses, the multilevel structural
equation modeling (MSEM) will be used to test the required hypotheses (Muthén & Muthén,

56
2017). MSEM is used to model complex relationships at multiple levels. MSEM also estimates
both direct and mediated effects at the same or different levels of analysis (Preacher et al., 2010).

Fourth: To test the indirect relationships that servant leadership behaviors has with follower‘s
OCB and team creativity through team trust climate, the current study will apply the product of
coefficients test recommended by MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002).
More precisely, the bootstrap sampling method will be utilized to generate asymmetric
confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect relationship. The bootstrapped CIs approach generates
a more accurate estimation of the indirect relationship than traditional methods such as the Sobel
test (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004).

8.6 The Structure of the thesis

The research will be divided into six Chapters as follows:

 Chapter One: Introduction.

 Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework.

 Chapter Three: Research Model and Hypotheses.

 Chapter Four: Research Methodology.

 Chapter Five: Data Analysis and Results.

 Chapter Six: Discussion of the results, Recommendation and Limitations

57
 9. References:

Abid, H. R., Gulzar, A., & Hussain, W. (2015). The impact of servant leadership on organizational
citizenship behaviors with the mediating role of trust and moderating role of group cohesiveness;
A Study of public Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business
and Social Sciences, 5(3), 234-242.

Aboramadan, M. (2021). Servant leadership and followers' creativity: does climate for creativity matter?.
In Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship 9(1), 78-94. Emerald
Publishing Limited.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and
Future Directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421–449

Aristotle. (2004). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Al-Asadi, R., Muhammed, S., Abidi, O., & Dzenopoljac, V. (2019). Impact of servant leadership on
intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(4),
472-484.

Amah, O. E. (2018). Determining the antecedents and outcomes of servant leadership. Journal of General
Management, 43(3), 126-138.

Amir, D. A. (2019). The effect of servant leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: the role of
trust in leader as a mediation and perceived organizational support as a moderation. Journal of
Leadership in Organizations, 1(1). 1-16.

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Samah, B. A. (2008). The relationship between transformational
leadership behaviors, organizational justice, leader-member exchange, perceived organizational
support, trust in management and organizational citizenship behaviors. European Journal of
Scientific Research, 23(2), 227-242.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure
and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118

Bao, Y., Li, C., & Zhao, H. (2018). Servant leadership and engagement: A dual mediation model. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 33(6), 406-417.

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

Batool, F., Mohammad, J., & Awang, S. R. (2022). The effect of servant leadership on organisational sustainability:
the parallel mediation role of creativity and psychological resilience. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 43(1), 71-95.

58
Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of
servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–326.

Brown, M. E., & Trevin˜o, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595– 616

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley

Barbuto Jr, J. E., Gottfredson, R. K., & Searle, T. P. (2014). An examination of emotional intelligence as
an antecedent of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 315-323.

Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence:
An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 157-161.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence. Psicothema, 18, 13-25.

Bligh, M. (2016). Leadership and trust. In: Joan Marques & Satinder Dhiman (ed.), Leadership Today,
chapter 2, 21-42, Springer

Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job
crafting and work engagement. Human relations, 65(10), 1359-1378.

Bavik, A. (2020). A systematic review of the servant leadership literature in management and
hospitality. International journal of contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1), 347-382.

Chen, M., Zada, M., Khan, J., & Saba, N. U. (2022). How does servant leadership influences creativity?
Enhancing employee creativity via creative process engagement and knowledge sharing. Frontiers in
Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.

Cable, D.M. and DeRue, D.S. (2002), ―The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions‖, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 875-883.

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

Carsten,M. K., & Uhl-Bien,M. (2012). Follower beliefs in the co-production of leadership: Examining
upward communication and the moderating role of context. Zeitschrift F¨ur Psychologie, 220, 210–
220.

Crant, J.M. (2000), ―Proactive behavior in organizations‖, Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435-462

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

Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating
the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership
Quarterly, 27(1), 124-141.‫‏‬

59
Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2018). The servant leadership advantage: When perceiving low
differentiation in leader-member relationship quality influences team cohesion, team task performance
and service OCB. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 333-345.

