ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 18 July 2022

doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.928066

The Effect of Servant Leadership on

Job Outcomes: The Mediating Role
of Trust in Coworkers
Adnan Mahmod M. Rashid and Shiva Ilkhanizadeh*

Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Cyprus International University, Lefkosa, Turkey

A good deal of evidence indicates that servant leadership play a critical role in employees’
job outcomes. However, research studies on the variables that could mediate the
effect of servant leadership in determining this relationship are relatively few. Utilizing
the framework of leader-member exchange and social exchange theories, this study
examines the mediating effect of “trust in coworkers” in the effect of “servant leadership”
on employee job outcomes. Survey data were sourced from 315 bank employees
and managers in Northern Cyprus. Partial least square structural equation modeling
was utilized with the aid of WarpPLS (7.0) to test the study hypotheses. Servant
leadership was found to have a direct and indirect relationship with employees’ career
satisfaction, service recovery performance, and innovative work behavior. In contrast,
the servant leadership relationship with job satisfaction was indirect. In addition, trust in
Edited by:
Diyako Rahmani, coworkers was found to be a mediator in the relationship between servant leadership
Massey University, New Zealand and employees’ job outcomes. The theoretical and practical implications of this study
Reviewed by: were highlighted.
Debalina Dutta,
Massey University Business School, Keywords: servant leadership, career satisfaction, trust in coworkers, job satisfaction, service recovery
New Zealand performance, innovative work behavior
Galina Berjozkina,
City Unity College Nicosia, Cyprus

*Correspondence: INTRODUCTION
Shiva Ilkhanizadeh
[email protected] For over two decades, the attention of both academics and professionals has been on the
sustainability of organizational performance. This is partly due to the increasingly dynamic and
Specialty section: competitive global market. To this aim, organizations seek multiple ways to gain a sustainable
This article was submitted to advantage (Wikström, 2010) and search for innovative ways to stimulate positive employee
Culture and Communication, outcomes (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010). This requires a leadership style to develop a conducive
a section of the journal
working environment where employees can develop their skills and knowledge (Edgar et al.,
Frontiers in Communication
2017), feel comfortable (Karatepe and Aga, 2016), and build trust among themselves (Lau and
Received: 28 April 2022 Liden, 2008). To this aim, Servant Leadership (SL) which is a shift from the conventional
Accepted: 15 June 2022
“transformational leadership model,” is directed to the shared and relational views so that
Published: 18 July 2022
the relations exchange between leader and followers are the focus (Avolio et al., 2009). SL
Citation: focuses on humbleness, legitimacy, and social acceptance, none of which are specific elements
Rashid AMM and Ilkhanizadeh S
of transformational leadership (van Dierendonck, 2011). SL, as an emerging type of leadership,
(2022) The Effect of Servant
Leadership on Job Outcomes: The
affects the job outcomes in service firms such as banks (Karatepe et al., 2019), airlines (Ilkhanizadeh
Mediating Role of Trust in Coworkers. and Karatepe, 2018), and the hospitality industry (Babakus et al., 2011). Given the importance of
Front. Commun. 7:928066. leadership, the current study aims to investigate the process through which SL influences employee
doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.928066 job outcomes. In addition, it is essential to underscore the mediating role that connects SL to

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

employee job outcomes, specifically to job satisfaction (JS), that SL with a strong interpersonal relationship with their
career satisfaction (CS), service recovery performance (SRP), employees will be committed to organizational performance and
and innovative work behavior (IWB). The other question is the positive outcomes.
potential mediating variables between SL and job outcomes. The SET is a theory to describe the social exchange nexus among
current study aims to see if trust in coworkers (TCW) could have groups in the setting of human interaction (Ji and Jan, 2020). This
a mediating role. theory is often used to interpret the social exchange link between
The need for trust in the workplace is a crucial building employer and employee. According to Emerson (1976), the
element of any organization which can create or break a interaction of employer and employee produces obligations in
company’s culture. Trust could be defined in the relationship the context of social exchange and interdependence on the action
between leadership and employees, employees and superiors, of the counterparts (Blau, 1964). Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005)
and among coworkers. SL is a significant antecedent of “trust” state that a social exchange happens when management treats
(Eva et al., 2019), and Aas the servant leader focuses on workers well. In turn, the employee reciprocates the gesture with
strengthening the relationship with the employees, such a style a positive work attitude and behaviors, but unfavorable outcomes
could provoke higher TCW. Trust resulting from SL produces are likely to occur if it is the other way round. For instance, since
an emotional response in stronger emotional connections trust is one of the requirements for social exchange to reciprocate,
and feelings of obligation (Miao et al., 2014). In turn, the the challenge is for the workers to prove their trustworthiness.
employee tries to respond by demonstrating positive attitudes This indicates that trust is a significant factor in establishing
and TCW. Therefore, SL as a product of leader and organizational social exchange (Chen et al., 2005). According to Colquitt
trust could build trust relationships at the “Bottom of the et al. (2014), it determines a social exchange relationship. In
Pyramid” among coworkers (Greenleaf, 2014). In addition, addition, according to Mayer et al. (1995), trust reflects a person’s
the interdependent nature of job tasks and the prevalence of confidence in the form of consistency, objectivity, promise
teamwork require employees to trust each other (Lau and Liden, fulfillment, and reliability. Thus, there will be trusting and loyal
2008). However, studies on SL and trust mainly investigate the relations between both parties and among the coworkers owing
trust in a leader with scant literature on TCW (Ferres et al., 2004; to the significance of trust in the process of social exchange. In
Parker et al., 2006; Lau and Liden, 2008). other words, the workers’ favorable disposition to trust in the
The current study contributes to the body of knowledge by organization and TCW contributes to effective management in
employing the “Leader-Member Exchange theory” (LMX) (Liden an organization (Nedkovski et al., 2017). This position validates
and Maslyn, 1998) to investigate the effect of SL on employee the Colquitt et al. (2014) view that “employees who gain from
job outcomes. In addition, Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau, the acts of their manager feel obligated to reciprocate in the form
1964) is employed to examine perceived TCW as a possible of positive outcomes”. Because of these, we contend that TCW
mediator through which SL affects job outcomes. will mediate the relationship between SL and positive employee
job outcomes.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Theoretical Focus SL and Job Outcomes
The LMX theory is believed to be distinct among leadership According to Greenleaf (2002), SL is the genuine feeling
theories, owing to its focus on the dyadic relationships between that an individual is willing to help others. It pursues to
leaders and followers (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). LMX argues improve those who fulfill others’ needs and advocates a group-
that leaders develop different exchange relationships with their oriented attitude to decision-making to improve organizations
followers. However, it is silent concerning the proposition and society. Since the introduction of the term, several studies
of individual healing, the followers’ development, and the have demonstrated its influence on employees’ performance and
motivation of leaders’ service to society (Chinomona et al., commitment (Sokol, 2014; Khattak and O’Connor, 2020) and
2013). Similarly, SL attitudes influence the development and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Ozyilmaz and Cicek,
sustenance of significant interpersonal nexus between leaders 2015; Newman et al., 2017). According to Liden et al. (2014),
and followers. However, SL assists the workers in attaining SL is expected to positively impact the task performance of
their fullest potential and becoming self-motivated (Chinomona their employees and OCBs because it models such traits to
et al., 2013). Leaders are fostering these critical behaviors by their employees and, consequently, fosters a “servant culture”.
developing a social exchange nexus with their followers instead About LMX theory, leadership is expected to promote followers’
of relying solely on the economic benefits from the employment development and assist them in exhibiting their full potential
agreement or the authority entrusted to them. Some studies (Chinomona et al., 2013). It can influence their psychological
suggest that positive organizational and individual job outcomes states (e.g., JS). In addition, theory suggests that managers
are the primary outcomes of effective LMX relationships who focus on employees’ personal growth can enhance the
(Graen, 2004). These outcomes are high-performance rating, possibility of the employee having a meaningful work experience
improved organizational performance, job satisfaction, better (Chiniara and Bentein, 2016). In line with this, Barbuto and
objective performance, organizational commitment, decreased Wheeler (2006) demonstrate a relationship between SL and “in-
turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship behavior role performance” and “organizational commitment”, even when
(Schriesheim et al., 1999). Therefore, this study contends another style of leadership was controlled for (Bass, 2000).

