Fluent Essays

I need a 4to8 pages summary about the article uploaded in which there will be a link in which there will be an article, I will be attaching a screenshot about the requirements. The other pdf file is the article which u need to work on. Toward an Understanding of When and Why Servant Leadership Accounts for Employee Extra-Role Behaviors Author(s): Alexandra Panaccio, David J. Henderson, Robert C. Liden, Sandy J. Wayne and Xiaoyun Cao Source: Journal of Business and Psychology , December 2015, Vol. 30, No. 4 (December 2015), pp. 657-675 Published by: Springer Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24634422 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and Psychology This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC�����4:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms https://www.jstor.org/stable/24634422 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 DOI 10.1007/s 10869-014-9388-z \MJ CrossMark ORIGINAL PAPER Toward an Understanding of When and Why Servant Leadership Accounts for Employee Extra-Role Behaviors Alexandra Panaccio • David J. Henderson • Robert C. Liden • Sandy J. Wayne • Xiaoyun Cao Published online: 27 November 2014 © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Abstract Purpose This research aims to contribute to servant lead ership theory by applying social exchange theory to examine why and under what conditions servant leadership is related to employee extra-role behaviors. Specifically, we examined the psychological contract (PC) as a mediating mechanism between servant leader behaviors and two forms of employee extra-role behaviors: organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and innovative behaviors. Furthermore, we examined employee extraversion, collectivism, and proactive personality as boundary conditions. Design/methodology/approach We used time-lagged data collected from 101 supervisor-subordinate dyads. Findings We found that PC fulfillment mediated the relationships of servant leadership with innovative behav iors, and with individual initiative and loyal boosterism forms of OCB. In addition, extraversion and collectivism moderated the relationship between servant leadership and PC fulfillment, such that it was stronger among individuals low on these characteristics. Implications This study suggests that PC fulfillment is a key process through which servant leadership influences follower engagement in extra-role behaviors, and sheds light as to when leadership matters most in terms of motivating employee outcomes through behaviors associ ated with greater PC fulfillment. Originality/value This is an important contribution, as servant leadership research has been largely void of clari fying the psychological mechanisms and boundary condi tions through which servant leader behaviors influence follower well-being and associated outcomes. A. Panaccio (E3) Department of Management, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455, de Maisonneuve blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada e-mail: [email protected] D. J. Henderson Cass Business School, London, UK R. C. Liden ■ S. J. Wayne ■ X. Cao University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Keywords Leadership • Servant leadership • Psychological contract ■ Organizational citizenship behaviors • Innovative behaviors • Employee dispositions Partly in response to evidence that many leaders focus primarily on their own self-interest (OReilly et al. 2014), advocacy for an opposite form of leadership has arisen. This alternative perspective views the role of leaders to be based on service to followers, as opposed to service to self whereby effort is geared toward maximizing benefits for the leader or the organization in which the leader is embedded. A growing group of leadership scholars argue that effective leadership processes are founded upon leader behaviors that are reflective of self-sacrificing motives, and seek to explore this issue through the lens of servant leadership theory (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart 2004; Graham 1991; Hu and Liden 2011; Hunter et al. 2013; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b; Neubert et al. 2008; Rus sell and Stone 2002; Schaubroeck et al. 2011; van Diere ndonck et al. 2014; Walumbwa et al. 2010). Servant leadership philosophy (Greenleaf 1970, 1977) contends that when leaders attitudes and actions manifest a desire to serve the interests of all stakeholders (as opposed to primarily serving self-interests), followers experience increased well-being and growth, and them selves adopt a serving-others orientation similar to that of ■£) Springer This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 658 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 their leader. As a consequence, they are more likely to transcend transactional or self-seeking orientations toward their work. While academic research on servant leadership is still limited, a growing body of empirical studies shows that servant leadership is related to important organizational outcomes (e.g., Ehrhart 2004; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b). However, this research has been largely void of clarifying the psychological mechanisms by which, and the boundary conditions in which, servant leader behaviors influence follower well-being and associated outcomes (Avolio et al. 2009; Liden et al. 2008, 2014b; Yukl 2006). Our purpose in