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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1460-1060.htm

How servant leadership triggers Psychological

empowerment
innovative work behavior: and job
crafting
exploring the sequential mediating
role of psychological 1037
empowerment and job crafting Received 20 September 2020
Revised 6 December 2020
Accepted 4 March 2021
Muhammad Mumtaz Khan
Business Studies Department, Bahria Business School,
Bahria University–Karachi Campus, Karachi, Pakistan
Muhammad Shujaat Mubarik
College of Business Management, Institute of Business Management,
Karachi, Pakistan
Tahir Islam
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, and
Asif Rehman, Syed Saad Ahmed, Essa Khan and Farhan Sohail
Business Studies Department, Bahria Business School,
Bahria University–Karachi Campus, Karachi, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – The study aims to examine the mediating role of psychological empowerment and job crafting
between servant leadership and innovative work behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – The data were collected from 689 knowledge workers employed in
Pakistan’s service industry. The data collection was done through survey design. The data analysis was done
through structural equation modeling using PLS-Smart.
Findings – Servant leadership was found to be related to psychological empowerment, job crafting and
innovative work behavior of the employees. Job crafting was found to be mediating between servant leadership
and innovative work behavior. Additionally, psychological empowerment and job crafting were found to be
sequential mediators between servant leadership and innovative work behavior.
Originality/value – The study delineated the link mechanism between servant leadership and innovative
work behavior.
Keywords Servant leadership, Psychological empowerment, Job crafting, Innovative work behavior
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Even we had not entered into the 21st century, the foreboding sense prevailed about the
hypercompetitive world ahead. It was predicted that to remain competitive in the global
market of the 21st century, organizations would be required to be innovative (Mahmood
and Mubarik, 2020; Shalley, 1995; Zhou, 1998). Today, toward the end of the first quarter of
the 21st century, organizations find themselves in a hypercompetitive world where they are
hard-pressed to innovate their products and services along with their processes
European Journal of Innovation
continually. These innovations are spurred by creative ideas brought to the front by the Management
firm’s employees known as knowledge workers, thus attaining an increased role for Vol. 25 No. 4, 2022
pp. 1037-1055
themselves. To harness employees’ creative potential across the organizations, firms have © Emerald Publishing Limited
1460-1060
started to promote and support the employees, so they can indulge in innovative work DOI 10.1108/EJIM-09-2020-0367
EJIM behavior (Afsar and Umrani, 2019; Edghiem and Mouzughi, 2018). Firms around the world
25,4 are exploring practices that can motivate employees to indulge in innovative work behavior
(Carnevale et al., 2017; Huang, 2017; Liu et al., 2017). One of the myriad factors that can
positively influence employees to pursue innovative work behavior and that, in turn, can
give a competitive edge to the organization is the use of suitable leadership (Rao Jada et al.,
2019; Mubarik et al., 2018).
There is a growing body of literature furnishing evidence relating leadership with
1038 innovative work behavior through different mediators (Afsar and Umrani, 2019;
Asurakkody and Kim, 2020; Cangialosi et al., 2020; Rao Jada et al., 2019); however, we
claim that the explanation does not yet suffice. As the conducted studies did not consider
two significant changes related to work and worker. First, with the added expectation of
being innovative, employees find their work in continuous evolution (Khan et al., 2018;
Kira et al., 2010; Mantri and Ahuja, 2015). Because of this ongoing change in work, the
historical authority of a manager to design a job is arguably eroded (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2014). Now, there is a need to provide a room for the employees to bring
changes in their work (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001), a concept known as job crafting.
In the process, it enables the employee to smoothen the evolution of the job and renders
the job to be wholesome for employees. Second, the knowledge workers have a vision,
education, training and internal motivation (Ml
adkov
a, 2012; Ml
adkov
a et al., 2015); so
they cannot be led using the ways that were intended for enhancing the productive
efficiency of workers of the industrial economy. These two interlinked changes
collectively make a strong case for a leader facilitated and employees initiated
innovative work behavior mediated through the psychological empowerment.
The current study proposes servant leadership to be the appropriate leadership to spur
innovative work behavior. Servant leadership, using service to influence the employees,
works for the growth of employees. Some studies found servant leadership to be related to the
employees’ innovative work behavior (Cai et al., 2018; Faraz et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2020; Krog
and Govender, 2015). But none of them explored the mediating role of job crafting and the
sequential mediating roles of psychological empowerment and job crafting. The study, using
self-determination theory (SDT) (Gagn
e and Deci, 2005), proposes that servant leadership’s
serving behavior can lead to the psychological empowerment of employees. These
empowered employees using their decision latitude would indulge in job crafting behavior.
Subsequently, job crafting by releasing positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2004) and increasing
employee resources (Hobfoll, 2002) enables the employees to indulge in innovative work
behavior.
The study was conducted with five objectives. The first was to ascertain the role of
servant leadership in triggering employee innovative work behavior. The second was to
unravel the relation between psychological empowerment and job crafting behavior.
Third, the study intended to confirm the positive role of job crafting in promoting
innovative work behavior. Fourth, the study, in the light of broaden and build theory and
conservation of resource theory, intended to test whether job crafting worked as a
mediating link between servant leadership and innovative work behavior. Finally, the
study using the tenet of SDT along with broaden and build and conservation of resource
theory sought to ascertain the sequential mediation roles of psychological empowerment
and job crafting linking servant leadership and innovative work behavior.
The current study contributes to the existing literature in multiple ways. First, it explores
the mediating potential of job crafting behavior linking servant leadership and innovative
work behavior. Second, it checks whether psychological empowerment and job crafting
sequentially mediate the relationship between servant leadership and innovative work
behavior. Last, the study adds to scarce empirical evidence related to the relationship
between servant leadership and innovative work behavior.
2. Literature review Psychological
The historical focus of leadership to serve the leader took an about turn with the advent of empowerment
servant leadership. Greenleaf introduced servant leadership that instead of serving and
aggrandizing, the leader regarded followers as the ones worth serving (Greenleaf, 2002;
and job
Sergiovanni, 2000; Walker, 2015). With a focus on serving the followers, servant leadership crafting
keeps the growth and development of employees at the core of its philosophy (Page and
Wong, 2000). Servant leadership, using a holistic approach to leadership, involves followers
in ways that are relational, ethical, emotional and spiritual to empower them to grow into 1039
what they can become (Eva et al., 2019). As followers’ interests are taken care of, they are more
engaged in their work and strive to work for the organization’s goals (Sendjaya and Pekerti,
2010), so servant leadership tries to reach the organizational goal through the use of service to
the employees instead of using charisma or influence. There might be slight consternation
that with the focus on employees’ development, servant leadership may ignore the
organization’s interest for which they are hired. But the consternation is uncalled for, as
servant leadership can be established as proorganizational despite being follower-focused.
As servant leadership holds the goal of service to the community very dear to it (Laub, 1999;
Liden et al., 2008; Spears, 2002), it works to attain community development by transforming
the employees into organization-loving individuals. As organizations are the units of the
community that provide work along with products and services; therefore, servant
leadership, along with the serving employees, cannot ignore the efficient and effective
working of the organizations. Evidence points to the usefulness of servant leadership for the
organization (Laub, 2018).
The goals of employee development and the subsequent community service are achieved
through servant leadership practices such as expressing humility and authenticity,
providing direction to the employees and taking responsibility for the employee along
with the organization. Additionally, a serving leader, using its ethical side, shares information
with the followers and remains at the back to help them in any problem. The process of
servant leadership transforms the followers into wiser, healthier, more empowered and
finally into a servant leader themselves (Greenleaf, 2002; Northouse, 2015). As explained
earlier, servant leadership serves the employees and organization alike. It is found to be
improving employees’ well-being (Jin et al., 2017) and job satisfaction (Donia et al., 2016;
Giolito and Van Dierendonck, 2015; Ozyilmaz and Cicek, 2015). At the organizational level,
servant leadership is empirically proven to be improving employee performance (Saleem
et al., 2020), increasing organizational productivity (Laub, 2018) and triggering employee
creativity and innovative work behavior (Cai et al., 2018; Krog and Govender, 2015).

