Luận Văn Factors Influencing Service Innovative Behavior

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
International School ofBusiness
TRAN PHONG
Factors influencing service innovative
behavior: Evidence from Vietnam
MASTER OF BUSINESS (HONOURS)
Tham khảo thêm tài liệu tại Baocaothuctap.net
Dịch Vụ Hỗ Trợ Viết Thuê Tiểu Luận,Báo Cáo
Khoá Luận, Luận Văn
ZALO/TELEGRAM HỖ TRỢ 0973.287.149

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
International School ofBusiness
TRAN PHONG
Factors influencing service innovative
behavior: Evidence from Vietnam
MASTER OF BUSINESS (HONOURS)
SUPERVISOR:Dr. NGUYEN THI MAI TRANG

Table of Contents
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................... 1
List of Acronyms........................................................................................................................... 3
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables................................................................................................................................. 5
Acknowledgement......................................................................................................................... 6
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 8
Literature review......................................................................................................................... 13
Ethical leadership .................................................................................................................. 13
Service innovative behavior.................................................................................................. 14
Ethical leadership and leader member exchange relations.............................................. 15
The positive relationship between LMX and service innovative behavior...................... 17
The moderating role of intrinsicreward (IR) and extrinsicreward (ER) on LMX-SIB’s
relationship............................................................................................................................. 18
Research methodology............................................................................................................... 20
Research design...................................................................................................................... 20
Sample characteristics ........................................................................................................... 23
Measures.................................................................................................................................. 24
Data analysis and results............................................................................................................ 26
Cronbach’s alpha results ...................................................................................................... 27
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)........................................................................................ 28
Structural equation modeling (SEM) testing results.......................................................... 30
Hypothesis testing results...................................................................................................... 31
Moderating testing results .................................................................................................... 32
Discussion and implication........................................................................................................ 33
Discussion................................................................................................................................ 33
Implications ............................................................................................................................. 35
Limitation and directions for future research.......................................................................... 36

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................38
References...................................................................................................................................39
Appendix 1: Guideline for pilot study .....................................................................................49
Appendix 2: Vietnamese Questionnaire ..................................................................................50
Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics of samples ........................................................................52
Appendix 4: The results of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability .............................53
Appendix 5: Exploratory factor analysis-EFA........................................................................56
Appendix 6: Confirmatory factor analysis - CFA ..................................................................58
Appendix 7: Structural results for model ................................................................................61
Appendix 8: Moderating testing results...................................................................................63

List of Acronyms
3PL: Third Party Logistics
AGFI: Adjusted Goodness of Fit Indices
CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFI: Comparative Fit Indices
CR: Cronbach’s alpha
DF: Degrees of Freedom
DV: Dependence Variable
EL: Ethical Leadership
ER: Extrinsic Rewards
EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis
GFI: Goodness of Fit Indices
H: Hypothesis
HCM: Ho Chi Minh
IR: Intrinsic Rewards
LMX: Leader Member Exchange
NFI: Normed Fit Indices
PFI: Parsimony Fit Indices
SEM: Structural Equation for Model
SIB: Service Innovative Behavior
SME: Small & Medium-Sized Enterprise
SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

List of Figures
Figure 1: Research model......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2: Research procedure .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 3: Structural results of model.......................................................................................30

List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic details ...................................................................................................24
Table 2: KMO and Bartlett's Test.............................................................................................28
Table 3: Factors loading............................................................................................................. 29
Tables 4: CR & AVE ..................................................................................................................30
Table 5: Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) ......................................31
Table 6: Chi-Distribution...........................................................................................................32

Acknowledgement
Honorably, I sincerely express my warmest thank you to my supervisor Prof. Nguyen Thi
Mai Trang for her attention, patience, encouragement, and professional knowledge. Her
direction and hardly support me to finish draft proposal, evaluated proposal and make
many corrections till I got the best version and She event help me to review the
questionnaire many times before I take pilot test, main survey and that lead me to write
final research of the master thesis.
Besides, I would also like to thank lecturers who instruct us in International School of
Business (ISB) during the master course with many interesting subjects. Not only the
knowledge I absorbed but also value experience they share that help us growth in real
like and doing better business. In addition, my grateful thanks for all respondents who
spend time to participated in my pilot study and help to answered main survey questions.
I also would like to thank all my classmate of MBUS 7 for useful conversation, for
weekend studying together before examinations, and for all interesting time we have
studied in the last two years. Finally, I am very glad to thank my company where gave
me time and experience to finish my master course that last for two years and all
employee help me for some part like review questionnaire or suggest some ideas about
survey schedule. Especially, I am happy to thank my family who motivated me to go
through all subjects and thank for their take care me to complete my thesis step by step.

Abstract
This research thesis examined the effects of ethical leadership and its impacts on service
innovative behavior through leader member exchange at small and medium size logistics
companies in Vietnam, the proposed integrated research model was formed to enhance
the relationship between ethical leadership and service innovative behavior while
interacting through the mediator leader member exchange, the study also examines the
roles of intrinsic and extrinsic reward as moderators. By using empirical test of 339
respondents from SME logistics Companies in Vietnam indicated that there are positive
relationships among independent variables and dependent variables.
Furthermore, the new findings from this model showed that there are positive
relationships between moderator’s intrinsic reward and extrinsic reward with service
innovative behavior, these moderators generate creative environment and promoting
service innovative behavior of frontline employee working in SME logistics companies
in Vietnam, the leader member exchange also shows positive relationship as mediator.
Key words: Ethical, Leader, Ethical leadership, leader member exchange, intrinsic
reward, extrinsic reward, service innovative behavior

Introduction
Due to the globalization process and international trade agreements have connected
business regions to each other and connected nations and nations, the global
organizations exchange their business frequently and the connections also affect every
product and service being offered on global market. Especially, that caused business
models being shifted from manufacturing to providing alternative services as new
strategies to develop their organizations (Thakur & Hale, 2013). Han, Kim, & Srivastava
(1998) and Im & Workman (2004) stated that innovative service is an essential
management feature to guarantee firm’s development, the quality of service is essential
for business sustainability and important to service industry where enterprises create
service competitive advantages (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Therefore, creative service
plays an important role in every business unit influencing service innovative behavior
(Dhar, 2015) or cognitive ability (Khan, Bashir, Abrar, & Saqib, 2017).
Current reports showed that leader’s behaviors have forced organizations to reconsider
ethical behavior of their leaders (Shadnam & Lawrence, 2011), ethical leadership also
gained a lot of interest in company’s applications and in academics for research purposes
(Lu & Guy, 2014). A majority of researchers found that there are positive effects of
moral leadership on work satisfaction influencing staff’s performance (Hansen, Alge,
Brown, Jackson, & Dunford, 2013). However, there is a few studies have examined the
influences of ethical leadership at work place on innovative service behavior that
critically fosters employees to contribute their creativities for achieving company’s
sustainable development (Dhar, 2015).

Regarding to employee performance and service creativity that were synonymously
defined as complicated interaction process among parties (Dotzel, Shankar, & Berry,
2018). Because of that, the management are looking for effective methods to offer high
quality services in service business industry (Redman & Mathews, 2016). In addition, the
leaders bring out positive impacts that would motivate employees to provide quality
services to customers, as more favorable treatments employees receive from leaders as
higher service innovative behavior employees offer to clients (Chen & Kanfer, 2006), this
is correct for logistics market in Vietnam where small and medium sized logistics
companies facing with main challenge of strictly holding low price competitive rather
than improving service quality or innovative services (Koustab, 2014). Therefore, SMEs
need to improve relationships among leaders and followers that would direct more
innovative service performance of frontline employees who direct serve customer (Dhar,
2016).
Another remarkable point from this paper is an study of leader member exchange
(LMX) which was known as crucial factors interacting among leaders, supervisors,
managers and subordinators, LMX role actually is influencing the relationship between
ethical leadership and service innovative behavior (SIB) in work place (Chen, Lam, &
Zhong, 2012) and (Sears & Hackett, 2011), Previous studies proved that ethical leaders
are undertaking to foster positive relationships between LMX and service innovative
behavior (Hammond & Volmer, 2012). Hence, it is proposed that LMX and ethical

leaders are encouraging service innovative behavior among frontline employees
(Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, 2011).
Although two research constructs such as SIB and LMX were considered as
complicated process in natural working condition (Dotzel, Shankar & Berry, 2013),
rewards are very important motivating functions to build constructive relationship
between ethical leadership and service innovative behavior and play significant roles to
establish work engagement which helps employees focus on their work to complete their
task responsibly (Chen et al., 2012; Malik, Butt, & Choi, 2015). Definitely employees
would use their experience, confidence and skills to deliver the best services to customers
rather than just rewards.
The previous studies showed that job autonomy is factor plays as moderating role
influencing relationship between ethical leadership and SIB (Dhar, 2016)) while very few
paper researches reveals that the ethical leadership and LMX are influencing SIB through
moderating of intrinsic and extrinsic reward (Dhar, 2016), whether rewards were used as
a medium by leaders to promote employee’s creativity at the workplace, there are
contradictory standpoints regard to the impacts of rewards on creativity. Deci, Koestner,
& Ryan (2001) mentioned that individuals perceive the environment expresses obstacles
to their self-determination or liberality, their intrinsic tasks interesting tends to lessen or
eliminate and resulting in poor creativity. Hence this study tries to expand the theory by
examining the role of LMX in influencing employee’s innovative service behavior and to
confirming intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as moderators.

