Presentation to the SL Global Roundtable on servant leadership and structure.

1. Servant Leadership Roundtable 21/06/2012
The relationship between servant leadership
and job satisfaction:
The moderating role of organisational structure.
Nathan Eva
Monash University
www.monash.edu.au

2. Servant Leadership and
Job Satisfaction
• There is a clear link between servant leadership and
employee job satisfaction.
– (Cerit, 2009; Jaramilo et al., 2009)
• Literature has largely ignored the black box between
leadership and job satisfaction.
– (Griffith, 2004; Laub, 1999; Miears, 2004)
• Empowered employees are more satisfied with their
employment.
– (Jiang, Li-Yun & Law, 2011; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000)
• Empowerment is drawn from three distinct areas:
– Leadership;
– Motivational; and
– Structural.
– (Menon, 2001; Tymon, 1988)
www.monash.edu.au
2

3. Organisational Structure and
Job Satisfaction
• Structural variables of Formalisation and Centralisation.
– (Provan & Skinner, 1989)
• High levels of formalisation and centralisation have
constantly been proven to reduce job satisfaction
amongst employees.
– (Aiken & Hage, 1966; Lambert et al., 2006; Pool, 1997; Walter & Bruch, 2010)
• As a servant leader’s greatest strength is their
interactions with their employees, the higher levels of
structure in an organisation will lower the impact servant
leadership has on employees and therefore their job
satisfaction.
– (Andersen, 2009; Cunningham, 2004; Wright & Pandey, 2010)
www.monash.edu.au
3

4. Organisational Structure:
Formalisation and Centralisation
Hypothesis 1: The level of organisation formalisation negatively moderates the
relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the
more formalised the organisation the lower levels of elicited employee job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: The level of organisation centralisation negatively moderates the
relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the
more centralisation the organisation the lower levels of elicited employee job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job
satisfaction will be moderated by both formalisation and centralisation such
that the positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction
will be stronger when formalisation and centralisation are low.
www.monash.edu.au
4

5. Methodology
• There have been reservations in behavioural research of
using a solitary data collection method.
– (Brutus & Duniewicz, 2012; Dial, 2006; Yukl, 1989)
• Therefore, this study will draw upon both experiments
and surveys.
– (Van Ginkel & Van Knippenberg, 2012; Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005)
• Experiments were used to draw conclusions before the
organisational survey was undertaken.
– (Rus et al., 2010)
• Further bolsters confidence in the findings.
– (Denzin, 1989; Rus, et al., 2012)
www.monash.edu.au
5

6. Study 1 – Experiment
• 2 x 2 between-subjects design.
– (Charness, Gneezy & Kuhn, 2012)
• 4 differing vignette case studies.
• Pilot studies confirmed the manipulations.
• Sample yielded 975 respondents which exceeds the
minimum of 40 per cell.
– (Myers and Hansen, 2011)
• Post hoc analysis of the power exceeds 0.80 threshold.
– (Tharenou et al., 2007)
www.monash.edu.au
6

7. Study 2 – Organisational Survey
• Sample comprised of middle managers who rated the
leadership style of their CEO/GM/MD.
• Further, the respondents rated their job satisfaction and
the level of organisational structure within their
organisation.
• 1,500 questionnaires were mailed out.
• 336 questionnaires were returned (22.4%), well above the
200-250 recommended.
– (Hair et al., 2010; Maxwell, 2000)
www.monash.edu.au
7

8. Organisational Structure – Study 1
H1 & 2 H3
3.8
3.6
Formalisation High Formalisation
Centralisation 3.6 Low Formalisation
Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3
2.8
3
High Low
High Low
Centralisation
Organisational Structure
Organisational Formalisation
Structure High Low Centralisation High Low
Formalisation 3.26 3.44 High 3.05 3.22
Centralisation 3.13 3.58 Low 3.48 3.68
www.monash.edu.au
8

9. Organisational Structure – Study 2
5
(1) Low Form
Low Cent
4.5
(2) High Form
Job Satisfaction
Low Cent
4
(3) Low Form
High Cent
3.5
(4) High Form
High Cent
3
Low High
Servant Leadership
H3
(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008)
www.monash.edu.au
9

10. Preliminary Discussion
• First and foremost it reiterates the strong relationship
servant leadership has with job satisfaction.
• Creates context for the servant leader job satisfaction
relationship.
• Low levels of organisational structure strengthen the
relationship between servant leadership and job
satisfaction.
• SL are able to empower employees under low levels of
organisational structure that they otherwise couldn’t
in a more structured organisation.
www.monash.edu.au
10

