SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 32
Mid-Candidature Review 11/05/2011




      The relationship between servant leadership
                  and job satisfaction:
              The moderating roles of the
 decision making process and organisational structure.

                             Nathan Eva
                    Supervisors: Dr. Sen Sendjaya
                                Dr. Daniel Prajogo


www.monash.edu.au
Servant Leadership and
Job Satisfaction

• There is a clear link between servant leadership and
  employee job satisfaction.
    –   (Cerit, 2009; Jaramilo et al., 2009)

• Literature has largely ignored the black box between
  leadership and job satisfaction.
    –   (Griffith, 2004; Laub, 1999; Miears, 2004)

• Empowered employees are more satisfied with their
  employment.
    –   (Jiang, Li-Yun & Law, 2011; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000)

• Empowerment is drawn from three distinct areas:
    – Leadership;
    – Motivational; and
    – Structural.
    –   (Menon, 2001; Tymon, 1988)

                                                            www.monash.edu.au
                                                                            2
Decision Making Process and
 Job Satisfaction

• Drawing upon the Upper Echelon theory, leaders choose
  their own decision making style.
    –   (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hambrick, 2007)

• Two contrasting styles of decision making: Involved and
  Dominant.
    –   (Black & Gregersen, 1997)

• Leaders who are more involved in the decision making
  process can better engage their employees.
    –   (Castaneda & Nahavandi, 1991; Kezar, 2001; Weisbord, 2004; Williams, 1998)

• Employees who feel engaged have higher levels of job
  satisfaction as well as lifting their performance.
    –   (Gardell, 1977; Kearney & Hays, 1994; Parnell & Menefee, 1995)




                                                                                     www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                     3
Decision Making Process:
Involvement and Dominance

Hypothesis 1: The level of leader involvement in the decision making process
   positively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and job
   satisfaction whereby the more a servant leader is involved in the decision
   making process, the higher levels of elicited employee job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: The level of leader dominance in the decision making process
   negatively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and job
   satisfaction whereby the more a servant leader is dominant in the decision
   making process, the lower levels of elicited employee job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job
   satisfaction will be moderated by both involvement and dominance such that
   the positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will
   be stronger when involvement is high and dominance is low.



                                                                       www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                       4
Organisational Structure and
Job Satisfaction

• Structural variables of Formalisation and Centralisation.
    –   (Provan & Skinner, 1989)

• High levels of formalisation and centralisation have
  constantly been proven to reduce job satisfaction
  amongst employees.
    –   (Aiken & Hage, 1966; Lambert et al., 2006; Pool, 1997; Walter & Bruch, 2010)

• As a servant leader’s greatest strength is their
  interactions with their employees, the higher levels of
  structure in an organisation will lower the impact servant
  leadership has on employees and therefore their job
  satisfaction.
    –   (Andersen, 2009; Cunningham, 2004; Wright & Pandey, 2010)




                                                                                       www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                       5
Organisational Structure:
Formalisation and Centralisation

Hypothesis 4: The level of organisation formalisation negatively moderates the
   relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the
   more formalised the organisation the lower levels of elicited employee job
   satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5: The level of organisation centralisation negatively moderates the
   relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the
   more centralisation the organisation the lower levels of elicited employee job
   satisfaction.

Hypothesis 6: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job
   satisfaction will be moderated by both formalisation and centralisation such
   that the positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction
   will be stronger when formalisation and centralisation are low.



                                                                       www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                       6
DMP, Organisational Structure
and Job Satisfaction

• Combines the leadership, motivational and structural
  approaches to empowerment.
    –   (Menon, 2001; Tymon, 1988)

• Having low levels of formalisation in an organisation can
  increase leader involvement in the DMP as employees
  look to the leader, not to the manual to make decisions.
    –   (Howell & Dorfman, 1981; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Wright & Pandey, 2010)

• Higher levels of centralisation in an organisation leads to
  a lack of flexibility, thus leaders will tend to make the
  decisions independently creating institutionalised
  dominance thus decreasing job satisfaction.
    –   (Black & Gregersen, 1997; Davis et al., 2009;)




                                                                                 www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                 7
Decision Making Process and
Organisational Structure

Hypothesis 7: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job
   satisfaction will be moderated by both involvement and formalisation such
   that the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be
   strongest when involvement is high and formalisation is low.

Hypothesis 8: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job
   satisfaction will be negatively moderated by both dominance and
   centralisation such that the relationship between servant leadership and job
   satisfaction will be weakest when dominance and centralisation are high.