2.1 Servant leadership and innovative work behavior

Innovative work behavior was defined by Kanter (1988) as, “Production or adoption of useful
ideas and their implementation.” It is an extra-role behavior requiring the employees to go
beyond the established routines set for them. Employees, indulging in innovative work
behavior, may look for new technologies, develop new ways to meet organizational objectives
and apply new work methods (de Jong and den Hartog, 2010). As innovative work behavior is
a benign and extended form of creativity, it comes up with added comforts and difficulties.
Being relatively new makes it possible for employees to adopt ideas from outside and still be
innovative. The flip side making innovative work behavior a more complex phenomenon is
the added phase of the implementation of the idea (Scott and Bruce, 1994). The successful
culmination of innovative work behavior requires more effort as it involves the additional
stages of promotion and implementation. As innovative work behavior is related to the firm’s
innovative performance (Shanker et al., 2017), it is highly valued and encouraged by the firms.
The chances of failure make innovative work behavior a risky adventure (Yuan and
Woodman, 2010), as it is time-consuming and often resisted by peers and top management
EJIM (George and Zhou, 2007); therefore, employees do not readily indulge in it. The role of
25,4 supportive and encouraging, leadership becomes instrumental in stimulating the employees
to embark upon a risky adventure such as innovative work behavior. If innovative work
behavior is broken into two components, idea creation and idea implementation are
the resulting components. Both of them are different and require different skills from the
employees. Idea creation requires cognitive skills, while idea implementation needs
sociopolitical skills. The proceeding lines will delineate the facilitating role of servant
1040 leadership. First, the role of leadership in facilitating idea creation is explained. As leadership
is flaunted to be one of the sources of positive or negative emotions at work (Dasborough,
2006), positive emotions enhance the employee’s cognitive ability (Fredrickson, 2001).
Consequently, leadership assumes a vital role in promoting innovative work behavior.
Through its employee-centered practices, servant leadership ensures that the organization
works for the growth and betterment of the employees (Page and Wong, 2000). Servant
leadership motivates the employees to work for their development. The supportive role of
servant leadership enhances employees’ positive emotions (Khan et al., 2018; Yoshida et al.,
2014); who consequently find their cognitive abilities broadened and have more chances of
having a creative idea.
In the second stage of innovative behavior, employees work to implement their ideas.
Implementing an idea needs support from multiple players or stakeholders; it has more
chances of success if the sociopolitical process is facilitated. Here, we are discussing how
servant leadership can be useful in facilitating the sociopolitical process. Though servant
leadership has one-on-one relationships with the employees, it has overall community
development at the core (Laub, 1999; Liden et al., 2008). Servant leadership instills a collective
thought in employees. It encourages employees to work for others’ sake and finally transform
the employees into servant leaders themselves (Greenleaf, 2002; Page and Wong, 2000). When
employees among their colleagues and across the organizational hierarchy have support and
connectivity, the required sociopolitical skills are well entrenched. Putting these skills into
use, the employees with innovative ideas can easily approach others to get the needed
support for their implementation.
Besides the mentioned reasoning, there is empirical evidence regarding servant
leadership’s usefulness in positively affecting innovative work behavior among the
employees (Cai et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2020; Krog and Govender, 2015). In the presence of
the discussed evidence, the following hypothesis can be proposed.
H1. Servant leadership is related to innovative work behavior.

2.2 Servant leadership and psychological empowerment

Psychological empowerment, an intrinsic motivational state, shows whether employees feel
themselves to be in control while working in the organization (Spreitzer, 2008). Being in
control gives the employees an active orientation to their job and brings many positive effects
to their job. Psychological empowerment manifests itself through four dimensions: meaning,
competence, self-determination and impact (Spreitzer, 1995). Meaning is the employees’
perception about their jobs having value or importance (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).
Competence is the employees’ perception of their abilities to perform the task they are
expected to perform (Bandura, 1977). Self-determination is the employees’ feeling whether
they are free in making decisions regarding the process used to perform the task (Avolio et al.,
2004). Last, the impact is the employees’ perception about the ability of their work to be
making a difference in attaining the purpose of the task or the overall purpose of the
organization (Spreitzer, 1995).
As psychological empowerment is found to be related to many positive outcomes such
as performance (Chiang and Hsieh, 2012; Hall, 2008), creativity (Zhang and Bartol, 2010)
and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Bhatnagar, 2012; Chiang and Hsieh, 2012), Psychological
academicians value it and search for the ways that are effective in promoting it. The role empowerment
of leadership is one of such factors that attracted academicians. The leaders that empower
employees are regarded as empowering leaders. Empowering leaders are found to show
and job
the following behaviors or characteristics. First, they share information regarding the crafting
firm’s work process and overall objectives with the subordinates, thus improving their
perception about their meaningfulness (Conger, 1989). Second, empowering leadership is
generous with the use of praise, encouragement and persuasion toward the employees 1041
mastering new skills consequently improving their competence (Amundsen and
Martinsen, 2014). Third, the empowering leaders are ready to give autonomy to the
subordinates thus increasing their self-determination (Bandura, 1986). Finally, the
empowering leaders readily involve subordinates in decision-making, thus making them
realize that they have an impact on the working in the organization (Amundsen and
Martinsen, 2014; Manz and Sims, 1987).
Servant leadership also manifests the abovementioned behaviors; thus, it can be
considered empowering leadership. First, as Conger described, empowering leaders share
information with the employees; servant leadership, similarly, disseminates information
among the employees (Page and Wong, 2000). Second, the competence nurturing support and
encouragement associated with empowering leadership is also found in servant leadership
(Liden et al., 2008; Page and Wong, 2000). Third, servant leadership is also open to sharing
leadership (Laub, 1999) and delegating authority (Patterson, 2003), thus increases employees’
self-determination very like the empowering leader. Like empowering leaders, servant
leaders also involve employees in decision-making and listen to their ideas (Page and Wong,
2000; Spears, 2002), thus influencing the employees’ perception of their positive impact in the
organization. Along with the above-described congruence between servant leadership and
empowering leadership, empirical evidence points to the relationship between servant
leadership and psychological empowerment (Newman et al., 2017). In the presence of
theoretical underpinning along with existing empirical evidence, the following hypothesis
can be formed.
H2. Servant leadership is related to psychological empowerment.