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

A recent meta-analysis study by Hoch et al. (2018) investigates it is identified. It is highly unavoidable in a service-providing
the impact of three positive leadership styles (authentic, servant, industry for a service failure not to occur (Daskin and Yilmaz,
and ethical leadership) in comparison to “transformational 2015). Since service failure is inevitable in a service industry,
leadership” and found that about 9 and 15% explanation the performance of employees at the frontline in dealing with
variations in OCB and organizational commitment, respectively, service failure is believed to be a critical strategic matter in the
to be by servant leadership. Consequently, the study concluded banking management literature (Karatepe et al., 2019). Podsakoff
that SL exhibits conceptual and empirical uniqueness from TL. et al. (1996) established a connection between transformational
This finding was confirmed by Lee et al. (2020), who revealed that leadership and “improved team performance”. Echunha et al.
SL influences several individuals and “team-level” outcomes such (2009) demonstrate that leadership style significantly influences
as “creativity,” “task performance”, OCB, “counterproductive SRP and concluded that prompt and decisive action is required.
performance”, and “voice”. Moreover, “trust” is established as a A similar result was found by Lin (2011), where it was
mediator in the nexus between SL and OCB on the one hand established that transformational leadership positively impacts
and organizational commitment on the other hand. JS is believed the SRP procedure. This finding was corroborated by Punjaisri
to affect the job situation (Bhal and Ansari, 2007). It is in line et al. (2013), who found a similar result. Moreover, in a
with the findings of Graen (2004) that employees with a servant recent study by Daskin (2016), transformational leadership
leader receive not just rewards of better performance rating and significantly influenced service recovery performance in the
career advancement. They also have more satisfaction in terms of hospitality industry.
sovereignty and complex tasks. Moreover, IWB is believed to be a multi-stage process that
Liden et al. (2014) suggest that a leader must encourage involves production, promotion, and realization of the new stage,
followers’ autonomy, motivate them to think autonomously, and with every stage demanding unique actions and individuals’
take responsibility for their progress in the future. Hence, SL behavior (Shalley and Zhou, 2008). Some extant literature
assists their followers in developing and succeeding. Moreover, demonstrates the connection between SL and employee IWB.
SL emphasizes a valid concern for the employees’ “career growth For instance, the study of Panaccio et al. (2015) contend that
and improvement” by giving essential resources, mentoring, and owing to the focus of servant leaders on their employees’ need
chances. This is consistent with the LMX theory that suggests instead of their selfish interest, their behavior increases their
an effective relationship between the leaders and subordinates followers’ psychological contract fulfillment and thus motivate
will foster self-motivation for the employee and result in career innovation. Opoku et al. (2019) stressed that such leaders connect
progression (Chinomona et al., 2013). with their workers beyond the economic exchange. As a result
Moreover, the followers are empowered by motivating and of SL’s excellent intentions, the workers are often reciprocated
facilitating their capability to handle duties, accept challenges, by putting more effort needed for realizing new ideas (Yoshida
and decide when and in what way to ensure job tasks (Liden et al., et al., 2014). This is similar to White and Lean (2008), who
2008). Notably, Ehrhart (2004) observed that servant leaders suggest that a good leader creates a positive working environment
would like their followers to develop and view subordinates’ that would make followers feel psychologically safe. Malik et al.
progress as an end, not simply a way to achieve the leader’s or (2015) state that such a conducive working environment inspires
organization’s objectives. Thus, subordinates who get resources employees to find innovative means of accomplishing a task,
and support from their leaders are more careful about their which drives creativity. This position was demonstrated in the
development and accrue more skills (Eby et al., 2003). This study of Peng and Wei (2018), who found that the leader’s
implies that they are value-added to the company, more integrity has a trickle-down impact on employees’ creative ability,
competitive, and maybe more satisfied with achieving their career and corroborated by Opoku et al. (2019), who empirically
goals. A recent study by Wang et al. (2019) found servant leaders’ confirmed SL as a determinant of employee IWB.
positive and significant influence on CS. The current study argues
that SL may result in high opportunities for success and a high
level of career satisfaction. SL and Trust in Coworkers
SRP is a significant outcome of frontline service jobs (Wirtz Most studies have often used SET to explain the positive influence
and Jerger, 2016). According to Karatepe et al. (2019), the of SL on followers’ behavior (Eva et al., 2019; Khattak and
employees’ creativity often contacts customers, and their service O’Connor, 2020). Owing to followers’ interests placed above
recovery performances require “extra-role behavior,” which their selfish interests by servant leaders, there is a possibility of
contributes significantly to organizational performance. This developing a strong relationship between leaders, subordinates,
is in line with Ashill et al. (2008). They observed that an and coworkers. Blau (1964) observed that in the case of robust
organization’s approach to service recovery is one of several social exchange relationships, both parties expect and trust that
significant issues in effective customer and employee satisfaction their positive behavior will be returned. Moreover, according
through service quality. SRP, accordingly, is described by Ruyter to Whitener et al. (1998), the leaders who are more concerned
and Wetzels (2000) as “doing things very right the second about the workers tend to provide opportunities to the workers to
time”, and according to Lewis and Spyrakopoulos (2001) as express their concerns, which assists the followers in developing
“the actions that a service provider takes to respond to service trust in their leaders and among themselves. It is believed that
failures”. The SRP is when the service provider does not wait servant leaders exert influence on the practical development of
for the complaint to be lodged before rectifying the error once “trust climate,” which, according to Ling et al. (2017), has been