                                                                       www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                       8
Methodology

• There have been reservations in behavioural research of
  using a solitary data collection method.
    –   (Brutus & Duniewicz, 2012; Dial, 2006; Yukl, 1989)

• Therefore, this study will draw upon both experiments
  and surveys.
    –   (Van Ginkel & Van Knippenberg, 2012; Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005)

• Experiments were used to draw causal conclusions
  before the organisational survey was undertaken.
    –   (Rus et al., 2010)

• Further bolsters confidence in the findings.
    –   (Denzin, 1989; Rus, et al., 2012)




                                                                                  www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                  9
Study 1 – Experiment

• 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design.
    –   (Charness, Gneezy & Kuhn, 2012)

• 16 differing vignette case studies.
• Pilot studies confirmed the manipulations.
• Sample yielded 975 respondents which exceeds the
  minimum of 40 per cell.
    –   (Myers and Hansen, 2011)

• Post hoc analysis of the power exceeds 0.80 threshold.
    –   (Tharenou et al., 2007)




                                                  www.monash.edu.au
                                                                 10
Study 2 – Organisational Survey

• Sample comprised of middle managers who rated the
  leadership and decision making style of their
  CEO/GM/MD.
• Further, the respondents rated their job satisfaction and
  the level of organisational structure within their
  organisation.
• 1,500 questionnaires were mailed out.
• 336 questionnaires were returned (22.4%), well above the
  200-250 recommended.
    –   (Hair et al., 2010; Maxwell, 2000)




                                                   www.monash.edu.au
                                                                  11
Decision Making Process – Study 1

                                          H1 & 2                                                                       H3
                                                                                                3.8
                   3.6
                                                                                                                              High Dominance
                                                               Involvement
                                                                                                                              Low Dominance
                                                               Dominance
                                                                                                3.6




                                                                             Job Satisfaction
                   3.4
Job Satisfaction




                                                                                                3.4


                   3.2
                                                                                                3.2



                                                                                                 3
                    3
                                                                                                             High                  Low
                                  High                   Low
                                                                                                                    Involvement
                                          Level of DMP


                         Decision                                                                                           Dominance
                         Making Process       High             Low                                    Involvement        High       Low
                         Involvement          3.47             3.23                                   High               3.32       3.63
                         Dominance            3.29             3.42                                   Low                3.25       3.21


                                                                                                                                  www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                                                 12
Decision Making Process – Study 2

                                          5
                                                                           low Involvement
                                                                           high Involvement

                                         4.5
                      Job Saitsfaction




                                          4




                                         3.5




                                          3
                                               low                        high

                                                     Servant Leadership

                                                           H1

(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008)


                                                                                              www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                             13
Organisational Structure – Study 1

                                           H4 & 5                                                                      H6
                                                                                         3.8
                   3.6
                                                                                                       High Formalisation
                                Formalisation
                                                                                                       Low Formalisation
                                Centralisation                                           3.6




                                                                      Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction




                   3.4
                                                                                         3.4


                                                                                         3.2
                   3.2
                                                                                          3


                                                                                         2.8
                    3
                                                                                                         High                    Low
                                  High                   Low
                                                                                                                Centralisation
                                    Organisational Structure


                         Organisational                                                                                Formalisation
                         Structure               High          Low                             Centralisation        High          Low
                         Formalisation           3.26          3.44                            High                  3.05         3.22
                         Centralisation          3.13          3.58                            Low                   3.48         3.68


                                                                                                                             www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                                            14
Organisational Structure – Study 2

                                       5


                                                                              (1) Low Form
                                                                              Low Cent
                                      4.5

                                                                              (2) High Form
                   Job Satisfaction




                                                                              Low Cent
                                       4
                                                                              (3) Low Form
                                                                              High Cent

                                      3.5
                                                                              (4) High Form
                                                                              High Cent


                                       3
                                            Low                        High
                                                  Servant Leadership
                                                       H6
(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008)


                                                                                 www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                15
DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 1

                            H7                                                 H8
 3.8                                                    3.8
                                   High Formalisation                                     High Centralisation
                                   Low Formalisation                                      Low Centralisation
 3.6                                                    3.6


 3.4
                                                        3.4

 3.2
                                                        3.2

  3
                                                         3

 2.8
                High                     Low            2.8
          Leader Involvement in the Decision Making                   High                       Low
                                                                  Leader Dominance in the Decision Making
                          Process
                                                                                 Process
                              Formalisation                                        Centralisation
       Involvement          High          Low                 Dominance          High           Low
       High                 3.38          3.57                High               3.00          3.58
       Low                  3.15          3.32                Low                3.27          3.35


                                                                                         www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                16
DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 2

                                       5


                                                                              (1) Low Inv
                                                                              Low Form
                                      4.5

                                                                              (2) High Inv
                   Job Satisfaction




                                                                              Low Form
                                       4
                                                                              (3) Low Inv
                                                                              High Form

                                      3.5
                                                                              (4) High Inv
                                                                              High Form


                                       3
                                            Low                        High
                                                  Servant Leadership

                                                         H7

(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008)


                                                                                www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                               17
DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 2

                                       5
                                                                              (1) Low Dom
                                                                              Low Cent
                                      4.5