Chraim, A. (2016). The impact of servant leadership behaviors on trust and organizational citizenship
behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University).

Chughtai, A. A. (2016). Servant leadership and follower outcomes: Mediating effects of organizational
identification and psychological safety. The Journal of psychology, 150(7), 866-880.‫‏‬

Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive
psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of leadership
& organizational studies, 15(3), 227-240.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development:: A review in context. The leadership quarterly, 11(4), 581-
613.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the wind: How
middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal,
18(5), 407–423.

De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G. (2014). Servant leadership and work
engagement: The contingency effects of leader–follower social capital. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 25(2), 183-212.

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The
state of a science. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 4, 19-43.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership
and team performance. Journal of organizational change management, 17(2), 177-193.

Duffy, R. D., & Raque-Bogdan, T. L. (2010). The motivation to serve others: Exploring relations to
career development. Journal of Career Assessment, 18(3), 250-265.‫‏‬

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 57(1), 61-94.

Elche, D., Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Linuesa-Langreo, J. (2020). Servant leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior: the mediating effect of empathy and service climate. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(6), 2035-2053.

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A
systematic review and call for future research. The leadership quarterly, 30(1), 111-132.‫‏‬

Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Extremera, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence: A theoretical and empirical
review of its first 15 years of history. Psicothema, 18(1), 7-12.

Flotman, A. P., & Grobler, A. (2020). The validation of the servant leadership scale. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 46(1), 1-12.

60
Graen. G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

Ghalavi, Z., & Nastiezaie, N. (2020). Relationship of servant leadership and organizational citizenship
behavior with mediation of psychological empowerment. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 20(89), 241-264.

Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation,
information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827-851.

Graham, J. W. 1991. Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly,

2(2): 105–119.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The Servant as Leader. In Servant Leadership: A Journey Into The Nature of
Legitimate Power and Greatness. Paulist Press.

Grant, A., Gino, F., & Hoffman, D. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of
employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–555.

Haar, J. M., Brougham, D., Roche, M. A., and Barney, A. (2017). Servant leadership and work
engagement: The mediating role of work-life balance. Human Resources Management. 17(2), 56–
72.

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

Hofstede, G. (2009). Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American

psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.

Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the
organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual review of
organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 5(1), 103-128.

Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant
leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal
of management, 44(2), 501-529.

Hong, S., & Kim, S. (2019). Comparisons of multilevel modeling and structural equation modeling
approaches to actor–partner interdependence model. Psychological reports, 122(2), 558-574.

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

61
Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant
leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316-331.

Jaiswal, N. K., & Dhar, R. L. (2017). The influence of servant leadership, trust in leader and thriving on
employee creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(1), 2-21.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical
perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2(1), 102–138.

Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22.

Karatepe, O.M., Ozturk, A. and Kim, T.T. (2019), ―Servant leadership, organizational trust, and bank
employee outcomes‖, The Service Industries Journal, 39 (2), 86-108

Khan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., Islam, T., Rehman, A., Ahmed, S. S., Khan, E., & Sohail, F. (2021). How
servant leadership triggers innovative work behavior: Exploring the sequential mediating role of
psychological empowerment and job crafting. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(4),
1037–1055.

Kim, T. Y., & Kim, M. (2013). Leaders‘ moral competence and employee outcomes: The effects of
psychological empowerment and person–supervisor fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 155-166.

Khan, S. N., Mubushar, M., Khan, I. U., Rehman, H. M., & Khan, S. U. (2021). The influence of
personality traits on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions: the moderating role of servant
leadership. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(1) 13707-13730.

Krekeler, L. A. (2010). The relationship between servant leadership behavior and individual personality
style in New York Annual Conference United Methodist pastors.