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 3 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

demonstrated as a factor that influences the quality of exchange performance, and unit performance. An example of workplace
relations and stimulates positive outcomes at the workplace. attitude and cognitive constructs, according to McAllister (1995),
By avoiding adverse interpersonal disputes and cultivating is JS and low turnover intentions (Davis et al., 2000). In addition,
a sense of community, the SL style focuses on the well- some studies have investigated trust as an antecedent of employee
being of employees (Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Because the performance within the theoretical framework of SET (Ellickson,
SL’s primary goal is to deepen the link with employees, this 2002); satisfaction (Harrison et al., 2006); employee turnover
leadership style generates higher levels of trust among coworkers intention, absenteeism (Karatepe et al., 2019), and commitment
(Saleem et al., 2020). Behaviors associated with SL, including (Cho and Park, 2011).
emotional support, increasing problem-solving abilities, task Edmondson (1999) claimed that it is advantageous to workers’
expertise, empowering others, putting others first, and acting performance if there is trust. The study stressed further that
ethically, are widely regarded as critical under challenging the openness in their communication would be directly affected
situations (Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011). As a result, these if there is trust. This is because if members are confident of
behaviors within the team are likely to affect trust in a trust, the willingness to share skills and experience will be
coworker. Saleem et al. (2020) suggest that SL generates trust in improved. Especially in enhancing workflow, the inadequacies
coworkers more effectively. They conclude that trust mediates the of individuals will not be exposed until they feel it is safe to
relationship between SL and organizational citizenship behaviors do so. If not, the worry that a team member’s weakness could
and subordinate performance. negatively affect their career in the future can overwhelm them
It is believed that a leader can form employees’ perceptions (McAllister, 1995). Extant literature on knowledge management
about ethics (McCann and Holt, 2009). As followers reciprocate also validates that TCW is valuable to knowledge sharing
their leaders’ actions, servant leaders’ values of integrity are and voluntary coordination, improving employees’ working
passed to employees and possibly alter how they eventually efficiency and quality. In addition, Ning et al. (2007) empirically
cooperate with others (Lytle and Timmerman, 2006). Likewise, found TCW to positively influence employees’ work performance
leadership behaviors predict coworkers’ interpersonal trust (Jung and satisfaction. Given these, we focus on TCW as an antecedent
and Avolio, 2000). of job outcomes such as JS, CS, SRP, and IWB. Thus, we propose
From another aspect, the outcomes of SL, such as perceptions the following hypotheses.
of integrity (Jaramillo et al., 2009) or benevolence (Mujeeb et al., This study explicitly focuses on TCW as a possible mediating
2021), could foresee the trust in coworkers. In other words, factor and seeks to explain where SL’s positive influence through
perceiving that a coworker has high integrity or benevolence TCW is prominent on job outcomes. As argued previously in
might indicate trustworthiness (Dirks and Skarlicki, 2009). the literature, the process of social exchange underlies trust
Wintrobe and Breton (1986) state a potential correlation between in employees, which directly impacts the positive outcome
trust among the manager and personnel and trust in coworkers. of employees’ reciprocal behavior with servant leaders. The
They claim that when employees do not trust their management, reciprocation of employees’ behaviors has been conceptualized
they band together for collective action. Nevertheless, we in terms of job outcomes, especially those that exceed their job
understand that the opposite may similarly be correct. Once requirements. Moreover, some studies found trust a predictor
employees recognize the leadership to be reliable, they trust (Colquitt et al., 2007), while Lee et al. (2020) established it as
their colleagues. Therefore, SL may affect the relationship a mediator in the relationship between SL and performance.
between coworkers. In addition, the mediating effect of TCW in the relationship
Russell (2001) claimed that the values of servant leaders between SL and organizational commitment was demonstrated
generate obvious attributes and play a crucial role in creating in the literature (Goh and Low, 2014), while Schaubroeck et al.
trust in coworkers and in an organization that holds servant-led (2011) found trust as a mediator in the relationship between
organizations together. SL builds trust between the manager and SL and team performance. This is an indication that trust
employee and between coworkers (Spears, 2004) and possibly induces the employee to exhibit positive outcomes. In view of
will cause new levels of shared trust and interdependency in this, we hypothesize that servant leaders positively influence job
organizations (McGee-Cooper, 1998). In addition, the impact of outcomes (JS, CS, SRP, and IWB) through TCW.
SL on corporate culture is validated (Giampetro-Meyer et al.,
1998). Finally, Chatbury et al. (2011) indicate a relationship
between SL and trust in coworkers and point out that SL could AIM
improve trust between them. Hence, we hypothesize that SL will
positively influence TCW. Along with the theoretical literature arguments and to fill the
research gap, the present study aims to examine the influence
TCW as a Mediator of servant leadership on job outcomes and the mediating role of
The study of Dirks and Ferrin (2001) highlights two types of trust: TCW in those relationships. In addition, the direct effect of TCW
performance outcomes and workplace behaviors, workplace on job outcomes is investigated. Hence, the following hypotheses
attitudes, and cognitive constructs. Davis et al. (2000) and Culbert are shown in Figure 1.
and McDonough (1986) explain the performance outcome H1: SL exerts a positive effect on employee JS.
and workplace behavior, including sharing information and H2: SL exerts a positive influence on CS.
communication, OCBs, negotiation behavior, individual workers’ H3: SL exerts a positive influence on SRP.

