This research draws its theoretical origins from empowerment literature. Leadership – employees empowered through leaders creating a shared vision of the future, transforming the organisation (reflected by SL)Motivational – employees empowered through their ability to influence work outcomes (involvement or dominance in the DMP)Structural – employees empowered through being granted power through structural processes such as decentralisation (Form and Cent)
Involvement in the decision making process refers to what extent the leader is actively involved with the employees in the strategic decisions made by the organisation.Dominance in the decision making process refers to what extent the leader dominants the strategic decision making process, striving to have their views implemented.Inv are better able to communicate why strategic decisions, develop enthusiasm and bring expertise to the DMP. Dominant leaders disengage their employees through narrowly focusing on their own opinion.
Formalisation refers to the rules and regulations set out by the organisation. This includes what decisions to make when confronted with different circumstances.Centralisation refers to focusing the decision making on one central point in an organisation. A more centralised organisation will have decision making power originating from one or few individuals.Form – SL especially as it reduces their ability to impact their employees, be available for them and empower them through a shared vision or mentoring employees. Cent – reducing collaboration, accountability to employees, shared vision and empowerment.
With the leader involved in the DMP – this will increase JS.Inv Form – relationship between SL and JS will be stronger when Inv is high and Form is LowDom Cent – RS bw SL & JS weaker when Dom High and Cent H
Increased call in leadership research due to self-report limitations. Tested in an experiment which was high in internal validity Method previously been used in leadership research by Van Knippenberg and associates.
Vignettes – chosen as ease of administration and the timely manner they can be produced and administered. Pilot Studies – 48 business studentsG*Power
Data divided into groups based on the hypotheses.All hypotheses were supported.Although these findings do justify the hypotheses, they do not speak on the applicability in a real world situation. Therefore, in order to further validate the hypotheses, they must be run in an organisational setting.
Hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS.Hyp 1 supported, Hyp 2 and 3 not supported. Simple slopes analysis - illustrated using one standard deviation above and below the mean of involvement to represent high and low involvement in the decision making processThe more a leader is involved in the decision making process, the stronger the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction.
Data divided into groups based on the hypotheses.All hypotheses were supported.
Hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS.Hyp 4 and 5 not supported, Hyp 6 supported. Simple slopes analyses and post hoc tests for slope differences Showed a difference between Slope 1 (Low F Low C) and Slope 2 (High F Low C) and Slope 3 (Low F High C) but not Slope 4 (High F High C)
Data divided into groups based on the hypotheses.All hypotheses were supported. H7 HighestH8 Lowest
Hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS.Hyp 7 supportedSimple slopes analyses and post hoc tests for slope differences Showed a difference between Slope 2 (High Inv Low Form) and Slope 1 (Low Inv Low Form) but not Slope 3 (Low I High F) and Slope 4 (High In High F)Still the second highest gradient.
Hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS.Hyp8 supportedSimple slopes analyses and post hoc tests for slope differences Showed a difference between Slope 4 (High D High C) and Slope 1 (Low D Low C) and Slope 3 (Low D High C) but not Slope 1 (Low D Low C)Weakest Low Dom Low Cent (employee autonomy = happy so SL won’t affect it) Strongest Low Dom High Cent. Tells us that keep dominance low. People are fine with High Cent with a Servant Leader. Understanding that the structure that enforces SL to check off decisions not the leader (as they are not dom).More importantly it tells us that if you are having High C you need to have a leader who displays SL behaviours or you will at the bottom as people don’t like centralisation. By implementing SL in a highly centralised organisation we see that it creates a change in JS.
This has not been done in as much depth, with experiments or with simple slopes analysisNever been looked at with mod factorsInv DMP – not only has it provided empirical evidence that SL are more inclined to undertake an Inv style – it has also shown that the more involved a SL is in the DMP the higher levels of job satisfaction will be felt by the employees.Both the exp and the survey showed that the relationship between SL and JS was the strongest in low C & F enviro. However of note was the strong relationship present in a HF HC context – it does make theoretical and practical sense. A leader who shows SL is more preferable than one who doesnt (especially in a High struc org).