Kumari, K., Abbas, J., Hwang, J., & Cioca, L. I. (2022). Does servant leadership promote emotional
intelligence and organizational citizenship behavior among employees? A structural
analysis. Sustainability, 14(9), 1-18.

Kelley, R.E. (1988), ―In praise of followers‖, Harvard Business Review Case Services, 142-148

Langhof, J. G., & Güldenberg, S. (2020). Servant leadership: A systematic literature review—Toward a
model of antecedents and outcomes. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(1), 32-68.‫‏‬

Lapointe, E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Examination of the relationships between servant leadership,
organizational commitment, and voice and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1),
99-115.‫‏‬

Li, F., Chen, T., Bai, Y., Liden, R. C., Wong, M. N., & Qiao, Y. (2023). Serving while being energized
(strained)? A dual-path model linking servant leadership to leader psychological strain and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(4), 1-16

62
Liao, C., Lee, H. W., Johnson, R. E., & Lin, S. H. (2021). Serving you depletes me? A leader-centric
examination of servant leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1185-1218.

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

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership:
Validation of a short form of the SL28. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 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‖, Leadership Quarterly, 19 (2), 161-177

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership
assessment (SOLA) instrument. Florida Atlantic University.

Liljequist, D., Elfving, B., & Skavberg Roaldsen, K. (2019). Intraclass correlation–A discussion and
demonstration of basic features. PloS one, 14(7), 1-35.

MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: theory and
data. Emotion, 8(4), 540-551.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1): 99–128.

Malik, A. A., Muneeb, D., Khan, N., Usman, M., & Latif, K. F. (2022). The nexus of servant leadership
and project success: the mediation of emotional intelligence and job stress and moderation of team
effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(8), 1186-1200.

Malingumu, W., Stouten, J., Euwema, M., & Babyegeya, E. (2016). Servant leadership, organisational
citizenship behavior and creativity: The mediating role of team-member exchange. Psychologica
Belgica, 56(4), 342-356.

Marstand, A.F., Martin, R. and Epitropaki, O. (2017), ―Complementary person-supervisor fit: an

investigation of supplies-values (SV) fit, leader-member exchange (LMX) and work outcomes‖, The
Leadership Quarterly, 28 (3), 418-437.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the
MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97–105

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-59.

Mcquade, K. E., Harrison, C., & Tarbert, H. (2021). Systematically reviewing servant
leadership. European Business Review, 33(3), 465-490.

63
Modise, M., Raga, K. (2023). Servant Leadership is getting to the Root of Positive Forms of Leadership,
A Leader is a Servant First. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology,
8(2), 1929–1936

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2021). Emotional intelligence and servant leadership: A meta‐
analytic review. Business ethics, the environment & responsibility, 30(2), 231-243.‫‏‬

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

Mostafa, A. M. S., & El-Motalib, E. A. A. (2019). Servant leadership, leader–member exchange and
proactive behavior in the public health sector. Public Personnel Management, 48(3), 309-324.

Neubert, M.J., Hunter, E.M. and Tolentino, R.C. (2016), ―A servant leader and their stakeholders: when
does organizational structure enhance a leader‘s influence?‖. The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (6), 896-
910

Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences
organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive
personality. Journal of business ethics, 145(1), 49-62.

Ng, K.-Y., Koh, C., & Goh, H.-C. (2008). The heart of the servant leader: Leader‘s motivation-to-serve
and its impact on LMX and subordinates‘ extra-role behavior. In G. B. Graen, & J. A. Graen (Eds.).
Knowledge driven corporation-complex creative destruction: 125–144. Charlotte: Information Age.

Nyhan, R. C., & Marlowe Jr, H. A. (1997). Development and psychometric properties of the
organizational trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21(5), 614-635.

Neubert, M.J., Hunter, E.M. and Tolentino, R.C. (2016), ―A servant leader and their stakeholders: when
does organizational structure enhance a leader‘s influence?‖, The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (6), 896-
910.

Organ, D. W. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. In Organizational citizenship
behavior and contextual performance (pp. 85-97). Psychology Press.

