1. Confirmation Seminar 10/05/2011
The relationship between servant leadership
and job satisfaction:
The mediating role of decision making process
and the moderating role of structure.
Nathan Eva
Supervisors: Dr. Sen Sendjaya
Dr. Daniel Prajogo
www.monash.edu.au

2. Purpose and Significance
• Literature has largely ignored the black box between
leadership and job satisfaction, looking at the
relationship without any mediating or moderating
factors.
– (Cerit, 2009; Griffith, 2004; Laub, 1999; Miears, 2004)
• This study will examine the mediating role of leaders'
decision making style in the relationship between
servant leadership and job satisfaction.
• It will also examine the impact of organisational
structure on this relationship.
• Finally, we will explore why and how the decision
making patterns of servant leaders may change due to
the structure of the organisation.
www.monash.edu.au
2

3. Literature Review
• This research draws its theoretical origins from
empowerment literature.
• Empowered employees are more satisfied with their
employment.
– (Menon, 2001; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000)
• Relational-style leaders have been found to increase
job satisfaction.
– (Castaneda & Nahavandi, 1991; Kim & Joigaratnam, 2010)
• SL is associated with many positive organisational
attributes including strong moral base, motivation and
superior profitable returns.
– (Graham, 1991; De Cremer, 2006; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2010)
www.monash.edu.au
3

4. Dimensions of Servant Leadership
Altruistic
+
Transformational Authentic
Moral Relational
Spiritual
www.monash.edu.au
4

5. SL/DMP Relationship
• Drawing on the Upper Echelons theory, leaders choose
their own decision making process.
– (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hambrick, 2007)
• Two contrasting styles of decision-making: Dominant
and Involved.
– (Black & Gregersen, 1997)
• As seen in the SL literature, servant leaders are more
inclined to undertake an involved process of decision
making.
– (Russell, 2001; Taylor et al., 2007)
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive association between servant leadership and
leader involvement in the decision making process.
Hypothesis 2: There is a negative association between servant leadership
and leader dominance in the decision making process
www.monash.edu.au
5

6. DMP/JS Relationship
• The structural element of empowerment.
– (Menon, 2001; Tymon, 1988)
• CEOs who are more involved in the decision making
process will make better decisions.
– (Black & Gregersen, 1997; Solansky et al., 2008)
• An involved style of decision making is likely to foster
higher employee job satisfaction.
– (Kearney & Hays, 1994; Parnell & Menefee, 1995)
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive association between leader involvement
in the decision making process and job satisfaction of employees.
Hypothesis 4: There is a negative association between leader dominance in
the decision making process and job satisfaction of employees.
www.monash.edu.au
6

7. Mediation Model
Involvement
H1 H3
Servant Job
Leadership Satisfaction
H2 Dominance H4
www.monash.edu.au
7

8. Moderated SL/DMP Relationship
• Leaders intentions do not always equal
implementation. Often the decision making process
may be hindered by the constraints of organisational
structure.
– (Walter & Bruch, 2010)
• Organisational structure has been largely ignored in
leadership research.
– (Porter & McLaughlin, 2006; Walter & Bruch, 2010)
• This study will look at the structural factors of
centralisation & formalisation.
– (Atwater, 1995; House, 1991; Walter & Bruch, 2010)
www.monash.edu.au
8

9. Formalisation
• Formalisation reduces the need for leadership; instead
rules and regulations guide employee behaviour.
– (Shamir & Howell, 1999; Wright & Pandey, 2010)
• It reduces the potential to exercise leadership.
– (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Wright & Pandey, 2010)
• Given highly formalised procedures, servant leaders
may be less involved in the decision making process.
Hypothesis 5: Formalisation moderates the relationship between servant
leadership and leader involvement whereby that the more formalised
the organisation the less positive the relationship between servant
leadership and leader involvement in the decision making process.
www.monash.edu.au
9