this study is thus to enhance servant leadership theory by integrating social exchange theory (SET; Blau 1964) and servant leadership theory in order to identify mediating and moderating mechanisms through which servant leadership behaviors prompt employees to act in ways that transcend a transactional orientation to the employment relationship. Drawing on a review of the servant leadership literature Liden et al. (2008) identified seven behaviors of servant leaders, for which they developed a psychometrically sound multidimensional measure (van Dierendonck 2011). These include: (1) putting followers first—manifesting through actions and words that satisfying the needs of followers is a top priority; (2) creating value for the com munity—showing a genuine concern for helping the com munity surrounding the organization; (3) emotional healing—attending to the emotional needs of organiza tional members (particularly immediate followers); (4) empowering—providing organizational members (particu larly followers) with control to identify and solve organi zational problems; (5) helping followers grow and succeed—showing genuine concern for followers career growth and development by providing support and men toring; (6) behaving ethically—interacting openly, fairly, and honestly with organizational members; and (7) con ceptual skills—possessing adequate knowledge of the organization and tasks at hand so as to be able to effec tively support the growth and well-being of organizational members. In accordance with this framework, we define servant leadership as a serving-others orientation in lead ership, manifested through these seven behaviors and attributes. We use the terms servant leadership or ser vant leader behaviors to designate the enactment of leadership behaviors which correspond to the servant leadership philosophy. The mediating variable examined in this study is psy chological contract (PC) fulfillment. The PC is defined as individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization (Rousseau 1995, p. 9), and PC fulfill ment refers to perceptions that this exchange agreement has been fulfilled by the employer. In other words, PC fulfillment reflects the degree to which employees view their employers as meeting implicit promises in the employment relationship (Rousseau 1995). Because the terms of these implicit promises are not defined and the time-line of their delivery potentially ambiguous, theory argues that they represent the conditions of a social exchange between employees and their organizations (Dulac et al. 2008). We argue that servant leadership behaviors are positively associated with employees per ceptions of PC fulfillment. As such, servant leadership behaviors are positively related to employee perceptions of a positive social exchange relationship with the organiza tion. A contribution of our investigation is to test whether servant leadership accounts for variance in PC fulfillment beyond that which is explained by the alternative expla nations of LMX or transformational leadership. We con tend that servant leaders contribute to followers perceptions of PC fulfillment, because servant leaders place an emphasis on fulfilling others needs and are therefore highly motivated to enhance followers PC fulfillment. Through PC fulfillment, we further contend that, in accordance with SET and the reciprocity norm (Gouldner 1960), servant leaders motivate followers to engage in behaviors that go beyond their contractually defined obli gations in the employment relationship, namely innovative behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Prior theoretical and empirical work in the servant leadership literature has not examined how servant lead ership practices influence the employee-organization exchange relationship and, via reciprocity, associated out comes. In doing so, we address the need to theoretically clarify the manner in which these leadership practices enhance follower well-being and contributions to stake holder value creation (Avolio et al. 2009). A second contribution of our study, as shown in Fig. 1, is to consider boundary conditions for the relation between servant leader behaviors and employee perceptions of PC fulfillment. Yukl (2006) questioned whether boundary conditions exist in the ability of servant leadership behaviors to elicit positive follower outcomes. Yet, this question has been unaddressed by servant leadership theory or extant research. In line with substitutes-for-leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier 1978), we propose and examine employee characteristics as factors influencing the rela tionship between servant leadership behaviors and employees PC fulfillment. Our contention is that, when followers perceive or have the ability to obtain the resources and rewards that contribute to PC fulfillment from sources other than their leaders, the relationship between servant leadership behaviors and PC fulfillment is weakened. Certain individual differences will impact the likelihood that followers perceive they are able to obtain these resources. We thus examine follower characteristics <£] Springer This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 659 Fig. 1 Hypothesized model: the influence of servant leadership on psychological contract fulfillment, organizational citizenship behav iors, and innovative behaviors. S Variable reported by subordinates, M variable reported by managers, 77 variable