2.3 Servant leadership and job crafting

Job crafting, a proactive work behavior, as defined in terms of roles by Wrzesniewski and
Dutton, is employee-initiated changes in the task, relation and cognitive boundaries of
work (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). To counter the operationalization difficulties of
the role-based definition of job crafting, job crafting definition in terms of job demands
and resources was proposed. According to this definition, employee-initiated changes in
job demands and resources are termed as job crafting (Tims and Bakker, 2010). Job
demands, the aspects of job-consuming effort or causing strain, are divided into two
types: one challenging job demands and the other hindering job demands (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007). When employees craft their jobs, they can do it by increasing
challenging demands and decreasing hindering job demands. Job resources, the aspects
of job helpful in carrying out the job, are also of two types: structural job resources and
social job resources (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Structural job resources help in
facilitating job performance, while social job resources are the ones that help in
understanding the job better (Tims et al., 2013). Job crafting from job resources is always
carried out by expanding the resources, so structural and social job resources are
expanded in job crafting. Because of being employee-initiated, job crafting is more
beneficial for employees and the organization (Hakanen et al., 2017). Job crating increases
employees well-being (Hakanen et al., 2018; Robledo et al., 2019) and satisfaction (de Beer
EJIM et al., 2016) at the employee level while positively affect job performance
25,4 (Guan and Frenkel, 2018), OCB (Bavik et al., 2017) and creativity (Rizwan et al., 2016)
at the organizational level.
The usefulness of job crafting for the organization makes it one of the preferred
approaches of organizations to motivate employees, and organizations actively assist
employees in their endeavor in indulging in job crafting behavior. One of the strategies
available is the use of employee-centered leadership (Lichtenthaler and Fischbach, 2018).
1042 Servant leadership, an employee-centered leadership (Greenleaf, 2002), is expected to promote
job crafting behavior among employees. The three reasons that can be forwarded for the
relationship between servant leadership and job crafting are 1) empowerment of
the employees, 2) intent of developing employees and 3) support to the employees. First,
job crafting is a bottom-up approach to job design. Employees can indulge in such work
behaviors if they are empowered to do so. Servant leadership strives to empower employees
by involving them in decision-making, seeking their opinion and praising them for their
changes (Page and Wong, 2000; Patterson, 2003). Imbued with such an empowering
environment, employees are expected to indulge in job crafting. Second, due to being
employee-centered, servant leadership regards the growth and development of the employee
as one of its most important responsibility (Page and Wong, 2000; Spears, 2002). Servant
leadership conveys its intent to the employees, and the resulting confidence helps them to
pursue a work behavior helpful in their development and growth such as job crafting. Finally,
servant leadership provides the required support to the employees to indulge in job crafting
behavior. By showing care for the employees and making themselves available in case of
difficulty or a failure (Sendjaya et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011), servant
leadership conveys an encouraging message to the employees who subsequently pursue job
crafting behavior. According to SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2008), the supportive, caring and
encouraging environment bequeathed by servant leadership inculcates the required
confidence among employees to indulge in job crafting behavior. Some studies found the
relationship between servant leadership and job crafting behavior (Bavik et al., 2017; Harju
et al., 2018). In light of the above theoretical discussion and empirical evidence, the following
hypothesis is proposed.
H3. Servant leadership is related to job crafting.

2.4 Psychological empowerment and job crafting behavior

Employees who are psychologically empowered regard themselves as competent ones who
can affect their jobs and work environment in ways to facilitate proactive work behavior
(Parker et al., 2010; Spreitzer, 1995). Using can-do spirit, psychologically empowered
employees are better at taking initiatives (Schneider and George, 2011). The relation between
psychological empowerment and proactive work behavior, such as job crafting, is explained
through SDT. Psychological empowerment, along with being an intrinsic motivation, is also
an active motivational orientation (Kang et al., 2017); both of which are essential for proactive
work behavior (Seibert et al., 2011). Psychologically empowered employees, due to their active
orientation (Spreitzer, 1995) and thorough knowledge of their work (Kang et al., 2017), have
the intent and the capacity to take initiatives to improve their work and the working of the
organization. There is piling empirical evidence relating psychological empowerment to
proactive work behavior. Psychological empowerment is found to be related to OCB (Chiang
and Hsieh, 2012).
Additionally, it is found to be related to knowledge sharing (Kang et al., 2017). Due to
being a proactive behavior, job crafting is expected to be influenced by psychological
empowerment. Furthermore, according to SDT, proactive work behavior such as job
crafting is self-initiated that requires intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Proactive
work behavior such as job crafting has more chances of being performed when employees Psychological
feel that their needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy are satisfied (Parker et al., empowerment
2010). The four dimensions of psychological empowerment, namely; meaning, self-
determination, competence and impact, are related to SDT; therefore it is expected that
and job
psychological empowerment would work as an intrinsic motivator to perform self-initiated crafting
tasks such as job crafting (Coehoorn, 2017). In short, it can be said that psychologically
empowered employees are more likely to undertake job crafting behavior because they
think that they have the competence and autonomy to have a meaningful impact (Coehoorn, 1043
2017). In light of the above given theoretical and empirical support, the following
hypothesis is formed.
H4. Psychological empowerment is related to job crafting.