10. Centralisation
• Follower-centred leaders, such as SL, need open
organisations in which to flourish.
– (Davis, Eisenhardt & Bingham, 2009)
• In a company which is highly centralised, leaders are
constraint by the hierarchical decision making
process.
– (Walter & Bruch, 2010)
• Servant leaders may be inclined to undertake a
dominant decision making style.
Hypothesis 6: Centralisation moderates the relationship between servant
leadership and leader dominance whereby the more centralised the
organisation the more positive the relationship between servant
leadership and leader dominance in the decision making process.
www.monash.edu.au
10

11. Moderation Model
Formal
isation
Involvement
H5
Servant
Leadership
H6
Dominance
Central
isation
www.monash.edu.au
11

12. Methodology
• In order to fully answer the research problems a mixed
methods approach must be undertaken.
– (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Dial, 2006; Yukl, 1989)
• The source of evidence will be single respondent mail
surveys and semi-structured interviews.
– (Lee, 1999; Miller, 1991; Yin, 2009)
• All scales used in the survey are derived from previous
studies to ensure reliability and validity.
– Servant Leadership
> (Sendjaya, et al., 2008)
– Job Satisfaction
> (Moyes & Redd, 2008)
– Decision Making Process
> (Black & Gregersen, 1997)
– Structure
> (Walter & Bruch, 2010)
www.monash.edu.au
12

13. Methodology – Sample Items
• Involvement
– My CEO participates in most strategic decision making
meetings.
• Dominance
– My CEO is reluctant to compromise their decisions with others’
views.
• Centralisation
– Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up
for a final answer.
• Formalisation
– The company has a large number of written rules and policies.
www.monash.edu.au
13

14. Methodology – Quantitative
• The quantitative sample will consist of middle managers who
rate the leadership style and decision making process of their
CEO.
• Medium to large Australian firms, randomly selected from Dun
& Bradstreet mailing list.
• The interaction effects are difficult to detect when the sample
size is small, therefore a rather large sample size is needed.
– (Maxwell, 2000)
• The literature shows that leadership effect sizes have been
relatively low (0.05-0.25).
– (Bocarnea & Dimitrova, 2010; Cerit, 2009)
• Previous studies have used sample sizes ranging from 60-400.
– (e.g. Black & Gregersen, 1997; Bocarnea & Dimitrova, 2010; Carmeli et al., 2008)
www.monash.edu.au
14

15. Methodology – Quantitative
• In order to use Structural Equation Modelling a sample of 200 is
needed.
– (Hair et al., 2009)
• Theoretically, it is suggested that the sample size should be
200-250.
– (Hair et al., 2009; Maxwell, 2000)
• Due to typically low Australian response rates (10%), 2500
surveys will be sent out and follow-ups will be made.
• Once collected, the data will be screed, and checks for scale
validly and reliability will be made.
• Relationship analysis with SEM for the mediating relationship
and regression for the moderating.
– (Hair et al., 2009; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006)
www.monash.edu.au
15

16. Methodology – Qualitative
• The sample will consist of middle managers and their CEO’s.
• Randomly selected from Dun & Bradstreet mailing list.
• The interviews will be pared to shed light on discrepancies in
perceptions of SL behaviours and the leader’s DMP and to what
extent they impact job satisfaction.
• Previous studies have used sample sizes ranging from 3-15.
– (Ebner & O’Connell, 2010; Sendjaya, et al., 2008)
• Therefore, 10-14 paired semi-structured interviews will occur.
• All interview will be verbatim transcribed.
• Content (template) analysis on the basis of the servant
leadership dimensions
– (Crabtree & Miller, 1999; Holsti, 1969; Sommer & Sommer, 1991)
www.monash.edu.au
16

17. Timeline
2010 2011 2012 2013
Jun-Aug Sept-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun
Activity
Literature
Review
Methodology
Ethics Approval
Data Collection
(Survey)
Data Collection
(Interviews)
Data Analysis
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Introduction
Revisions&
Submission
www.monash.edu.au
17

