Developing the Leader-Follower Relationship Perception

Developing the Leader-Follower Relationship:
Perceptions of Leaders and Followers
Thomas Joseph
Colorado Technical University
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory considers the impact
that leaders and followers relationships
have on an organization. This study was an investigation of the
leader-follower relationship and the
influence these relationships have on individual performance in
an organization. The purpose of the study
was to explore the lived experiences of leaders and followers
who had experienced the phenomenon. A
qualitative research method and phenomenological design was
employed for data collection and analysis
to examine leaders and followers lived experiences. Twenty-
three participants, comprising of seven
leaders and sixteen followers, were interviewed using an in-
depth, one-on-one semi-structured interview
process. Data from the interviews were recorded, transcribed,
and analyzed. Analysis of the data
identified collaborative relationship, partnership relationship,
and engaged relationship as major
contributors to the leader-follower relationship and the

influence of the relationship on individual
performance.
INTRODUCTION
As organizations endeavor to become more successful, leaders
play a significant role in the way their
followers devote their time, efforts, and commitment to, first of
all, their job and secondly, how they
extend their support to achieving organizational objectives.
Studies of the leadership discipline
acknowledge that the exchange of information forms the basis
to high-quality relationships that exist
within organizations (Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Pothos & Juola,
2007). Leaders can potentially inspire the
actions of their followers by improving the quality of the
leader-follower dyadic relationship (Graen,
Cashman, Ginsburgh, & Schliemann, 1977). Dansereau, Graen,
and Haga (1975) affirmed that the quality
of the dyadic relationship can impact individual performance.
The relationship shared between leaders
and followers in the workplace is significant in determining the
levels of employee performance,
satisfaction, retention, loyalty, and commitment (Shaw, 1997;
Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory considers the impact
that leaders and followers relationships
have on an organization. Harris and Kacmar (2006) affirmed
that nearly all of the literature published on
LMX expresses the possibility that high-quality relationships,
typified by high levels of trust, increased
communication channels, rewards, and favors, offer some
positive benefits both to followers and the
company where they are employed. Followers who have high

LMX are typically more devoted and
productive to their group and leader than followers who have
low LMX (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, &
Yammarino, 2001). LMX instruction has been accepted as a
preparation for effective leadership (Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1991) and more often than not as a universal theory
(Anderson, & Shivers, 1996).
132 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics Vol.
13(1) 2016
Amid environmental changes, organizations benefit from
developing leader-followers relationships
through continued effective exchanges. Clear and unobstructed
leader-follower exchanges (Senge, 2003)
permeate and inculcate employee confidence (Weymes, 2005)
and encourage outstanding individual
performance (Adebayo & Udegbe, 2004; Densten, 2005).
However, a frequently found condition in the
life of an organization is bias and inequality in leader -follower
relationships, through which certain
individuals have a more positive relationship with their leader
than others do. LMX is one vehicle for
understanding and improving leader-follower relationships in an
organization (Gerstner & Day, 1997;
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997;
Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999).
Kouzes and Posner (2002) posited that organizational leaders
are charged with the task of improving
the performance and commitment within their organization.
They posited that the shared values between
leaders and followers and their organization can boost

commitment, enhance collective performance, and
develop employee loyalty. Leaders and followers are expected
to model shared organizational values
through ongoing relationships that drive performance and
commitment to the organization. These
relationships can be understood through the lens of LMX
theory.
LMX theory, a relationship-based method for studying leader-
follower relationships, has over the
years produced some inconclusive results (Schriesheim,
Chester, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999) even while
affirming that the heart of the leadership practice is the dyadic
relationship among leaders and followers
(Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen, 1976;
Northouse, 2007). Furthermore, LMX
theory focuses on the individualize relationships leaders
develop with some individual employees and not
with others (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997).
The literature supports LMX relationships
as exclusive and interpersonal.
LMX theory implies that leaders establish individualized
relationships with their followers through
the progression of ongoing work-related exchanges (Graen et
al., 1977; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005;
Greguras & Ford, 2006). The theory finds its’ roots in
Dansereau et al. (1975) vertical dyadic linkage
paradigm as an addition to social exchange theory (Epitropaki &
Ford). It is primarily concerned with the
significance and value of the shared relationship, vertical dyad
or dyadic relationship (Suazo, Turnley, &
Mai-Dalton, 2008) between the leader and his/her follower. The
basis of the leader-member exchange is
the idea of mutual trust and loyalty (Bass & Avolio, 2004). This
idea emphasizes that leaders in

communal or group cultures are entrusted with the task of
taking care of their followers and followers, on
the other hand, have an ethical and honest responsibility to
respond with absolute respect and loyalty to
their leaders (Bass & Avolio).
LMX theory finds its theoretical and empirical roots i n both
role theory (Liden et al., 1977; Katz &
Kahn, 1978) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). The
leader as well as the follower is required to
perform a unique role within the organization (Katz & Kahn).
According to Graen (1976), within an
organization, employee roles are gradually accepted through
informal exchanges that take place between
the leader and his/her follower. Researchers (Dienesch & Liden,
1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987) have
posited that these roles progress due to the mutual agreement
between the leader and follower assuming
their role and the combined belief that the result will benefit
both parties. Consequently, a level of
confidence between the leader and his/her followers develops
[Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman,
1975; Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
The exchange relationship is created on the basis of personal
closeness and the subordinate’s
adequacy and devotedness (Graen & Cashman, 1975).
Specifically, LMX theory has focused on the
relation between quality leader-member exchanges and positive
results for leaders, followers, and the
organization (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Researchers have
discovered that positive employee performance
is a result of high-quality exchange relationships (Liden,
Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Graen & Uhl-Bien).
Yukl (2006), however, recognized the limited number of studies
done on situational conditions affecting

the development of exchange relationships and suggested
conducting research that will endeavor to
discover the evolution of exchange relationships over time.
This research contributed to the emerging work pertaining to
LMX relationships, which suggests that
the quality of employee and direct supervisor relationships are
connected to employee performance
(Wayne & Green, 1993; Erdogan & Enders, 2007). If LMX
quality moderates employee performance, it
Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics Vol. 13(1)
2016 133
seems imperative to understand how these relationships are
formed, evolved, and influence individual
performance. The study, therefore, proposed a focus on
followers’ commitment to their leaders as a
means for improving overall job performance in an
organization. A qualitative phenomenological theory
was employed to understand the exchange relationships from the
perspectives of leaders and followers in
an organization and to understand how this exchange
relationship influences individual performance. The
primary research question for this study was: What constitutes
the leader-follower relationship in an
organization? Two sub-questions also assisted with
investigating the phenomenon inherent in these
experiences. The sub-questions comprised the following: How
does this relationship impact or influence
the performance of the leader and follower in that organization?
How does the nature of the relationship
evolve over time?

Campbell and Dardis (2004) affirmed that an understanding of
leader-follower relationships and the
influence these relationships have on followers’ ability to
achieve their goals is an essential contribution
to leadership development skills. Beng-Chong and Ployhart
(2004) posited that knowledge of the role
high-quality dyadic relationships have on inspiring followers
can increase a leader’s probability of
follower success. These high-quality relationships can
potentially improve organizational results like
performance, job satisfaction, and reduced turnover ratios
(Brouthers, Gelderman, & Arens, 2007;
Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). Moreover, the knowledge
attained from understandi ng leader-follower
relationships can assist leaders to shape the strategy of their
organization (Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
METHOD
Research Design Appropriateness
The purpose of this present study was to explore the lived
experiences of exchange relationships
between leaders and followers and to provide a deeper
understanding of the experiences of these leaders
and followers. The social relations between leaders and
followers have created an awareness to describe
the richness and context of the experiences of the individuals
involved in the relationship (Collingson,
2006; Covey, 2006). The quality of the relationship between
leaders and followers is, instinctively,
subjective with each individual having his/her viewpoints
(Collingson; Vassallo, 2007) on its quality.
Acquiring leaders and followers perspectives in the form of
qualitative data facilitated the discovery of a

phenomenon of the exchange relationship between leaders and
followers. A qualitative research method
and phenomenological approach helped in developing a fresh
understanding of the phenomenon being
studied as entailed in the exploration of the lived experiences of
leaders and followers.
Qualitative research method is subjective and originates in
exploring the way individuals interpret
their experiences (Creswell, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). It
employs a realistic perspective to examine
comprehensive human experiences (Creswell; Vishnevsky &
Beanlands, 2004). Researchers have agreed
that a qualitative research method is inspirational in
understanding the ontological perspectives of people
in natural environments (Creswell; Ruane, 2004; Barbuto,
2005). Wilding and Whiteford (2005) and
Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2005) affirmed that qualitative research
is applicable to understanding the
expectations of conflicting realities in relation to individual
opinions.
Phenomenology is a qualitative research approach that attempts
to represent the lived experiences,
opinions, and interpretations of the research participants
(Simon, 2006; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). It is
an interpretive and practical approach and builds from human
beings lived experiences (Marshall &
Rossman). In phenomenology, creating meaning is
accomplished by means of descriptive instruments
since unbiased viewpoints cannot be efficiently captured
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Because
phenomenology focuses on the descriptions of individual lived
experiences (Moustakas, 1994), it does not
endeavor to offer descriptions, hypotheses, interpretations, or
assumptions concerning the phenomenon

being studied (Wertz, 2005). According to Creswell (2007), a
phenomenological design aspires to
comprehend various individuals’ general or universal
experience.
13(1) 2016
Participants
One government agency in an island of the Caribbean which
employed approximately 600 permanent
or full-time workers participated. The sample size for this study
comprised twenty-three participants
consisting of seven leaders and sixteen followers. The leaders
and followers were not necessarily matched
by one leader and that leader’s followers. This process was used
to ensure that conflict of interest among
leaders and followers chosen for the study, although they may
have a leader-follower relationship, was
not violated. A criterion based purposive sampling approach
was used to identify the sample size.
Purposive criterion based sampling in a phenomenological study
ascertains the individuals have
experienced the phenomenon being studied and can provide a
clear understanding of the research problem
(Creswell, 2007).
Instrumentation