Paas, J., Poell, R. F., & Batistič, S. (2020). The elephant in the room: exploring the motivational
antecedents of servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(5), 637-652.‫‏‬

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in
organizational contexts. Journal of business ethics, 113(1), 377-393.‫‏‬

Politis, J., & Politis, N. (2012). The relationship between servant leadership and personality
characteristics: The ‗big five‘. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Management,
Leadership & Governance.332-339.

Parks, L. and Guay, R.P. (2009), ―Personality, values, and motivation‖, Personality and Individual
Differences, 47 (7), 675-684.

64
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Zheng, X. (2007). Multilevel structural equation modeling.
In Handbook of latent variable and related models. North-Holland. 209-227

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

Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P. (2020). How and when servant leaders fuel creativity:
The role of servant attitude and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 89, 1-12.

Ruiz‐Palomino, P., Linuesa‐Langreo, J., & Elche, D. (2023). Team‐level servant leadership and team
performance: The mediating roles of organizational citizenship behavior and internal social
capital. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 32(1), 127-144.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical
model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(1), 127-144.

Sendjaya S., Cooper B. (2011). Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale: A hierarchical model and test of
construct validity. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20, 416-436

Saleem, F., Zhang, Y. Z., Gopinath, C., & Adeel, A. (2020). Impact of servant leadership on performance:
The mediating role of affective and cognitive trust. Sage Open, 10(1), 1-16.

Suhartanti, P. D., & Prasetyanto, W. E. (2022). Servant leadership and employee productivity: a mediating and
moderating role. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 71(8), 3488-3506.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S.S.K. and Peng, A.C. (2011), ―Cognition-based and affect-based trust as
mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance‖, Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (4),
863-871.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership:
Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Schwarz, G., Newman, A., Cooper, B., & Eva, N. (2016). Servant leadership and follower job
performance: The mediating effect of public service motivation. Public Administration, 94(1), 1025–
1041.

Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643–663

Setiawan, R. P. S. M., & Irawanto, S. D. W. (2020). Servant leadership characteristics, organisational

commitment, followers‘ trust, employees‘ performance outcomes: A literature review. European
Research Studies Journal, 23(4), 902-911.

Si, W., Shi, S., Zhou, M., & Cai, Z. (2023). Taken for granted: When servant leadership may be
negatively related to OCB via psychological entitlement. Journal of Business Research, 166(1), 114-
122.

65
Spears LC (1995) Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf‘s Theory of ServantLeadership
Influenced Today‘s Top Management Thinker

Sison, A. J. G., & Fontrodona, J. (2011). The common good of business: Addressing a challenge posed by
«Caritas in Veritate». Journal of Business Ethics, 100(S1), 99–107

Song, C., & Lee, C. H. (2020). The effect of service workers' proactive personality on their psychological
withdrawal behaviors: a moderating effect of servant leadership. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 41(5), 653-667.

Sun, P., & Shang, S. (2019). Personality traits and personal values of servant leaders. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 40(2), 177-192.

Sun, Y., Gergen, E., Duncan, P., Hinojosa, B., & Green, M. (2017). An empirical analysis of leader
personality and servant leadership. Journal of Management Science and Business Intelligence, 2(2),
42-47.

Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through the looking glass of a social system: cross-level
effects of high-performance work systems on employees' attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 1–29

Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999), ―An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships‖, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 591-620

Thao, N. P. H., & Kang, S. W. (2020). When servant leaders inspire followers to become organizational
citizens? Empirical evidence from Vietnam. Sage Open, 10(1), 1-12.

Torres, E. M. (2014). Followers' characteristics as predictors of their preference for servant leadership:
A followership approach (Doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University).

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

Van Dierendonck, D. I. R. K., & Heeren, I. M. K. E. (2006). Toward a research model of servant-
leadership. The International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 2(1), 147-164.

Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of
self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. The decade
ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement, 105-165.

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

Van Vianen, A. E., Shen, C. T., & Chuang, A. (2011). Person–organization and person–supervisor fits:
Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 906-926.