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

and arranged on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Data Collection
The sample of this study consisted of full-time bank employees
in the banks (public/private) of North Cyprus, which the authors
observed to be an underrepresented country in the extant
service research (Brown et al., 2018). The authors contacted
the management of each bank in three major cities in North
Cyprus (Lefkosa, Magusa, and Girne) through an official letter
describing the study objectives and requested their permission
for data collection. The bank management obliged our request,
and subsequently, the banks were visited to meet with the
employees to explain the details of the questionnaire. The
participant understood that it was voluntary but encouraged to
participate, and the management has endorsed the participation.
Four employees and one manager were invited from each bank.
FIGURE 1 | Theoretical framework. The questionnaires were given to return the questionnaire in
a sealed envelope. In all, 252 employee questionnaires were
obtained from the employees. Moreover, to assess the employee’s
innovative work behavior and service recovery performance, one
H4: SL exerts a positive influence on employees’ IWB. manager from each of the banks contacted, totalling 63, was
H5: SL will positively influence TCW. invited to participate in the study. The managers’ IWB and SRP
H6: TCW has a positive influence on (a) JS, (b) CS, (c) SRP, questionnaires were matched with the employee questionnaire
(d) IWB. using an identification code. The demographic characteristic
H7: TCW mediates the relationship between a servant leader of the respondents reveals that 42.9% of the banks sampled
and (a) JS, (b) CS, (c) SRP, (d) IWB. are public banks, while 57.1% are private banks. In addition,
25.4% (64) of the respondents were male, while 74.6% (188)
were female. The age of respondents was between 18 and
METHODS 27 years (38.1%), 28 and 37 years (31.4%), 38 and 47 years
(14.3%), 48 and 57 years (8.7%), and above 58 years old (7.5%).
The research framework of this study is depicted in Figure 1, The participants’ educational background showed that 35.3%
which indicates the nexus among variables. A nexus among the have a Two-year college degree, 58.3% four-year college degree,
SL, TCW, and job outcomes (JS, CS, SRP, and IWB) is proposed and 6.4% were graduate degree holders. Moreover, the tenure
in this framework, evaluating the mediating role of TCW. This of the respondents at the bank shows that 20.3% (51) have
study contends that SL will positively influence JS, CS, SRP, IWB, spent less than a year, 41.3% (104) have spent between 1
and TCW. In addition, we hypothesize that TCW will partially and 5 years, 20.6% (52) have spent between 6-10 years, 5.6%
mediate the relationship between SL and job outcomes. In order (14) have spent between 11 and 15 years, while 2.8% (7) and
words, SL will, directly and indirectly, influence employee JS, CS, 9.5% (24) have spent between 16 and 20 years and above 20
SRP, and IWB. years respectively.

Model Measurement
The constructs measured in this study include SL, TCW, JS, CS, Data Analysis
SRP, IWB (see Appendix for the items). The SL was measured The model structure was tested using the WarpPLS 7.0 version.
with seven items adapted and modified from Barbuto and WarpPLS is a Partial Least Square regression that simultaneously
Wheeler (2006). The items are measured on a 7-point Liker scale analyses linear and non-linear relationships (Ferres, 2002).
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Six items According to Pavlou and Fygenson (2006), Partial Least Square
were adopted and modified from Greenhaus et al. (1990) for Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) effectively tests large
measuring JS, and the items were measured on a 5-point Likert and complex models, including mediating or moderating
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As effects. This implies that modeling causal relationships between
for the CS, five items were adapted and modified from previous constructs and testing the predictions of the results that reflect the
studies (Wang et al., 2019). SRP was measured with five items complexity of real-life is possible. PLS-SEM is also efficient when
adapted from Karatepe et al. (2019), arranged on a 5-point Likert dealing with small samples, owing to its non-dependence on the
scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). TCW was measured normality of the data, and can also be employed for modeling
with 15 items sourced from Ferres (2002). Finally, IWB was reflective and formative constructs (Urbach and Ahlemann,
measured with eight items adapted from Opoku et al. (2019) 2010).

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

RESULTS TABLE 1 | Model measure assessment results.

Model Measures Assessment Construct and Standardized Cronbach’s Average Composite FVIF
As presented in Table 1, the measurement model assessment measurement loadings alpha variance reliability FVIF
results show that all items have acceptable loadings (>0.50). items extracted
The Cronbach’s alpha (>0.70), composite reliability (>0.70), and
SL 0.653 0.500 0.795 1.335
average variance extracted (>0.50) of all the constructs are above
SL1 0.732
the minimum threshold, which is an indication of acceptable
SL2 0.835
internal consistency. In addition, the average Full Variance
SL3 0.654
Inflation (FVIF) for each variable is within acceptable levels,
SL4 0.501
indicating the absence of collinearity between the constructs. SL5 0.669
As presented in Table 2, the discriminant validity assessment SL6 0.778
results conform with Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposition SL7 0.613
that the square root of average variance extracted in diagonal JS 0.836 0.755 0.902 3.190
of each construct must be greater than the correlations JS1 0.564
between that constructs and other constructs. Meanwhile, JS2 0.673
a new criterion (Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio) for assessing JS3 0.898
discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015) complemented the JS4 0.812
Fornell-Larcker criterion. The HTMT ratio shows an acceptable JS5 0.914
value (<0.9) which confirms the discriminant validity of JS6 0.789
the constructs. CS 0.824 0.659 0.885 4.116
CS1 0.712
Moreover, regarding the common method bias, according
CS2 0.840
to Kock (2015a), the coefficients of “full collinearity VIF”
CS3 0.730
are specifically sensitive to “pathological common variations”
CS4 0.769
across the constructs in methodological contexts that are
CS5 0.898
the same as the one found in this study. This means SRP 0.917 0.764 0.941 3.384
that the sensitivity allows common method bias to be SRP1 0.969
detected in a model which still passes the evaluation of SRP2 0.633
convergent and discriminant validity criteria based on a SRP3 0.952
“confirmatory factor analysis” (CFA), as we have in this SRP4 0.911
study. Several findings suggested a threshold value of 5 SRP5 0.862
acceptable and <3.3 to be the best for full collinearity VIF TCW 0.962 0.679 0.967 2.605
coefficients (Kock and Lynn, 2012; Kock, 2015a). Thus, with TCW1 0.812
the full VIF presented in Table 1, none of the full VIF TCW2 0.912
coefficients if greater than the acceptable threshold (≤5). TCW3 0.874
In addition, according to Kock (2015a), “Stone-Geisser Q2 TCW4 0.904
coefficients” (Geisser, 1974) are used for the assessment of TCW5 0.827
“predictive validity”. The coefficient is only available endogenous TCW6 0.868
latent variables. Kock (2015a,b) argued that a measurement TCW6 0.753
model is considered acceptable “predictive validity” if the Q2 TCW7 0.867
coefficients for the endogenous variables are >0. Thus, the Q2 TCW8 0.921
results for job satisfaction, career satisfaction, service recovery TCW9 0.725
performance, innovative work behavior, and trust in coworkers, TCW10 0.901
as presented in Table 3, shows that our measurement model TCW11 0.785
meets this criterion. TCW12 0.604
TCW13 0.930
Structural Model Assessment TCW14 0.555
To assess the quality of the structural model, the model TCW15 0.965
fit indicators were analyzed and described in Table 4. All IWB 0.917 0.729 0.940 2.235
indicators were either statistically significant or consistent with 0.934
the respective thresholds, indicating the quality of the structural 0.956
model (Kock, 2020). 0.921
0.732