2.5 Job crafting and innovative work behavior

A resourceful employee is more innovative (Dediu et al., 2018). Traditionally, it was thought
that resources come from management. There is currently a realization that employees can
increase their resources by indulging in job crafting behavior (Tims et al., 2013). The two
resources, namely structural resources and social resources, are affected by employees. As
employees can increase their resources, they can increase their innovative work behavior.
The availability of added resources can be helpful to employees in both the stages of
innovative work behavior. In the first stage of innovative work behavior, known as idea
creation, employees indulge in the cognitive process. The availability of resources and a
resource’s related ability to make the job a thriving experience collectively help the incumbent
be cognitively productive (Afsar and Umrani, 2019). As the presence of positive emotions is
linked to an expanded thought–action repertoire, the employees are expected to be more
creative (Fredrickson, 2004). In the second stage of innovative work behavior that requires
the employees to indulge in the sociopolitical process to create support for the new idea,
employees can use the added resources to win the support of stakeholders for the
implementation of the new idea. Additionally, the presence of positive emotions also enables
the employees to present their ideas better to win the required support. On the other hand,
employees either by decreasing hindering job demands or increasing challenging demands,
work to increase their well-being (Tadi
c et al., 2015). Collectively, the argument suggests that
job crafting through its ability to enhance positive emotions and resources enables the
employees to pursue innovative work behavior
As discussed above, job crafting works to facilitate innovative work behavior by
facilitating cognitive and sociopolitical processes required for idea creation and idea
implementation. There is also empirical evidence that unraveled a positive relationship
between job crafting and innovative work behavior (Afsar and Umrani, 2019). In light of the
extended arguments and empirical evidence, the following hypothesis can be proposed.
H5. Job crafting is related to innovative work behavior.

2.6 Mediating role of job crafting

Servant leadership triggered job crafting provides the employees with positive emotions
and increased resources that employees use to indulge in innovative work behavior. As
discussed above, servant leadership provides the required empowerment, confidence
and support to employees that subsequently enable them to pursue proactive work
behavior such as job crafting behavior (Luo and Zheng, 2018; Mostafa and El-Motalib,
2018). When employees craft their jobs, they seek to increase their resources and
challenges (Tims and Bakker, 2010). As the employees can make personal changes in
their jobs, they find their jobs more enjoyable, thus increasing the likelihood of indulging
EJIM in extra-role behavior (Demerouti et al., 2015). The move from job crafting to extra-role
25,4 behavior is provided by the theory of conservation of resources and broaden and build
theory (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004; Hobfoll, 1989). The positive emotions described by
Fredrickson and the positive gain spiral of resources enable the employee to indulge in
extra-role behavior. Though job crafting is found to mediate the relationship between
servant leadership and other extra-role behavior such as OCB (Bavik et al., 2017) and
work engagement (Yang et al., 2017), there is no evidence delineating the mediating role
1044 of job crafting between servant leadership and innovative work behavior. The following
hypothesis is proposed.
H6. Job crafting mediates the relationship between servant leadership and innovative
work behavior.

2.7 Sequential mediation of psychological empowerment and job crafting behavior

The idea of servant leadership is the practical embodiment of employee empowerment. When
employees are led through service (van Dierendonck, 2011), they feel that they are in control.
With the vested latitude of decision-making, the employees readily indulge in proactive work
behavior (Luo and Zheng, 2018; Mostafa and El-Motalib, 2018). Job crafting, one of the
proactive behaviors, is also demonstrated by the employees. Job crafting behavior
consequently brings two simultaneous changes. These changes are an increase in the
thought–action repertoire and resources. Job crafting, an idea meant to ensure employee well-
being, enhances positive emotions (Costantini and Sartori, 2018). The positive emotions
increase the thought–action repertoire of the employees (Fredrickson, 2004). The broadened
repertoire through its broadened thoughts enables the employees to divulge creativity
(Fredrickson, 2004). On the other hand, the increased action repertoire helps in improving
the employee’s ability to work for the implementation of the idea. Additionally, the job
crafting triggered by the intrinsic motivation of increased psychological empowerment
ensures the conservation of resources (van den Heuvel et al., 2015). According to the
conservation of resource theory, employees can use the conserved resources to create more
resources, such as relational resources that, in turn, can be used to garner the required
support to implement the idea (Hobfoll, 1989). So the confluence of SDT, broaden and build
theory and theory of conservation of resources collectively explain the relationship between
servant leadership and innovative work behavior through the sequential mediating effects of
psychological empowerment and job crafting behavior.
Currently, there is no empirical evidence pointing to the sequential mediating role of
psychological empowerment and job crafting between servant leadership and innovative
work behavior. Therefore, only theoretical reasoning is being used to develop a hypothesis
toward this effect.
H7. Servant leadership is related to innovative work behavior through the sequential
mediating effects of psychological empowerment and job crafting.

Psychological Job
Empowerment Craing

Figure 1. Servant Innovave

Conceptual framework Leadership Work Behavior
3. Research methodology Psychological
3.1 Respondents empowerment
The data for this study were collected from knowledge workers employed in the service
sector from Pakistan. The employees were contacted and asked to participate. When they
and job
gave their consent, the questionnaire was personally administered to them. A total of 750 crafting
employees were approached. Out of the approached 750 employees, 689 shared their data.
The response rate for the study was 91.87%. Table 1 contains the respondents’ profile.
The profile shows that 64% of the respondents are male while almost 36% of respondents are 1045
female. Additionally, the profile reveals that 15.25% of the respondents had the qualification
of bachelor, 45.32% of the respondents are masters while the remaining 39.43% had Ph.D.
The average age of the respondents is 31 years, while the average overall experience is a little
less than eight years.

3.2 Measure
Servant leadership: To measure servant leadership, a seven-item scale known as SL-7
developed by Liden and colleagues (Liden et al., 2015) was used. One of the scale’s
representative items is, “I would seek help from my leader if I have a personal problem.”
Psychological empowerment: The study used the scale developed by Spreitzer to measure
psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995). The scale has 12 items that were measured on
a seven-point Likert scale where one means “strongly disagree” and seven is used to denote
strongly agree. One of the items of the construct is the following: “The work I do is very
important to me.”
Job crafting: Job crafting of the employees was measured through a job crafting scale
developed and validated by Tims and colleagues (Tims et al., 2012). The scale with four sub-
scales had 21 items that were measured on a seven-point scale where one represented “never”
while seven was employed to denote “most frequent”.
Innovative work behavior: Innovative work behavior was measured through the scale
developed by (de Jong and den Hartog, 2010). The scale consisted of ten items. The items were
measured on a seven-point scale. In the scale, one was used to represent “never” while seven
was used to denote “most frequently”.