measured at Tl, 72 variable measured at T2 as boundary conditions that help us explain when servant leadership enhances perceptions of PC fulfillment in the employment relationship, prompting greater levels of employee contributions that transcend contractual obliga tions in the employment relationship. Theory and Hypotheses Servant leadership theory (Greenleaf 1970, 1977) is unique in its focus on how leaders behaviors that manifest a commitment to prioritizing service to others above self influence employee contributions in the employment rela tionship (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart 2004; Gra ham 1991; Neubert et al. 2008; Russell and Stone 2002; Liden et al. 2008). While servant leadership was initially slow to attract attention from scholars, there has been a recent increase in scientific interest in this theory. Reviews of the servant leadership literature have been conducted (e.g., Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dierendonck 2011), models have been proposed (Liden et al. 2014a), and measures of servant leadership behaviors have been developed (Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011). Studies have found positive relationships between servant leadership and important outcomes, such as in-role individual performance (Liden et al. 2008), team perfor mance (Schaubroeck et al. 2011), unit performance (Liden et al. 2014b), firm performance (Peterson et al. 2012), organizational commitment (Liden et al. 2008; van Diere ndonck et al. 2014), team potency and team OCB (Hu and Liden 2011), even when controlling for transformational leadership and/or leader-member exchange (LMX) (Liden et al. 2008; Peterson et al. 2012; Schaubroeck et al. 2011). Notably, an emerging line of work has uncovered positive relationships between servant leadership, various forms of employee well-being (Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dier endonck and Nuijten 2011), employee innovation (Neubert et al. 2008), and OCB (Ehrhart 2004; Neubert et al. 2008; Walumbwa et al. 2010)—behaviors that reflect transcen dence from a transactional (or self-interested) employee organization relationship. Servant leadership theory proposes that when leaders behave in a manner that is consistent with a drive to adopt and enact a leadership role for the purpose of maximizing stakeholder as opposed to self-interest, followers experi ence increased growth and well-being. As a result, follower commitment and contributions to organizational and soci etal goal attainment surpass self-seeking or transactional orientations toward their work. Indeed, a transactional employment relationship is defined as one in which employees view the employment relationship as a tit-for-tat economic exchange whereby their commitment and con tributions to the organization are constrained to fulfilling basic obligations in a transactional manner (Morrison and Robinson 1997). In such an employment relationship, employees give what has been explicitly asked of them in the employment contract in pursuit of or in response to their employers delivery of contractually defined obliga tions to them. By contrast, followers of servant leaders, as they become servant leaders themselves, likely see beyond their own self-interests and the immediate repayment of obligations, which is characteristic of relational (vs. transactional) exchanges (Morrison and Robinson 1997). Research supports this aspect of the theory, as a serving culture has been found to be an immediate result of servant leadership (Liden et al. 2014b). Another consequence of servant leadership is that fol lowers manifest greater commitment and contribution to stakeholder value creation. Within the theory, stakeholders are defined as organizational owners, members, and the Springer This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 660 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 larger community touched by organizational activity. Ser vant leaders see the fulfillment of stakeholders needs as an end in itself, rather than a means for contributing to organizational success. This emphasis on fulfillment of others needs as well as the devotion to improve society through organizational activity (as opposed to enhancing organizational outcomes without considering societal needs) differentiates servant leadership from the related theory of transformational leadership, currently the domi nant leadership paradigm in management research (Avolio et al. 1999; Dinh et al. 2014; Podsakoff et al. 1996). A handful of studies have examined the processes through which servant leadership may relate to outcomes. Neubert et al. (2008) offered (and found support for) employees promotion focus—a focus on growth and achievement at work—as a mechanism accounting for relationships between servant leadership and employee helping behaviors and innovation. Ehrhart (2004) found that unit-level procedural justice climate partially mediated the relationship between unit-level perceptions of servant leadership and unit-level OCB. Extending this research, Walumbwa et al. (2010) found procedural justice climate and service climate to mediate the relationships between servant leadership and OCB at the group level, while self efficacy and commitment to the supervisor were mediators at the individual level. However, no support was found for the proposed moderating effect of procedural justice cli mate and service climate. Mayer et al. (2008) found