One-on-one, semi-structured face-to-face interview sessions
were conducted with each participant
where they were required to answer specific interview
questions. For this phenomenological study, open-
ended, semi-structured questions was essential to obtain
descriptions from the participants concerning the
leader-follower relationship. A set of questions were developed
for leader participants and another set of
questions for follower participants. It was important to validate
that the content of the interview questions
was understandable, and to conduct a face-to-face authenticity
test of the interview questions. In order to
complete these tasks, a field test was conducted with four
individuals who assessed the interview
questions. These individuals comprised of two leader-
participants and two follower-participants who were
government employees. Each participant was required to si gn an
informed consent form to affirm their
voluntarty participation in the field study. These participants
were selected because of their experience
and understanding of the leader-follower relationship. They
were not members of the organization where
the actual study took place and, moreover, did not paticipate in
the actual study. The interview questions
were refined based on the feedback and recommendations
obtained during the field test.
Leader participants were asked to respond to eleven questi ons
concerning their perceptions of leader-
follower relationships including: (1) “What is your overall
concept of what the relationship between a
leader and his/her follower should be like?”, (2) “As a leader,
what do you expect of your followers?”,
(3) “How do your followers contribute to the creation of your
performance?”, (4) “During the time you
have been in a leadership role in this company, what has the

experience of getting to know your followers
been like?”, (5) “What specific steps (if any) do you take to
develop a relationship with your followers?”,
(6) “In your own words, how can an individual leader build
relationships with his followers?”, (7) “It
appears that leaders generally want to have a relationship with
their followers for various reasons, how
does it all begin specifically for you as a leader?”, (8) “How
does your overall concept of a leader-
follower relationship influence employee performance in your
organization?”, (9) “How do you engage
followers in the influence process?”, (10) “How do you
demonstrate trust in your followers?”, and (11)
“Is there anything else you would be interested in adding
concerning leader-follower relationships and
individual performance that could be pertinent to this study?”
Follower participants were also asked to respond to twelve
questions concerning their perceptions of
leader-follower relationships including: (1) “What is your
overall concept of what the relationship
between a leader and his/her follower should be like?”, (2)
“What specific characteristics do you look for
in a leader?”, (3) “How important is it for you to have a
relationship with your leader?”, (4) “In what
way(s) does your relationship with your leader impact your
performance?”, (5) “How does your leader
contribute to the creation of your performance?”, (6) “During
the time you have been employed in this
company, what has the experience of getting to know your
leader been like?”, (7) “What specific steps (if
any) do you take or have you taken to develop a relationship
with your leader?”, (8) “It appears that
people generally want to have good relationships with their
leaders, how does it all begin for you?”, (9)
“In your own words, how can an employee build a relationship

with his/her leader?”, (10) “How does
your overall concept of a leader-follower relationship influence
employee performance in your
organization?”, (11) “How do you demonstrate trust in your
leader?”, and (12) “Is there anything else you
2016 135
would be interested in adding concerning leader-follower
relationships and individual performance that
could be pertinent to this study?”
Procedure
Upon obtaining approval from the IRB, solicitation to
participate which described the research study,
process, and expectations associated with participation in the
study was sent by company e-mail to
managers and employees of the participating organization.
Obtaining assurance of each participant’s
qualification to participate in the study required a formal
process of control (Creswell, 2003). The
selection comprised of a request for voluntary participation and
written acknowledgment of the
participation’s terms and conditions. One government agency
from a Caribbean island was selected for
participation. Upon receiving a sufficient among of responses
for participation, participants were
approached to set up an appointment for one-on-one, face-to-
face interview.
Interviews were conducted in a private setting at the facility

where the research population was
employed. At the start of the interview session, an informed
consent formed was reviewed with each
participant to confirm the purpose of the study, attain a signed
agreement to participate in the study, and
to provide consent for the interview to be audio-recorded. Once
consent was obtained, the audio-
recording began and interview questions were administered.
Data Validity and Analysis
Upon completion of the interviews, the recorded interview
responses were reviewed and transcribed
verbitim for each participant. Creswell (2005) asserted that
participant check is an essential technique for
researchers using a qualitative method to verify the accuracy of
their findings. Each participant was asked
to examine the interview’s transcribed version. They
authenticated the interpretation and confirmed that
the transcribed information was a valid representation of what
was said and recorded during the interview.
After the transcriptions were validated, the responses were
uploaded into ATLAS.ti®, a well-liked
qualitative software data analysis tool, to assist with data
analysis and for coding and creating code
families. ATLAS.ti was also used to help find correlations,
similarities, unity, analogies, or homologies
contained by the varied sets of data and helped in uncovering
patterns. It was also suitable for making
connections between various elements of the data and effective
for making well-defined connections
between the data elements (Barry, 1998). Moustakas’ (1994)
proposition for data analysis and coding
steps was employed to analze the data: (a) reviewed the
complete information to find a generalization in

relation to the data, (b) utilized horizonalization to discover
important statements that present a perception
of the research participants’ experience with the phenomenon,
(c) arranged those important statements
into clusters of meanings or themes, and (d) developed an
inclusive explanation or report of the real
meaning of the experience for each individual and combined
relationship for the group.
RESULTS
The findings of this study were based on responses to each
interview question from leaders and
followers where each response was coded to identify emerging
themes. Data coding recognized indicators
and signals in the various nodes. This allowed for logical and
pragmatic coding of the finalized analysis.
The coding process entailed analyzing the data from the leader -
participants interview transcriptions and
the follower-participants interview transcriptions about what
code would be most appropriate or suitable
for the specific response to each interview question.
Transcription and analysis of the data allowed for the
assessment of word use and the number of times or consistency
of their occurrence. Keywords from
participant (leaders and followers) responses were: (a)
supportive, (b) partnership, (c) creative, (d) work
together, (e) respect, (f) trust, (g) colleague, (h) example, (i)
motivate, (j) initiative, (k) important, (l) do
work, (m) communicate, (n) understand, (o) contact, (p) good
rapport, (q) engage, (r) professional, (s)
observe, and (t) relate. The method of phenomenological data
reduction and horizontalization generated
three emerging themes during the interpretive process of data

analysis. The three themes that emerged
13(1) 2016
were mapped back to the research questions (Creswell, 2007).
Emerging themes comprise collaborative
relationship, partnership relationship, and engaged relationship.
Employees who participated in the study considered
collaboration between the leader and the
follower as a requisite and significant element of the leader -
follower relationship and individual
performance. The participants accentuated the significance of
leaders and their followers working
collaboratively to realize and attain organizational success and
enhance individual performance levels.
They described the leader-follower relationship as a
collaborative relationship where (i) the leader sets the
tone for the organization by functioning as an example for
his/her followers to follow, (ii) leaders and
followers work together towards a common goal through good
and skillful communication strategies, (iii)
mutual trust, respect for each other, and honesty steer the
relationship so that each individual visualizes
himself or herself as part of the group and an invaluable asset to
the organization, and (iv) individuals are
given the opportunity to express themselves, share their ideas,
and feel comfortable to speak about issues.
As part of the collaborative relationship, these participants
insinuated that leaders as well as followers
must actively seek out and take initiatives that provide
opportunities to develop quality LMX

relationships that lead to organizational success.
The participants also identified the leader-follower relationship
as a partnership. The quality of this
relationship was categorized as synergetic, that is, the leader (s)
and follower(s) partnering together in a
creative and innovative manner to produce results that are
individualistically unattainable. The
participants believed that one individual is not sufficient
enough to drive organizational success. They
shared the idea that two is better than one and that by working
together they are able to accomplish more
and sometimes more within a lesser time period. The leaders,
for example, would rather approach or treat
their followers as colleagues within the organization who have
specific portfolios to fulfill. The
participants considered themselves to be a fulfillment of
another’s portfolio and that each must work
together to see the organizational assignments accomplished.
This partnership relationship comprise of
independence or impartiality and mutual trust. Independence
implied making a contribution to the
importance and implication of partnership in the leader-follower
relationship. Trust was presented as
being critical for maintaining confidentiality, treating each
other with respect, and a motivational element
for the relationship.
Engagement emerged as the kind of relation that leaders and
followers must embrace in order to
participate in the kind of quality LMX relationship required to
enhance individual performance, achieve
organizational goals, and establish more reliable and effective
leader-follower roles. The participants,
therefore, described the relationship as an engaged relationship
implying that it is critical for leaders and

followers to be consistenly engaged with each other to help the
relationship evolve into a dynamic
relationship.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to discover what the leader -
follower relationship experience
represented to each individual participant who already had the
experience, and how the participants
defined the phenomena. The research purpose answered the
study’s three research questions. The results
of the data collected from the interviews discovered three
fundamental themes constructed from explicit
meanings obtained from the responses of the leader and
follower participants. Meaningful expressions
were revealed that exposed individual experiences resulting in
the discovery of the study’s core themes.
The three themes emerged from the study include: (a)
collaborative relationship, (b) partnership
relationship, and (c) engaged relationship.
The findings of the study suggested: (a) leaders and followers
value availability of being able to work
together to attain organizational goals and objectives, (b)
leaders and followers believed that a partnership
relationship is essential to their ability to perform effectively in
the organization, and (c) the leader-
follower relationship was built on an engaged relationship
where leaders and followers were consistently
engaged with each other through on-going communication
channels.