4. Findings
Any model has two components, namely, the measurement model and the structural
model. Though the structural model is ultimately sought, the quality of the structural
model can only be trusted if it is backed by a reliable and valid measurement model.

Variable Values n (689)

Gender
Male 64.01%
Female 35.99%
Highest qualification
Bachelor 15.25%
Master 45.32%
PhD 39.43%
Age 31.29 (mean) Table 1.
Overall experience 7.55 (mean) Profile of the
Experience in the current organization 3.84 (mean) respondents
EJIM The current study, using PLS-smart employed both of them that are being explained here
25,4 one by one.

4.1 Measurement model

To evaluate the adequacy of the measurement model, all the constructs used in the model
were checked for reliability and validity. Reliability, measured through interitem consistency
1046 was gauged through Cronabch’s alpha (Alpha) and composite reliability (CR). As shown in
Table 2, all the constructs had their Alpha and CR more than 0.7, thus ensuring the reliability
of the constructs (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2019). Moreover, to gauge the constructs’ convergent
validity at item level, item loadings were obtained. All the constructs had item loadings more
than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). To establish convergent validity at the construct level, average
variance extracted (AVE) were gauged, which were more than the minimum acceptable value
of 0.5 for all the constructs (Hair et al., 2014). Finally, to establish discriminant validity,
heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratios were computed. All the pairs had ratios less than 0.85,
as shown in Table 2 (Henseler et al., 2015), except for the ratio of innovative work behavior
and job crafting. Yet, the value of 0.891 is within the maximum range allowed for
conceptually similar constructs (Henseler et al., 2015).

HTMT ratio
Variables Min. loading Alpha CR AVE (1) (2) (3)

Servant leadership (1) 0.775 0.921 0.937 0.679

Psychological empowerment (2) 0.705 0.935 0.944 0.584 0.749
Table 2. Job crafting (3) 0.716 0.867 0.909 0.717 0.767 0.812
Reliability and validity Innovative work behavior (4) 0.785 0.956 0.965 0.733 0.724 0.71 0.891

Correlation
Variables M SD (1) (2) (3)

Servant leadership (1) 4.781 1.356 1

Psychological empowerment (2) 5.083 1.115 0.699** 1
Job crafting (3) 5.035 1.085 0.682** 0.727** 1
Table 3. Innovative work behavior (4) 5.009 1.23 0.680** 0.674** 0.822**
Descriptive statistics Note(s): ** indicate correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

4.2 Structural model

The structural model tested both direct and indirect relation between the constructs. The first
hypothesis, relating servant leadership to innovative work behavior was supported
(β 5 0.186; p < 0.001). Similarly, the second hypothesis conjecturing a relationship
between servant leadership and psychological empowerment was also found to be significant
(β 5 0.701; p < 0.001). The relation between servant leadership and job crafting, as proposed
in hypothesis 3, was found to be significant (β 5 0.346; p < 0.001). The relation between
psychological empowerment and job crafting was also found to be significant (β 5 0.496;
p < 0.001). The last direct relation between job crafting and innovative work behavior also
turned out to be significant (β 5 0.713; p < 0.001) (see Tables 3 and 4)
The model proposed two mediating paths relating to servant leadership and innovative
work behavior. The first path relating the two through job crafting was found to be
significant (β 5 0.247; p < 0.001). Similarly, the second mediating path relating servant Psychological
leadership and innovative work behavior through psychological empowerment and job empowerment
crafting was also found to be significant (β 5 0.248; p < 0.001) (Figures 1 and 2).
and job
crafting
Relation Coefficient SE t-test p-value

Servant leadership → Innovative work behavior 0.186 0.037 4.975 0.000 1047
Servant leadership → Psychological empowerment 0.701 0.025 27.661 0.000
Servant leadership → Job crafting 0.346 0.034 10.075 0.000
Psychological empowerment → Job crafting 0.496 0.037 13.484 0.000
Job crafting → Innovative work behavior 0.713 0.029 24.874 0.000
Servant leadership → Job crafting → Innovative work behavior 0.247 0.025 9.691 0.000
Servant leadership → Psychological empowerment → Job 0.248 0.024 10.435 0.000 Table 4.
Crafting → Innovative work behavior Structural model

5. Discussion and conclusion

The study was conducted with five objectives in mind. The first was to ascertain the role of
servant leadership in triggering employee innovative work behavior. The second was to
unravel the relation between psychological empowerment and job crafting behavior. Third,
the study intended to confirm the positive role of job crafting in promoting innovative work
behavior. Fourth, the study, in light of broaden and build theory and conservation of resource
theory, intended to test whether job crafting worked as a mediating link between servant
leadership and innovative work behavior. Finally, the study using the tenet of SDT along
with broaden and build and conservation of resource theory sought to ascertain the
sequential mediation roles of psychological empowerment and job crafting linking servant
leadership and innovative work behavior.
First of all, the findings corroborated the claim that servant leadership is related to
innovative work behavior. Servant leadership through its empowerment, facilitation and
community focus smoothens the cognitive and sociopolitical processes to enable employees
to indulge in innovative work behavior. The finding of the study was in line with the findings
of earlier studies that related servant leadership with innovative work behavior (Newman
et al., 2018; Rasheed et al., 2016). Second, the study found that the empowering nature of