                                                                              (2) High Dom
                   Job Satisfaction




                                       4                                      Low Cent


                                                                              (3) Low Dom
                                      3.5                                     High Cent


                                       3                                      (4) High Dom
                                                                              High Cent


                                      2.5
                                            Low                        High
                                                  Servant Leadership

                                                         H8

(Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008)


                                                                                 www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                18
Preliminary Discussion

• First and foremost it reiterates the strong relationship
  servant leadership has with job satisfaction.
• Creates context for the servant leader job satisfaction
  relationship.
• High levels of involvement in the decision making
  process strengthen the relationship between servant
  leadership and job satisfaction.
• Low levels of organisational structure strengthen the
  relationship between servant leadership and job
  satisfaction.



                                                     www.monash.edu.au
                                                                    19
Preliminary Discussion

• Under the condition of high involvement, high levels of
  formalisation was found to positively impact the
  relationship between servant leadership and job
  satisfaction as well as the hypothesised high involvement
  low formalisation interaction.
• The relationship between servant leadership and job
  satisfaction was weakest when dominance and
  centralisation were low not when they were high as
  hypothesised.
• However, the servant leadership job satisfaction
  relationship was strongest when dominance was low and
  centralisation was high.

                                                  www.monash.edu.au
                                                                 20
Timeline
Activity             January   February   March   April   May     June   July   August   September   October    November   December


                                                                2012
Literature Review


General Discussion


Conclusion


Revisions


                                                                2013
Revisions

Submission

Writing of Journal
Articles



                                                                                                               www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                                      21
Thank You

• Questions?

• Suggestions?

• Comments?




                 www.monash.edu.au
                                22
References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting results. Newbury Park, CA.:
      Sage.
Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis. American Sociological
      Review, 31(4), 497-507.
Andersen, J. A. (2009). When a servant-leader comes knocking. Leadership & Organization Development
      Journal, 30(1), 4.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Particpative decision-making: An integration of multiple dimensions.
      Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878.
Brutus, S., & Duniewicz, K. (2012). The many heels of achilles: An analysis of self-reported limitations in
      leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 202-212.
Castaneda, M., & Nahavandi, A. (1991). Link of manager behavior to supervisor performance rating and
      subordinate satisfaction. Group & Organization Studies, 16(4), 357.
Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers' job
      satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject
      design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1-8.
Cunningham, R. (2004). Servant leadership - an introduction. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 2.
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the
      strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413-452.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression:
      Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926.

                                                                                             www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                23
References

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.).
      Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Dial, D. (2006). Students' perceptions of leadership and the ways in which leadership influences the
      development of student leaders. Master's thesis, Louisiana State University.
Gardell, B. (1977). Autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 30(6), 515-533.
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff
      turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper
      Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334-
      343.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top
      managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (1981). Substitutes for leadership: A test of a construct. Academy of
      Management Journal, 24(4), 714-728.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the impact of servant
      leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 257-
      275.
Jiang, J. Y., Li-Yun, S., & Law, K. S. (2011). Job satisfaction and organization structure as moderators of the
      effects of empowerment on organizational citizenship behaviour: A self-consistency and social
      exchange perspective. International Journal of Management, 28(3), 675-693.

                                                                                               www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                  24
References

Kearney, R. C., & Hays, S. W. (1994). Labor-management relations and participative decision making:
    Toward a new paradigm. Public Administration Review, 54(1), 44-51.
Kezar, A. (2001). Investigating organizational fit in a participatory leadership environment. Journal of Higher
    Education Policy & Management, 23(1), 85-101.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Allen, R. (2006). Correlates of correctional officer job stress: The impact of
    organizational structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 227-246.
Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organisation: Development of the servant organizational leadership
    assessment (sola) instrument. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
    Raton, FL.
Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 434-458.
Mayer, B. W., Dale, K., & Fox, M. L. (2011). Processes for developing simulation self-esteem. Business
    Education Innovation Journal, 3(1), 65-76.
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology:
    An International Review, 50(1), 153-180.
Miears, L. D. (2004). Servant-leadership and job satisfaction: A correlational study in Texas education
    agency region x public schools. Ed.D. 3148083, Texas A&M University - Commerce, United States --
    Texas.
Moyes, G. D., & Redd, T. C. (2008). Empirical analysis of factors influencing the level of job satisfaction of
    Caucasian and Hispanic accounting professionals. International Business & Economics Research
    Journal 7(10), 21-42.
Myers, A., & Hansen, C. H. (2011). Experimental psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

                                                                                                www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                  25
References