2016 137
Findings were consistent with existing literature concerning
various leadership theories,
communication, and the leader-member exchange (LMX)
theory. Prevailing concepts of the LMX theory
were confirmed in the results of the study. The significance of
the leader-follower relationship from the
seminal exploration presented by Dansereau, Graen, and Haga
(1975), Cashman and Graen (1975), and
Graen (1976) was valuable to discovering what constitutes the
leader-follower relationship in an
organization, how the exchange relationship influences
individual performance, and how exchange
relationships between leaders and followers evolve and develop
over time. The findings implied that the
leader-follower relationship comprise a collaborative
relationship that is supported by a partnership
relationship which evolves and develops by means of an
engaged relationship resulting in quality leader-
follower relationship and high level performing individuals.
Each of the themes, collaborative
relationship, partnership relationship, and engaged relationship,
presented a clearer perception of the
phenomenon and is discussed below relative to the research
findings.
Collaborative Relationship
Collaborative relationship emerged as an important contributor
to the leader-follower relationship and

individual performance. When leaders and followers work
together (collaboratively), it is possible for the
organization to be successful and enhance individual
performance. The leaders and followers in this study
expressed that leaders and followers alike have a unique role to
play in fostering the collaborative
relationship. Participants valued their experience of working
together to achieve the organizational goal.
They expressed dissatisfaction when there was a gap in the
willinness of members to work together.
Partcipants believed that any individual who chooses to work
without complete collaboration with the
other members of the organization could create unnecessary
tension in the workplace. The leaders and
followers have confidence that if collarboration is pivotal in the
leader-follower relationship, the
possibility of a win-win setting is attainable.
The leaders and followers described the leader-follower
relationship as a collaborative relationship
which is supported by good communication skills among the
members, and the leaders’ expertise to
manage, guide, inspire, give direction, and set the example in
the organization. A mutual and communally
concurred framework amongst leaders and followers in the
organization emerges from what LMX theory
identifies as the second stage of the exchange relationship
where agreements are perfected, and mutual
trust, respect, and loyalty are cultivated (Graen & Scandura,
1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991; Yukl, 2006).
Ultimately, collaboration constitutes the leader-follower
relationship in organization.
Partnership Relationship

LMX theory encourages fairness to all employees and the
opportunity to allow each employee to
become as participating in the organization’s work as much as
they intend to be participative (Northouse,
2007). This level of participation requires leaders and followers
to exercise respect and trust for each
other, knowing that individuals are unique in what they bring to
the table and focus their attention on
learning to relate to each other. The leaders and followers who
participated of this study believed that as
members of the organization, it is imperative for them to partner
together to accomplish the organization’s
objectives.
The results of my finding affirmed that the research participants
perceived their leader-follower
relationship as a partnership. The leaders and followers of the
organization were zealous and enthusiastic
to contribute to the entire group and add value to the
organization. Even though the participants, both
leader and follower, recognized the hierarchical setting of the
leader-follower relationship, they voiced
the value of partnering together to get the job done. By the
leaders and followers being in a partnership
with each other, it allowed them the independence to
accomplish their work assignments. Employees
appreciated the independence and flexibility to decide the most
appropriate way for performing their tasks
and recognized their independence as an opportunity for them to
explicitly apply their skills and
potentials. Independence, they considered, was an indication
that they were able to effectively solve
problems individually.
13(1) 2016

Additionally, the employees believed that a partnership
relationship was crucial to their ability to
perform effectively. They categorized the relationship as being
synergetic, affirming that it was better and
easier for them to work together in a more creative and
innovative manner. They shared the idea that two
was better than one and that the ability to perform effectively
was dependent on working with each other.
In fact, they emphasized that good relationships result in good
performance or high output while poor
relationships result in poor performance or low output. The
leaders and followers affirmed that they
needed each other to become effective in their role or portfolio.
The followers indicated that they looked
forward to their opinions and suggestions to be inquired about,
and felt appreciated when their leader
included their opinions or suggestions in the decision-making
process. The leaders, on the other hand,
acknowledged that their followers had valuable information that
they could continually utilize when
making organizational decisions. Together, they (leaders and
followers) believed that they had what was
necessary amongst themselves to obtain strong leader-follower
relationship and influence their ability to
perform at a high level. My findings for this study proposed that
the leader-follower relationship plays a
significant role in individual performance.
Engaged Relationship
Northouse (2007) five key strengths of LMX theory included: a)
strong explanatory theory, b) unique

theory because of its focus on the dyadic relationship as the
focal point of the leadership process, c)
emphasizes communication in leadership, d) reminds leaders to
be equal and impartial with their
followers, and e) connects with positive organizational results
such as performance (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1991). According to Graen and Cashman (1975), the exchange
relationships between leaders and
followers are rooted in personal compatibility and the
follower’s competency and dependability. LMX
theory also notes the need to be cognizant and sensitive about
relating to followers (Northouse). Graen &
Uhl-Bien (1995) proposed that leaders should strive to form
distinct exchange relationship with all their
followers instead of a selected few. The leaders and followers
of this study adhere to this concept
affirming the leader-follower relationship as an engaged
relationship.
The employees believed that an engaged relationship was
critical for the organization. They
suggested that while it was important to establish the leader -
follower relationship from their initial
interaction, they needed to continue being involved with each
regularly so that the relationship can mature
progressively. The leaders and followers described the engaged
relationship as an opportunity for them to
share information on a regular basis, have on-going channels of
communication, each individual taking
the initiative to discuss issues, and commitment to professional
and social obligations. They maintained
that good communication skills were the key component for the
relationship and that each individual
should be aware of how they communicate with each other.
They believed in the idea that communication
can make or break the relationship. Therefore, they felt that to

be engaged with each other, they would
have to learn and get to know each other and make a conscious
decision to treat each other with respect.
The leaders and followers of this study further indicated that
there were key motivators that contributed to
the engaged relationships which entailed the kind of quality
leader-follower relationship they desired,
well-defined expectations, untarnished and clear-cut
communication, willingness to contribute to the
group, opportunities for professional and personal advancement,
and availability of needed resources for
effectiveness (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Maylett & Riboldi,
2008). They believed that it is out of this
engaged relationship or continued interaction that the leader -
follower relationship evolves into a well-
nurtured and mature relationship.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY FINDINGS TO LMX
THEORY
A major thrust behind the key concerns in LMX theory has been
the meaningful and important
relationships discovered between performance-related outcomes
and LMX. Study conducted by
Wakabayashi & Graen (1989) on Japanese firms posited that
establishing high-quality exchanges in the
initial stages of joining an organization was an effective
promotion and successive career success
predictor. Higgins, Judge, and Ferris (2003) affirmed that some
followers take the initiative to develop
2016 139

favorable relationships instead of submissively accepting
anything their leader choose to do. Gerstner and
Day’s (1997), meta-analytical study which focused mostly on
the relationships between LMX indications
and the number of outcome variables, discovered a deeper
connection between LMX and subjective
factors than between LMX and objective factors. Their
conclusions were further affirmed by a study
conducted by Liden, Sparrowe and Wayne (1997). Moreover,
research in LMX theory has also
discovered that leaders, trained to develop high-quality
relationships with their followers, experienced
continual achievements in the actual performance of their
followers (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp,
1982; Scandura & Graen, 1984). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995)
integrated the results of the studies
outcomes and incorporated the recommendation that leaders
should attempt to establish and develop
individual relationships with all followers; not just with a
preferred few. Research in LMX theory,
however, has revealed that the relationship between leaders and
their followers are imperative for both
organizational and individual outcomes. These outcomes
include job satisfaction (Schriesheim et al.,
1998), organizational commitment (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994),
citizen behaviors (Wayne et al., 1997;
Deluga, 1994), staff turnover (Ferris, 1985), job satisfaction
(Wayne, Linden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999),
and goal commitment (Klein & Kim, 1998).
The findings of the study confirmed the previous findings for
LMX theory. The leaders and followers