Moreover, this study examines the impact of ethical leadership on service innovative
behavior of frontline employee from small and medium sized (SME) logistics companies,
those firms with under 50 employees was defined as small and they are called medium
companies if they own from 50 to under 100 employees (Government department, 2018).
These companies are offering main logistics services and those services are being
managed by department manager or leader directly and the services are being performed
by followers (Autry, 2003). Therefore, SME firms are suitable to do research about
service innovative behavior because frontline employees directly communicate with
customers and their managers.
Frontline employees in SME often interact directly with customer to handle their daily
work so that leaders use intrinsic rewards to encourage service quality like
accomplishment of task finished, respect and esteem (Russell, 2001). Beside that, these
SME’s logistics leaders also use extrinsic rewards like bonus, commission, party or gift
to motivate their following employees (Malik et al., 2015). As a result, their employees
generate more innovative behavior in logistics services that lead to higher service quality
performed and higher services competitive level for SME.
Furthermore, SME logistics companies in Vietnam provide their services such as sea
freight, air freight, inland trucking, customs clearance, warehousing and documentation
services to direct customer and the customers are being served by their frontline
employees like customer service, customs broker, consultant and salesman or leaders also
interact with customer directly if needed. Especially, third party logistics (3PL)

companies play an significant role in logistics market where increasing service-driven
economy is well recognized (Bolumole, 2003).
Consequently, this thesis examines the impact of ethical leadership on SIB of frontline
employees at small and medium sized logistics companies in Ho Chi Minh City (Ministry
of Trade, 2017), Vietnam. The SME logistics sector was selected because logistics field
in HCMC contributes to high economy income and owns the biggest sea port and airport
that attracts much investment which creates market competition and develops alternative
logistics services (Van Nam, 2016). Logistics cost accounts for 21% in 2017 in Vietnam
(Cam Tu, 2017). There are more than 1,800 logistics companies and SME logistics that
account for 35% of total number, SME logistics are performing their main functions such
as forwarding freight services by air and freight service by sea, shipping documents
services, customs brokerage, trucking services, oversea agency services and some SME
logistics may offer warehouse storage.
In summary, this paper examines the factors that influence service innovative behavior
with the following purposes:
 Examining the impact of ethical leadership influencing service innovative
behavior through LMX
 Testing the moderating effects of intrinsic reward and extrinsic reward on the
relationship between ethical leadership and service innovative behavior

The organization of this thesis included: Introduction, literature review and
hypothesis, research methodology, data analysis and results; discussion and implication;
limitations and directions for future research; and conclusion in turn.
Literature review
Ethical leadership
Ethical leadership was defined as standard conduct behavior through individual deeds
and interpersonal relationships, there are such conducts to followers by two ways
conversation and work discussion (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005), ethical leaders
play very important role in business management. Especially for global leadership roles
(Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982), that’s why there are many leadership styles (Rose, 2015)
applying to manage employees in each suitable market, such as democratic style involves
a team guided by a leader where all members are inputs to make decision and members
see themselves in the process of making decision (Goleman, 2000) or autocratic
leadership style as Mohiuddin (2017) stated that all decision will be taken by leaders who
exercising complete power and allocating different tasks to each member of the group.
Therefore, ethical leaders are core resources leading employees to do right things and
make sure employees following organization principles of conduct (Thomas, 2001).
In addition, ethical leadership is alternative with other leadership-styles by possessing
qualities of employee’s orientation, fairness, openness, assistance, collective
encouragement, reciprocal respect, precise vision and convinced decision making
(Brown et al., 2005; Zhu, May, & Avolio, 2004). Furthermore, ethical leadership were

qualified as honest, responsible, talent, supportive, connective and innovative factors that
create good working environment where motivate employees perform positive behavior
at work (Hansen et al., 2013; Lu & Guy, 2014).
Service innovative behavior
Service innovative or service creativity are concerned as initiative from employees for
new processes, new solutions, new services, new market or combination of such into
company, hence service business model are being motivated in developing countries and
developed countries because they help to reduce their countries pollution and contribute
to global pollution reduction program (Campagnolo et al., 2016). Therefore, service plays
an important role in those industry (Goo, Kishore, Rao, & Nam, 2009) and there are
many kind of services that are being offering in hospitality, IT solution, financial
consultant, marketing, shipping or logistics service etc…, consistently those services are
being offered by frontline employees who directly interact with customers daily (Wilson,
Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler, 2012) through work supportive tools or in person, that’s
why their emotion is very important at work place and employee’s behavior decide how
good quality service could be performed (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993).
However, synonymously the behavior at work place is creativity motivated (Scott &
Bruce, 1994) and it was mentioned that innovative behavior depends on many factors like
working environment where employees exist to generate their service innovative
behavior, (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996) also expressed opinions that
environmental factors such as encouragement of creativity, job autonomy, good

resources, work pressures, and organizational limitations to creativity could affect service
creativity.
There are many other factors also influence service innovative behavior like customer
participation that motivate frontline employees offer high quality service and operational
excellence (Li & Hsu, 2018). Scott & Bruce (1994) pointed out that “High-quality LMX
relationship (leadership style) enables employees to feel stronger support in innovation
management and in an overall organizational environment that supports innovative work
to encourage innovation”. Besides that, Åmo & Kolvereid (2005) mentioned that service
innovative behavior depends on many internal and external factors of enterprises.
Therefore, Leaders play an important role to decide how innovative behavior employees
take and deliver to their customers.
Finally, SME logistics companies in Vietnam provide a large range of service
activities to clients (Knemeyer, Corsi, & Murphy, 2003), Regarding to good quality
logistics services that could satisfy customer’s need, this requires frontline employee’s
performance must be qualified and innovated before companies deliver creative and
competitive services. Customer’s satisfaction is very important in logistics service as well
because innovative behavior employees create positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and service performances (Mentzer, Flint, & Kent, 1999).
Ethical leadership and leader member exchange relations
Besides the definition of ethical leadership formed as standard conduct behavior through
personal actions and interpersonal relationship (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005), other

paper also clarified more about LMX’s concepts and its relationship with EL (Garg &
Dhar, 2017). The quality of LMX shows the relationship between manager and inferiors
and it also indicates the degree they exchange their work resources together or support
each other effectively (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). However, the LMX
head to have feeble effects on the performance of service employees with routine work
where the supports of direction and motivation from superiors is low (Dunegan, Uhl-
Bien, & Duchon, 2002). So that the LMX tends to affect innovative work behavior where
employees interact with ample work scenario differently, thus they could show their
flexible abilities and skills (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005).
However, ethical leaders know many solutions to reinforce the positive relationships
between leaders and their subordinators, the ethical leaders also know how to increase
their exchange value resources which helps employees perform job positively, because
ethical leaders own the characteristics of honest, trustworthy, responsible, fair, supportive
and oriented mind which help them aim to right things for employees and right things for
their organization (Hansen et al., 2013). Therefore, when leaders perform base on their
best interest of caring, motivating and supporting employees that form positive responses
and strengthen exchange value between leaders and followers which heading all
organizations to encourage their leaders become ethical leaders.
Hypothesis 1. There is positive relationship between ethical leadership and leader
member exchange.

The positive relationship between LMX and service innovative behavior
The research model shows the relationships between LMX and ethical leadership and it
also shows influences of LMX on service innovative behavior (Li, Lin, Wu, & Jin, 2016),
the findings of those research are significant due to the guide to the result that LMX play
a critical role in influencing service innovative behavior at the workplace (Olsson,
Hemlin, & Pousette, 2012). It could be stated that followers want to show their effective
performances when they feel connected and motivated supports from leaders (Garg &
Dhar, 2017). According to the norm of reciprocity and persuasion which mentioned that
employees tend to perform their work with innovative behavior when they receive
favorable treatment from their supervisor (Sepdiningtyas & Santoso, 2017).
Furthermore, LMX is a construct that influences relation between ethical leadership
and service innovative behavior by strengthen the ethical leader’s personality, greater
characteristics that build up more motivation to exchange with following employees and
encourage employees to perform their innovative behavior. Meanwhile, creative behavior
could bring out effective consequences and high quality services offered (Olsson et al.,
2012; Shunlong & Weiming, 2012). Hence, Ethical leadership affected to LMX and
LMX influent on service innovative behavior therefore it could exist a supportive
relationship between LMX and SIB.
Hypothesis 2. There is a positive relationship between leader member exchange and
service innovative behavior.