indi vidual perceptions of overall organizational justice and overall need satisfaction to mediate the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. Research has also suggested that servant leadership may influence follower- and team-performance outcomes via role mod eling and employee identification (Liden et al. 2014b). However, little light has been shed on how, why, and under what conditions servant leader behaviors, those that reflect a prioritization of service to others above self in the lead ership role, indeed nurture follower well-being and behaviors that surpass a transactional, or tit-for-tat employment relationship (Avolio et al. 2009). This may be especially salient for discretionary behaviors, such as OCBs, given that required job performance may be seen as an obligation for many employees, an obligation dutifully carried out as part of a transactional exchange. Servant leadership has been distinguished conceptually from transformational leadership theory. First, as leader ship scholars have noted, transformational leadership the ory does not address how leaders self- versus stakeholder focused motives to adopt and enact a leadership role affect their subsequent behavior in their roles, or how these behaviors influence follower attitudes and contributions (Ehrhart 2004; Graham 1991). Second, while transforma tional leaders ultimately seek to advance organizational interests (Bass 2000; Podsakoff et al. 1990), servant leaders emphasize serving followers and society as their direct goals (Graham 1991). Despite the clear focus of servant leaders on serving followers, available empirical findings support the contention that servant leadership indirectly boosts organizational performance as a result of attitudinal and behavioral benefits that followers reap from servant leaders (Peterson et al. 2012). Complementing the theoretical distinction between servant and transformational leadership, research has demonstrated empirical separation between the two con structs as well. Specifically, servant leadership, opera tionalized via Liden et al.s (2008) seven dimensions, has been shown to contribute incremental variance in subor dinate outcomes above that which is explained by trans formational leadership (Liden et al. 2008: Schaubroeck et al. 2011). Servant Leadership and PC Fulfillment Given that servant leadership theory focuses on nurturing stakeholder well-being, it is appropriate to consider how this leadership approach influences follower perceptions of PC fulfillment, which captures cognitive appraisals of well being in the employment relationship. Although the PC is composed of perceived obligations of the organization (and of the employee), the organization is necessarily repre sented by agents, primarily supervisors (e.g., Liden et al. 2004; Tekleab and Taylor 2003), in its exchange relation ship with the employee. Indeed, immediate leaders are seen as the chief agent for establishing and maintaining the psychological contract (Shore and Tetrick 1994, p. 101; see also Lester et al. 2002). We propose that servant leaders are particularly well positioned to fulfill followers per ceived organizational promises, as long as circumstances outside of leaders and followers control, such as avail ability of resources, do not prevent both parties from ful filling contractual promises. We contend that defining behaviors of servant leaders, particularly their prioritization of follower needs, desires, and best interests, are perfectly suited for following through on the delivery of perceived organizational promises (Ehrhart 2004; Graham 1991; Liden et al. 2008). Indeed, putting followers first and helping followers grow and succeed are dimensions of servant leadership that speak directly to the fulfillment of follower needs that comprise the PC. In order to prioritize the needs of followers, leaders obviously need to be aware of those needs. Servant leaders, through listening to fol lowers and expressing empathy (Greenleaf 1970), develop a generally accurate idea of their followers PC expecta tions given their high degree of awareness (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006) and the trust that characterizes their rela tionships with followers (Greenleaf 1970; Schaubroeck <£_) Springer This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 661 et al. 2011). Actively attempting to develop a thorough understanding of each followers unique needs and poten tial positions servant leaders to be able to provide the support necessary to fulfill follower needs. Delivering on promises made is also consistent with an emphasis on ethical behavior, another dimension of servant leadership (Liden et al. 2008), as ethical behavior includes fair treatment of employees (Brown et al. 2005) and broken promises may create perceptions of unfairness (Gopinath and Becker 2000). Hypothesis 1 Supervisors servant leadership behaviors are positively related to their followers PC fulfillment. PC Fulfillment as a Mediator of Servant Leadership—Outcomes Relationships Drawing upon SET, from which PC theory derives many of its propositions, we contend that PC fulfillment serves as a critical mediator of the process through which servant leadership behaviors positively influence employee extra role behaviors. SET is often invoked to account for employee outcomes tied to evaluations of the PC (Coyle Shapiro and Conway 2004) as the PC reflects expectations in a social, rather than