Parnell, J. A., & Menefee, M. (1995). The business strategy-employee involvement contingency: The impact
     of strategy-participation fit on performance. American Business Review, 13(2), 90.
Pool, S. W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership behavior,
     and work motivation. Journal of Psychology, 131, 271-283.
Provan, K. G., & Skinner, S. J. (1989). Interorganizational dependence and control as predictors of
     opportunism in dealer-supplier relations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 202-212.
Rus, D., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader self-definition and leader self-serving behavior.
     The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 509-529.
Rus, D., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2012). Leader power and self-serving behavior: The moderating
     role of accountability. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 13-26.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in
     organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and
     effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257-283.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management research methods. Port Melbourne, VIC:
     Cambridge University Press.
Tymon, W. G. J. (1988). An empirical investigation of a cognitive model of empowerment. doctoral
     dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
Ugboro, I. O., & Obeng, K. (2000). Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job satisfaction,
     and customer satisfaction in tqm organizations: An empirical study. Journal of Quality Management,
     5(2), 247-272.

                                                                                              www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                26
References

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4),
      1228-1261.
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a
      multidimensional measure. Journal of Business Psychology, 26(3), 249-267.
Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The
      moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25-37.
Van Quaquebeke, N., Van Knippenberg, D., & Eckloff, T. (2011). Individual differences in the leader
      categorization to openness to influence relationship. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5),
      605-622.
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of transformational
      leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 765-
      782.
Weisbord, M. R. (2004). Productive workplaces revisited: Dignity, meaning, and community in the 21st
      century (2 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Williams, T. (1998). Job satisfaction in teams. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(5),
      782-799.
Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Does structure
      matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 75-89.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2),
      251-289.


                                                                                               www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                                  27
Experiment Scales

• Job Satisfaction
     –   (Moyes & Redd, 2008)

•   Age
•   Gender
•   Degree
•   Major
•   Current Year of Study




                                www.monash.edu.au
                                               28
Survey Scales

• Servant Leadership
     –   (Sendjaya et al., 2008)

• Decision Making Process (Involvement/Dominance)
     –   (Mayer et al., 2011)

• Organisational Structure (Formalisation/Centralisation)
     –   (Provan & Skinner, 1989)

• Job Satisfaction
     –   (Moyes & Redd, 2008)

•   Size (number of employees)
•   Tenure under the leader
•   Age
•   Gender

                                                   www.monash.edu.au
                                                                  29
Sample Questions

• Servant Leadership
    – Leads by personal example
• Involvement
    – My CEO participates in most strategic decision making meetings
• Dominance
    – My CEO is reluctant to compromise their decisions with others’
      views.
• Centralisation
    – Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up
      for a final answer
• Formalisation
    – The company has a large number of written rules and policies

                                                           www.monash.edu.au
                                                                          30
Experiment Manipulations

•   Servant Leadership
     –   “Your supervisor constantly listened to your opinions, often going out of her way to
         help you resolve problems, even if it disadvantaged her. Over the journey your
         supervisor has acted as a mentor being very open and honest, helping you through
         different and varied situations.
•   High Involvement Low Dominance
     –   “In these discussions your supervisor was always present and active. From your
         interactions, you noticed that your supervisor listened intently, was well informed of
         all the situations inside and outside of the company.”
•   High Dominance Low Involvement
     –   “…your supervisor empowered your team to run your own meetings; however she
         was quite dominant in every decision. From your interactions, you noticed she
         would only appreciate views that were aligned with her own, always pushed to
         have her decisions implemented and was reluctant to compromise on her position.”




                                                                                 www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                                  31
Experiment Manipulations

•   High Formalisation
     –   “You were handed a rules and procedure manual and were told that every question
         you had about your job could be found in there. Once you looked inside, you found
         a clear job description telling you what you needed to do for each job rotation and
         guidelines to follow if any issue arose.”
•   High Centralisation
     –   “…you were told by one of the workers that “you’ll learn quickly, that in this
         company you can’t use your own discretion – you do what they tell you”. Thinking
         back, you realise that many of the decisions you have made, had to be approved
         by your supervisor...”




                                                                               www.monash.edu.au
                                                                                               32

More Related Content

What's hot

RICHARD J.Y - Barge Admin_CV & Offshore Docs
RICHARD J.Y - Barge Admin_CV & Offshore DocsRICHARD J.Y - Barge Admin_CV & Offshore Docs
RICHARD J.Y - Barge Admin_CV & Offshore Docs
Richard James Yaman
 
recommendation letter - prof. G Sivakumar, H.O.D. cfdvs, IIT BOMBAY
recommendation letter  - prof. G Sivakumar, H.O.D. cfdvs, IIT BOMBAYrecommendation letter  - prof. G Sivakumar, H.O.D. cfdvs, IIT BOMBAY
recommendation letter - prof. G Sivakumar, H.O.D. cfdvs, IIT BOMBAY
ARCHIT GUPTA
 