The moderating role of intrinsic reward (IR) and extrinsic reward (ER) on LMX-SIB’s
relationship
Intrinsic reward was defined as intrinsic motivation that employees expect to receive at
work place which creating excites on work activities and rewards are promoted to engage
benefits for personnel (Yoon, Sung & Choi, 2015) such as meaningful purpose, free of
choice, sense of competence and path of career that moderating the relationship between
LMX and SIB, it occurs by taking the degree of intrinsic rewards is low, middle or high
range then the moderating level will be adjusted parallel way (Thomas & Tymon, 2009).
Moreover, intrinsic rewards take a dominant part of business development in service
industry, when frontline employees have to interact with customer more frequency and
directly or when they complying with rules and procedures were paramount. Positively,
every evaluation was accompanied with each positive emotional responsibility; this
positive blame is admitted as intrinsic rewards that employees get from leaders to
perform innovative services innovative (Leander, Kay, Chartrand & Payne, 2017).
Therefore, intrinsic reward factor plays moderating role in relationship between LMX
and SIB.
Hypothesis 3. Intrinsic reward moderates the relationship between the LMX and SIB,
there is positive relationship with greater intrinsic rewards.
On the contrary, extrinsic rewards subject to the job such as wage, bonus, commission,
fringe-benefits, position promotions, and vacation or day off compensation (Malik et al.,
2015). The extrinsic rewards are easy to measure and compare that appear physically to

any employee which will be scaled base on their job position, task and key performance
index, they were offered rewards fairly before job taken and performed, in some case the
extra extrinsic rewards were given when employees performed their task excellently or
more than leader’s expectation, that also will drive employees become more innovative
or creativity in next coming tasks (Fairbank & Williams, 2001). Lastly, it is suggested
that the importance of alternative rewards may strengthen or weaken the influences of
reasonable rewards on employee creative performance and extrinsic reward play
moderating roles in relationship between LMX and SIB.
Hypothesis 4. Extrinsic reward moderates the relationship between LMX and SIB, there
is positive relationship with greater extrinsic rewards.

Research methodology
Research design
The data were collected from hundred respondents who working in SME logistics in
HCM the designed procedure with three steps was applied in this thesis. Firstly, literature
was reviewed to list down antecedent outcomes, after that draft questionnaire was
designed to define needed items for measurement. Secondly, the draft questionnaire was
used to be taken in second step as pilot test step (qualitative research) and final step is
main survey (quantitative research). The research procedure’s detail showed as figure
below:
Figure 2: Research procedure

The pilot study (qualitative research) was undertaken after draft questionnaire be
converted into Vietnamese for in depth interview 8 frontline logistics employees from 4
different SME logistics companies in HCMC, two salesman from Khai Minh Global
Corporation, two customer service staffs of Air Sea Asian Joint Stock Company, one
sales manager from Global Alliance Logistics Corporation and three operation staffs of
Global Exim Trading Company, four companies were selected to minimize the rate of
general bias and diversify new comments for better questionnaire.
The pilot test results revealed that some questions were not clear enough for
respondents to understand totally. The ethical leadership design with 9 items and there is
one item was recommended to replace “want to talk” with “need to discuss” in EL1,
replacing “problems” with “works” in item LMX1 “My leader understands my needs and
problems” and the respondents also suggested to replace item SIB4 “I often plan new
ideas fit with finance status” with “I often plan suitable method to develop new services”.
However, the remained items of IR and ER were not suggested to change or replace
because all respondent understand and can answer the questions (See Appendix 1).
On the other hand, main survey (quantitative research) was deployed to collect enough
expected data , the main survey’s data were collected by quantitative questionnaire forms
(Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017) from 700 samples that’s bigger than minimum 290
samples by formula n =50 +8*m (m = 30 independent variables) (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1996). The respondents were approached included male and female, age from 20 to over
40 years old to ensure they have at least 6 months experience, employees has more than 6

months experience understand the overall knowledge of logistics services and they are
already to interact with their managers or leaders. The employees and samples was
selected by using judgmental sampling method, the sample’s respondents are frontline
employees from SME logistics companies who taking their position as customer service
staffs, operation staffs, salesman and documentation employees, these employees are the
person in charge to offer companies’ logistics services to clients directly.
The questionnaire was designed to deliver to all respondent by Google form link, a
hyper link was sent to over 700 respondents that included 20 people in my company,
about 200 respondents are my friends in logistics filed, over 200 respondents are my
customers and my partners in the market who offering logistics services as well. The
remaining of 280 respondents are from Vietnam logistics club, HCM logistics club and
HCM forwarding forum, where estimated there are total thousand members.
Furthermore, the main survey form link also was sent to Facebook’s page of logistics
communities, Skype logistics group, email address, Zalo and Viber and to ensure enough
respondents amount for analysis, I also recorded time schedule to remind respondent two
days after share the survey link of questionnaire with thank you email. After 5 days of
main survey deployed, there were 48.4% respondents of total 700 respondents who have
more than 6 months experience answered and missing data recorded is 361 samples did
not answer. Therefore, 339 respondent’s data was used to analyze by SPSS and AMOS
software for final results.

Sample characteristics
The control variables were used are age, gender, experience and position because
previous studies convinced their influences on personal and structural performances
strongly (Foote & Li-Ping Tang, 2008) and these variables are the factors affect to their
emotion to make decision for answering question and for real working environment.
Based on 339 respondent’s results in Table 1, the findings indicated that male accounted
for 59.3 % of gender variable (201 male) and female was 40.7% of total respondents(138
female).
There were 145 respondents aged from 26-30 that comprised of 42.8%, aged from 20-
25 years old accounted 26.3% this variable (89 respondents) and the remaining
respondents were aged from 31-35 years old and 36-40 years old accounted for 25.1%,
5.9% accordingly.
Regarding to position of respondents at their workplace, the greatest number of
respondents being staff (194 respondents, 57.2%), respondents was at manager position
accounted for 37.8% (128 respondents) and remaining employees take other position was
only 5% (17 respondents).
Finally, the experience variable were the described results that largest portion of
respondents are having experience from 3 to 5 years (141 respondents and 41.6%), the
next portion of total respondents are getting experience from 5 to 10 years that accounted
for 31.3% (106 respondents), there are 72 respondents accounting for 21.2% who are
having 6 months to 3 years’ experience and the smallest number of respondent who

having 10 to 15 years’ experience was 5.9% (20 respondents). Detail descriptive statistics
is presented in Appendix 3.
Table 1 Demographic details
Respondents’ details (n = 339)
Frequency (s)
Percent
(%)
Gender Male 201 59.3
Female 138 40.7
Total 339 100.0
Age (in years) 20-25 89 26.3
26-30 145 42.8
31-35 85 25.1
36-40 20 5.9
Total 339 100.0
Experience 6 months to 3 years 72 21.2
over 3 years to 5 years 141 41.6
Total 339 100.0
Position Staff 194 57.2
Manager 128 37.8
Others 17 5.0
Total 339 100.0
Measures
The measurement was employed by multiple item scales with approvable internal
confirmation to evaluate the study variables. Each item was accessed on a 5-points Likert
scale (it is ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5
= strongly agree), 5 - points Likert type scale was used to collect respondent rate and
respondent quality along with respondents’ “frustration level” (Babakus & Mangold,
1992).
Ethical leadership was qualified on a 9-items scale developed by Brown et al., (2005).

The scale comprised items as following: leader pay attention to employees expectation,
leader penalizes staff who break ethical standards, leader often care about employees’
benefits, leader always makes right decision, leader are prestige, leader share term of
business ethics or share value lesion with employees, leader indicate specific method how
to do right things in terms of ethics, leader evaluate performance not just by results but
also the way that they perform.
Leader member exchange was formed by the 7-items scale showed by Graen & Uhl-
Bien (1995) and contained following items: manager comprehend my job problems and
demands, leader recognizes employee’s potential abilities, supportive level from leader
help employee solve reality problem in work, level of communication with employees,
employee’s confidence to defend and justify for leader and in personal relationship.
Service innovative behavior was measured by a 6-items scale (Hu, Horng, & Sun,
2009) but there was an amended version for new scale provided by Scott & Bruce (1994).
The scale included items like: You go to work with creative and innovative emotions,
you attempt to put forward your own creative ideas and try to convince customer, you
look for new service techniques, methods or procedures, you offer a fit plan for
generating new ideas, you try to deploy new plan with in current resource and you
consider yourself a creative member of team.
Intrinsic rewards were measured by 4 items scale. On the elementary of the
measurement was discovered by Baer, Oldham, & Cummings (2003), we evaluated 4-
items scale to verify intrinsic rewards for innovative services that perceived by the

participants so the measure items were defined as: Be praised once the job get completed,
employee’s autonomy at workplace, employee’s personal growth direction and
employee’s enjoyment of achievement.
Extrinsic rewards were evaluated by 4 items scale as well. Similar to Malik et al.,
(2015), this study also assessed extrinsic rewards for service innovative behavior by
using four items to measure and they are: Fiscal bonus for employees show creative
performances, follower would be recognized when they perform creatively, personal
rewards and benefits and innovative performance is considered for promotion decisions.
Data analysis and results
Analytic approach
The Descriptive statistics results was analyzed by SPSS 16.0 to collect frequency and
percentage of control variable samples which showed in Demographic detail Table 1,
after that the analysis of Cronbach’s alpha (CR) were conducted for each construct to
measure reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha value was expected > 0.6 to prove that the
measurement was good and data was reliability. Furthermore, factor correlation analysis
will be run to examine relationship between variables (Wong & Hiew, 2005) where
correlation coefficient index goes from 0.1 to 0.29 is suggested weak, if it shows from 0.3
to 0.49 is middle range and it is strong if indicates from 0.5 to 1, by the way this value
should not go beyond 0.8 (Field, 2005) to avoid multi-collinearity. Moreover, CFA test
analyzed to examine model fit on the basis of root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), adjusted and goodness fit index (AGFI & GFI),