who participated in the study affirmed the ideas that positive
leader-follower relationships are co-related
with positive individual performance. They further believed that
as they cultivate on-going relationships
among themselves, they will be able to achieve the
organizational goals and objectives. The employees
affirmed other LMX theory findings that leaders and followers
should develop strong dyadic relationships
in an organization. My findings for this confirmed the findings
for LMX theory that positive
organizational outcomes such as, improved individual
performance, are related to high-quality dyadic
relationships.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The limitations of the study comprised employing a qualitative
method, a phenomenological research
design, the number of research participants from the
organization, and the data collection and analysis
process. The limitations of the study could have influenced the
results because of the process used for
collecting and analyzing the qualitative data. The qualitative
methodology comprises probable influence
of my biases and skills.
Qualitative research methodology depends on examination of
relational exchanges that resulted in the
probability of the presentation of unexpected variables affecting
the extent and quality of information
obtained from the research participants. I interpreted the data by
utilizing proven methods that foster
objectivity. The reliability and validity of the emerging themes

were limited to both cultural and
contextual dynamics of the research sample as well as the
expanse to which the research instruments
retained objectivity. In qualitative research, the researcher is
integrated as an instrument for collecting,
interpreting, and analyzing the data. This limitation may have
possibly inspired the study’s results even if
sufficient cautionary measures were adopted to exclude
probable bias and skill.
Phenomenological research design is one which attempts to
investigate the lived experiences,
perspectives, and understandings of participants (Simon &
Francis, 2006). The study is limited by
employing phenomenology because the research design was
utilized to study perceptive structures that
define and understand experiences without direct concern for
assumptions (Simon & Francis). Even if a
phenomenological research design was suitable for the study,
employing this research design could have
influenced the results of the study. The use of an alternate
research approach could have uncovered
different themes.
The study may have been limited by the choice of single
organization in one Caribbean island. If this
study had incorporated multiple organizations within the public
sector or incorporated organizations
within the private sector, the study would probably achieve
different results.
13(1) 2016

FUTURE RESEARCH
This study examined the leader-follower relationship and how
the relationship influence individual
performance in an organization in an island of the Caribbean.
The results of the study revealed that a
phenomenon exists concerning the leader-follower relationship
and the influence of the relationship on
individual performance. Future research should consider added
study that enhances organizational
knowledge about various elements that enable and advance the
leader-follower relationship and its
influence on individual performance.
This study examined the experiences of leaders and followers in
a single public sector organization in
a Caribbean island. Further understanding is needed concerning
factors that contribute to the leader-
follower relationship in other organizations in the Caribbean
such as, other public sector organizations
and private sectors industries like finance and healthcare.
Moreover, future research could also comprise a
replication of this study in other Caribbean islands within the
same sector or other public or private
sectors. Research of that magnitude may possibly offer more
knowledge about elements that constitute
the leader-follower relationship and the influence of the
relationship on individual performance.
This research has been limited to the lived experiences of the 23
individuals comprising 7 leaders and
16 followers who volunteered to participate in the study. The 23

participants comprised of men and
women. Replicating this study to the following could possibly
expand the findings’ generalizability: a
larger sample size that incorporates men and women, and a
population comprising of either men or
women only.
Finally, future studies could employ different qualitative
approaches, for instance, grounded theory or
case study, to obtain more knowledge of the leader-follower
relationship and the influence of the
relationship on individual performance in an organization or
organizations in the Caribbean. A
quantitative research methodology could also be utilized to
provide empirical discovery of the leader-
follower relationship and the influence of the relationship on
individual performance in an organization or
organizations in the Caribbean. By replicating this study by
using other qualitative approaches or
quantitative method may enhance the leadership studies by
discovering new themes and/or authenticating
the finding of this study.
CONCLUSION
The examination of the lived experiences of 23 research
participants comprising 7 leaders and 16
followers employed in an organization in an island of the
Caribbean has disclosed significant data about
what constitutes the leader-follower relationship and the
influence of the relationship on individual
performance in an organization. On the whole, the themes which
emerged from the study were coherent
with research conducted on LMX relationships that identify

elements of the leader-follower relationship
and individual performance or positive organizational outcomes.
The three themes emerged from the
study were identified as collaborative relationship, partnership
relationship, and engaged relationship. Put
together, these themes indicated that the leader-follower
relationship is progressive in nature which begins
through collaboration amongst the leader and the follower,
continues in partnership between the leader
and the follower through synergy, and evolves or develops
through engagements between the leader and
the follower. These themes, however, inspired proposals for
further research concerning leader-follower
relationship and individual performance. Furthermore, they
contributed to the body of knowledge
concerning leader-follower relationships and the influence of
the relationship on individual performance.
REFERENCES
Adebayo, D. O., & Udegbe, I. B. (2004). Gender in the boss-
subordinate relationship: A Nigerian study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 515-525.
Barbuto, J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic,
and transformational leadership: a test of
antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
11(4), 26-40.
2016 141

Barry, C. A. (1998). Choosing Qualitative Data Analysis
Software: Atlas/ti and nudist compared.
Sociological Research Online, 3(3). Retrieved from
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/3/4.html.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (2004). The multifactor leadership
questionnaire: Sampler set. Redwood City,
CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Beng-Chong, L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational
leadership: Relations to the five-factor
model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts.
Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(4), 610-621.
Brouthers, K. D., Gelderman, M., & Arens, P. (2007). The
influence of ownership on performance:
Stakeholder and strategic contingency perspectives.
Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 59(3),
225-242.
Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational
leadership and emotional intelligence: A
potential pathway for an increased understanding of
interpersonal influence. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 867-871.
Campbell, D. J., & Dardis, G. J. (2004). The “be, know, do”
model of leader development. Human
Resource Planning, 27(2), 26.
Cashman, J., Dansereau, F. Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J.
(1976). Organizational understructure and
leadership: A longitudi nal investigation of the managerial role-
making process. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 278-296.

Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: a post-
structuralist analysis of follower identities.
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179-189.
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical
dyad linkage approach to leadership in
formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role
making process. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member
exchange, and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 67, 315-326.
Densten, I. L. (2005). The relationship between visioning
behaviors of leaders and follower burnout.
British Journal of Management, 16(2), 105-118.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of
qualitative research (3nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dienesch, R.. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member
exchange model of leadership: A critique and
further development. Academy of Management Review, 5, 1-34.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in Leadership: Meta-
Analytic Findings and Implications for
Research and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4),
611-628.
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top:
Supervisors' perceived organizational support as
a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and
performance relationships. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(2), 321-330.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the
workplace: A review of recent developments
and future research directions in leader-member exchange
theory. In L. L. Neider and C. A.
Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65-114). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee
withdrawal process: A constructive replication,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of
leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 827-844.
13(1) 2016
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/3/4.html�

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of
leadership in formal organizations: a
developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH:
Kent State University.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology
of dyadic organizing. In B. Shaw & L. L.
Cumming (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9,
pp. 175-208). Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of
professional into self-managing and partially
self-designing contributions: Toward a theory of leadership
making. Journal of Management
Systems, 3(3), 33-48.
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. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making model of leadership within
complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnettte
(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 1202-1245). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Graen, G. B., Cashman, J., Ginsburgh, S., & Schliemann, W.
(1977). Effects of linking pin quality upon
quality of working life of lower participants: A longitudinal
investigation of the managerial

understructure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 491-
504.
Graen, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects
of leader-member exchange and job design
on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment
mode, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 30, 109- 131.
Greguras, G. J., & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the
multidimensionality of supervisor and
subordinate perceptions of leader-member exchange. Journal of
Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 433-465.
Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good
thing: The curvilinear effect of leader-
member exchange on stress. Journal of Social Psychology,
146(1), 65- 84.
Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (2005). The practice of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence
tactics and work outcomes: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89-106.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal
orientations, the quality of leader-member
exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job
satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(3), 368-384.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The Social Psychology of
Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the

quality of supervisor/subordinate relations: The
role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of
control. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 75- 82.
Klein, H., & Kim, J.S. (1998). A field study of the influence of
situational constraints, leader-member
exchange, and goal commitment on performance, Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 88-95.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). Leadership: The
challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-
member exchange theory: The past and
potential for the future. Research in Personal and Human
Resource Management, 15, 47-119.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A
longitudinal study on early development of leader-
member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee
engagement. Industrial & Organizational
Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative
research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Maylett, T., & Ribildi, J. (2008). The three essential
components of employee engagement. Retrieved
from DecisionWise website: http://www.decision-
wise.com/DecisionWise-white-papers.html.
Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: theory and Practice (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2016 143
http://www.decision-wise.com/DecisionWise-white-
papers.html�
Pothos, E. M., & Juola, P. (2007). Characterizing linguistic
structure with mutual information. British
Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 291-304.
Ruane, J. M. (2004). Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide
to Social Science Research. New York:
Wiley.
Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (2003). Leadership that matters:
The critical factors for making a
difference in people’s lives and organizations’ success. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating Effects of
Initial Leader-Member Exchange Status
on the Effects of a Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(3), 428-436.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999).
Leader-member justice perspective.
Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 25-40.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., & Yammarino, F. J.
(2001). Leader-member exchange

(LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory,
measurement, and data analysis practices.
Leadership Quarter, 10, 63-113.
Senge, P. M. (2003). Taking personal change seriously: The
impact of organizational learning on
management practice. Academy of Management Executive,
17(2), 47-50.
Shaw, B. (1997). Sources of virtue: the market and the
community. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 33-
50.
Simon, M. K. (2006). Dissertation & scholarly research:
Recipes for success, a practical guide to start &
complete your dissertation, thesis or formal research project.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (2008).
Characteristics of the supervisor subordinate
relationship as predictors of psychological contract breach.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(3),
295-314.
Vassallo, S. (2007). Is sure start an effective preventive
intervention?. Relationships Quarterly, 3, 6-8.
Vishnevsky, T., & Beanlands, H. (2004). Qualitative research.
Nephrology Nursing Journal, 31(2), 234-
238.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G. (1989). Human resource
development of Japanese managers: Leadership and
career investment, in A. Nedd, G. R. Ferris and K. M. Rowland
(eds.). Research in Personnel
and Human Resource Management, Suppl. 1. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press, pp. 235-256.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader -
member exchange on employee citizenship and
impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46(12),
1431-1440.
Wayne, S., Shore, L., & Linden, R. (1997). Perceived
organizational support and leader-member
exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111.
Wayne, S. J., Linden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K.
(1999). The role of human capital, motivation
and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 20,
577-595.
Wertz, F. (2005). Phenomenological research methods for
counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(2), 167-177.
Weymes, E. (2005). Organizations which make a difference: A
philosophical argument for the “people
focused organization.” Corporate Governance, 5(2), 142-158.
Wilding, C., & Whiteford, G. (2005). Phenomenological
research: An exploration of conceptual,
theoretical, and practical issues. Occupational Therapy Journal
of Research, 25(3), 98-104.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th Ed.). Upper
Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13(1) 2016
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Servant Leadership and the Effect of the Interaction Between
Humility, Action, and Hierarchical Power on Follower
Engagement
Milton Sousa1 • Dirk van Dierendonck2
Received: 24 January 2015 / Accepted: 13 June 2015 /
Published online: 2 July 2015
� The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open
access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Servant leadership has been theorized as a
model where the moral virtue of humility co-exists with
action-driven behavior. This article provides an empirical
study that tests how these two apparently paradoxical
aspects of servant leadership interact in generating follower
engagement, while considering the hierarchical power of

the leader as a contingency variable. Through a three-way
moderation model, a study was conducted based on a
sample of 232 people working in a diverse range of com-
panies. The first finding is that humble leaders showed the
highest impact on follower engagement regardless of their
hierarchical position. Less humble leaders in lower hier-
archical positions seem to be able to compensate for that
through a strong action-oriented leadership style. Most
notably for leaders in high hierarchical positions, the moral
virtue of humility seems to strengthen the impact of their
action-oriented leadership the most. These findings provide
empirical support and a better understanding of the inter -
play between the moral virtue of humility and the action-
oriented behaviors of servant leadership.
Keywords Servant leadership � Virtue � Action �
Humility � Power � Engagement
Introduction
When servant leadership was first introduced through the
seminal work of Greenleaf (1977), it brought a moral

dimension to the leadership field, which for many years had
been somehow subordinated to behavioral and contingency
type of approaches (e.g., Fiedler 1967; Hersey and Blan-
chard 1969; Lewin et al. 1939). In a similar vein, Burns
(1978) advanced the notion of transforming leadership that
later evolved into transformational leadership, likewise
with a strong moral emphasis and in contrast with trans-
actional leadership (Bass 1985; Bass and Avolio 1994).
Accelerated by the corporate scandals of the 1990s and
2000s (e.g., Adler 2002; Carson 2003; Crane and Matten
2007; Fombrun and Foss 2004), this moral side of leader -
ship has gained interest as a way of ensuring performance
while addressing ethical concerns in business, leading to
the first empirical data on servant leadership (Russell and
Stone 2002; van Dierendonck 2011), ethical leadership
(Brown and Treviño 2006), and the birth of other theories
like authentic (Gardner et al. 2005) or spiritual leadership
(Fry 2003), to name a few. Additionally, scholars have

recently tried to capture and operationalize this moral
dimension of leadership into constructs of virtue (Arjoon
2000; Cameron 2011; Dale Thompson et al. 2008; Hackett
and Wang 2012; Pearce et al. 2006). Virtues represent
attributes of moral excellence, which aggregate into an
overall dimension of virtuousness that can instill respon-
sible leadership behavior (Cameron 2011). For Greenleaf
(1977), this moral side or virtuousness was essential in
forming the core motivation to serve of the servant leader,
but it was not that morality should replace effective action,
but instead that both should co-exist and reinforce each
other. In practice, this translates into a dual mode of virtue
and action which was captured, albeit not always explicitly,
& Milton Sousa
[email protected]
Dirk van Dierendonck
[email protected]
1
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,
Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, J Building, 3062 PA Rotterda m,

The Netherlands
2
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,
PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
123
J Bus Ethics (2017) 141:13–25
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2725-y
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-015-
2725-y&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-015-
2725-y&domain=pdf
in some servant leadership models (e.g., Barbuto and
Wheeler 2006; Dennis and Bocarnea 2005; Laub 1999; van
Dierendonck 2011; van Dierendonck and Patterson 2015;
Wong and Davey 2007). Most noticeably, the model of van
Dierendonck (2011) makes this split between these two
types of behaviors more apparent, with some empirical
evidence of this being shown through a second-order factor
analysis in a later study (van Dierendonck and Nuijten

2011). This study shows one cluster with the dimensions of
humility and standing-back, which could be associated
with a moral side and another cluster with the dimensions
of empowerment, accountability, and stewardship, which
could aggregate into an action side. Despite this co-exis-
tence, little is in fact known about how these two aspects
interact with each other. Following on the work of Nielsen
et al. (2010), who advanced a conceptual model whereby
the follower attributions of the leader’s humility would
moderate the socialized charismatic leader’s effectiveness
in motivating followers, this study aims to further elaborate
on this potential interaction for the specific case of servant
leadership. The original question therefore that triggered
this study was as follows: how does a humble attitude of
being of service affect a servant leader’s ability to instill
effective action?
Knowing more about this interaction effect is important
for two main reasons. First of all, it allows understanding

leadership from within its complex behavioral relationships
and not just as a linear aggregated concept. Secondly, it
helps clarifying the apparently paradoxical mix of humble
service and effective action, so markedly part of servant
leadership (Morris et al. 2005; Patterson 2003; Russell
2001; van Dierendonck 2011) but also present in other
models like authentic leadership, level 5 leadership, and
transformational leadership (Morris et al. 2005).
Given also the potential interaction between power and
humility (Collins 2001; Owens and Hekman 2012), we
proposed to further investigate if the effect of a humble
service attitude would be more salient for servant leaders in
higher hierarchical positions of power in an organization.
In sum, our study aims to confirm the three-way interaction
between the action side of servant leadership (captured in
the dimensions of empowerment, accountability and
stewardship), the humble service-oriented side (captured in
the dimensions of humility and standing-back), and the

hierarchical rank of the leader in inducing follower
engagement (see Fig. 1).
Servant Leadership: A Balancing Act Between
Humble Service and Action
For Greenleaf (1977), the moral foundation of the servant
leader is built on a motivation to serve. As eloquently put
by Greenleaf himself (2002, p. 7), ‘‘The servant-leader is
servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one
wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings
one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from
one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to
assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material
possessions.’’ However, while Greenleaf (1977) clearly
highlighted the importance of the moral backbone of the
servant leader, he also emphasized that being a servant
leader is not the same as servitude and that such leaders
need also to show initiative, assume risks and take own-
ership for action in order to be truly effective. The fol-
lowing statement testifies that ‘‘…the leader needs more
than inspiration. A leader ventures to say, ‘I will go; come

with me!’ A leader initiates, provides the ideas and the
structure, and takes the risk of failure along with the chance
of success.’’ (Greenleaf 2002, p. 29). This means that
servant leadership implies a balancing act between an
overall humble attitude of service and behaviors that instill
action and efficacy. So, whereas it may be possible to speak
about servant leadership as one specific way of leadership,
at a deeper level, and as mentioned before, there seem to be
two overarching encompassing dimensions: a humble ser-
vice-oriented side and an action-driven side, both co-ex-
isting and complementing each other.
While some measures (e.g., Liden et al. 2008; Sendjaya
et al. 2008) put a stronger focus on moral, ethical, and
service-oriented dimensions, a closer look at other servant
leadership measures shows more or less explicitly these
Empowerment,
Stewardship and
Accountability
(SLACTION)

Hierarchical Rank of
the Leader (RANK)
Engagement
(ENGAGE)
Humility & Standing-
Back (SLHUMBLE)
Fig. 1 Conceptual three-way
interaction
14 M. Sousa, D. van Dierendonck
123
two sides of humble service and action-driven orientation,
as shown ahead. For example, Laub’s (1999) conceptual
model and measure include both sharing and providing
leadership. Sharing leadership requires accepting that oth-
ers are equipped to take responsibility themselves, and
therefore implies an overall attitude of humility with regard
to the leader’s own ability. At the same time, the servant
leader is pro-active in providing leadership, not retracting
from acting when necessary. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006)

refer to both altruistic calling and stewardship. According
to the authors, ‘‘altruistic calling describes a leader’s deep-
rooted desire to make a positive difference in others’
lives… Because the ultimate goal is to serve, leaders high
in altruistic calling will put others’ interests ahead of their
own and will diligently work to meet followers’ needs’’
(Barbuto and Wheeler 2006). Such selflessness can be
translated into an attitude of humble service. At the same
time, servant leaders are also stewards, ensuring that action
is taken toward a greater purpose. Wong and Davey (2007)
incorporate both humility and selflessness together with
inspiring and influencing others while Dennis and Bocar-
nea (2005) mention both humility and vision. In both cases,
there is an apparent dichotomy between humility and tak-
ing a pro-active role in setting direction and instilling
action. In this regard, the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS)
of van Dierendonck (2011) seems to be perhaps the one
that most explicitly and accurately captures Greenleaf’s
original dual mode of humble service and effective action.