Path Coefficients

SL --> PE --> JC --> IWB 0.248

SL --> JC --> IWB 0.247

JC --> IWB 0.713

PE --> JC 0.496

SL --> JC 0.346

SL --> PE 0.701

SL --> IWB 0.186

Figure 2.
Graph of path
Note(s): SL: Servant Leadership, IWB: Innovative Work Behavior, PE: Psychological coefficients
Empowerment, JC: Job Crafting
EJIM servant leadership succeeded in psychologically empowering the employees as expected.
25,4 This finding corroborates the earlier findings that claimed that servant leadership affects the
psychological empowerment of employees (Newman et al., 2017). Third, the study found
incriminating evidence for the relationship between servant leadership and job crafting
behavior. The result to the same effect was also found by Bavik and colleagues (Bavik et al.,
2017). Fourth, the study found psychological empowerment to be related to the job crafting
behavior of the employees. The result of the study corroborated the earlier findings depicting
1048 a relationship between psychological empowerment and proactive work behavior (Huang,
2017) and psychological empowerment and job crafting behavior (Coehoorn, 2017). The low
value of path coefficient relating servant leadership and innovative work behavior points to
the role of other variables. High power distance may be one of the mitigating factors relating
the two.
Apart from the above discussed direct relationships, the study also sought to test the
mediating role played first by job crafting and second by psychological empowerment and job
crafting sequentially. Job crafting, triggered by employee-centered servant leadership, infuses
employees with positive emotions and also increases employee resources. The employees
making use of positive emotions and increasing resources indulge in job crafting behavior.
Though job crafting has not yet been mentioned as a mediator between servant leadership and
innovative work behavior, the role of job crafting as a mediator between servant leadership
and proorganizational behavior is well documented (Bavik et al., 2017). The finding of the
current study adds to the existing evidence for a mediating role of job crafting linking servant
leadership and proorganizational work behavior. Finally, the study found the psychological
empowerment, and the subsequent job crafting behavior of the employees mediate the
relationship between servant leadership and innovative work behavior. The motivational role
of psychological empowerment between leadership and proactive work behavior is well
established (Newman et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018); there is no study pointing to the role
relating servant leadership with innovative work behavior through job crafting.

5.1 Theoretical contribution

The current study theoretically contributes in three ways. With the accumulating evidence
suggestive of the relationship between servant leadership and innovative work behavior, the
need for understanding the linking mechanism was felt more vigorously. There are two
mediating path testing in the study. Additionally, the study adds to the existing empirical
evidence related to the relationship between servant leadership and innovative work
behavior. All of them are being discussed one by one. First, the study unraveled the mediating
role of job crafting between servant leadership and innovative work behavior. Despite being a
bottom-up approach to job design, job crafting is facilitated by the leadership. The required
impetus to indulge in proactive work behavior such as job crafting is provided by servant
leadership. Through its employee-centered philosophy, servant leadership adopts practices
such as providing autonomy to employees, standing at the back in case of failure and
explicitly working for the growth and development of the employee to provide the employees
with the required confidence to craft their jobs. With job crafting, employees garner positive
emotions and increase resources to assist the employees in indulging in innovative work
behavior. Second, the research explicated the sequential mediation of psychological
empowerment and job crafting relating to servant leadership and innovative work
behavior. However, the first mediating path considered the overall effect of servant
leadership to trigger job crafting that culminated in innovative work behavior. The second
mediating path focused on the empowering process of servant leadership to trigger job
crafting behavior. Servant leadership, through its employee empowering process such as
provision of autonomy to the employees, involving the employees in decision making and
sharing information with employees succeed in instilling psychological empowerment Psychological
among employees. Equipped with psychological empowerment, employees resort to empowerment
proactive work behavior such as job crafting. As discussed earlier, the proliferating
positive emotions and increased resources provide the employees with the necessary positive
and job
emotions and resources to facilitate the cognitive and sociopolitical processes toward crafting
innovative work behavior. Finally, the current study provides an added piece of evidence of
the usefulness of servant leadership to promote innovative work behavior among employees
from a developing country. 1049

5.2 Practical contribution

The present study has multiple practical implications. First of all, the study confirming the
findings of earlier studies found that innovative work behavior is promoted by servant
leadership. Through its service approach toward employees, servant leadership provides the
necessary support and confidence to enable the employees to pursue innovative work
behavior. The service industry, where the incessant variations in customer expectations
make the employees’ innovative work behavior more sought after, can use servant leadership
to spur the employees’ innovative work behavior. Additionally, service organizations need to
train their managers in the use of servant leadership. Despite being an effective leadership
style, many a manager does not find it easy to adjust themselves to its roles thus hindering the
organization to reap maximum benefits arising from its use. Organizations, through training
programs, can provide their managers with the required skills and understanding to follow
servant leadership. The second important practical implication arising from the study is the
proorganizational benefits of job crafting behavior. Though a sizable portion of employees
pursue job crafting behavior, many employees, following the traditional mindset, do not dare
to indulge in job crafting by indulging in innovative work behavior. As depicted by
the current study, the proorganizational nature of job crafting makes a strong case for its
promotion across the organization. Firms need to provide the employees with necessary
decision latitude, acceptance for employee-initiated changes along with the provision of
demanded resources to facilitate job crafting behavior. Though, not the part of the current
study, findings are suggesting a dysfunctional role of job crafting. To counter any negative
consequences, the managers are usually required to be trained to sift the pro-organizational
job crafting instances from the dysfunctional ones. However, in the case of servant leadership
use, such a precaution is uncalled for. As servant leadership instills community service
among the employees, the chances of job crafting being dysfunctional are minimal.
With the rise in knowledge economy, a leader’s influence and charisma is losing its lustre.
The society needs to instill the ideas of influence through service and not through charisma or
idealized influence. Employees in a knowledge economy, well-equipped with knowledge,
have their vision, and they do not need to be harkened to follow the vision of the leader.
Instead, they need facilitation from leaders to pursue their own vision.