parsimony fit index (PFI) normed fit index (NFI) and x2 by using Amos-20. Finally, the
structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to test the research model fit and
moderating test with hypothesis test.
Cronbach’s alpha results
The validity of Cronbach's alpha from all construct’s scales were expected to be above
0.7 or over 0.6 could be acceptable (Nunnally, 1978 & Peterson, 1994), the unachieved
items was removed because their Corrected Item-total Correction value was lower than
0.3.
The findings indicated the first value of Cronbach's alpha for ethical leadership was
0.672 (ethical leadership = 0.672), but the corrected item-total correction value of EL5,
EL6 and EL8 was lower than 0.3. Therefore, the items EL5, EL6 and EL8 were removed
to re-analyze with new value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.898, CR = 0.786 (LMX), but
item LMX3 was removed due to item-total correction value was lower than 0.3, after
calculating again the new value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.895 (leader member
exchange), CR=0.883 (service innovative behavior), CR=0.806 (intrinsic reward) and
CR=0.896 (extrinsic reward) are achievable. After removed unachieved items and re-
analyzed those factor, the new Corrected Item-Total Correlation was higher than 0.5,
therefore all item are reliability to test EFA and SEM, the result of Cronbach’ alpha
coefficient was presented in Appendix 4.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
KMO index was 0.889 (Table 2) that is over 0.5 and sign of Bartlett’s Test was 0.000
which matching the test request theory, furthermore the EFA (Extraction Method:
Principal Axis Factoring, Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization) loadings
factor was extracted from 5 factors and all factors loadings index were higher than 0.5
with total Cumulative variance extracted was over 50% (59.7%) and eigen-value was
more than 1.0; ethical leadership (eigen-values = 7.999); leader member exchange (eigen-
values = 3.255); service innovative behavior (eigenvalues = 2.575); extrinsic reward
(eigen-values = 1.728) . In summary, the EFA analysis described that the expected
outcomes was pleased by all item-scales, the EFA analysis results was presented as Table
3.
Table 2: KMO and Bartlett's Test
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .889
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 5029.290
df 325
Sig. .000

Table 3: EFA Results
Items Factors Loadings
Ethical leadership: Eigen-values 7.999
EL9 My leader is ethical people .863
EL2 My leader penalize me if I violate the regulations .851
EL4 My leader make suitable and fair decision .781
EL3 My leader always consider better benefits for me .775
EL1 My leader listen what I need to discuss .691
EL7 My leader show me example of doing thing ethically .654
Leader member exchange: Eigen values 3.255
LMX7 My leader satisfy about me .940
LMX2 My leader recognize my potential abilities .842
LMX4 My leader always communicate and share with us new works .817
LMX1 My leader understand my needs and problems .708
LMX5 I’m confidence to support my leader in presenting necessary job .678
LMX6 My relationship with my leader is very good .522
Service innovative behavior: Eigen values 2.575
SIB5 I try to deploy new job with available resource .865
SIB6 I think that I’m creative person in work .805
SIB4 I often plan suitable method to develop new services .760
SIB2 I often try to suggest creative ideas and convince customer to take them .758
SIB1 I often generate new and creative ideas in works .647
SIB3 I often think about new method, process and new services .641
Extrinsic reward: Eigen values 1.915
ER3 I want to be promoted after finish many missions .894
ER4 I love personal finance reward .840
ER2 I would do better when company offer more physical benefits .824
ER1 I like more salary and bonus after complete good job .749
Intrinsic reward: Eigen-values 1.728
IR1 II love to be praised after finish my task .748
IR2 I love to be gave more power to make my own decisions .740
IR3 I want to be developed my self-career .721
IR4 I would be very happy when leader identify my good outcomes .651

Tables 4: CR & AVE
CR AVE MSV ASV SIB EL LMX
SIB 0.885 0.564 0.171 0.140 0.751
EL 0.900 0.601 0.269 0.220 0.413 0.775
LMX 0.897 0.595 0.269 0.189 0.330 0.519 0.771
Structural equation modeling (SEM) testing results
Structural equation modeling (SEM) test was conducted to validate the significant
relationship with in factors, SEM also was approached with the maximum likelihood
estimates method, the result was acceptable for model fit when the value of Chi-square =
336.278, Chi-square/df =2.528: CFI = 0.942; GFI = 0.906; TLI = 0.933 and RMSEA =
0.067 (Figure 2). Besides that, all P-value < 0.001 (Table 5) confirmed that the factors
relationship was statistical significant, this result also reconfirmed that factors affect each
other positively as hypothesis proposed.
Figure 3: Structural results of model

Table 5: Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
LMX <--- EL .495 .054 9.104 ***
SIB <--- LMX .250 .044 5.703 ***
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL .997 .053 18.877 ***
EL4 <--- EL .838 .048 17.410 ***
EL3 <--- EL .887 .054 16.308 ***
EL1 <--- EL .850 .056 15.076 ***
EL7 <--- EL .852 .058 14.616 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB .985 .068 14.564 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB 1.152 .072 16.018 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB 1.063 .071 15.075 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB .794 .065 12.248 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .898 .073 12.244 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.063 .056 18.904 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX .996 .058 17.310 ***
LMX1 <--- LMX .817 .057 14.424 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX .949 .061 15.559 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX .763 .063 12.210 ***
Hypothesis testing results
The results from structural model testing above by SEM tested using approach maximum
likelihood estimates method also indicated that ethical leadership (EL) had positive
relationship with leader member exchange (LMX), thus H1: Beta = 0.495, p = 0.000 and
LMX had positive affect to service innovative behavior (SIB) with H2: Beta = 0.250, p =
0.000 (Table 5). Moreover, the results from SEM test presented Chi-square/df =2.528;
CFI = 0.942; GFI = 0.906; TLI = 0.933 and RMSEA = 0.067, those values were
acceptable to model fit and significant to confirmed that the hypothesis H1 and H2 was
supported.

Moderating testing results
The hypothesis H3 and H4 were proposed that IR and ER affects positively to
relationship between EL and SIB so that the multi-group test deployed to find out Chi-
distribution of intrinsic reward (IR) and extrinsic reward (ER), the finding value support
to conclude that there is moderating relationship in the model or not. In sum, the findings
result showed that the different of IR’s Chi-square value was 125.443, the different of
degrees of freedom (DF) was 2.0 so the Chi-Distribution value of IR was lover than 5%,
the different of ER’s Chi-square value was 122.257, the different of degrees of freedom
(DF) was also 2.0 so the Chi-Distribution value of ER was lover than 5% as well, that
results explained that the differences was statistical significant and that results confirmed
that IR and ER are positively moderating relationship between LMX and SIB (Table 6).
Table 6: Chi-Distribution
Factor Invariant Variant Different
Chi-
Distribution
IR
Minimum was achieved Minimum was achieved
Chi-square = 663.532 Chi-square = 538.089 125.443
Degrees of freedom = 268 Degrees of freedom = 266 2 0%
Probability level = .000 Probability level = .000
ER
Minimum was achieved Minimum was achieved
Chi-square = 688.155 Chi-square = 565.898 122.257
Degrees of freedom = 268 Degrees of freedom = 266 2 0%
Probability level = .000 Probability level = .000

Discussion and implication
Discussion
The findings in this study presented that exchanging relationships between leaders and
followers play very important parts in influencing service innovative behavior among
employees, the results of effect analysis indicated that LMX has a positive effect on
service innovative behavior, higher level of exchange between leaders and followers lead
to higher level of service innovative behavior. Furthermore, the presented results also
pointed out that LMX effects more on SIB with high level of intrinsic rewards and
extrinsic rewards, but this effect also explained that a weak relation occurred if low level
of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, that’s why there is a mixed relationship between LMX
with service innovative behavior.
Firstly, the influencing of ethical leadership on LMX was known as H1, it pointed out
that ethic leaders impact more on the relationship between them with employees, the
positive impacts of EL on LMX increasing the innovative behavior when employees tend
to accept higher standard of leader’s ethics in workplace (Hansen et al., 2013b). The
result of this hypothesis is also consistent with previous researches which examined the
positive influence of ethical leadership on influencing employee’s behavior (Kalshoven,
Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011). Therefore, when the leaders focus on job outcomes in
companies, motivate open connections, promote employees at right time, give chances,
and provide suitable rewards (Brown et al., 2005), the employees would respond by
innovative behavior.

Secondly, the findings presented that the role of exchanging relations between leaders
and followers are important in affecting service innovative behavior among frontline
staff. In addition, the analysis showed results that high frequency of exchange relations
like communications, work discussions, personal understanding, work skills and new
work supports help to improve leader member relationships as H2 was supported by
results as well. Therefore, LMX increase the influencing of EL on SIB as significant
mediating role (Dhar, 2015).
Finally, the analysis of multi-group leads to the description that LMX has positive
impact on service innovative behavior with high level of IR and ER. In a specific work
condition where provided poor intrinsic rewards to employees, LMX illustrates a weak
relationship with low service innovative behavior and where provided diversify intrinsic
rewards to employees, LMX gets a strong relationship with high service innovative
behavior. Furthermore, extrinsic rewards also play important moderating role in the
relationship between EL and SIB, higher extrinsic rewards provided leads to more
positive service innovative behavior and vice versa.