Recommendation By S.S.O M.K. Singhal IIT Roorkee
Recommendation By S.S.O M.K. Singhal IIT RoorkeeRecommendation By S.S.O M.K. Singhal IIT Roorkee
Recommendation By S.S.O M.K. Singhal IIT Roorkee
Abhishek Jain
 
recommendation_letter_anubhav_pandey_19dec08_bala
recommendation_letter_anubhav_pandey_19dec08_balarecommendation_letter_anubhav_pandey_19dec08_bala
recommendation_letter_anubhav_pandey_19dec08_bala
Anubhav Pandey
 
Letter of Recommendation UT Tyler
Letter of Recommendation UT TylerLetter of Recommendation UT Tyler
Letter of Recommendation UT Tyler
Alec Davidow
 

What's hot (14)

Step by Step CDL-CQI Report at ufuture UiTM
Step by Step CDL-CQI Report at ufuture UiTMStep by Step CDL-CQI Report at ufuture UiTM
Step by Step CDL-CQI Report at ufuture UiTM
 
RICHARD J.Y - Barge Admin_CV & Offshore Docs
RICHARD J.Y - Barge Admin_CV & Offshore DocsRICHARD J.Y - Barge Admin_CV & Offshore Docs
RICHARD J.Y - Barge Admin_CV & Offshore Docs
 
recommendation letter - prof. G Sivakumar, H.O.D. cfdvs, IIT BOMBAY
recommendation letter  - prof. G Sivakumar, H.O.D. cfdvs, IIT BOMBAYrecommendation letter  - prof. G Sivakumar, H.O.D. cfdvs, IIT BOMBAY
recommendation letter - prof. G Sivakumar, H.O.D. cfdvs, IIT BOMBAY
 
Recommendation By S.S.O M.K. Singhal IIT Roorkee
Recommendation By S.S.O M.K. Singhal IIT RoorkeeRecommendation By S.S.O M.K. Singhal IIT Roorkee
Recommendation By S.S.O M.K. Singhal IIT Roorkee
 
LOR CGC
LOR CGCLOR CGC
LOR CGC
 
Ridwan scientific writing1
Ridwan  scientific writing1Ridwan  scientific writing1
Ridwan scientific writing1
 
Ernest CV.pdf
Ernest CV.pdfErnest CV.pdf
Ernest CV.pdf
 
Resume
ResumeResume
Resume
 
recommendation_letter_anubhav_pandey_19dec08_bala
recommendation_letter_anubhav_pandey_19dec08_balarecommendation_letter_anubhav_pandey_19dec08_bala
recommendation_letter_anubhav_pandey_19dec08_bala
 
A Chevening Scholarship Recommendation Letter for Ms.Nchafac Julegette Njutie.
A Chevening Scholarship Recommendation Letter for Ms.Nchafac Julegette Njutie.A Chevening Scholarship Recommendation Letter for Ms.Nchafac Julegette Njutie.
A Chevening Scholarship Recommendation Letter for Ms.Nchafac Julegette Njutie.
 
Letter of Recommendation UT Tyler
Letter of Recommendation UT TylerLetter of Recommendation UT Tyler
Letter of Recommendation UT Tyler
 
Neitzel rec
Neitzel recNeitzel rec
Neitzel rec
 
Abdul Malik Omar cv
Abdul Malik Omar cvAbdul Malik Omar cv
Abdul Malik Omar cv
 
Contoh Resume
Contoh Resume Contoh Resume
Contoh Resume
 

Similar to PhD - Mid Candidature Review

PhD Confirmation
PhD ConfirmationPhD Confirmation
PhD Confirmation
Nathan Eva
 
Aom presentation
Aom presentationAom presentation
Aom presentation
Nathan Eva
 
Ed s turner iii oral defense presentation - 18 feb 10
Ed s  turner iii   oral defense presentation - 18 feb 10Ed s  turner iii   oral defense presentation - 18 feb 10
Ed s turner iii oral defense presentation - 18 feb 10
Dr. Ed S. Turner III
 
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docxRunning Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
glendar3
 
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docxRunning Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
todd581
 
The influence of feedback environment on teaching self efficacy
The influence of feedback environment on teaching self efficacyThe influence of feedback environment on teaching self efficacy
The influence of feedback environment on teaching self efficacy
Universiti Sains Malaysia
 
Lunenburg, fred c[1]. leader member exchange theory ijmba v13 2010
Lunenburg, fred c[1]. leader member exchange theory ijmba v13 2010Lunenburg, fred c[1]. leader member exchange theory ijmba v13 2010
Lunenburg, fred c[1]. leader member exchange theory ijmba v13 2010
William Kritsonis
 
HR Research paper Employee Morale final
HR Research paper Employee Morale finalHR Research paper Employee Morale final
HR Research paper Employee Morale final
Gwen Knight
 

Similar to PhD - Mid Candidature Review (20)

Servant Leadership, Decision Making and Structure
Servant Leadership, Decision Making and StructureServant Leadership, Decision Making and Structure
Servant Leadership, Decision Making and Structure
 