Two particular studies (Asag-Gau and van Dierendonck
2011; van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011) based on the
SLS seem to confirm, through a second-order factor anal-
ysis, a potential sub-set of 5 core dimensions that could be
split between humble service (humility and standing-back)
and action (empowerment, accountability and steward-
ship). As such, our research was focused on this core set of
5 servant leadership behaviors and the potential interaction
between the two sub-groups. The different dimensions will
now be explained in more detail.
As mentioned before, humility forms the essential
backbone of the servant leader (Patterson 2003; Russell
2001). As incorporated in the servant leadership construct
of van Dierendonck (2011), humility is translated into three
essential aspects: (1) the ability to put one’s accomplish-
ments and talents in perspective (Patterson 2003), (2)
admitting one’s fallibility and mistakes (Morris et al.
2005), and (3) understanding of one’s strong and weak

points. As such, ‘‘servant leaders acknowledge their limi -
tations and therefore actively seek the contributions of
others in order to overcome those limitations’’ (van
Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011). Morris et al. (2005) sug-
gested that humility ‘‘might be the operating mechanism
through which servant leaders function’’ and that it forms
the essential marker of a leader’s motivation to serve.
Humility is further supported by the leader’s ability of
standing-back (van Dierendonck 2011), which ‘‘is about
the extent to which a leader gives priority to the interest of
others first and gives them the necessary support and
credits… (and) is also about retreating into the background
when a task has successfully been accomplished’’ (van
Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011). Standing-back could be
seen as a synonymous of modesty, which is essentially a
‘‘moderate estimation of one’s merits and achievements’’
(Peterson and Seligman 2004, p. 463). As defended by
several scholars (e.g., Morris et al. 2005; Nielsen et al.

2010; Peterson and Seligman 2004), humility and modesty
are related constructs but differ insofar as humility is
internally focused and modesty externally focused. As
such, humility likely leads to modesty while the reverse
might not always be true. For example, a leader could still
acknowledge and give credit to others (modesty) while
internally believing he or she was in fact the one respon-
sible for success (no authentic humility). For this reason,
we posit that an overall attitude of humble service will be
reflected in both humility and modesty (or standing-back).
Such position is in agreement with the findings of van
Dierendonck (2011) where these measurement variables
were combined into one overarching conceptual dimen-
sion. In summary, we suggest that humility and standing-
back are closely related dimensions underpinning the moral
concern for others above the self, forming this way the
fundamental foundation of the servant-first leader (the
humble side).

The other 3 dimensions of servant leadership used in this
study can be combined into a second overarching dimen-
sion of action. Starting with empowerment, this construct
has many similarities with the notion of empowering
leadership (Pearce and Sims 2002) and is essentially about
encouraging autonomous decision making, sharing infor-
mation, and the coaching and mentoring of individuals for
increased innovative performance (Konczak et al. 2000).
Accountability allows the servant leader to provide direc-
tion while considering the specific capabilities of people, as
well as their particular needs and possible areas of contri -
bution. In the end, accountability makes sure that people
feel responsible for their results. This particular aspect is
essential as a control mechanism for both performance
management and learning. From all different servant
leadership measures we identified, SLS is the only one that
incorporates this essential control or feedback mechanism
(van Dierendonck 2011). Finally, stewardship is a dimen-

sion that ensures that the common interest and the good of
the whole are taken in account, while establishing a com-
prehensive framework for providing meaning to work and
ensuring consistent action. In SLS, stewardship is the
dimension that comes closer to the notion of vision or long-
term orientation, which is essential in servant leadership
Humility, Action, and Hierarchical… 15
123
(Dennis and Bocarnea 2005). One can already notice how
these three servant leadership dimensions distinguish
themselves from humility and standing-back in their
action-oriented focus, as they all reflect behaviors that
actively stimulate both individual and organizational per -
formance while ensuring congruent direction. While
humility and standing-back almost imply a detachment
from action, these three highlight the servant leader’s need
to ensure pro-active involvement in setting course and

facilitating others in their tasks. In light of this, we suggest
that the three core dimensions of empowerment, steward-
ship, and accountability form the action-oriented side of
the servant leader (the action side).
In summary, we suggest that the core set of five servant
leadership dimensions as suggested by Asag-gau and Van
Dierendonck (2011) can be split into a humble service-
oriented side, based on the dimensions of humility and
standing-back, and an action side captured in the constructs
of empowerment, stewardship, and accountability.
The Relation Between Servant Leadership
and Engagement
Engagement is considered as the antithesis of burnout
(Maslach et al. 2001). Schaufeli et al. (2006) characterize
engaged employees as demonstrating behaviors of energy
and connection to their work, while being able to deal well
with the demands of their jobs. Schaufeli et al. (2006)
further split engagement into three main components:

vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is shown by the
energy and resilience demonstrated by workers and by their
willingness and persistence in face of difficulties (Schaufeli
et al. 2006). Dedication is explained by Schaufeli et al.
(2006) as those behaviors that demonstrate a ‘‘sense of
significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge’’
in work. Finally, Schaufeli et al. (2006) advance that ab-
sorption is reflected in the involvement shown in work,
which can be characterized by a loss of a sense of time and
an unwillingness to stop when working.
In recent years, several scholars have been able to
empirically demonstrate the importance of engagement in
generating organizational commitment (Hakanen et al.
2006) and work performance (Bakker and Bal 2010;
Xanthopoulou et al. 2009). Other studies, more focused on
aspects of personal well-being, have shown how engage-
ment can contribute toward higher levels of psychological
soundness (Demerouti et al. 2001; Schaufeli and Bakker

2004; Schaufeli et al. 2008; Xanthopoulou et al. 2009).
When looking at the antecedents of engagement, Bakker
and Demerouti (2007) advanced two key individual aspects
that positively contribute to engagement: first, through the
available job resources reflected in aspects like
organizational support, management feedback or the level
of autonomy, among others, and secondly through personal
resources such as resilience, self-efficacy or optimism. At
the same time, Bakker and Demerouti (2007) suggest that
engagement will be negatively influenced by the level of
job demands, including aspects like work pressure and the
emotional, mental, and physical demands of the work at
hand.
When looking at the antecedents presented before, one
can see servant leadership as potentially playing an
important role in creating the conditions for engagement to
flourish in organizations. Servant leadership is oriented to
the followers’ needs and development (van Dierendonck

2011) through pro-active individual support and the cre-
ation of a work environment that fosters personal growth.
This communicates to followers that the organization, in the
person of the leader, cares about them and stimulates their
development through their own work. For the servant lea-
der, work is an instrument of personal growth and realiza-
tion through which the organization fulfills both its business
and social mission. In essence, servant leaders have a
‘‘other’’ focus as opposed to a ‘‘self’’ focus (Morris et al.
2005), which is reflected on serving both the employees of
the organization and its external stakeholders. Such a
serving and empowering attitude can be inductive of
engagement as demonstrated in different empirical studies.
For instance, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) argued that a
social supportive work environment reduces job demands,
helps in achieving work goals, and stimulates personal
growth, learning, and development which are all part of
servant leadership. In an extensive study to validate their

new measure of servant leadership, van Dierendonck and
Nuijten (2011) found supporting evidence for the potential
impact of servant leadership on workforce engagement. In
other empirical studies, aspects closely related to servant
leadership like humility (Owens et al. 2013) and empow -
erment (Tuckey et al. 2012) were also found to be strongly
related to engagement. We therefore suggest that both the
action side and the humble side of the servant leader as
advanced before will be positively related to engagement,
which constitutes our first hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 Both the action side and the humble side of
servant leadership will have a significant impact on the
overall level of work engagement among followers.
The Amplifying Effect of Attributed Humility
on Leadership Effectiveness
The etymological origin of humility is based on the Latin
word humilis (on the ground) which is derived from the
word humus (earth) (Online Etymology Dictionary 2010).