Implications
Theoretical implications
The contribution of this study to social learning is the ethical leadership motivated the
leader member exchange and also promoted service innovative behavior across
employees, current contributions concluded that ethical leadership and LMX become
very important role to relation with SIB (Brown et al., 2005) but this study bring out a
new specific contribution that LMX with intrinsic reward and LMX with Extrinsic
reward play significant roles in the relationship between ethical leadership and service
innovative behavior. This study also adds to the theory of ethical leadership new concept
of research model, the limited findings perhaps encourage other researcher to seek new
mediators or new moderators to test this relations as well, or they could contribute their
knowledge to academy field or contribute their ideas to managerial implication in future.
Managerial implications
The study again proved that moral leadership is very important factor in working place
which promote innovation and creativity behavior among employees, higher positive
relationship between leaders and followers lead to higher positive communication
exchanges as well, therefore the positive effects link people together and motivate them
work effectively and creatively. Besides, the findings indicated that LMX act as a partial
mediator and IR, ER plays moderating role in establishing the LMX-SIB relationship
which would support the reality implications in logistics business. Therefore, leaders
should know how to provide more attractive rewards included intrinsic and extrinsic to
encourage employees perform innovative behaviors in company.

Finally, the closest implications are for SME logistics companies in HCM where
leaders need to know their role at ethic aspects to manage their followers effectively and
they should know how to adjust their level of effect to employee’s expectation. In detail,
leaders at SME logistics companies in Vietnam should interact more with their
employees to strengthen their relationship and share all job’s information to make sure
they understand all requirements and they could be motivated to work with the task by
innovative service mind, leader also could make employee feel that their efforts are
appreciated to motivate them share new ideas, new plans or new strategies are valuable
for company.
Limitation and directions for future research
There are some limitations from this research that should be acknowledged seriously
toward further researches. Firstly, the research was used a five-points Likert-scale to get
data. The future investigation should take data the by using a seven-points Likert-scale to
improve better measurement scales and bring out more reliable results.
Secondly, the research model was tested by a convenience sample of SME logistics
companies’ employees who living in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam only (95%). In order to
obtain objective result the research model should consider to get data from SME
logistics’ employees at various cities in Vietnam, for instance Hai Phong, Hanoi and Da
Nang where the logistics services being developed well, the future samples should
contain high ratio of sampling to strengthen the generalizability of the results.

Thirdly, in comparison with other researches about influencing of ethical leadership
on service innovative behavior, another limitation were not much mediating factors or
other moderator factors affect the relationship between ethical leadership and service
innovative behavior. Therefore, this causes a limitation in practicality implication for
SME logistics business units.
Last but not least, a majority of respondent’s answers were collected by social
network or logistics club connection on internet for instance Facebook, Zalo, LinkedIn
and Viber in this study. Such data collection methods may cause selection bias or non-
response bias (Blair & Zinkhan, 2006), especially the results of this paper were based on
quantitative method of SME logistics companies only. Hence, the further research should
be examined on larger size of logistics companies.

Conclusion
The study was aimed to examine the important role of ethical leadership that influencing
service innovative behavior of frontline employees who travel with SME logistics
companies in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The results from this paper stated the
existence of active relationship between ethical leadership and service innovative
behavior, the outcomes also proved that ethical leadership takes very important part in
influencing the innovative behavior of frontline employees in SME logistics companies
(Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011) and ethical leadership also motivate staff to
show their innovative performance, communication skills, activeness in works and
willing to share their ideas or encourage employees to express their own opinions (Brown
& Treviño, 2006).
The discovering of this paper indicated that issues concerning to ethics leadership and
work design would be investigated from a mutual point of view aim to improve better
service innovative behavior. Therefore, this thesis attempts to outline an adequate layout
of how ethical leaders able to bring up service innovative behavior around SME logistics
frontline employees. Because global logistics service companies over the world are using
great amount of their research and financial resources to find out the factors that support
to create service innovative manner among their employees, the new outcome of this
paper may be useful to solve their worrying questions so far. Hopefully, this study is
considered to use in academic environment to conduct more research and apply in
organization to encourage service development in this logistics field.

References
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., C0on, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the
work environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-
1184.
Åmo, B. W., & Kolvereid, L. (2005). Organizational strategy, individual personality and
innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(01), 7-19.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The
influence of identity. Academy of management review, 18(1), 88-115.
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and
involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264-275.
Autry, C. W., & Daugherty, P. J. (2003). Warehouse operations employees: linking
person‐organization fit, job satisfaction, and coping responses. Journal of Business
Logistics, 24(1), 171-197
Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital
services: an empirical investigation. Health services research, 26(6), 767.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: when does it
really matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 569-586.
Blair, E., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Nonresponse and generalizability in academic
research. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 34(1), 4-7.
Bolumole, Y. A. (2003). Evaluating the supply chain role of logistics service providers.
The International Journal of Logistics Management, 14(2), 93-107.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future
directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social
learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, 97(2), 117-134.
Campagnolo, L., Carraro, C., Davide, M., Eboli, F., Lanzi, E., & Parrado, R. (2016). Can
climate policy enhance sustainability?. Climatic change, 137(3-4), 639-653.
Cam Tu. (2017, April 4). Logistics cost pressure on Viet companies. The Doanh Nhan
Saigon Online, p1. Retrieved from https://doanhnhansaigon.vn/chuyen-lam-an/chi-
phi-van-tai-de-doanh-nghiep-viet-1077024.html
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work
teams. Research in organizational behavior, 27, 223-267.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2012). Effects of perceptions on LMX and work
performance: Effects of supervisors’ perception of subordinates’ emotional
intelligence and subordinates’ perception of trust in the supervisor on LMX and,
consequently, performance. Asia Pacific journal of management, 29(3), 597-616.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services
selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. The Journal of marketing, 68-81.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic
motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of educational
research, 71(1), 1-27.

Dhar, R. L. (2015). The effects of high performance human resource practices on service
innovative behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 67-
75.
Dhar, R. L. (2015a). The effects of high performance human resource practices on
service innovative behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
51, 67-75.
Dhar, R. L. (2015b). The effects of high performance human resource practices on
service innovative behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
51, 67-75.
Dhar, R. L. (2016). Service quality and the training of employees: The mediating role of
organizational commitment. Tourism Management, 46, 419-430.
Dotzel, T., Shankar, V., & Berry, L. L. (2018). Service innovativeness and firm value.
Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 259-276.
Dunegan, K. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Duchon, D. (2002). LMX and subordinate performance:
The moderating effects of task characteristics. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17(2), 275-285.
Fairbank, J. F., & Williams, S. D. (2001). Motivating creativity and enhancing innovation
through employee suggestion system technology. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 10(2), 68-74.
Field, A. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis. Discovering statistics using SPSS, 619-680.

Foote, D. A., & Li-Ping Tang, T. (2008). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) does team commitment make a difference in self-directed teams?
Management Decision, 46(6), 933-947.
Garg, S., & Dhar, R. (2017). Employee service innovative behavior: The roles of leader-
member exchange (LMX), work engagement, and job autonomy. International
Journal of Manpower, 38(2), 242-258.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard business review, 78(2), 4-17.
Goo, J., Kishore, R., Rao, H. R., & Nam, K. (2009). The role of service level agreements
in relational management of information technology outsourcing: an empirical
study. MIS quarterly, 119-145.
Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee
withdrawal process. Journal of applied psychology, 67(6), 868.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Government department. (2018). Small and Medium Sized company support law.
(Publications No 39/2018/NĐ-CP) Retrieved from https://luatvietnam.vn/doanh-
nghiep/nghi-dinh-39-2018-nd-cp quy-dinh-chi-tiet-luat-ho-tro-doanh-nghiep-nho-
va-vua-160820-d1.html

Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors
of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90.
Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational
performance: is innovation a missing link? The Journal of marketing, 30-45.
Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford, B. B. (2013).
Ethical leadership: Assessing the value of a multifoci social exchange perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 435-449.
Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford, B. B. (2013a).
Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford, B. B. (2013b).
Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford, B. B. (2013c).
Hirst, G., Van Dick, R., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on
leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology
and Behavior, 30(7), 963-982.

Hu, M.-L. M., Horng, J.-S., & Sun, Y.-H. C. (2009). Hospitality teams: Knowledge
sharing and service innovation performance. Tourism Management, 30(1), 41-50.
Im, S., & Workman Jr, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product
performance in high-technology firms. Journal of marketing, 68(2), 114-132.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2011). Ethical leadership at work
questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure.
The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51-69.
Khan, A. A., Bashir, M., Abrar, M., & Saqib, S. (2017). The effect of organizational
culture on employee's creativity, the mediating role of employee's cognitive
ability. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 9(2),
217.
Knemeyer, A. M., Corsi, T. M., & Murphy, P. R. (2003). Logistics outsourcing
relationships: customer perspectives. Journal of business logistics, 24(1), 77-109.
Leander, N. P., Kay, A. C., Chartrand, T. L., & Payne, B. K. (2017). An affect
misattribution pathway to perceptions of intrinsic reward. Social Cognition, 35(2),
163-180.
Li, M., & Hsu, C. H. (2018). Customer participation in services and employee innovative
behavior: The mediating role of interpersonal trust. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(4), 2112-2131.