DISCUSSION 0.857
0.931
As shown in Table 5 and Figure 2, the hypothesized SL and JS 0.463
relationship shows no significance (β = −0.005, p = 0.458). 0.891

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

TABLE 2 | Discriminant validity.

Constructs Fornel-Larker criterion Heterotrait-Monotrait ratios

SL JS CS SRP TCW IWB SL JS CS SRP TCW IWB

SL 0.707
JS 0.273 0.869 0.393
CS 0.226 0.806 0.812 0.401 0.625
SRP 0.044 0.672 0.810 0.874 0.296 0.798 0.753
TCW 0.437 0.820 0.749 0.519 0.824 0.558 0.845 0.850 0.610
IWB 0.410 0.853 0.766 0.563 0.771 0.854 0.535 0.772 0.877 0.655 0.724

“Square roots of average variance extracted” (AVEs) shown on diagonal. SL, servant leadership; JS, job satisfaction; CS, career satisfaction; SRP, service recovery performance; TCW,
trust in co-workers; IWB, innovative work behavior.

TABLE 3 | Stone-Geisser Q-squared coefficients. TABLE 5 | Hypotheses testing.

SL JS CS SRP TCW IWB Hypotheses Relationship Path coefficient P-value Decision

0.769 0.627 0.492 0.420 0.948 H1 SL → JS −0.005 0.458 Not supported

H2 SL → CS 0.136 0.003 Supported
H3 SL → SRP 0.325 <0.001 Supported
H4 SL → IWB 0.026 0.005 Supported
TABLE 4 | Model fit indices. H5 SL → TCW 0.655 <0.001 Supported
H6a TCW → JS 0.875 <0.001 Supported
Index Value Interpretation
H6b TCW → CS 0.710 <0.001 Supported

Average path coefficient (APC) 0.468 P < 0.01 H6c TCW → SRP 0.521 <0.001 Supported

Average R2 (ARS) 0.552 P < 0.01 H6d TCW → IWB 0.957 <0.001 Supported
2
Average adjusted R (AARS) 0.550 P < 0.01 H7a SL → TCW → JS 0.573 <0.001 Partial mediation

Average block VIF (AVIF) 1.432 Acceptable if ≤5, H7b SL → TCW → CS 0.465 <0.001 Partial mediation
ideally ≤3.3 H7c SL → TCW → SRP 0.341 <0.001 Partial mediation
Average full collinearity VIF 3.477 Acceptable if ≤5, H7d SL → TCW → IWB 0.627 <0.001 Partial mediation
(AFVIF) ideally ≤3.3
Tenenhaus GOF (GOF) 0.613 Small ≥0.1, medium
≥0.25, large ≥0.36
Standard root mean squared 0.064 Acceptable if ≤0.1 From the result presented in Table 5, we found that TCW
residual (SRMS) partially mediates the relationship between SL and JS (β =
0.573, p < 0.001), SL and CS (β = 0.465, p < 0.001),
SL and SRP (β = 0.341, p < 0.001), and SL and IWB
(β = 0.627, p < 0.001). Thus, we conclude that employee
Therefore, it failed to support the hypothesis that SL positively TCW partially mediates the relationship between SL and
influences employee JS. Meanwhile, the positive influence of SL job outcomes (JS, CS, SRP, and IWB). Another interesting
on the other job outcomes i.e., CS (β = 0.026, p = 0.005), finding from our study is the explanation variations of the
SRP (β = 0.325, p < 0.001), IWB (β = 0.136, p = 0.003), and exogenous variable (SL) and the TCW (both exogenous and
TCW (β = 0.655, p < 0.001) as proposed in hypotheses 2, 3, endogenous) on the endogenous variables (JS, CS, SRP, and
4, and 5 were found to be statistically significant. This implies IWK). As depicted in Figure 2, the results indicate that SL
that holding other variables constant, a change in the SL to be can provide about 43% of explanation variations in TCW. In
more effective will improve the employees’ CS, SRP, their IWB, comparison, 77, 49, 17, and 92% explanation variations in JS,
and TCW. In addition, the influence of TCW on job outcomes CS, SRP, and IWB, respectively, can be provided by both SL
was hypothesized in H6 (a-d). The result as presented in Table 5 and TCW.
and depicted in Figure 2 shows that TCW exerts a positive This finding implies that employees will be more creative and
influence on JS (β = 0.8755, p < 0.001), CS (β = 0.710, p < satisfied if the SL is efficient and creates a working environment
0.001), SRP (β = 0.521, p < 0.001), and IWB (β = 0.957, p that will enable them to have confidence and trust in each other,
< 0.001). Owing to the significance of the path coefficients, we improving organizational performance.
conclude that employee TCW positively influences JS, CS, SRP, As the LMX theory contends, SL influences employees’ job
and IWB. outcomes, which also serve as a solution to the dissatisfaction