18. Thank you
• Questions?
• Suggestions?
• Comments?
www.monash.edu.au
18

19. References
Atwater, L. E. (1995). The relationship between supervisory power and organizational characteristics. Group
& Organization Management, 20(4), 460-485.
Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Participative Decision-Making: An Integration of Multiple
Dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878.
Bocarnea, M. C. & Dimitrova, M. (2010) Testing servant leadership theory with Bulgarian students.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 255-268.
Castaneda, M., & Nahavandi, A. (1991). Link of Manager Behavior to Supervisor Performance Rating and
Subordinate Satisfaction. Group & Organization Studies, 16(4), 357.
Carmeli, A., Sheaffer, Z., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). Does participatory decision-making in top management
teams enhance decision effectiveness and firm performance? Personnel Review, 38(6), 696-714.
Cerit, Y. (2009). The Effects of Servant Leadership Behaviours of School Principals on Teachers' Job
Satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Doing qualitative research (2 ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand
Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications.
Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-analysis
of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 133-
160.
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal Structure, Market Dynamism, and the
Strategy of Simple Rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413-452.
www.monash.edu.au
19

20. References
De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating
effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79-93.
Dial, D. (2006). Students' perceptions of leadership and the ways in which leadership influences the
development of student leaders. Louisiana State University.
Ebener, D. R. & O'Connell, D. J. (2010). How might servant leadership work? Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 20(3), 315-335.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership
Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119.
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff
turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334-
343.
Hambrick, D. C. & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top
managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
House, R. J. (1991). The distribution and exercise of power in complex organizations: A meso theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 2(1), 23-58.
Kearney, R. C. & Hays, S. W. (1994). Labor-management relations and participative decision making:
Toward a new paradigm. Public Administration Review, 54(1), 44-51.
www.monash.edu.au
20

21. References
Kim, K., & Jogaratnam, G. (2010). Effects of Individual and Organizational Factors on Job Satisfaction and
Intent to Stay in the Hotel and Restaurant Industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism, 9(3), 318-339.
Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organisation: Development of the servant organizational leadership
assessment (SOLA) instrument. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, FL.
Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organisational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, S. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 434-458.
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 50(1), 153-180.
Miears, L. D. (2004). Servant-leadership and job satisfaction: A correlational study in Texas Education
Agency Region X public schools. Unpublished 3148083, Texas A&M University - Commerce, United
States -- Texas.
Miller, D. (1991). Handbook of research design and social measurement (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA.: Sage
Publications.
Moyes, G. D., & Redd, T. C. (2008). Empirical analysis of factors influencing the level of job satisfaction of
caucasian and hispanic accounting professionals. International Business & Economics Research
Journal, 7(10), 21-42.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual (3 ed.). Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Parnell, J. A., & Menefee, M. (1995). The Business Strategy-Employee Involvement Contingency: The
Impact of Strategy-Participation Fit on Performance. American Business Review, 13(2), 90.
Porter, L. W. & McLaughlin, G. B. (2006). Leadership and the organizational context: Like the weather?
Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 559-576.
www.monash.edu.au
21

22. References
Russell, R. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 22(2), 76-84.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in
organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.
Shamir, B. & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and
effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257-283.
Solansky, S. T., Duchon, D., Plowman, D. A. & Martínez, P. G. (2008). On the same page: The value of paid
and volunteer leaders sharing mental models in churches. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19(2),
203-219.
Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (1991). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using Multivariate Statistics (5 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, T., Martin, B. N., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007). Examination of leadership practices of principals
identified as servant leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 401-419.
Tyman, W. G. J. (1988). An empirical investigation of a cognitive model of empowerment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
Ugboro, I. O. & Obeng, K. (2000). Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job satisfaction,
and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: An empirical study. Journal of Quality Management,
5(2), 247-272.
Van Dierendonck, D. & Nuijten, I. (2010). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a
multidimensional measure. Journal of Business Psychology.
www.monash.edu.au
22

23. References
Walter, F. & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of transformational
leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 765-
782.
Wright, B. E. & Pandey, S. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Does structure
matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 75-89.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage
Publications.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2),
251-289.
www.monash.edu.au
23