Li, Y., Lin, C., Wu, T., & Jin, M. (2016). Influences of leader-member exchange on
employees' service innovation behaviors. RISTI (Revista Iberica de Sistemas e
Tecnologias de Informacao)(E11), 356-370.
Lu, X., & Guy, M. E. (2014). How emotional labor and ethical leadership affect job
engagement for Chinese public servants. Public Personnel Management, 43(1), 3-
24.
Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., & Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative
performance: Moderating effects of creative self‐efficacy, reward importance, and
locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 59-74.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice
and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on
work relationships. Academy of management journal, 43(4), 738-748.
Mentzer, J. T., Flint, D. J., & Kent, J. L. (1999). Developing a logistics service quality
scale. Journal of Business, 20(1), 9-32.
Ministry of Trade. (2017). Vietnam Logistics report 2017. (Publication No. 99/QĐ-
NXBCT) Retrieved from
http://www.moit.gov.vn/documents/36315/0/Bao+cao+Logistics+Viet+Nam+201
7.pdf/5b311ed4-c00b-4f8d-9dde-b9ece86f0b75
Mohiuddin, Z. A. (2017). Influence of Leadership Style on Employees performance:
Evidence from Literatures. Journal of Marketing & Management, 8(1).
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd edit.) mcgraw-hill. Hillsdale, NJ.

Olsson, L., Hemlin, S., & Pousette, A. (2012). A multi-level analysis of leader–member
exchange and creative performance in research groups. The Leadership Quarterly,
23(3), 604-619.
Perry, M., & Sohal, A. (1999). Improving service quality within the supply chain: an
Australian study. Total quality management, 10(4-5), 673-678.
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Journal of
consumer research, 21(2), 381-391.
Redman, T., & Mathews, B. P. (2016). Service quality and human resource management:
A review and research agenda. Personnel Review, 27(1), 57-77.
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76-84.
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to Construct a Mixed Methods
Research DesignWie man ein Mixed Methods-Forschungs-Design konstruiert.
KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107-131.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model
of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal,
37(3), 580-607.
Sears, G. J., & Hackett, R. D. (2011). The influence of role definition and affect in LMX:
A process perspective on the personality–LMX relationship. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(3), 544-564.

Sepdiningtyas, R., & Santoso, C. B. (2017). The influence of leader-member exchange on
individual performance: The roles of work engagement as a mediating variable
and co-workers support as a moderating variable. Review of Integrative Business
and Economics Research, 6(4), 285-305.
Shadnam, M., & Lawrence, T. B. (2011). Understanding widespread misconduct in
organizations: An institutional theory of moral collapse. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 21(3), 379-407.
Shunlong, X., & Weiming, Z. (2012). The relationships between transformational
leadership, LMX, and employee innovative behavior. Journal of Applied Business
and Economics, 13(5), 87-96.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics . Northridge. Cal.:
Harper Collins.
Thakur, R., & Hale, D. (2013). Service innovation: A comparative study of US and
Indian service firms. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1108-1123.
Thomas, K., & Tymon Jr, W. (2009). Work engagement profile. CPP, Mountain View,
CA.
Van Nam. (2016, April 11). FDI acquire Logistics Field. Thoi Bao Kinh Te Sai Gon, p1.
Retrieved from http://www.thesaigontimes.vn/144843/TPHCM-doanh-nghiep-
ngoai-thau-tom-nganh-logistics.html
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership

and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
management journal, 48(3), 420-432.
Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2012). Services marketing:
Integrating customer focus across the firm: McGraw Hill.
Wong, C. C., & Hiew, P. L. (2005). Correlations between factors affecting the diffusion
of mobile entertainment in Malaysia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th
international conference on Electronic commerce.
Yoon, H. J., Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2015). Mechanisms underlying creative
performance: employee perceptions of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for
creativity. Social Behavior and Personality, 43(7), 1161-1179.
Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior
on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and
authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1), 16-26.

Appendix 1: Guideline for pilot study
The pilot study was undertaken from 8th
November to 12th
November, 2018. There were five meeting with
the participants of total 8 people, all of interviewee is employee in SME Logistics Company based in Ho
Chi Minh City who has more than 6 months experience. Each person was provided questionnaire to read
through and then I discussed with them whether they understand all words, phrases and sentences to
modify. Finally, I take note their comment to revise final questionnaire as below:
Measurement Comments Revised
measurement
Ethical Leadership
EL1. My leader listen what I want to talk
EL2. My leader penalize me if I violate the regulations
EL3. My leader always consider better benefits for me
EL4. My leader make suitable and fair decision
EL5. My leader being trusted by all employee
EL6. My leader discuss about business ethicaland ethical value with
me
EL7. My leader showme example of doing thing ethically
EL8. My leader evaluate me not only through result but also through
doing process
EL9. My leader is ethical people
Some respondent
recommend replacing
“want to talk” with
“need to discuss”.
EL1. My leader
listen what I
need to discuss
Leader Member Exchange
LMX1. My leader understand my needs and problems
LMX2. My leader recognize my potential abilities
LMX3. My leader use skills and experience to help me solve job’s
problems
LMX4. My leader always communicate and share with us new works
LMX5. I’m confidence to support my leader in presenting necessary
job
LMX6. My relationship with my leader is very good
LMX7. My leader satisfy about me
Some respondent
recommend replacing
“problems” with
“works”.
LMX1. My
leader
understand my
needs and
problems
Service Innovative behavior
SIB1. I often generate new and creative ideas in works
SIB2. I often try to suggest creative ideas and convince customer to
take them
SIB3. I often think about new method, process and new services
SIB4. I often plan new ideas fit with finance status
SIB5. I try to deploy new job with available resource
SIB6. I think that I’m creative person in work
The respondents
suggested that to
replace item SIB4 with
“I often plan suitable
method to develop
new services”.
SIB4. I often
plan suitable
method to
develop new
services
Internal Rewards
IR1. I love to be praised after finish my task
IR2. I love to be gave more power to make my own decisions
IR3. I want to be developed my self-career
IR4. I would be very happy when leader identify my good outcomes
All respondent
understood the
meaning and wording
of these measures.
No revised
External Rewards
ER1. I like more salary and bonus after complete good job
ER2. I would do better when company offer more physical benefits
ER3. I want to be promoted after finish many missions
ER4. I love personalfinance reward in work
All respondent
understood the
meaning and wording
of these measures.
No revised

Appendix 2: Vietnamese Questionnaire
BẢNG CÂU HỎI
Tôi là Trần Phong, học viên cao học tại Viện đào tạo quốc tế (ISB) – Trường Đại học Kinh tế TP. HCM.
Tôi đang nghiên cứu về đề tài các yếu tố ảnh hưởng tới hành vi sáng tạo dịch vụ trong các công ty
Logistics vừa và nhỏ tại Việt Nam
Bảng khảo sát này hướng tới nhân viên ngành dịch vụ Logistics, mất khoảng 3-5 phút để hoàn thành. Nếu
anh/ chị có bất kỳ thắc mắc nào, vui lòng liên hệ tôi qua địa chỉ email: philip@asanco.vn
Các câu trả lời của Anh/Chị sẽ hoàn toàn bảo mật và chỉ sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu.
Tôi xin chân thành cảm ơn!
Phần A. Screening Question
1. Anh/chị làm trong ngành Logistics/Shipping/Freight forwarder đã bao lâu rồi?
□ trên 6 tháng ( xin tiếp tục)
□ dưới 6 tháng (ngưng, xin cảm ơn)
Part B. Main Question
Phần trả lời câu hỏi có mức độ hoàn toàn không đồng ý tới hoàn toàn đồng ý từ 1 tới 5 như sau:
1 là hoàn toàn không đồng ý
2 là không đồng ý
3 là trung lập
4 là đồng ý
5 là hoàn toàn đồng ý
Chú thích: Lãnh đạo trong bảng câu hỏi này là Tổng giám đốc,Giám đốc điều hành hay là Giám đốc chi
nhánh và Giám đốc khu vực, những người mà Anh/Chị có tương tác trong Công ty và công việc trực tiếp.
EL Ethical Leadership 1 2 3 4 5
1 Lãnh đạo của tôi lắng nghe điều tôi cần trao đổi
2 Lãnh đạo kỷ luật tôi khi tôi vi phạm nội qui
3 Lãnh đạo luôn nghỉ tới những phúc lợi dành cho tôi
4 Lãnh đạo của tôi đưa ra quyết định công bằng và hợp lý
5 Lãnh đạo của tôi luôn được mọi người tin tưởng
6 Lãnh đạo của tôi có thảo luận về đạo đức kinh doanh và giá trị đạo đức với tôi
7 Lãnh đạo của tôi đưa ra ví dụ cách làm điều đúng đắn có đạo đức
8 Lãnh đạo của tôi đánh giá công việc không chỉ bằng kết quả mà còn theo cách thức làm
9 Lãnh đạo của tôi là người có đạo đức
LMX Leader Member Exchange
10 Lãnh đạo của tôi hiểu rõ vấn đề và nhu cầu của tôi
11 Lãnh đạo của tôi nhận ra tiềm năng của tôi
12 Lãnh đạo của tôi sử dụng kỹ năng và kinh nghiệm để giúp tôi giải quyết các vấn đề trong
công việc
13 Lãnh đạo của tôi luôn giao tiếp và chia sẽ với tôi các công việc mới

