1. Academy of Management Conference
The relationship between servant leadership
and job satisfaction:
The moderating roles of the
decision making process and organizational structure.
Nathan Eva,
Sen Sendjaya
Daniel Prajogo
Department of Management, Monash University
www.monash.edu.au

2. Introduction
• Employee job satisfaction has continued to decline (Clark, 2012;
Mendes, 2011)
• Clear link between leadership and employee job satisfaction
• Many of the Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work for in
America have adopted servant leadership (Hunter et al., 2013)
• Drawing from classical contingency theory (Shenhar, 2001)
• Need to understand the boundary conditions in which servant
leadership affects job satisfaction
www.monash.edu.au
2

3. Hypothesized Model
H4
H5
www.monash.edu.au
3

4. Method
Study 1 - Survey
• Sample: 336 middle
managers of small to medium
enterprises.
• Rated leadership style and
decision making of their
CEO/GM/MD.
• Rated the level of
organizational structure.
• Rated their job satisfaction.
• Hierarchical regression and
simple slopes analysis.
Study 2 - Experiment
• 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 betweensubjects design.
–
(Charness et al., 2012)
• 32 differing vignette case
studies.
• 1,569 respondents.
• Post hoc analysis of the
power exceeds 0.80
threshold.
–
(Tharenou et al., 2007)
• Data analyzed using a oneway between groups ANOVA.
www.monash.edu.au
4

5. Study 1 – Organisational Survey
Hypotheses 1 - 3
Leader involvement and formalization as the moderators of the relationship between
servant leadership and job satisfaction
5
4.5
Job Satisfaction
(1) Low Inv Low Form
(2) High Inv Low Form
4
(3) Low Inv High Form
(4) High Inv High Form
3.5
3
Low
High
Servant Leadership
www.monash.edu.au
5

6. Study 1 – Organisational Survey
Hypotheses 4 - 6
Leader dominance and centralization as the moderators of the relationship between
servant leadership and job satisfaction
5
4.5
Job Satisfaction
(1) Low Dom Low Cent
4
(2) High Dom Low
Cent
(3) Low Dom High
Cent
3.5
(4) High Dom High
Cent
3
2.5
Low
High
Servant Leadership
www.monash.edu.au
6

7. Study 2 – Experiment
4
4
3.5
3.5
(2) High Inv Low
Form
3
(3) Low Inv High
Form
(1) Low Dom Low
Cent
Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
(1) Low Inv Low
Form
(2) High Dom Low
Cent
3
(3) Low Dom High
Cent
(4) High Inv High
Form
2.5
2
(4) High Dom
High Cent
2.5
2
Narcissistic
Servant
Narcissistic
Servant
Leadership Style
Leadership Style
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 6
www.monash.edu.au
7

8. Discussion
• Creates context for the servant leadership job satisfaction
relationship.
• Leaders need to be actively involved, working with the
employees, not just delegating orders from their ivory tower.
• Servant leaders who were highly dominant elicited lower
levels of job satisfaction in their employees than servant
leaders who were not dominant.
• Formalization positively impacted job satisfaction when paired
with leader involvement.
• The relationship between servant leadership and job
satisfaction was weakest when dominance and centralization
was low and strongest when dominance was low and
centralization was high.
www.monash.edu.au
8

9. Thank You
• Questions?
• Suggestions?
• Comments?
www.monash.edu.au
9

10. References
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.
Clark, C. (2012, 13 December). Job satisfaction declining in federal workforce Retrieved 6 February, 2013,
from http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=68306
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.
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.
Mendes, E. (2011). U.S. Job satisfaction struggles to recover to 2008 levels Retrieved 09/01, 2013, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147833/job-satisfaction-struggles-recover-2008-levels.aspx
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
10

11. References
Pepitone, J. (2010, January 5). U.S. Job satisfaction hits 22-year low, from
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/05/news/economy/job_satisfaction_report/
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors
and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
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.
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.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management research methods. Port Melbourne, VIC:
Cambridge University Press.
www.monash.edu.au
11

12. 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)
• Transformational Leadership
–
(Podsakoff et al., 1990)
• Size (number of employees)
• Tenure under the leader, Age & Gender
www.monash.edu.au
12

13. Experiment Scales
• Job Satisfaction
–
•
•
•
•
•
(Moyes & Redd, 2008)
Age
Gender
Degree
Major
Current Year of Study
www.monash.edu.au
13

14. 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
14

15. Experiment Manipulations
•
Servant Leadership
–
•
High Involvement Low Dominance
–
•
“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.
“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
15

16. 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
16