11. Thank You
• Questions?
• Suggestions?
• Comments?
www.monash.edu.au
11

12. References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting results. Newbury Park, CA.:
Sage.
Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis. American Sociological
Review, 31(4), 497-507.
Andersen, J. A. (2009). When a servant-leader comes knocking. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 30(1), 4.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Particpative decision-making: An integration of multiple dimensions.
Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878.
Brutus, S., & Duniewicz, K. (2012). The many heels of achilles: An analysis of self-reported limitations in
leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 202-212.
Castaneda, M., & Nahavandi, A. (1991). Link of manager behavior to supervisor performance rating and
subordinate satisfaction. Group & Organization Studies, 16(4), 357.
Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers' job
satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject
design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1-8.
Cunningham, R. (2004). Servant leadership - an introduction. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 2.
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.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression:
Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926.
www.monash.edu.au
12

13. References
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Dial, D. (2006). Students' perceptions of leadership and the ways in which leadership influences the
development of student leaders. Master's thesis, Louisiana State University.
Gardell, B. (1977). Autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 30(6), 515-533.
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. (2010). 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.
Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (1981). Substitutes for leadership: A test of a construct. Academy of
Management Journal, 24(4), 714-728.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the impact of servant
leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 257-
275.
Jiang, J. Y., Li-Yun, S., & Law, K. S. (2011). Job satisfaction and organization structure as moderators of the
effects of empowerment on organizational citizenship behaviour: A self-consistency and social
exchange perspective. International Journal of Management, 28(3), 675-693.
www.monash.edu.au
13

14. References
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.
Kezar, A. (2001). Investigating organizational fit in a participatory leadership environment. Journal of Higher
Education Policy & Management, 23(1), 85-101.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Allen, R. (2006). Correlates of correctional officer job stress: The impact of
organizational structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 227-246.
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.
Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 434-458.
Mayer, B. W., Dale, K., & Fox, M. L. (2011). Processes for developing simulation self-esteem. Business
Education Innovation Journal, 3(1), 65-76.
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. Ed.D. 3148083, Texas A&M University - Commerce, United States --
Texas.
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.
Myers, A., & Hansen, C. H. (2011). Experimental psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
www.monash.edu.au
14

15. References
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.
Pool, S. W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership behavior,
and work motivation. Journal of Psychology, 131, 271-283.
Provan, K. G., & Skinner, S. J. (1989). Interorganizational dependence and control as predictors of
opportunism in dealer-supplier relations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 202-212.
Rus, D., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader self-definition and leader self-serving behavior.
The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 509-529.
Rus, D., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2012). Leader power and self-serving behavior: The moderating
role of accountability. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 13-26.
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.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management research methods. Port Melbourne, VIC:
Cambridge University Press.
Tymon, W. G. J. (1988). An empirical investigation of a cognitive model of empowerment. 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.
www.monash.edu.au
15

16. References
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4),
1228-1261.
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a
multidimensional measure. Journal of Business Psychology, 26(3), 249-267.
Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The
moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25-37.
Van Quaquebeke, N., Van Knippenberg, D., & Eckloff, T. (2011). Individual differences in the leader
categorization to openness to influence relationship. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5),
605-622.
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.
Weisbord, M. R. (2004). Productive workplaces revisited: Dignity, meaning, and community in the 21st
century (2 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Williams, T. (1998). Job satisfaction in teams. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(5),
782-799.
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.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2),
251-289.
www.monash.edu.au
16

17. Experiment Scales
• Job Satisfaction
– (Moyes & Redd, 2008)
• Age
• Gender
• Degree
• Major
• Current Year of Study
www.monash.edu.au
17

18. Survey Scales
• Servant Leadership
– (Sendjaya et al., 2008)
• Organisational Structure (Formalisation/Centralisation)
– (Provan & Skinner, 1989)
• Job Satisfaction
– (Moyes & Redd, 2008)
• Size (number of employees)
• Tenure under the leader
• Age
• Gender
www.monash.edu.au
18

19. Sample Questions
• Servant Leadership
– Leads by personal example
• 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
19

20. Experiment Manipulations
• Servant Leadership
– “Your supervisor constantly listened to your opinions, often going out of her way to
help you resolve problems, even if it disadvantaged her. Over the journey your
supervisor has acted as a mentor being very open and honest, helping you through
different and varied situations.
• High Formalisation
– “You were handed a rules and procedure manual and were told that every question
you had about your job could be found in there. Once you looked inside, you found
a clear job description telling you what you needed to do for each job rotation and
guidelines to follow if any issue arose.”
• High Centralisation
– “…you were told by one of the workers that “you’ll learn quickly, that in this
company you can’t use your own discretion – you do what they tell you”. Thinking
back, you realise that many of the decisions you have made, had to be approved
by your supervisor...”
www.monash.edu.au
20

21. Experiment Manipulations
• Low Formalisation
www.monash.edu.au
21