14 Tôi đủ tự tin để hỗ trợ Lãnh đạo của tôi trình bày vấn đề cần thiết trong công việc
15 Mối quan hệ của tôi với Lãnh đạo rất tốt
16 Lãnh đạo của tôi rất hài lòng về tôi
SIB Service Innovative Behavior
17 Tôi thường nghĩ ra những ý tưởng mới và sáng tạo trong công việc
18 Tôi cố gắng đề xuất ý tưởng sáng tạo của riêng mình và thuyết phục khách hàng
19 Tôi thường tìm kiếm các phương pháp,qui trình và dịch vụ mới
20 Tôi thường đưa ra kế hoạch phù hợp để phát triển dịch vụ mới
21 Tôi cố gắng triển khai công việc mới với những nguồn lực sẵn có
22 Tôi cho rằng bản thân mình là một thành viên sáng tạo trong công việc
IR Internal Rewards
23 Tôi rất thích được khen ngợi khi hoàn thành công việc
24 Tôi thích được nâng cao quyền tự quyết trong công việc
25 Tôi muốn được phát triển cá nhân trong công việc
26 Tôi rất hài lòng khi được Lãnh đạo công nhận mình đạt kết quả tốt
ER External Rewards
27 Tôi rất thích được tăng lương, thưởng khi hoàn thành tốt công việc
28 Tôi sẽ làm tốt hơn khi công ty có nhiều phúc lợi tốt cho nhân viên
29 Tôi muốn được thăng chức khi hoàn thành tốt các công việc
30 Tôi rất thích các phần thưởng tài chính cá nhân trong công việc
Part C. Demographics
1. Anh/chịvui lòng cho biết giới tính của mình?
□ Nam
□ Nữ
2. Anh/Chị cho biết số năm kinh nghiệm mình đã làm việc trong ngành này?
□ 6 tháng đến 3 năm
□ trên 3 đến 5 năm
3. Anh/Chị vui lòng cho biết vị trí công việc hiện tại của mình?
□ Nhân viên
□ Quản lý
□ Khác
4. Anh/chịvui lòng cho biết độ tuổicủa mình?
□ 20 tới 25 tuổi
□ trên 40 tuổi
Chân thành cảm ơn anh chị!

Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics ofsamples
Statistics
Gender Experience Age Position
N Valid 339 339 339 339
Missing 0 0 0 0
Frequency Table
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 201 59.3 59.3 59.3
Femal
e
138 40.7 40.7 100.0
Total 339 100.0 100.0
Experience
Percent
Valid 1 72 21.2 21.2 21.2
2 141 41.6 41.6 62.8
3 106 31.3 31.3 94.1
4 20 5.9 5.9 100.0
Total 339 100.0 100.0
Age
Percent
Valid 1 89 26.3 26.3 26.3
2 145 42.8 42.8 69.0
3 85 25.1 25.1 94.1
4 20 5.9 5.9 100.0
Total 339 100.0 100.0

Appendix 4: The results of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability
Ethical Leadership:
Round 1
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.672 9
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
EL1 26.56 22.088 .551 .608
EL2 26.53 21.214 .654 .587
EL3 26.48 21.795 .597 .600
EL4 26.28 22.037 .645 .598
EL5 26.95 24.391 .105 .710
EL6 27.09 25.199 .033 .731
EL7 26.65 22.043 .540 .609
EL8 26.88 25.669 .003 .737
EL9 26.46 21.379 .673 .587
Ethical Leadership:
Round 2
.898 6
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
EL1 17.52 14.428 .668 .888
EL2 17.49 13.765 .767 .873
EL3 17.45 14.206 .714 .881
EL4 17.24 14.616 .738 .878
EL7 17.62 14.361 .657 .890
EL9 17.42 13.824 .806 .867
Leader Member Exchange:
Round 1
.786 7

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
LMX1 17.36 15.994 .611 .744
LMX2 17.27 14.873 .748 .717
LMX3 17.04 18.782 .002 .895
LMX4 17.39 15.156 .693 .727
LMX5 17.02 15.298 .645 .735
LMX6 17.22 15.808 .589 .746
LMX7 17.27 14.922 .731 .720
Round 2
.895 6
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
LMX1 14.30 13.863 .672 .883
LMX2 14.22 12.988 .778 .867
LMX4 14.34 13.089 .752 .871
LMX5 13.97 13.221 .702 .879
LMX6 14.17 13.965 .599 .895
LMX7 14.22 12.776 .808 .862
Service Innovative Behavior
.883 6
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
SIB1 19.51 8.410 .610 .876
SIB2 19.65 7.707 .722 .858
SIB3 19.60 8.044 .613 .877
SIB4 19.55 7.876 .716 .860
SIB5 19.59 7.427 .779 .848
SIB6 19.56 7.827 .730 .857

Intrinsic Rewards
.806 4
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
IR1 8.50 5.908 .633 .751
IR2 7.91 5.896 .640 .748
IR3 8.63 5.814 .614 .760
IR4 8.48 5.807 .598 .768
Extrinsic Rewards
.896 4
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
ER1 6.76 6.060 .734 .879
ER2 6.80 5.747 .769 .867
ER3 6.96 6.261 .809 .855
ER4 6.91 5.992 .776 .863

Appendix 5: Exploratory factor analysis-EFA
Total Variance Explained
Factor Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums
of Squared
Loadingsa
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total
1 7.999 30.765 30.765 7.608 29.261 29.261 5.471
2 3.255 12.517 43.282 2.879 11.074 40.335 5.647
3 2.575 9.904 53.186 2.192 8.430 48.765 4.642
4 1.914 7.360 60.546 1.527 5.875 54.639 4.038
5 1.728 6.645 67.191 1.320 5.079 59.718 3.554
6 .742 2.854 70.045
7 .678 2.607 72.652
8 .636 2.445 75.097
9 .557 2.143 77.240
10 .549 2.111 79.351
11 .512 1.969 81.320
12 .496 1.909 83.228
13 .460 1.769 84.998
14 .437 1.682 86.680
15 .427 1.644 88.324
16 .393 1.510 89.834
17 .353 1.359 91.193
18 .343 1.321 92.514
19 .326 1.256 93.770
20 .300 1.153 94.923
21 .274 1.055 95.978
22 .261 1.002 96.980
23 .237 .913 97.894
24 .205 .787 98.680
25 .184 .709 99.390
26 .159 .610 100.000
Extraction Method:Principal Axis Factoring.
a. When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.

Pattern Matrixa
Factor
1 2 3 4 5
EL9 .863
EL2 .851
EL4 .781
EL3 .775
EL1 .691
EL7 .654
LMX
7
.940
LMX
2
.842
LMX
4
.817
LMX
1
.708
LMX
5
.678
LMX
6
.522
SIB5 .865
SIB6 .805
SIB4 .760
SIB2 .758
SIB1 .647
SIB3 .641
ER3 .894
ER4 .840
ER2 .824
ER1 .749
IR1 .748
IR2 .740
IR3 .721
IR4 .651
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Appendix 6: Confirmatory factor analysis - CFA

Model Fit Summary
CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
Default model 39 312.816 132 .000 2.370
Saturated model 171 .000 0
Independence model 18 3651.180 153 .000 23.864
RMR, GFI
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
Default model .027 .912 .886 .704
Saturated model .000 1.000
Independence model .267 .283 .199 .253
Baseline Comparisons
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2
CFI
Default model .914 .901 .949 .940 .948
Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model .064 .055 .073 .007
Regression weights: (Group number 1 – Default model)
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL .997 .053 18.877 ***
EL4 <--- EL .838 .048 17.394 ***
EL3 <--- EL .889 .054 16.359 ***
EL1 <--- EL .852 .056 15.112 ***
EL7 <--- EL .852 .058 14.628 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB .990 .068 14.581 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB 1.154 .072 15.966 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB 1.069 .071 15.098 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB .795 .065 12.215 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .900 .074 12.220 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.065 .056 18.959 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX .997 .058 17.337 ***

LMX1 <--- LMX .817 .057 14.439 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX .947 .061 15.534 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX .761 .063 12.170 ***
Covariance: (Group number 1 – Default model)
EL <--> SIB .171 .028 6.083 ***
EL <--> LMX .297 .040 7.392 ***
SIB <--> LMX .128 .026 5.030 ***
Correlations: (Group number 1 – Default model)
Estimate
EL <--> SIB .413
EL <--> LMX .519
SIB <--> LMX .330

Appendix 7: Structural results for model
Model Fit Summary
CMIN
Default model 38 336.278 133 .000 2.528
RMR, GFI
Default model .048 .906 .879 .704
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2
CFI
Default model .908 .894 .942 .933 .942
RMSEA
Default model .067 .058 .076 .001