123
In this sense, one can say that humility literally brings
someone down to earth. In accordance, humility was
qualified by Park and Peterson (2003) as a temperance
virtue that grounds and stabilizes one’s self-perception.
Grenberg (2005) further suggests that humility is a sort of
meta-virtue sustaining other virtues like forgiveness,
courage, wisdom, and compassion, while Morris et al.
(2005) define humility ‘‘as a personal orientation founded
on a willingness to see the self accurately and a propensity
to put oneself in perspective.’’
The importance of humility for leaders was captured by
scholars like van Dierendonck and Patterson (2015),
Morris et al. (2005), Nielsen et al. (2010), and Snyder
(2010). In particular, humility seems to be essential in
keeping the leader’s achievements and strengths in per-
spective, while focusing more on others than on self-in-

terest (Morris et al. 2005; Fairholm and Fairholm 2000;
Sandage and Wiens 2001), which is congruent with the
tempering effect suggested by Park and Peterson (2003)
and Morris et al. (2005). In addition, van Dierendonck and
Patterson (2015) propose that the virtuous attitude of ser -
vant leaders, based on humility, gratitude, forgiveness, and
altruism, will give rise to other behaviors like empower-
ment, stewardship or providing direction.
Owens and Hekman (2012) propose that the leader’s
humility can be split essentially around ‘‘three categories:
(1) acknowledging personal limits, (2) spotlighting fol -
lowers’ strengths and contributions, and (3) modeling
teachability.’’ In a later study, these three categories have
been captured in a quantitative instrument of leader
expressed humility, which was shown to correlate with
aspects like job engagement, job satisfaction, and team
learning goal orientation (Owens et al. 2013). One can
observe that these three aspects suggested by Owens and

Hekman (2012) coincide in many ways with the combined
notions of humility and standing-back presented before
(underpinning the humble service side). As suggested by
van Dierendonck (2011), these two dimensions are reflec-
ted in putting one’s accomplishments and talents in per-
spective, admitting one’s errors, understanding own
strengths and weaknesses, and valorizing the strengths and
achievements of others. Based on an empirical qualitative
study, Owens and Hekman (2012) further propose that a
leader’s humble behaviors can have two main outcomes:
(1) at the individual level, it can increase the sense of
personal freedom and engagement among followers by
legitimizing their developmental journey, and (2) at the
organizational level, it increases the fluidity of the orga-
nization by legitimizing uncertainty. This emphasizes that
the leader’s humility can affect performance both by
improving the quality of the leader–follower relationship
(individual level) and through the creation of a learning and

adaptive organization (systemic level). Based on these
conceptualizations and empirical findings, it seems that
humility operates on the leader’s effectiveness at multiple
levels, but its specific mechanisms still seem somehow
unclear, both in terms of the internal psychological pro-
cesses of the leader and in terms of the psychological effect
that perceived humility can create in the follower. The
work of Nielsen et al. (2010) might provide some inter-
esting clues into this.
Taking a socialized charismatic leadership model,
Nielsen et al. (2010) conceptualize that humility can sup-
port a leader’s effectiveness from two perspectives. First of
all, it can improve the ability of leaders to generate,
implement, and communicate their vision. From this angle,
humility is seen as an internal and personal character trait
(Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez 2004) that will help the leader
incorporate the followers’ viewpoints, self-concepts, and
needs while keeping the leader grounded, hereby improv-

ing the quality of the leader’s aforementioned visioning
behaviors (Nielsen et al. 2010). Secondly, the follower
attributions of the leader’s humility (i.e., being perceived
as humble) will function as a ‘‘critical moderator, either
strengthening or weakening the relationship between’’
these visioning behaviors and diverse follower outcomes,
including motivation and willingness to sacrifice (Nielsen
et al. 2010). Such amplification effect of the attribution of
humility is essentially driven by an increased perception of
trustworthiness, honesty, confidence, and competence,
inducing greater ‘‘loyalty and trust in the leader, which will
in turn inspire greater willingness and commitment to
following the leader’s vision’’ (Nielsen et al. 2010). Here, it
is not so much about the actual humility of the leader but
instead the perceived humility as seen by the followers, and
how it enlarges the feeling of trust toward the leader. It is
important to note that while Nielsen et al. (2010) incor-
porate these direct and indirect effects of leader humility

and follower attributed leader humility within the model of
socialized charismatic leadership, they contend that similar
assertions could be made for servant leadership.
Measuring actual humility is quite hard. Comte-Spon-
ville (2001) and Richards (1992) remind us that humble
people will most likely not call themselves humble, so self-
assessments will always be poor indicators of humility.
While one could operationalize actual humility as the gap
between self and other evaluations (Rowatt et al. 2002),
this was beyond the scope of our study and we concen-
trated instead on the assessment of perceived humility and
the close companion of standing-back (or modesty) as seen
by the followers, which amounts to the notion of attribu-
tions of humility as suggested by Nielsen et al. (2010).
Based on these considerations, we suggest that the humble
service side of servant leaders (as perceived by followers)
can work as catalyst of their action side by improving the
relationship of trust with followers. This interaction

123
between the humble side and the action side of servant
leadership and the impact on the motivational construct of
engagement form the second hypothesis of this study:
Hypothesis 2 The humble service side of servant lead-
ership (as perceived by followers) will work as moderating
variable by amplifying the effect of the action side on work
engagement among followers.
Hierarchical Power as a Contingency Factor
Power and leadership are strongly interrelated, which are
evident in the different definitions given for these two
concepts. For example, Stoner and Freeman (1985) define
power essentially as the capacity to influence and shape the
behaviors and attitudes of individuals and groups. On the
other hand, Yukl (2006, p. 8) defines leadership as ‘‘the

process of influencing others to understand and agree about
what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of
facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish
shared objectives’’. Both definitions share that influence is
the essential defining element of both constructs. From a
systemic point of view however, the difference seems to
rely on the fact that power is seen as a potential to influence
(a relatively stable measure of potency), while leadership
seems to be more associated with the process and dynamics
to exercise that influence (the behaviors that are conductive
of exercising that influencing power). One’s level of power
will influence one’s ability to lead and of course, effective
leadership will increase one’s power or potential to influ-
ence, in a positive and reinforcing feedback loop.
French and Raven (1959) advanced that power can have
5 bases or sources. These evolved later to 6 bases (Raven
1965), namely coercion (the ability to influence based on
the possibility of punishment or penalty), reward (the

power to compensate for achieving certain targets), legiti -
macy (power based on a certain recognized right to influ-
ence, like, for example, a job title), expertise (based on the
perception about one’s level of knowledge and skills for a
certain job), reference (power that stems from a strong
sense of identification and admiration), and information
(essentially the capacity to communicate either through
logical or emotional reasoning, eloquence, or charisma).
The stronger these bases, the more the power one pos-
sesses. We theorize that the moderating role of follower
attributions of leader humility will be more salient for
leaders with stronger power bases. In other words, the more
power the leader possesses, the more followers will value
his or her humility, hence increasing their motivation to
follow. This, we posit, emerges from two aspects. First,
humility will be seen as a good and positive trait, once
power is legitimate and recognized, as it testifies that the
leader is working beyond self-interest and focusing on

others. Secondly, under the same conditions of legitimate
and recognized power, humility will create a sense of
closeness and proximity whereby the leader becomes ‘‘one
of us.’’ In other words, there is an aspirational element
where the follower becomes one with the leader through
his or her humility.
Some scholars seem to refer to similar effects, albeit in
different terms. For example, when elaborating on the
positive impact of humility on the leader’s effectiveness,
Owens and Hekman (2012) advance possible contingency
factors that might condition this impact. One of these
factors is the level of perceived competence, which is
similar to French and Raven’s (1959) expert power, felt by
followers with regard to the leader. Based on several
interviews conducted in a qualitative study, it becomes
apparent that humility is only effective when followers
recognize that the leader is competent and able (Ow ens and
Hekman 2012). In addition, for leaders in higher ranks

(CEOs and executives), ‘‘competence… would be less
likely to be called into question than would be likely in the
case of a lower-level leader’’ (Owens and Hekman 2012).
This essentially could mean, as we suggested earlier, that
the amplifying effect of humility will be stronger for
leaders in upper ranks with more power and implicitly
more competent.
A similar possibility seems to be implicit in Collins’
(2001) leadership model, which is based on 5 levels. Level
1 is called the ‘‘Highly Capable Individual,’’ essentially
based on a contribution through talent, knowledge, skills,
and good work habits. Level 2 further adds the ability of
the individual to contribute toward team objectives and to
work effectively with team members. This level is called
the ‘‘Contributing Team Member.’’ At level 3, there is a
stronger component of management of both people and
resources toward the organization’s objectives. Collins
(2001) calls this the ‘‘Competent Manager.’’ Level 4, the
‘‘Effective Leader,’’ adds the ability of the leader to gen-

erate commitment toward a compelling vision and high-
performance standards. Finally, at level 5, the ‘‘Executive’’
is able to endure greatness through what Collins (2001)
calls a paradoxical mix between a strong professional will
and humility. While such levels do not necessarily have to
correspond to positions of power in the organization, they
seem to provide a natural ranking as people move from
professionals and team members to middle, senior, and
executive management positions, with humility gaining
relevance at the highest level to explain their effectiveness.
This could mean again that humility will be most salient
for leaders in higher positions of power.
Our third hypothesis captures this potential indirect
effect of hierarchical power, moderating the effect of
humility on leadership effectiveness, as formulated below.
123