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 7 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

investigated. The findings suggest that job outcomes are affected

directly by SL, except for JS, which is only affected indirectly.
In addition, TCW was found to significantly impact job
outcomes and also mediate the relationship between SL and
job outcomes.
From our findings, SL also affects JS, CS, SRP, and IWB
indirectly through TCW. This finding is in line with the
proposition of SET, which highlights trust as one of the
requirements for social exchange. It is clear from this finding that
TCW plays a significant role in the effect of SL on employees’
job outcomes. The significance of the partial mediating effect of
TCW found in this study could address the concerns that some
variables mediate the relationship between SL and positive job
outcomes, which are yet to be empirically examined (Ehrhart,
2004; Newman et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2020).
There are several implications from our study for managers
and organizations. Managers need to ensure employee
engagement at the individual level and to have a first-hand
understanding of their abilities and capabilities which would
promote their possible job outcomes. The present business
climate characterized by “globalization” and “competitive
advantage” requires firms to inspire their employees’ positive
outcomes. By confirming the significance of SL in a firm, this
study argues that firms need to employ leaders who display
FIGURE 2 | Model testing with results. SL tendencies like authenticity, humility, and stewardship.
Moreover, the implementation of SL should be the priority
of every manager because if this is not honestly pursued, any
efforts about SL are bound to fail. Thus, managers should be
experienced by some employees. Dissatisfaction could be interested in supporting high-quality exchange relationships
associated with employees’ non-participation in decision-making among members. This could be achieved by recruiting employees
and limited opportunities for voicing their opinion (Ilkhanizadeh characterized by openness to extroversion and experience. It is
and Karatepe, 2018). The positive influence of SL on job worthy to note that companies should develop a team-oriented
outcomes is consistent with the literature (Hoch et al., 2018; atmosphere through events and other activities that could
Lee et al., 2020). Our findings of the significant effect of SL encourage job and non-job-specific interaction among the
on CS are consistent with some studies (Eby et al., 2003; Liden workers to nurture trust among the employees. The exercises
et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2019). This confirms the argument that could be specifically at training sessions or the first stages of
leaders should encourage their followers’ autonomy and inspire the team development, although they might be constituted as
them to have individual thinking and bear responsibility for part of the team’s work schedule. In addition, training programs
their career growth and development through the provision of would be beneficial. Specifically, the bank employees should be
mentoring and resources. Similarly, our finding on the positive trained about the SL practice in an organization. This training
influence of SL on SRP is compatible with studies of Echunha would provide an avenue to get effective feedback and thoughts
et al. (2009), Punjaisri et al. (2013), Daskin (2016). Finally, the that could assist the organization in better implementation.
significant positive impact of SL on employee IWB is in line Consequently, employees with favorable views of servant
with Yoshida et al. (2014), Panaccio et al. (2015), Peng and Wei leaders’ practices will develop trust, which is essential in a social
(2018), Opoku et al. (2019), Lee et al. (2020) that demonstrate exchange relationship.
similar findings. Future studies can utilize TCW as a moderating variable
and trust in the organization, trust in a leader, and TCW
CONCLUSION concurrently as the mediating factors in the SL and employees’
job outcomes relationship to enhance the understanding of
SL contributes to several significant outcomes for both the SL. Potential studies can also consider other leadership
individuals and groups. However, understanding the nexus styles to explain positive job outcomes better. Finally, future
between SL and the following job outcomes has not been studies can conduct a cross-sectional study with employees
exhaustively investigated. This study investigates the direct from different service industries. As a limitation of the current
influence of SL and TCW on employees’ job outcomes (JS, study, future research should explore the multilevel approach
CS, SRP, and IWB). In addition, the mediating effect of to testing the relationships between SL and the job outcomes
TCW in the relationship between SL and job outcomes was under study.

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 8 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original

draft, and writing—review and editing: AR and SI. Both
The original contributions presented in the study are included authors contributed to the article and approved the
in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be submitted version.
directed to the corresponding author/s.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
Conceptualization, project administration, and supervision: online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.
SI. Data curation: AR. Formal analysis, investigation, 2022.928066/full#supplementary-material

REFERENCES Cropanzano, R., and Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange

theory: an interdisciplinary review. J. Manage., 31, 874–900.
Ashill, N. J., Rod, M., and Carruthers, J. (2008). The effect of management doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602
commitment to service quality on frontline employees’ job attitudes, turnover Culbert, S. A., and McDonough, J. J. (1986). The politics of trust and organizational
intentions and service recovery performance in a new public management empowerment. Public Adm. Q. 10, 171–188.
context. J. Strat. Market. 16, 437–462. doi: 10.1080/09652540802480944 Daskin, M. (2016). The role of leadership style on frontline employees’ perceived
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., and Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: current ethical climate, polychronicity and service recovery performance: an evaluation
theories, research, and future directions. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 60, 421–449. from customer service development perspective. Girişimcilik ve Inovasyon
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 Yönetimi Dergisi 5, 125–158.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., and Ashill, N. J. (2011). Service worker burnout and Daskin, M., and Yilmaz, O. D. (2015). Critical antecedents to service recovery
turnover intentions: Roles of person-job fit, servant leadership, and customer performance: some evidences and implications for service industry. Int. J.
orientation. Serv. Market. Q. 32, 17–31. doi: 10.1080/15332969.2011.533091 Manage. Pract. 8, 70–97. doi: 10.1504/IJMP.2015.068317
Barbuto, J. E., and Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., and Tan, H. H. (2000).
clarification of servant leadership. Group Organ. Manage. 31, 300–326. The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical
doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091 evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Manage. J. 21, 563-576.
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. J. Leader. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5<563::AID-SMJ99>3.0.CO;2-0
Stud. 7, 18–40. doi: 10.1177/107179190000700302 De Jong, J., and Den Hartog, D. (2010) ‘Measuring innovative work behaviour.
Bechky, B. A., and Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How Creat. Innov. Manage. 19, 23–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Acad. Manage. J. 54, 239–261. Dirks, K. T., and Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263060 Organ. Sci. 12, 450–467. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
Bhal, K. T., and Ansari, M. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange-subordinate Dirks, K. T., and Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). The relationship between being perceived
outcomes relationship: role of voice and justice. Leader. Organ. Dev. J. 28, as trustworthy by coworkers and individual performance. J. Manage. 35,
20–35. doi: 10.1108/01437730710718227 136–157. doi: 10.1177/0149206308321545
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social life. New Brunswick, Eby, L. T., Butts, M., and Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of
NJ: Transaction. the boundaryless career. J. Organ. Behav. 24, 689–708. doi: 10.1002/job.214
Brown, S., Demetriou, D., and Theodossiou, P. (2018). Banking crisis in Echunha, M. P., Rego, A., and Kamoche, K. (2009). Improvisation in service
Cyprus: Causes, consequences and recent developments. Multinational Fin. J. recovery. Manag. Serv. Quality 19, 657–669. doi: 10.1108/09604520911005053
22:1–2, 63–118. Edgar, F., Geare, A., Saunders, D., Beacker, M., and Faanunu, I. (2017). A
Chatbury, A., Beaty, D., and Kriek, H. S. (2011). Servant leadership, trust and transformative service research agenda: a study of workers’ well-being. Serv.
implications for the“ base-of-the-pyramid” segment in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Indus. J. 37, 84–104. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2017.1290797
Bus. Manage. 42, 57–61. doi: 10.4102/sajbm.v42i4.505 Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work Teams.
Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S., and Lee, C. (2005). Test of a mediation model Adminis. Sci. Q. 44, 350–83. doi: 10.2307/2666999
of perceived organizational support. J. Vocat. Behav. 66, 457–470. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents
doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.01.001 of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 57, 61–94.
Chiniara, M., and Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job aatisfaction of municipal
competence and relatedness need satisfaction. Leader. Q. 27, 124–141. government employees. Public Personnel Manage. 31, 343–358.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004 doi: 10.1177/009102600203100307
Chinomona, R., Mashiloane, M., and Pooe, D. (2013). The influence of servant Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 2, 335–362.
leadership on employee trust in a leader and commitment to the organization. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 4, 405–405. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p405 Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., and Liden, R. C. (2019).
Cho, Y. J., and Park, H. (2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. Leader. Q.
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Public Manage. Review, 13, 30, 111–132. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
551–573. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2010.525033 Ferres, N. (2002). Development of the workplace trust questionnaire (Unpublished
Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., and Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. (2014). masters thesis), University of Newcastle, Callaghan.
Scale indicators of social exchange relationships: a comparison of relative Ferres, N., Connell, J., and Travaglione, A. (2004). Co-worker trust as a social
content validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 599. doi: 10.1037/a0036374 catalyst for constructive employee attitudes. J. Managerial Psychol. 19, 608–622.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., and LePine, J.A. (2007) ‘Trust, trustworthiness, doi: 10.1108/02683940410551516
and trust propensity: a metaanalytic test of their unique relationships Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 909–927. with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18, 39–50.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 9 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., and Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and
61, 101–107. doi: 10.1093/biomet/61.1.101 serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Acad. Manage.
Giampetro-Meyer, A., Timothy Brown, S. J., Browne, M. N., and Kubasek, J. 57, 1434–1452. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0034
N. (1998). Do we really want more leaders in business?. J. Bus. Ethics 17, Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., and Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:
1727–1736. doi: 10.1023/A:1006092107644 development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment.
Goh, S. K., and Low, B. Z. (2014). The influence of servant leadership towards Leader. Q. 19, 161–177. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
organizational commitment: the mediating role of trust in leaders”. Int. J. Bus. Lin, W. B. (2011). Factors affecting the effects of service recovery
Manage. 9, 17–25. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v9n1p17 from an integrated point of view. Total Q. Manage. 22, 443–459.
Graen, G. B. (ed.) (2004). New Frontiers of Leadership (LMX Leadership Series). doi: 10.1080/14783363.2010.545553
Greenwich, Conn: Information Age Pub. Ling, Q., Liu, F., and Wu, X. (2017). Servant versus authentic leadership: assessing
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., and Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on effectiveness in China’s hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Q. 58, 53–68.
organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. doi: 10.1177/1938965516641515
Acad. Manage. J. 33, 64–86. doi: 10.5465/256352 Lytle, R. S., and Timmerman, J. E. (2006). Service orientation and
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate performance: an organizational perspective. J. Serv. Market. 20, 136–147.
Power and Greatness. New York. USA: Paulist Press. doi: 10.1108/08876040610657066
Greenleaf, R. K. (2014). Who is the servant-leader?. Int. J. Serv. Leader. 10, 17–22. Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., and Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., and Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job performance: Moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance,
attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and and locus of control. J. Organ. Behav. 36, 59–74. doi: 10.1002/job.1943
time sequences. Acad. Manage. J. 49, 305–325. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.20786077 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing organizational trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20, 709–734. doi: 10.2307/258792
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. McAllister, D. (1995). Affect-based and cognition-based trust as foundations
Market. Sci. 43, 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manage. J. 38, 24–59.
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., and Wu, D. (2018). Do doi: 10.5465/256727
ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and McCann, J., and Holt, R. (2009). Ethical leadership and organizations: an analysis
beyond transformational leadership? A Meta-Anal. J. Manage. 44, 501-529. of leadership in the manufacturing industry based on the perceived leadership
doi: 10.1177/0149206316665461 integrity scale. J. Bus. Ethics. 87, 211–220. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9880-3
Ilkhanizadeh, S., and Karatepe, O. M. (2018). Does trust in organization McGee-Cooper, A. (1998). Accountability as covenant: the taproot of servant-
mediate the influence of servant leadership on satisfaction outcomes among leadership. in Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and
flight attendants?. Int. J. Contemp. Hospitality Manage. 30, 3555–3573. Servant-leadership, ed. L. C. Spears (New York: John Wiley and Sons),
doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2017-0586 77–84.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., and Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., and Xu, L. (2014). Servant leadership, trust,
the impact of servant leadership on salesperson’s turnover intention. J. Personal and the organizational commitment of public sector employees in China. Public
Selling Sales Manage. 29, 351-365. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134290404 Adminis. 92, 727–743. doi: 10.1111/padm.12091
Ji, S., and Jan, I. U. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of frontline Mujeeb, T., Khan, N. U., Obaid, A., Yue, G., Bazkiaei, H. A., Samsudin, N.
employee’s Trust-in-Supervisor and Trust-in-Coworker. Sustainability 12, 716. A., et al. (2021). Do servant leadership self-efficacy and benevolence values
doi: 10.3390/su12020716 predict employee performance within the banking industry in the post-
Jung, D. I., and Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental covid-19 era: using a serial mediation approach. Adminis. Sci. 11, 114.
investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on doi: 10.3390/admsci11040114
transformational and transactional leadership. J. Organ. Behav. 21, 949–964. Nedkovski, V., Guerci, M., De Battisti, F., and Siletti, E. (2017). Organizational
doi: 10.1002/1099-1379(200012)21:8<949::AID-JOB64>3.0.CO;2-F ethical climates and employee’s trust in colleagues, the supervisor, and the
Karatepe, O. M., and Aga, M. (2016). The effects of organization mission fulfilment organization. J. Bus. Res. 71, 19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.004
and perceived organizational support on job performance. Int. J. Bank Market. Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., and Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant
34, 368–387. doi: 10.1108/IJBM-12-2014-0171 leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: the roles of
Karatepe, O. M., Ozturk, A., and Kim, T. T. (2019). Servant leadership, LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. J. Bus. Ethics, 145, 49–62.
organizational trust, and bank employee outcomes. Serv. Indus. J. 39, 86–108. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
doi: 10.1080/02642069.2018.1464559 Ning, L. I., Jin, Y. A. N., and Mingxuan, J. I. N. (2007). How does
Khattak, M. N., and O’Connor, P. (2020). The interplay between servant organizational trust benefit work performance?. Front. Bus. Res. China 1,
leadership and organizational politics. Pers. Rev. 50, 985–1002. 622–637. doi: 10.1007/s11782-007-0035-7
doi: 10.1108/PR-03-2020-0131 Opoku, M. A., Choi, S. B., and Kang, S. W. (2019). Servant leadership and
Kock, N. (2015a). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment innovative behaviour: an empirical analysis of Ghana’s manufacturing sector.
approach. Int. J. e-Collaboration 11, 1–10. doi: 10.4018/ijec.2015100101 Sustainability 11, 6273. doi: 10.3390/su11226273
Kock, N. (2015b). WarpPLS 4, 0. User Manual. Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems. Ozyilmaz, A., and Cicek, S. S. (2015). How does servant leadership affect
Kock, N. (2020). Full latent growth and its use in PLS-SEM: Testing moderating employee attitudes, behaviors, and psychological climates in a for-profit
relationships. Data Anal. Perspect. J. 1, 1–5. organizational context?. J. Manage. Organ. 21, 263–290. doi: 10.1017/jmo.
Kock, N., and Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in 2014.80
variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. J. the Association Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., and Cao, X.
for Information Systems, 13, 546–580. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00302 (2015). Toward an understanding of when and why servant leadership
Lau, D. C., and Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’ accounts for employee extra-role behaviors. J. Bus. Psychol. 30, 657-675.
blessings. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1130. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1130 doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z
Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., and Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., and Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the
A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and antecedents of proactive behavior at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 636–652.
mediation. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 93, 1–44. doi: 10.1111/joop.12265 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Lewis, B. R., and Spyrakopoulos, S. (2001). Service failures and recovery in Pavlou, P. A., and Fygenson, M. (2006) ‘Understanding and predicting electronic
retail banking: the customers’ perspective. Int. J. Bank Market. 19, 37–48. commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q.
doi: 10.1108/02652320110366481 30, 115. doi: 10.2307/25148720
Liden, R. C., and Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member Peng, H., and Wei, F. (2018). Trickle-down effects of perceived leader integrity on
exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. J. Manage. 24, employee creativity: a moderated mediation model. J. Bus. Ethics 150, 837–851.
43–72. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1 doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3226-3