Regression weights: (Group number 1 – Default model)
LMX <--- EL .495 .054 9.104 ***
SIB <--- LMX .250 .044 5.703 ***
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL .997 .053 18.877 ***
EL4 <--- EL .838 .048 17.410 ***
EL3 <--- EL .887 .054 16.308 ***
EL1 <--- EL .850 .056 15.076 ***
EL7 <--- EL .852 .058 14.616 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB .985 .068 14.564 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB 1.152 .072 16.018 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB 1.063 .071 15.075 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB .794 .065 12.248 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .898 .073 12.244 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.063 .056 18.904 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX .996 .058 17.310 ***
LMX1 <--- LMX .817 .057 14.424 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX .949 .061 15.559 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX .763 .063 12.210 ***
Variance: (Group number 1 – Default model)
EL .610 .062 9.780 ***
e19 .388 .045 8.664 ***
e20 .249 .031 8.088 ***
e1 .200 .022 9.069 ***
e2 .285 .028 10.260 ***
e3 .269 .025 10.961 ***
e4 .371 .033 11.350 ***
e5 .429 .037 11.693 ***
e6 .469 .040 11.803 ***
e7 .184 .017 10.620 ***
e8 .192 .018 10.784 ***
e9 .165 .017 9.445 ***
e10 .192 .018 10.414 ***
e11 .231 .020 11.817 ***
e12 .296 .025 11.818 ***
e13 .255 .025 10.339 ***
e14 .199 .022 9.153 ***
e15 .270 .026 10.509 ***
e16 .346 .030 11.713 ***
e17 .365 .032 11.347 ***
e18 .487 .040 12.205 ***

Appendix 8: Moderating testing results
Intrinsic reward invariant
Model Fit Summary
CMIN
Default model 74 663.532 268 .000 2.476
RMR, GFI
Default model .118 .830 .783 .650
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2
CFI
Default model .827 .803 .889 .872 .888
RMSEA
Default model .066 .060 .073 .000

Regression weights: (Low – Default model)
LMX <--- EL .316 .052 6.086 ***
SIB <--- LMX 1.000
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL .942 .063 14.962 ***
EL4 <--- EL .828 .063 13.124 ***
EL3 <--- EL .907 .063 14.406 ***
EL1 <--- EL .937 .064 14.708 ***
EL7 <--- EL .757 .074 10.277 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB .749 .045 16.797 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB .894 .048 18.431 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB .915 .044 20.607 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB .825 .040 20.732 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .692 .057 12.095 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.553 .117 13.233 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX 1.403 .112 12.497 ***
LMX1 <--- LMX 1.135 .111 10.186 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX 1.345 .122 11.019 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX 1.000 .125 8.020 ***
Regression Weights: (high - Default model)
LMX <--- EL .346 .059 5.853 ***
SIB <--- LMX 1.000
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL 1.067 .095 11.258 ***
EL4 <--- EL .815 .076 10.693 ***
EL3 <--- EL .813 .097 8.352 ***
EL1 <--- EL .723 .102 7.106 ***
EL7 <--- EL .937 .098 9.529 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB .986 .078 12.635 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB 1.045 .078 13.367 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB .880 .081 10.905 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB .512 .076 6.709 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .834 .075 11.084 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.586 .173 9.174 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX 1.551 .182 8.525 ***
LMX1 <--- LMX 1.224 .165 7.419 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX 1.380 .170 8.110 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX 1.262 .170 7.409 ***

Intrinsic reward variant
CMIN
Default model 76 538.089 266 .000 2.023
RMR, GFI
Default model .052 .857 .816 .667
RMR, GFI
Default model .052 .857 .816 .667
RMSEA
Default model .055 .048 .062 .104
Regression Weights: (low - Default model)
M.I. Par Change
SIB <--- EL 6.106 .137
LMX5 <--- EL4 7.343 .144
LMX7 <--- SIB3 10.054 -.153
LMX7 <--- SIB5 4.593 -.107
SIB3 <--- EL7 6.524 -.128
SIB2 <--- EL 7.148 .113
SIB2 <--- EL7 8.739 .104
SIB2 <--- EL3 5.232 .083
SIB2 <--- EL2 11.864 .122
SIB2 <--- EL9 6.450 .093
SIB5 <--- LMX5 4.551 -.084
SIB5 <--- LMX7 5.142 -.090
SIB4 <--- EL4 5.808 .096
EL7 <--- SIB3 5.295 -.163
EL7 <--- SIB5 4.200 .150
EL3 <--- LMX5 4.533 -.099
EL3 <--- SIB3 4.028 .114
EL4 <--- LMX5 7.158 .128
EL4 <--- SIB4 4.850 .149

M.I. Par Change
SIB <--- EL 9.476 .174
LMX6 <--- SIB3 4.877 .180
LMX6 <--- SIB5 4.560 .162
LMX6 <--- EL3 4.926 .134
LMX1 <--- EL 5.289 -.178
LMX1 <--- EL4 9.052 -.210
LMX1 <--- EL2 7.264 -.150
LMX1 <--- EL9 5.293 -.137
LMX7 <--- EL1 5.569 -.112
LMX7 <--- EL3 9.948 -.153
SIB4 <--- EL7 13.082 .142
EL7 <--- LMX1 4.618 .145
EL7 <--- SIB4 5.658 .186
EL1 <--- EL3 4.366 .145
EL3 <--- SIB3 5.289 .198
EL3 <--- EL1 5.226 .143
EL9 <--- SIB5 5.032 .141
EL9 <--- SIB6 6.673 .167
Extrinsic reward invariant
Model Fit
CMIN
Default model 74 688.155 268 .000 2.568
RMR, GFI
Default model .121 .823 .774 .645
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2
CFI
Default model .822 .797 .884 .866 .882
RMSEA
Default model .068 .062 .075 .000

LMX <--- EL .360 .053 6.798 ***
SIB <--- LMX 1.000
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL .954 .064 14.988 ***
EL4 <--- EL .815 .061 13.346 ***
EL3 <--- EL .830 .071 11.749 ***
EL1 <--- EL .937 .065 14.488 ***
EL7 <--- EL .789 .074 10.627 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB .781 .049 15.886 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB .962 .048 20.235 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB .875 .050 17.369 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB .910 .043 21.270 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .791 .056 14.012 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.372 .096 14.296 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX 1.237 .094 13.180 ***
LMX1 <--- LMX 1.009 .093 10.805 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX 1.232 .112 10.973 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX .978 .106 9.219 ***
LMX <--- EL .287 .057 5.074 ***
SIB <--- LMX 1.000
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL 1.099 .100 10.988 ***
EL4 <--- EL .894 .085 10.530 ***
EL3 <--- EL 1.005 .093 10.778 ***
EL1 <--- EL .737 .106 6.952 ***
EL7 <--- EL .945 .101 9.353 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB .928 .066 14.128 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB .964 .076 12.711 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB .928 .068 13.579 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB .289 .071 4.087 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .647 .070 9.251 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.784 .218 8.192 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX 1.783 .228 7.810 ***
LMX1 <--- LMX 1.263 .196 6.431 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX 1.568 .203 7.716 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX 1.197 .205 5.850 ***

Extrinsic reward variant
Model Fit
CMIN
Default model 76 565.898 266 .000 2.127
RMR, GFI
Default model .057 .850 .807 .661
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2
CFI
Default model .854 .832 .917 .903 .916
RMSEA
Default model .058 .051 .064 .026

LMX <--- EL .470 .068 6.900 ***
SIB <--- LMX .197 .058 3.408 ***
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL .954 .064 15.013 ***
EL4 <--- EL .815 .061 13.342 ***
EL3 <--- EL .830 .071 11.745 ***
EL1 <--- EL .936 .065 14.481 ***
EL7 <--- EL .788 .074 10.617 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB .935 .090 10.431 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB 1.168 .090 12.918 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB 1.059 .093 11.392 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB 1.093 .083 13.219 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .950 .101 9.404 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.021 .062 16.466 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX .922 .062 14.817 ***
LMX1 <--- LMX .772 .064 12.114 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX .913 .078 11.745 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX .747 .074 10.026 ***
LMX <--- EL .443 .086 5.134 ***
SIB <--- LMX .342 .081 4.223 ***
EL9 <--- EL 1.000
EL2 <--- EL 1.100 .100 10.975 ***
EL4 <--- EL .894 .085 10.518 ***
EL3 <--- EL 1.006 .093 10.771 ***
EL1 <--- EL .739 .106 6.962 ***
EL7 <--- EL .946 .101 9.349 ***
SIB6 <--- SIB 1.000
SIB4 <--- SIB 1.042 .093 11.263 ***
SIB5 <--- SIB 1.078 .105 10.290 ***
SIB2 <--- SIB 1.026 .096 10.727 ***
SIB1 <--- SIB .319 .091 3.505 ***
SIB3 <--- SIB .720 .093 7.732 ***
LMX2 <--- LMX 1.000
LMX7 <--- LMX 1.115 .122 9.135 ***
LMX4 <--- LMX 1.125 .129 8.694 ***
LMX1 <--- LMX .796 .115 6.914 ***
LMX5 <--- LMX .984 .116 8.520 ***
LMX6 <--- LMX .732 .121 6.043 ***

Luận Văn Factors Influencing Service Innovative Behavior

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Luận Văn Factors Influencing Service Innovative Behavior

Similar to Luận Văn Factors Influencing Service Innovative Behavior (19)

More from Nhận Viết Thuê Đề Tài Baocaothuctap.net 0973.287.149

More from Nhận Viết Thuê Đề Tài Baocaothuctap.net 0973.287.149 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Luận Văn Factors Influencing Service Innovative Behavior