Veres, J. C., Eva, N., & Cavanagh, A. (2020). ―Dark‖ student volunteers: commitment, motivation, and
leadership. Personnel Review, 49(5), 1176-1193.‫‏‬

66
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate,
service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-level
investigation. Journal of applied psychology, 95(3), 517-529.

Wang, Z., Guan, C., Cui, T., Cai, S., & Liu, D. (2021). Servant leadership, team reflexivity, coworker
support climate, and employee creativity: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 28(4), 465-478.

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

Wang, Q., & Hackett, R. D. (2016). Conceptualization and measurement of virtuous leadership: Doing
well by doing good. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 321–345

Wang, Z., Yu, K., Xi, R., & Zhang, X. (2019). Servant leadership and career success: The effects of
career skills and proactive personality. Career Development International, 24(7), 717-730.

Washington, R.R., Sutton, C.D. and Field, H.S. (2006), ―Individual differences in servant leadership: the
roles of values and personality‖, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 27 (8), 700-716.

Williams, W.A., Randolph-Seng, B., Hayek, M., Haden, S.P. and Atinc, G. (2017), ―Servant leadership
and followership creativity: the influence of workplace spirituality and political skill‖, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 38(1), 178-193.

Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The leadership quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.

Wu, C. X., & Snell, R. S. (2024). Examining the follower-related antecedents and effects of servant
leadership in the PRC and Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Business Review, 30(1), 140-171.

Wu, X. (2019). Examining the antecedent and effects of servant leadership: The role of followers
(Doctor's thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong). Retrieved from https://commons.ln.edu.hk/otd/59/

Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Chow, C. W. C. (2022). Why and when proactive employees take charge at work:
the role of servant leadership and prosocial motivation. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 31(1), 117-127.‫‏‬

Yang, J., Liu, H., & Gu, J. (2017). A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: The roles of
self-efficacy and power distance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(5), 610-629.

Yang, J., Ma, C., Gu, J., & Liu, H. (2020). Linking servant leadership to employee creativity: the roles of
team identification and collectivism. Chinese Management Studies, 14(1), 215-233.

Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and
innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of Business
Research, 67(7), 1395-1404.

67
Zada, M., Khan, J., Saeed, I., & Zada, S. (2023). How servant leadership influences the effectiveness of
project management: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and
Performance.

Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhang, L., Xu, S., Liu, X., & Chen, W. (2021). A meta-analytic review of the
consequences of servant leadership: The moderating roles of cultural factors. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 38(1), 371-400.‫‏‬

Zhou, G., Gul, R., & Tufail, M. (2022). Does servant leadership stimulate work engagement? The
moderating role of trust in the leader. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-9

Zeeshan, S., Ng, S. I., Ho, J. A., & Jantan, A. H. (2021). Assessing the impact of servant leadership on
employee engagement through the mediating role of self-efficacy in the Pakistani banking
sector. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1963029.

68
Appendices
Appendix (A) Leader’s Questionnaire: Questions measuring the Determinants and Consequences
of Servant Leadership Behaviors: Section One: The following is a list of statements that measure some
of your personality traits. Please circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

1. I see myself as someone who is talkative 1 2 3 4 5

2. I see myself as someone who is reserved (R) 1 2 3 4 5

3. I see myself as someone who is full of energy 1 2 3 4 5

4. I see myself as someone who generates a lot of 1 2 3 4 5

enthusiasm.

5. I see myself as someone who tends to be quiet (R) 1 2 3 4 5

6. I see myself as someone who has an assertive personality 1 2 3 4 5

7. I see myself as someone who is sometimes shy, 1 2 3 4 5

inhibited(R)

8. I see myself as someone who is outgoing, sociable 1 2 3 4 5

9. I see myself as someone who tends to find fault with 1 2 3 4 5

others(R)

10. I see myself as someone who is helpful and unselfish with 1 2 3 4 5

others

11. I see myself as someone who starts quarrels with others(R) 1 2 3 4 5

12. I see myself as someone who has a forgiving nature 1 2 3 4 5

13. I see myself as someone who is generally trusting 1 2 3 4 5

14. I see myself as someone who can be cold and aloof(R) 1 2 3 4 5

15. I see myself as someone who is considerate and kind to 1 2 3 4 5

almost everyone

16. I see myself as someone who is sometimes rude to 1 2 3 4 5

others(R)

17. I see myself as someone who likes to cooperate with 1 2 3 4 5

others.