PhD Confirmation
PhD ConfirmationPhD Confirmation
PhD Confirmation
 
Servant Leadership and Structure
Servant Leadership and StructureServant Leadership and Structure
Servant Leadership and Structure
 
Aom presentation
Aom presentationAom presentation
Aom presentation
 
17106734
1710673417106734
17106734
 
Ed s turner iii oral defense presentation - 18 feb 10
Ed s  turner iii   oral defense presentation - 18 feb 10Ed s  turner iii   oral defense presentation - 18 feb 10
Ed s turner iii oral defense presentation - 18 feb 10
 
Bordia et al., (2011). Haunted by the past: Effects of poor change management...
Bordia et al., (2011). Haunted by the past: Effects of poor change management...Bordia et al., (2011). Haunted by the past: Effects of poor change management...
Bordia et al., (2011). Haunted by the past: Effects of poor change management...
 
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docxRunning Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
 
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docxRunning Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
Running Head ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGEORGANIZATIONAL CU.docx
 
LMX Presentation
LMX PresentationLMX Presentation
LMX Presentation
 
The influence of feedback environment on teaching self efficacy
The influence of feedback environment on teaching self efficacyThe influence of feedback environment on teaching self efficacy
The influence of feedback environment on teaching self efficacy
 
Perceived Managerial Leadership Styles, Work Engagement, Organizational Commi...
Perceived Managerial Leadership Styles, Work Engagement, Organizational Commi...Perceived Managerial Leadership Styles, Work Engagement, Organizational Commi...
Perceived Managerial Leadership Styles, Work Engagement, Organizational Commi...
 
Lunenburg, fred c[1]. leader member exchange theory ijmba v13 2010
Lunenburg, fred c[1]. leader member exchange theory ijmba v13 2010Lunenburg, fred c[1]. leader member exchange theory ijmba v13 2010
Lunenburg, fred c[1]. leader member exchange theory ijmba v13 2010
 
HR Research paper Employee Morale final
HR Research paper Employee Morale finalHR Research paper Employee Morale final
HR Research paper Employee Morale final
 
A STUDY ON LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ...
A STUDY ON LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ...A STUDY ON LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ...
A STUDY ON LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ...
 
Sri basaweshwar dhanu
Sri basaweshwar dhanuSri basaweshwar dhanu
Sri basaweshwar dhanu
 
Communication and Collaboration Best Practices for High-Growth, Dispersed Teams
Communication and Collaboration Best Practices for High-Growth, Dispersed TeamsCommunication and Collaboration Best Practices for High-Growth, Dispersed Teams
Communication and Collaboration Best Practices for High-Growth, Dispersed Teams
 
Lmx theory
Lmx theoryLmx theory
Lmx theory
 
LEADERSHIP
LEADERSHIPLEADERSHIP
LEADERSHIP
 
OB U1.pptx
OB U1.pptxOB U1.pptx
OB U1.pptx
 

More from Nathan Eva

Week 12 Managerial Communication
Week 12 Managerial CommunicationWeek 12 Managerial Communication
Week 12 Managerial Communication
Nathan Eva
 
Week 12 Ethics
Week 12 EthicsWeek 12 Ethics
Week 12 Ethics
Nathan Eva
 
Week 12 International Managament
Week 12 International ManagamentWeek 12 International Managament
Week 12 International Managament
Nathan Eva
 
Week 11 ethics
Week 11 ethicsWeek 11 ethics
Week 11 ethics
Nathan Eva
 
Week 11 International Management
Week 11 International ManagementWeek 11 International Management
Week 11 International Management
Nathan Eva
 
Week 11 Managerial Communication
Week 11 Managerial CommunicationWeek 11 Managerial Communication
Week 11 Managerial Communication
Nathan Eva
 
Week 10 Internatinal Management
Week 10 Internatinal ManagementWeek 10 Internatinal Management
Week 10 Internatinal Management
Nathan Eva
 
Week 9 International Management
Week 9 International ManagementWeek 9 International Management
Week 9 International Management
Nathan Eva
 
Week 10 ethics
Week 10 ethicsWeek 10 ethics
Week 10 ethics
Nathan Eva
 
Week 10 Managerial Communication
Week 10 Managerial CommunicationWeek 10 Managerial Communication
Week 10 Managerial Communication
Nathan Eva
 
Week 9 Managerial Communication
Week 9 Managerial CommunicationWeek 9 Managerial Communication
Week 9 Managerial Communication
Nathan Eva
 
Week 8 Managerial Communication
Week 8 Managerial CommunicationWeek 8 Managerial Communication
Week 8 Managerial Communication
Nathan Eva
 
Week 7 Managerial Communication
Week 7 Managerial CommunicationWeek 7 Managerial Communication
Week 7 Managerial Communication
Nathan Eva
 

More from Nathan Eva (20)