Hypothesis 3 The higher the hierarchical power position
of the leader, the stronger will be the amplifying effect of
the humble side of servant leadership on the relation
between the action side and engagement among followers.
Methods
Subjects
Participants were employees from a varied range of orga-
nizations in Portugal from different sectors. A total of 236
people answered the survey in different hierarchical posi -
tions. 56.3 % of the sample was male and 43.7 % female.
44.1 % of respondents were between 35- and 44-year old,
31.9 % between 25 and 34, 16.4 % between 45 and 54,
5.9 % higher than 55 and 1.7 % below 25-year old. In
terms of their distribution in hierarchical ranking, 2.9 %
were at board level, 34.0 % at director level, 24.0 % at
senior management level, 11.8 % at junior management
level, 20.6 % at intermediate non-managerial level, and
another 2.9 % as junior professionals. 2 respondents

answered as being freelancers and 2 others as unemployed.
In order to ensure that all participants were currently i n a
stable job and reporting to a direct manager, these 4 per -
sons were taken out of the sample, giving a sample size of
232 persons. In terms of size of the organizational they
worked in, the sample was quite fairly distributed, with
29.4 % of respondents being from organizations bigger
than 1000 people, 24.0 % between 250 and 999, 21.4 %
between 50 and 249, 16.8 % between 10 and 49, and 8.4 %
below 10 people.
Measures
Servant Leadership
All participants reported on how they perceived the lead-
ership behaviors of their direct manager through items
taken from the Servant Leadership Survey developed by
van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011). A 7-point Likert
scale was used ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7
(completely agree). In order to further attest the quality of

our model splitting the humble and action sides, discrimi -
nant validity of the servant leadership measure was tested
through confirmatory factorial analysis with Mplus 6.1
(Muthén and Muthén 2009). Three models were tested:
(i) a one-dimensional model with all items loading on a
single servant leadership variable; (ii) a 5-dimensional
model with a second-order servant leadership variable; and
(iii) a 5-dimensional model with two second-order vari-
ables capturing humility and standing-back (SLHUMBLE)
and empowerment, accountability, and stewardship
(SLACTION). The fit indices for the 5-dimensional model
loading on one second-order servant leadership variable
(V2 = 494.56, df = 184, CFI = .92, TLI = .91,
RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .05) were very similar to the
model with the split between SLACTION and SLHUM-
BLE (V2 = 493.20, df = 183, CFI = .92, TLI = .91,
RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .05). Both showed significantly
better fit indices than the one-dimensional model
(V2 = 811.93, df = 189, CFI = .85, TLI = .83,

RMSEA = .12, SRMR = .06), confirming the discrimi-
nant validity of the multi-dimensional measure used for
this study and the potential split into two underlying
dimensions of an humble service attitude and an action
orientation.
Once the discriminant validity of the measure was tes-
ted, the items related to stewardship (3 items), account-
ability (3 items), and empowerment (7 items) were
composed into the action-side measure of servant leader-
ship (captured in a variable called SLACTION). The
internal consistency of this overall measure was .94 with
the 13 items. On the other hand, the items of humility (5
items) and standing-back (3 items) were composed into one
humble-side dimension of servant leadership (captured in a
variable named SLHUMBLE). The internal consistency of
this measure was .93 with the 8 items. According to
Nunnally (1978) and Kline (1999), a Cronbach alpha of .70
is acceptable for a survey, meaning that the scores for both

SLACTION and SLHUMBLE are very good.
Engagement
The short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
by Schaufeli et al. (2002) was used. The scale includes 9
self-assessment items on vigor, dedication, and absorption.
Ratings were given on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Results
were composed into one single indicator of engagement
(the variable was called ENGAGE) with an overall internal
consistency of .94, which is again a very good score.
Hierarchical Power
Instead of measuring perceived power through a survey,
our approach was instead to assess power through the
hierarchical level of the respondent (and implicitly, their
leader). In this study, our intention was not to dissect the
different aspects of power and their relation to humility but
instead get a first indication of how hierarchy (as a proxy of
organizational power) affects this relationship. This

approach has two other advantages. Firstly, it allowed
reducing the survey size substantially and increases this
way the response rate. Secondly, as the question on hier-
archical level is objective and based on the participant’s
123
actual position, it reduces concerns on common-method
bias, whereby the assessment of perceived power would be
conditioned by the answers given on servant leadership
behavior. In order to determine the hierarchical position in
their organization, participants were asked to classify their
current rank according to 6 possible categories: board level
(1), director level (2), senior management level (3), junior
management level (4), intermediate non-managerial level
(5), and junior professional (6). Logically, it follows that
the participant’s leader is either at the same level or a level
above. For this particular study, it was critical to ensure

that the sample included people currently employed such
that their relative position in the hierarchical rank could be
determined. 4 participants responded ‘‘other’’ but did pro-
vide a detailed job title which allowed re-classifying them
according to the 6 categories. The hierarchical position, as
a proxy of organizational power, was captured in a variable
called RANK.
Results
The Regression Models
In order to validate the three hypotheses advanced before,
three analytical steps were conducted based on a multiple
linear regression, a single moderation model, and a model
with two moderators (where the second moderator interacts
with the first moderation) as suggested by Hayes (2013).
Further details and respective results of this study are
provided next.
Table 1 shows the mean values, standard deviations, and
intercorrelations of the variables of the study. As men-

tioned before, in order to validate the three hypotheses
advanced before, three regression analytical steps were
conducted. In order to test the first hypotheses, a multiple
linear regression analysis was done, with SLACTION,
SLHUMBLE, and RANK as independent variables and
ENGAGE as dependent variable. For the second hypothe-
ses, a bootstrapping technique was used in SPSS using
model 1 of the PROCESS script as provided by Hayes
(2013). This single moderation model incorporated
SLACTION as an independent variable, SLHUMBLE as
moderating variable, ENGAGE as a dependent variable,
and RANK as a covariate. This model allowed interpreting
the conditional effect of the two-way interaction between
SLACTION and SLHUMBLE. Finally, in order to test the
third hypotheses, the same bootstrapping technique was
used in SPSS but using model 3 of the PROCESS script as
provided by Hayes (2013). This model was tested by
having SLACTION as an independent variable, SLHUM-

BLE as primary moderating variable, RANK as a sec-
ondary moderating variable (interacting with
SLHUMBLE), and ENGAGE as dependent variable
(Fig. 1). This allowed observing the conditional effect of
the three-way interaction between SLACTION, SLHUM-
BLE, and RANK. We will now present the results of these
three analytical steps.
Results of the Three Analytical Steps
Table 2 shows the results for the different steps, including
the coefficients and the statistical significance of the two-
way and three-way interactions.
As can be seen in Table 2, when considering SLAC-
TION (b = .286, se = .091, p .01), SLHUMBLE
(b = .184, se = .080, p .05), and RANK (b = -.214,
se = .044, p .01) as independent variables in a multiple
linear regression, the model accounts for 38.45 % of the
variance on engagement. Step 2 adds the two-way inter-
action between SLACTION and SLHUMBLE in a single
moderation, which is statistically not significant

(b = -.015, se = .033, p = .653), leaving the overall R
2
practically unchanged when compared to the previous step.
With step 3, we incorporated the three-way interaction
between SLACTION, SLHUMBLE, and RANK. This
three-way interaction was found to be statistically signifi-
cant (b = -.061, se = .025, p .05), with a 95 % confi-
dence interval between -.11 and -.012, meaning that we
are at least 95 % certain that the interaction coefficient is
not zero. This three-way interaction accounts for an addi-
tional 1.61 % of the variance of the model (incremental
R
2
), with a total R
2
of .405.
The diagram on Fig. 2 allows observing the effect of the
three-way interaction on the impact of the action side of
servant leadership on engagement for different hierarchical
ranks (high, medium, and low). The first observation is that
humility seems to have always a positive impact on

engagement regardless of the hierarchical position of the
leader. In addition, for higher ranks, the humble side will
increase significantly the effect of the action side on
engagement. Finally, for lower ranks, less humble leaders
seem to be able to compensate for this by having a strong
action-oriented leadership. As for medium ranks, although
it is evident that the humble side positively affects
Table 1 Descriptives and intercorrelations of study variables
Mean SD 1 2 3
SLACTION 4.98 1.20
SLHUMBLE 4.17 1.37 .85**
ENGAGE 5.41 1.10 .55** .54**
RANK 3.25 1.31 -.17** -.16* -.35**
n = 232. RANK is in reversed order (lower numbers = higher
ranks)
* p .05, ** p .01
123

engagement, it does not change the nature of the relation
between the action side and this motivational construct.
When probing the interaction for different moderator
values (see Table 3), one can observe that the conditional
effect of the action side is significant for most points (re-
sults were mean centered to ease interpretation). The
changes in the conditional effects clearly show how the
three-way interaction affects the relationship between the
action side and engagement, as explained above. Using the
Johnson-Neyman technique (Bauer and Curran, 2005), the
significance region for the three-way interaction is given
for mean-centered values of SLHUMBLE below -2.141
(high ranks) and above 1.497 (low ranks), which is con-
sistent with the previous analysis.
Discussion
This study provides two important contributions. First of
all, it contributes to a better understanding of servant

Developing the Leader-Follower Relationship Perception

Developing the Leader-Follower Relationship Perception

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Developing the Leader-Follower Relationship Perception

Similar to Developing the Leader-Follower Relationship Perception (20)

More from LinaCovington707

More from LinaCovington707 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Developing the Leader-Follower Relationship Perception