69
Section Two: The following is a list of statements that measure your level of Emotional Intelligence
Please circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1. I have a good sense of why I have certain 1 2 3 4 5
feelings most of the time
2. I have good understanding of my own emotions 1 2 3 4 5
3. I really understand what I feel. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I always know whether or not I am happy. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I always know my friends‘ emotions from their 1 2 3 4 5
behavior.
6. I am a good observer of others‘ emotions 1 2 3 4 5
7. I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of 1 2 3 4 5
others
8. I have good understanding of the emotions of 1 2 3 4 5
people around me
9. I always set goals for myself and then try my 1 2 3 4 5
best to achieve them
10. I always tell myself I am a competent person 1 2 3 4 5
11. I am a self-motivated person 1 2 3 4 5
12. I would always encourage myself to try my best. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I am able to control my temper and handle 1 2 3 4 5
difficulties rationally
14. I am quite capable of controlling my own 1 2 3 4 5
emotions.
15. I can always calm down quickly when I am very 1 2 3 4 5
angry.
16. I have good control of my own emotions. 1 2 3 4 5
Section Three: The following is a list of statements that measure the extent to which you have the
motivation to serve the team member. Please circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1. I will use my career to help others 1 2 3 4 5
2. I will use my career to transform other 1 2 3 4 5
people‘s lives
3. I think it is important to use my career to 1 2 3 4 5
serve others
4. I do not think it is important to use my 1 2 3 4 5
career to serve the greater community (r).
5. I will use any career I pursue to serve the 1 2 3 4 5
greater community
6. The needs of society have no effect on my 1 2 3 4 5
career choice (r)

70
Section Four: The following is a list of statements that measure your team members‘ citizenship
behaviors. Please circle the number that reflects your opinion about your team members

Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1. Help others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Willingly give your time to help others who 1 2 3 4 5
have work-related problems
3. Adjust your work schedule to accommodate 1 2 3 4 5
other employees‘ requests for time off
4. Go out of the way to make newer employees 1 2 3 4 5
feel welcome in the work group
5. Show genuine concern and courtesy toward 1 2 3 4 5
coworkers, even under the most trying
business or personal situations.
6. Give up time to help others who have work or 1 2 3 4 5
nonwork problems
7. Assist others with their duties 1 2 3 4 5
8. Share personal property with others to help 1 2 3 4 5
their work
9. Attend functions that are not required but that 1 2 3 4 5
help the organizational image
10. Keep up with developments in the organization 1 2 3 4 5
11. Defend the organization when other employees 1 2 3 4 5
criticize it
12. Show pride when representing the organization 1 2 3 4 5
in public.
13. Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the 1 2 3 4 5
organization
14. Express loyalty toward the organization 1 2 3 4 5
15. Take action to protect the organization from 1 2 3 4 5
potential problems
16. Demonstrate concern about the image of the 1 2 3 4 5
organization

Section Five: The following is a list of statements that measure your follower‘s creativity. Please circle
the number that reflects your opinion.

Statements Strongly Disa Neutra Agree Strong

Disagree gree l ly
Agree
1. Demonstrated originality in his/her work 1 2 3 4 5
2. Took risks in terms of producing new ideas in 1 2 3 4 5
doing job

71
 3. Found new uses for existing methods or 1 2 3 4 5
equipments.
4. Solved problems that had caused other difficulty 1 2 3 4 5
5. Tried out new ideas and approached to problems 1 2 3 4 5
6. Identified opportunities for new 1 2 3 4 5
products/processes
7. Generated novel, but operable work-related ideas. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Served as a good role model for creativity 1 2 3 4 5
9. Generated ideas revolutionary to our field 1 2 3 4 5

Section Six: The following is a list of statements that measure the level of your team performance.
Please circle the number that reflects your opinion about your team performance.