economic exchange with ones employer. Blau (1964) differentiated between social and economic exchanges. Social exchanges entail behaviors that generate obligations for future, yet not explicitly defined repayment, whereby the timing of their delivery is not precisely specified. Because the PC has been concep tualized as comprising implicit, as opposed to explicitly defined terms (Rousseau 1995), it can be viewed as per ceptions of the terms of a social exchange between an employee and his or her employer. The PC represents employee perceptions of what should or might happen as opposed to direct promises. Thus, it is an underlying norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960) as opposed to tit-for-tat exchange that guides receiving and giving. Tit-for-tat would imply that exact terms have been identified. How ever, social exchange—particularly as it relates to the PC—would mean that employees give to their organiza tions with the belief that at some point in the future they will be rewarded from their organizations. PC fulfillment implies that employees perceive beneficial cycles of social exchange. This forms the global belief that as one gives to the organization, one receives positive rewards in return. In essence, SET argues that as cycles of reciprocity benefit partners, they exhibit greater propensity to offer contributions that surpass contractual obligations in the relationship. Otherwise said, as partners perceive benefit and/or well-being in a social exchange relationship, they are more likely to engage in acts that have not been con tractually defined (Blau 1964; Henderson et al. 2008). Reciprocity, rather than contractual obligation, is the mechanism that is offered to account for continued exchange. As individuals receive, they reciprocate by giving. As such, it is not surprising that positive relation ships between PC fulfillment and employee attitudes and behaviors that surpass economic employment relationships have been discovered through meta-analyses (Zhao et al. 2007). Employees OCBs and innovative behaviors represent two such examples. OCBs are behaviors that contribute to organizational effectiveness, but are generally not explic itly required of employees nor formally rewarded (Organ 1997). In the current study, we rely on Moorman and Blakelys (1995) conceptualization of OCB (based on Graham 1989), which comprises four types of behavior: interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism. Interpersonal helping refers to helping coworkers in their jobs; individual initiative focuses on communicating ideas or opinions intended to improve individual or group performance (or encouraging these opinions from others); personal industry addresses performance above and beyond the call of duty; and loyal boosterism refers to promoting the image of the organiza tion to outsiders. These behaviors were examined as out comes in the present study because, along with innovation, they are manifestations of a willingness to go beyond contractually defined pursuits in the employment relation ship. Importantly, these four behaviors have different organizational constituencies as their primary beneficiary. Indeed, interpersonal helping primarily benefits the employees coworkers, while loyal boosterism benefits the organization as a whole. As for individual initiative and personal industry, they benefit both the leader, as enhanced subordinate individual and team performance reflects pos itively on the leader, and the organization as a whole. Because servant leaders are thought to instill in followers a desire to serve similar to their own (Greenleaf 1970; Liden et al. 2008; Liden et al. 2014b), the reciprocation which we expect to occur in response to servant leadership behaviors is likely to go beyond behaviors that primarily benefit the leader. Thus, reciprocation of PC fulfillment resulting from servant leadership likely includes behaviors that benefit these different constituencies. Employees innovative behaviors reflect the generation, testing, and implementation of novel ideas (Krause 2004). Similar to OCBs, they are beneficial to the organization, but are generally not specifically required in the formal employment contract (Basu and Green 1997). For example, Neubert et al. (2008) found a positive relationship between servant leadership and self-reported innovative behaviors. Consistent with arguments that followers well-being accounts for their positive responses to servant leadership practices (Graham 1991; Greenleaf 1970, 1977; Neubert <£) Springer This content downloaded from ������������198.182.241.13 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03:33 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 662 J Bus Psychol (2015) 30:657-675 et al. 2008), as well as the tenets of SET, we anticipate PC fulfillment to mediate relationships between servant lead ership and employees OCBs and innovative behaviors. Hypothesis 2 Employees PC fulfillment mediates posi tive relationships between supervisors servant leadership behaviors and employees (a) interpersonal helping, (b) individual initiative, (c) personal industry, (d) loyal boosterism, and (e) innovative behaviors. The Moderating Effect of Subordinate Characteristics It has been questioned whether servant leadership practices are equally effective across situations (Yukl 2006). For instance, follower-level dispositional factors may shape the degree to which such an altruistic and …