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066

Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh The Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Outcomes

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational White, D. W., and Lean, E. (2008). The impact of perceived leader integrity
leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee on subordinates in a work team environment. J. Bus. Ethics 81, 765–778.
satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9546-6
Manage. 22, 259–298. doi: 10.1177/014920639602200204 Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., and Werner, J. M. (1998).
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H., and Rudd, J. (2013). Aligning employee service Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for
recovery performance with brand values: The role of brand-specific leadership. understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23,
J. Market. Manage. 29, 981–1006. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2013.803144 513–530. doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.926624
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leader. Organ. Dev. Wikström, P. A. (2010). Sustainability and organizational activities–three
J. 22, 76–84. doi: 10.1108/01437730110382631 approaches. Sustain. Dev. 18, 99–107. doi: 10.1002/sd.449
Ruyter, K., and Wetzels, M. (2000). Customer equity considerations in service Wintrobe, R., and Breton, A. (1986). Organizational structure and productivity.
recovery: a cross industry perspective. Int. J. Serv. Indus. Manage. 11, 91–108. Am. Econ. Rev. 76, 530–538.
doi: 10.1108/09564230010310303 Wirtz, J., and Jerger, C. (2016). Managing service employees: Literature review,
Saleem, F., Zhang, Y. Z., Gopinath, C., and Adeel, A. (2020). Impact of servant expert opinions, and research directions. Serv. Indus. J. 36, 757–788.
leadership on performance: The mediating role of affective and cognitive trust. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2016.1278432
Sage Open, 10, 2158244019900562. doi: 10.1177/2158244019900562 Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., and Cooper, B. (2014). Does
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., and Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect- servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation
based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. J. study of identification and prototypicality. J. Bus. Res. 67, 1395–1404.
Appl. Psychol. 96, 863–871. doi: 10.1037/a0022625 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., and Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-
Member Exchange (LMX) research: a comprehensive review of theory, Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leader. Q. 10, 63–113. absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)80009-5 potential conflict of interest.
Shalley, C. E., and Zhou, J. (2008). Organizational creativity research: a historical
overview. In: Handbook of Organizational Creativity. New York, USA: Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
Sokol, S. (2014). Servant leadership and employee commitment to a supervisor.
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
Int. J. Leader. Stud. 8, 89–104.
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership. Leader Leader 34, 7–11.
doi: 10.1002/ltl.94 endorsed by the publisher.
Urbach, N., and Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information
systems research using partial least squares. J. Inf. Technol. Theor. Appl. Copyright © 2022 Rashid and Ilkhanizadeh. This is an open-access article distributed
11, 5–40. under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: a review and synthesis. J. Manage. use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
37, 1228–1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462 original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
Wang, Z., Yu, K., Xi, R., and Zhang, X. (2019). Servant leadership and career publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
success: The effects of career skills and proactive personality. Career Dev. Int. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
24, 717–730. doi: 10.1108/CDI-03-2019-0088 terms.

Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 928066