Statements Strongly Disagre Neutr Agree Stron

Disagree e al gly
Agree

1. This team met or exceeded its goals. 1 2 3 4 5

2. This team completed its tasks on time 1 2 3 4 5
3. This team made sure that products and services 1 2 3 4 5
met or exceeded quality standards.
4. This team responded quickly when problems 1 2 3 4 5
came up
5. This team was a productive team 1 2 3 4 5
6. This team successfully solved problems that 1 2 3 4 5
slowed down their work

Appendix B Follower’s Questionnaire:

Section one: Questions measuring some of your personality traits. The following is a list of
statements that measure your level of proactive personality. Please circle the number that reflects your
opinion

Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1. If I see something I don't like, I fix it 1 2 3 4 5
2. No matter what the odds, if I believe in 1 2 3 4 5
something, I will make it happen
3. I love being a champion for my ideas, even 1 2 3 4 5
against others' opposition
4. I am always looking for better ways to do 1 2 3 4 5
things
5. If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent 1 2 3 4 5
me from making it happen
6. I excel at identifying opportunities 1 2 3 4 5

72
Section Two: Questions measuring the perception of person-supervisor fit. The following is a list of
statements that measure your perception of person-supervisor fit with your leaders. Please circle the
number that reflects your opinion.
Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. My supervisor‘s values provide a good fit with the 1 2 3 4 5
things that I value in life
2. The things that I value in life are very similar to the 1 2 3 4 5
things that my supervisor values
3. My personal values match my supervisor‘s values 1 2 3 4 5

Section Three: Questions Measuring Servant Leadership Behaviors of your Leader The following is
a list of statements that measure the servant leadership practices of your team leader. Please circle the
number that reflects your opinion
Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. My Leader can tell if something work-related is 1 2 3 4 5

going wrong
2. My leader makes my career development a priority 1 2 3 4 5
3. I would seek help from my leader if I had a personal 1 2 3 4 5
problem
4. My leader emphasizes the importance of giving back 1 2 3 4 5

to the community
5. My leader puts my interests ahead of his/her own 1 2 3 4 5

6. My leader gives me the freedom to handle difficult 1 2 3 4 5

situations in a way that I feel it is best

7. My leaders would not compromise ethical principles 1 2 3 4 5
in order to achieve success. (R) Or ‗‗My Leader is
always honest‘.
Section Four: The following is a list of statements that measure the level of team trust climate. Please
circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Statements Strongly Disagre Neutra Agre Strongl

Disagree e l e y Agree

Affect-based Trust
1. We have a sharing relationship. We can both freely 1 2 3 4 5
share our ideas, feelings, and hopes.
2. I can talk freely to this individual about difficulties 1 2 3 4 5
I am having at work and know that (s)he will want

73
 to listen
3. we would both feel a sense of loss if one of us was 1 2 3 4 5
transferred and we could no longer work together
4. If I shared my problems with this person, I know 1 2 3 4 5
(s)he would respond constructively and caringly
5. would have to say that we have both made 1 2 3 4 5
considerable emotional investments in our working
relationship
Cognition-based trust
6. This person approaches his/her job with 1 2 3 4 5
professionalism and dedication
7. Given this person's track record, I see no reason to 1 2 3 4 5
doubt his/her competence and preparation for the
job
8. I can rely on this person not to make my job more 1 2 3 4 5
difficult by careless work
9. Most people, even those who aren't close friends of 1 2 3 4 5
this individual, trust and respect him/her as a
coworker.
10. Other work associates of mine who must interact 1 2 3 4 5
with this individual consider him/her to be
trustworthy
11. If people knew more about this individual and 1 2 3 4 5
his/her background, they would be more concerned
and monitor his/her performance more closely? (R)

74