Week 12 Managerial Communication
Week 12 Managerial CommunicationWeek 12 Managerial Communication
Week 12 Managerial Communication
 
Week 12 Ethics
Week 12 EthicsWeek 12 Ethics
Week 12 Ethics
 
Week 12 International Managament
Week 12 International ManagamentWeek 12 International Managament
Week 12 International Managament
 
Week 11 ethics
Week 11 ethicsWeek 11 ethics
Week 11 ethics
 
Week 11 International Management
Week 11 International ManagementWeek 11 International Management
Week 11 International Management
 
Week 11 Managerial Communication
Week 11 Managerial CommunicationWeek 11 Managerial Communication
Week 11 Managerial Communication
 
Week 10 Internatinal Management
Week 10 Internatinal ManagementWeek 10 Internatinal Management
Week 10 Internatinal Management
 
Week 9 International Management
Week 9 International ManagementWeek 9 International Management
Week 9 International Management
 
Week 10 ethics
Week 10 ethicsWeek 10 ethics
Week 10 ethics
 
Week 9 ethics
Week 9 ethicsWeek 9 ethics
Week 9 ethics
 
Week 10 Managerial Communication
Week 10 Managerial CommunicationWeek 10 Managerial Communication
Week 10 Managerial Communication
 
Week 9 Managerial Communication
Week 9 Managerial CommunicationWeek 9 Managerial Communication
Week 9 Managerial Communication
 
Week 8 International Management
Week 8 International ManagementWeek 8 International Management
Week 8 International Management
 
Week 8 Managerial Communication
Week 8 Managerial CommunicationWeek 8 Managerial Communication
Week 8 Managerial Communication
 
Assignment 2 Managerial Communication
Assignment 2 Managerial CommunicationAssignment 2 Managerial Communication
Assignment 2 Managerial Communication
 
Week 7 Ethics
Week 7 EthicsWeek 7 Ethics
Week 7 Ethics
 
Week 7 International Management
Week 7 International ManagementWeek 7 International Management
Week 7 International Management
 
Week 6 Ethics
Week 6 EthicsWeek 6 Ethics
Week 6 Ethics
 
Week 7 Managerial Communication
Week 7 Managerial CommunicationWeek 7 Managerial Communication
Week 7 Managerial Communication
 
Managerial Communication Week 6
Managerial Communication Week 6Managerial Communication Week 6
Managerial Communication Week 6
 

Recently uploaded

SPLICE Working Group: Reusable Code Examples
SPLICE Working Group:Reusable Code ExamplesSPLICE Working Group:Reusable Code Examples
SPLICE Working Group: Reusable Code Examples
Peter Brusilovsky
 
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes GuàrdiaPersonalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
EADTU
 
Spellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPS
Spellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPSSpellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPS
Spellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPS
AnaAcapella
 
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MysoreMuleSoftMeetup
 

Recently uploaded (20)

TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
 
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...
 
OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...
OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...
OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...
 
SPLICE Working Group: Reusable Code Examples
SPLICE Working Group:Reusable Code ExamplesSPLICE Working Group:Reusable Code Examples
SPLICE Working Group: Reusable Code Examples
 
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDF
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDFThe Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDF
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDF
 
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUM
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUMDEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUM
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUM
 
Spring gala 2024 photo slideshow - Celebrating School-Community Partnerships
Spring gala 2024 photo slideshow - Celebrating School-Community PartnershipsSpring gala 2024 photo slideshow - Celebrating School-Community Partnerships
Spring gala 2024 photo slideshow - Celebrating School-Community Partnerships
 
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & SystemsOSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems
 
ESSENTIAL of (CS/IT/IS) class 07 (Networks)
ESSENTIAL of (CS/IT/IS) class 07 (Networks)ESSENTIAL of (CS/IT/IS) class 07 (Networks)
ESSENTIAL of (CS/IT/IS) class 07 (Networks)
 
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdfRich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf
 
How to Manage Website in Odoo 17 Studio App.pptx
How to Manage Website in Odoo 17 Studio App.pptxHow to Manage Website in Odoo 17 Studio App.pptx
How to Manage Website in Odoo 17 Studio App.pptx
 
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategiesMajor project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
 
When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
 
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes GuàrdiaPersonalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
 
Including Mental Health Support in Project Delivery, 14 May.pdf
Including Mental Health Support in Project Delivery, 14 May.pdfIncluding Mental Health Support in Project Delivery, 14 May.pdf
Including Mental Health Support in Project Delivery, 14 May.pdf
 
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio App
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio AppImproved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio App
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio App
 
Spellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPS
Spellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPSSpellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPS
Spellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPS
 
Stl Algorithms in C++ jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
Stl Algorithms in C++ jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjStl Algorithms in C++ jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
Stl Algorithms in C++ jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
 