5.3 Limitations and future studies

No human endeavor can claim to be without limitation. So is the case with the current study.
Numerous limitations of the study are explained one by one. First, the current study is
vulnerable to common method bias (MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012), as it used a single
source for data collection. Researchers are advised to employ multi-sources for data
collection. It is better to minimize the common method bias by using employees’ provided
data to measure the leadership style and their psychological empowerment while the data
from the immediate boss to measure employee performance such as job crafting and
innovative work behavior. Second, the current study collected data in a single time that did
not allow for the cause to register its effect, thus causing common method bias (MacKenzie
EJIM and Podsakoff, 2012). To counter this limitation, future researchers are advised to at least
25,4 collect data at two points of time: one to collect data for servant leadership and psychological
empowerment and the other for job crafting and innovative work behavior. Finally, the
current study did not explore the role of contextual factors. It appears that the model resulting
from the present study is universally applicable. Of course, such a tall claim is not
substantiated. There is a need to incorporate different moderators to ascertain the contextual
factors affecting servant leadership and innovative work behavior.
1050
References
Afsar, B. and Umrani, W.A. (2019), “Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 402-428.
Amundsen, S. and Martinsen, Ø.L. (2014), “Empowering leadership: construct clarification,
conceptualization, and validation of a new scale”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 487-511.
Asurakkody, T.A. and Kim, S.H. (2020), “Effects of knowledge sharing behavior on innovative work
behavior among nursing Students: mediating role of Self- leadership”, International Journal of
Africa Nursing Sciences, Vol. 12, p. 100190.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural
distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-968.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art”, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2014), “Job demands-resources theory”, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.),
Wellbeing, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 1-28.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bavik, A., Bavik, Y.L. and Tang, P.M. (2017), “Servant leadership, employee job crafting, and
citizenship behaviors: a cross-level investigation”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 364-373.
Bhatnagar, J. (2012), “Management of innovation: role of psychological empowerment, work
engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 928-951.
Cai, W., Lysova, E.I., Khapova, S.N. and Bossink, B.A.G. (2018), “Servant leadership and innovative
work behavior in Chinese high-tech firms: a moderated mediation model of meaningful work
and job autonomy”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01767.
Cangialosi, N., Odoardi, C. and Battistelli, A. (2020), “Learning climate and innovative work behavior,
the mediating role of the learning potential of the workplace”, Vocations and Learning, ahead of
print, doi: 10.1007/s12186-019-09235-y.
Carnevale, J.B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2017), “Leading to stimulate
employees’ ideas: a quantitative review of leader-member exchange, employee voice, creativity,
and innovative behavior: leading to stimulate employees’ ideas”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 66
No. 4, pp. 517-552.
Chiang, C.-F. and Hsieh, T.-S. (2012), “The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological
empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 180-190.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, pp. 655-690.
Coehoorn, E. (2017), The Mediating Role of Job Crafting in the Relationship between Psychological Psychological
Empowerment and Employee Performance, Tilburg University, available at: http://arno.uvt.nl/
show.cgi?fid5144720. empowerment
Conger, J.A. (1989), “Leadership: the art of empowering others”, The Academy of Management
and job
Executive, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 17-24. crafting
Costantini, A. and Sartori, R. (2018), “The intertwined relationship between job crafting, work-related
positive emotions, and work engagement. Evidence from a positive psychology intervention
study”, The Open Psychology Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 210-221. 1051
Dasborough, M.T. (2006), “Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership
behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 163-178.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008), “Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation,
development, and health”, Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 182-185.
Dediu, V., Leka, S. and Jain, A. (2018), “Job demands, job resources and innovative work behaviour: a
European Union study”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 310-323.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. and Gevers, J.M.P. (2015), “Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role of
work engagement and flourishing”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 91, pp. 87-96.
Donia, M.B.L., Raja, U., Panaccio, A. and Wang, Z. (2016), “Servant leadership and employee outcomes:
the moderating role of subordinates’ motives”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 722-734.
de Jong, J. and den Hartog, D. (2010), “Measuring innovative work behaviour”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
de Beer, L.T., Tims, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2016), “Job crafting and its impact on work engagement and
job satisfaction in mining and manufacturing”, South African Journal of Economic and
Management Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 3, doi: 10.17159/2222-3436/2016/v19n3a7.
Edghiem, F. and Mouzughi, Y. (2018), “Knowledge-advanced innovative behaviour: a hospitality
service perspective”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 197-216.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D. and Liden, R.C. (2019), “Servant Leadership: a
systematic review and call for future research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 111-132.
Faraz, N.A., Ahmed, F., Raza, A. and Khalid Iqbal, M. (2019), “The impact of servant leadership on
employees’ innovative work behaviour-mediating role of psychological empowerment”,
International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 10-21.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 218-226.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2004), “The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions”, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 359 No. 1449, pp. 1367-1377.
Gagn
e, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation: self-determination
theory and work motivation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-362.
George, J.M. and Zhou, J. (2007), “Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive
mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity”, Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510, Vol. 50 No. 3,
pp. 605-622.
Giolito, V. and Van Dierendonck, D. (2015), “Servant leadership: influence on financial business-unit
performance and employee’s well-being”, Presented at the Academy of Management
Proceedings, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510, Vol. 2015, p. 18378.
EJIM Greenleaf, R.K. (2002), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and
Greatness, Paulist Press, NJ.
25,4
Guan, X. and Frenkel, S. (2018), “How HR practice, work engagement and job crafting influence
employee performance”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 591-607.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B., J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
1052 Hair, F.J. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, G.V. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hakanen, J.J., Sepp€al€a, P. and Peeters, M.C.W. (2017), “High job demands, still engaged and not burned
out? The role of job crafting”, International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 619-627.
Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C.W. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2018), “Different types of employee well-being
across time and their relationships with job crafting”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 289-301.
Hall, M. (2008), “The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity,
psychological empowerment and managerial performance”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 33 Nos 2–3, pp. 141-163.
Harju, L.K., Schaufeli, W.B. and Hakanen, J.J. (2018), “A multilevel study on servant leadership, job
boredom and job crafting”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 2-14.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-324.
Huang, J. (2017), “The relationship between employee psychological empowerment and proactive
behavior: self-efficacy as mediator”, Social Behavior and Personality: International Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 1157-1166.
Kang, Y.J., Lee, J.Y. and Kim, H.-W. (2017), “A psychological empowerment approach to online
knowledge sharing”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 74, pp. 175-187.
Kanter, R.M. (1988), “Three tiers for innovation research”, Communication Research, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 509-523.
Khan, M.M., Khan, E. and Imran, S.A. (2018), “Using job crafting to improve the well-being and faculty
performance: the case of higher education institutions of Pakistan”, Global Management Journal
for Academic and Corporate Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 65-77.
Khan, M.M., Mubarik, M.S. and Islam, T. (2020), “Leading the innovation: role of trust and job crafting
as sequential mediators relating servant leadership and innovative work behavior”, European
Journal of Innovation Management, ahead of print, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-05-2020-0187.
Kira, M., van Eijnatten, F.M. and Balkin, D.B. (2010), “Crafting sustainable work: development of
personal resources”, in Rees, C.J. (Ed.), Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23,
No. 5, pp. 616-632.
Krog, C.L. and Govender, K. (2015), “The relationship between servant leadership and employee
empowerment, commitment, trust and innovative behaviour: a project management
perspective”, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, doi: 10.4102/
sajhrm.v13i1.712.
Laub, J.A. (1999), Assessing the Servant Organization, Florida Atlantic University, FL. Psychological
Laub, J. (2018), Leveraging the Power of Servant Leadership: Building High Performing Organizations, empowerment
Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77143-4.
and job
Lichtenthaler, P.W. and Fischbach, A. (2018), “A meta-analysis on promotion- and prevention-focused crafting
job crafting”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 30-50.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H. and Henderson, D. (2008), “Servant leadership: development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, 1053
pp. 161-177.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., Wu, J. and Liao, C. (2015), “Servant leadership: validation
of a short form of the SL-28”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 254-269.
Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J. and Huang, J.-C. (2017), “Human resource systems, employee creativity, and
firm innovation: the moderating role of firm ownership”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 1164-1188.
Luo, J. and Zheng, J. (2018), “The impact of servant leadership on proactive behaviors: a study based
on cognitive evaluation theory”, Psychology, Vol. 09 No. 5, pp. 1228-1244.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542-555.
Mahmood, T. and Mubarik, M.S. (2020), “Balancing innovation and exploitation in the fourth
industrial revolution: role of intellectual capital and technology absorptive capacity”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 160, p. 120248.
Mantri, A. and Ahuja, S. (2015), “Innovation Management process in young academic institutes”,
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, January, pp. 252-256.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), “Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of
self-managing work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 106-128.
Ml
adkov
a, L. (2012), “Leadership in management of knowledge workers”, Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 41, pp. 243-250.
y, J. (2015), “Motivation and knowledge workers”, Procedia -
Ml
adkov
a, L., Zouharov
a, J. and Nov

Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 207, pp. 768-776.
Mostafa, A.M.S. and El-Motalib, E.A.A. (2018), “Servant leadership, leader–member exchange and
proactive behavior in the public health sector”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 309-324.
Mubarik, M.S., Chandran, V. and Devadason, E.S. (2018), “Measuring human capital in small and
medium manufacturing enterprises: what matters?”, Social Indicators Research, Springer,
Vol. 137 No. 2, pp. 605-623.
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B. and Sendjaya, S. (2017), “How servant leadership influences
organizational citizenship behavior: the roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive
personality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 49-62.
Newman, A., Neesham, C., Manville, G. and Tse, H.H.M. (2018), “Examining the influence of servant
and entrepreneurial leadership on the work outcomes of employees in social enterprises”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 20, pp. 2905-2926.
Northouse, P.G. (2015), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th ed. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles.
Ozyilmaz, A. and Cicek, S.S. (2015), “How does servant leadership affect employee attitudes,
behaviors, and psychological climates in a for-profit organizational context?”, Journal of
Management and Organization, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 263-290.
Page, D. and Wong, T.P. (2000), A Conceptual Framework for Measuring Servant Leadership, Trinity
Western University, Langle.
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K. and Strauss, K. (2010), “Making things happen: a model of proactive
motivation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 827-856.
EJIM Patterson, K.A. (2003), Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model, Doctoral Dissertation, Doctoral
Dissertation, Virgina Beach, Regent University.
25,4
Rao Jada, U., Mukhopadhyay, S. and Titiyal, R. (2019), “Empowering leadership and innovative work
behavior: a moderated mediation examination”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 915-930.
Rasheed, A., Lodhi, R.N. and Habiba, U. (2016), “An empirical study of the impact of servant
leadership on employee innovative work behavior with the mediating effect of work
1054 engagement: evidence from banking sector of Pakistan”, Global Management Journal for
Academic and Corporate Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, p. 177.
Rizwan, M., Humayon, A.A., Shahid, U.A., Tufail, S.H., Danish, R.Q. and Muneeb, M.H. (2016), “The
effect of job crafting on job creativity through job engagement: a case of banking sector of
vehari, Pakistan”, Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1005-1011.
Robledo, E., Zappala, S. and Topa, G. (2019), “Job crafting as a mediator between work engagement
and wellbeing outcomes: a time-lagged study”, International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, Vol. 16 No. 8, p. 1376.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Saleem, F., Zhang, Y.Z., Gopinath, C. and Adeel, A. (2020), “Impact of servant leadership on
performance: the mediating role of affective and cognitive trust”, SAGE Open, Vol. 10 No. 1,
p. 215824401990056.
Schneider, S.K. and George, W.M. (2011), “Servant leadership versus transformational leadership in
voluntary service organizations”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 60-77.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual
innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 580-607.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of psychological
and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 981-1003.
Sendjaya, S. and Pekerti, A. (2010), “Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations”, The
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 643-663.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C. (2008), “Defining and measuring servant leadership
behaviour in organizations: servant leadership behaviour in organizations”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 402-424.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (2000), “Leadership as stewardship”, The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational
Leadership, Wiley, pp. 269-286.
Shalley, C.E. (1995), “Effects OF coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and
productivity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 483-503.
Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. and Farrell, M. (2017), “Organizational climate
for innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of innovative work
behavior”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 100, pp. 67-77.
Spears, L.C. (2002), “Tracing the past, present and future of servant-leadership”, in Lawrence, M. (Ed.),
Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, J. Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M. (2008), “Taking stock: a review of more than twenty years of research on
empowerment at work”, Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 54-72.
Tadi
c, M., Bakker, A.B. and Oerlemans, W.G.M. (2015), “Challenge versus hindrance job demands and
well-being: a diary study on the moderating role of job resources”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 702-725.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’ Psychological
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-681.
empowerment
Tims, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), “Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign”, SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 2, doi: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841.
and job
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2012), “Development and validation of the job crafting scale”,
crafting
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 173-186.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2013), “The impact of job crafting on job demands, job 1055
resources, and well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 230-240.
Van Dierendonck, D. and Nuijten, I. (2011), “The servant leadership survey: development and
validation of a multidimensional measure”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 249-267.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011), “Servant leadership: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1228-1261.
van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E. and Peeters, M.C.W. (2015), “The job crafting intervention: effects
on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 511-532.
Walker, C. (2015), “New managers need a philosophy about how they’ll lead”, Harvard Business
Review.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters OF
their work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Yang, R., Ming, Y., Ma, J. and Huo, R. (2017), “How do servant leaders promote engagement? A
bottom-up perspective of job crafting”, Social Behavior and Personality: International Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 11, pp. 1815-1827.
Yoshida, D.T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G. and Cooper, B. (2014), “Does servant leadership foster creativity
and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 1395-1404.
Yuan, F. and Woodman, R.W. (2010), “Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance
and image outcome expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 323-342.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Zhang, J., Song, L.J., Wang, Y. and Liu, G. (2018), “How authentic leadership influences employee
proactivity: the sequential mediating effects of psychological empowerment and core self-
evaluations and the moderating role of employee political skill”, Frontiers of Business Research
in China, Vol. 12 No. 1, doi: 10.1186/s11782-018-0026-x.
Zhou, J. (1998), “Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:
interactive effects on creative performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2,
pp. 261-276.

Corresponding author
Tahir Islam can be contacted at: kktahir@hotmail.com

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