Surprising, however it is not uncommon to find form = JS in small to medium firmsAs the Inv SL are writing the procedures this would naturally have an involved / SL flair. Cent Dom – As I’ve already covered although still interpreting this finding
Servant Leadership, Decision Making and Structure
Global Servant Leadership Roundtable 21/06/2012 The relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction: The moderating roles of the decision making process and organisational structure. Nathan Eva Monash Universitywww.monash.edu.au
Servant Leadership andJob 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
Decision Making Process and Job Satisfaction• Drawing upon the Upper Echelon theory, leaders choose their own decision making style. – (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hambrick, 2007)• Two contrasting styles of decision making: Involved and Dominant. – (Black & Gregersen, 1997)• Leaders who are more involved in the decision making process can better engage their employees. – (Castaneda & Nahavandi, 1991; Kezar, 2001; Weisbord, 2004; Williams, 1998)• Employees who feel engaged have higher levels of job satisfaction as well as lifting their performance. – (Gardell, 1977; Kearney & Hays, 1994; Parnell & Menefee, 1995) www.monash.edu.au 3
Decision Making Process:Involvement and DominanceHypothesis 1: The level of leader involvement in the decision making process positively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the more a servant leader is involved in the decision making process, the higher levels of elicited employee job satisfaction.Hypothesis 2: The level of leader dominance in the decision making process negatively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the more a servant leader is dominant in the decision making process, the lower levels of elicited employee job satisfaction.Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be moderated by both involvement and dominance such that the positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be stronger when involvement is high and dominance is low. www.monash.edu.au 4
Organisational Structure andJob 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 5
Organisational Structure:Formalisation and CentralisationHypothesis 4: 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 5: 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 6: 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 6
DMP, Organisational Structureand Job Satisfaction• Combines the leadership, motivational and structural approaches to empowerment. – (Menon, 2001; Tymon, 1988)• Having low levels of formalisation in an organisation can increase leader involvement in the DMP as employees look to the leader, not to the manual to make decisions. – (Howell & Dorfman, 1981; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Wright & Pandey, 2010)• Higher levels of centralisation in an organisation leads to a lack of flexibility, thus leaders will tend to make the decisions independently creating institutionalised dominance thus decreasing job satisfaction. – (Black & Gregersen, 1997; Davis et al., 2009;) www.monash.edu.au 7
Decision Making Process andOrganisational StructureHypothesis 7: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be moderated by both involvement and formalisation such that the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be strongest when involvement is high and formalisation is low.Hypothesis 8: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be negatively moderated by both dominance and centralisation such that the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be weakest when dominance and centralisation are high. www.monash.edu.au 8
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 9
Study 1 – Experiment• 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design. – (Charness, Gneezy & Kuhn, 2012)• 16 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 10
Study 2 – Organisational Survey• Sample comprised of middle managers who rated the leadership and decision making 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 11
Decision Making Process – Study 1 H1 & 2 H3 3.8 3.6 High Dominance Involvement Low Dominance Dominance 3.6 Job Satisfaction 3.4Job Satisfaction 3.4 3.2 3.2 3 3 High Low High Low Involvement Level of DMP Decision Dominance Making Process High Low Involvement High Low Involvement 3.47 3.23 High 3.32 3.63 Dominance 3.29 3.42 Low 3.25 3.21 www.monash.edu.au 12
Decision Making Process – Study 2 5 low Involvement high Involvement 4.5 Job Saitsfaction 4 3.5 3 low high Servant Leadership H1(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008) www.monash.edu.au 13
Organisational Structure – Study 1 H4 & 5 H6 3.8 3.6 High Formalisation Formalisation Low Formalisation Centralisation 3.6 Job SatisfactionJob 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 14
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 H6(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008) www.monash.edu.au 15
DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 1 H7 H8 3.8 3.8 High Formalisation High Centralisation Low Formalisation Low Centralisation 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3 3 2.8 High Low 2.8 Leader Involvement in the Decision Making High Low Leader Dominance in the Decision Making Process Process Formalisation Centralisation Involvement High Low Dominance High Low High 3.38 3.57 High 3.00 3.58 Low 3.15 3.32 Low 3.27 3.35 www.monash.edu.au 16
DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 2 5 (1) Low Inv Low Form 4.5 (2) High Inv Job Satisfaction Low Form 4 (3) Low Inv High Form 3.5 (4) High Inv High Form 3 Low High Servant Leadership H7(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008) www.monash.edu.au 17
DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 2 5 (1) Low Dom Low Cent 4.5 (2) High Dom Job Satisfaction 4 Low Cent (3) Low Dom 3.5 High Cent 3 (4) High Dom High Cent 2.5 Low High Servant Leadership H8(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008) www.monash.edu.au 18
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.• High levels of involvement in the decision making process strengthen the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction.• Low levels of organisational structure strengthen the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. www.monash.edu.au 19
Preliminary Discussion• Under the condition of high involvement, high levels of formalisation was found to positively impact the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction as well as the hypothesised high involvement low formalisation interaction.• The relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction was weakest when dominance and centralisation were low not when they were high as hypothesised.• However, the servant leadership job satisfaction relationship was strongest when dominance was low and centralisation was high. www.monash.edu.au 20
ReferencesAiken, 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 22
ReferencesDenzin, 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. Masters 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 23
ReferencesKearney, 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 24
ReferencesParnell, 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 25
ReferencesVan 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-BassWilliams, 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 26
Experiment Scales• Job Satisfaction – (Moyes & Redd, 2008)• Age• Gender• Degree• Major• Current Year of Study www.monash.edu.au 27
Survey Scales• Servant Leadership – (Sendjaya et al., 2008)• Decision Making Process (Involvement/Dominance) – (Mayer et al., 2011)• 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 28
Sample Questions• Servant Leadership – Leads by personal example• 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 29
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 Involvement Low Dominance – “In these discussions your supervisor was always present and active. From your interactions, you noticed that your supervisor listened intently, was well informed of all the situations inside and outside of the company.”• High Dominance Low Involvement – “…your supervisor empowered your team to run your own meetings; however she was quite dominant in every decision. From your interactions, you noticed she would only appreciate views that were aligned with her own, always pushed to have her decisions implemented and was reluctant to compromise on her position.” www.monash.edu.au 30
Experiment Manipulations• 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 31