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
 
Sternal Fractures & Dislocations - EMGuidewire Radiology Reading Room
Sternal Fractures & Dislocations - EMGuidewire Radiology Reading RoomSternal Fractures & Dislocations - EMGuidewire Radiology Reading Room
Sternal Fractures & Dislocations - EMGuidewire Radiology Reading Room
 

PhD - Mid Candidature Review

  • 1. Mid-Candidature Review 11/05/2011 The relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction: The moderating roles of the decision making process and organisational structure. Nathan Eva Supervisors: Dr. Sen Sendjaya Dr. Daniel Prajogo www.monash.edu.au
  • 2. Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction • There is a clear link between servant leadership and employee job satisfaction. – (Cerit, 2009; Jaramilo et al., 2009) • Literature has largely ignored the black box between leadership and job satisfaction. – (Griffith, 2004; Laub, 1999; Miears, 2004) • Empowered employees are more satisfied with their employment. – (Jiang, Li-Yun & Law, 2011; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000) • Empowerment is drawn from three distinct areas: – Leadership; – Motivational; and – Structural. – (Menon, 2001; Tymon, 1988) www.monash.edu.au 2
  • 3. Decision Making Process and Job Satisfaction • Drawing upon the Upper Echelon theory, leaders choose their own decision making style. – (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hambrick, 2007) • Two contrasting styles of decision making: Involved and Dominant. – (Black & Gregersen, 1997) • Leaders who are more involved in the decision making process can better engage their employees. – (Castaneda & Nahavandi, 1991; Kezar, 2001; Weisbord, 2004; Williams, 1998) • Employees who feel engaged have higher levels of job satisfaction as well as lifting their performance. – (Gardell, 1977; Kearney & Hays, 1994; Parnell & Menefee, 1995) www.monash.edu.au 3
  • 4. Decision Making Process: Involvement and Dominance Hypothesis 1: The level of leader involvement in the decision making process positively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the more a servant leader is involved in the decision making process, the higher levels of elicited employee job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: The level of leader dominance in the decision making process negatively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the more a servant leader is dominant in the decision making process, the lower levels of elicited employee job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be moderated by both involvement and dominance such that the positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be stronger when involvement is high and dominance is low. www.monash.edu.au 4
  • 5. Organisational Structure and Job Satisfaction • Structural variables of Formalisation and Centralisation. – (Provan & Skinner, 1989) • High levels of formalisation and centralisation have constantly been proven to reduce job satisfaction amongst employees. – (Aiken & Hage, 1966; Lambert et al., 2006; Pool, 1997; Walter & Bruch, 2010) • As a servant leader’s greatest strength is their interactions with their employees, the higher levels of structure in an organisation will lower the impact servant leadership has on employees and therefore their job satisfaction. – (Andersen, 2009; Cunningham, 2004; Wright & Pandey, 2010) www.monash.edu.au 5
  • 6. Organisational Structure: Formalisation and Centralisation Hypothesis 4: The level of organisation formalisation negatively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the more formalised the organisation the lower levels of elicited employee job satisfaction. Hypothesis 5: The level of organisation centralisation negatively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction whereby the more centralisation the organisation the lower levels of elicited employee job satisfaction. Hypothesis 6: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be moderated by both formalisation and centralisation such that the positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be stronger when formalisation and centralisation are low. www.monash.edu.au 6
  • 7. DMP, Organisational Structure and Job Satisfaction • Combines the leadership, motivational and structural approaches to empowerment. – (Menon, 2001; Tymon, 1988) • Having low levels of formalisation in an organisation can increase leader involvement in the DMP as employees look to the leader, not to the manual to make decisions. – (Howell & Dorfman, 1981; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Wright & Pandey, 2010) • Higher levels of centralisation in an organisation leads to a lack of flexibility, thus leaders will tend to make the decisions independently creating institutionalised dominance thus decreasing job satisfaction. – (Black & Gregersen, 1997; Davis et al., 2009;) www.monash.edu.au 7
  • 8. Decision Making Process and Organisational Structure Hypothesis 7: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be moderated by both involvement and formalisation such that the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be strongest when involvement is high and formalisation is low. Hypothesis 8: The positive relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be negatively moderated by both dominance and centralisation such that the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction will be weakest when dominance and centralisation are high. www.monash.edu.au 8
  • 9. Methodology • There have been reservations in behavioural research of using a solitary data collection method. – (Brutus & Duniewicz, 2012; Dial, 2006; Yukl, 1989) • Therefore, this study will draw upon both experiments and surveys. – (Van Ginkel & Van Knippenberg, 2012; Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005) • Experiments were used to draw causal conclusions before the organisational survey was undertaken. – (Rus et al., 2010) • Further bolsters confidence in the findings. – (Denzin, 1989; Rus, et al., 2012) www.monash.edu.au 9
  • 10. Study 1 – Experiment • 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design. – (Charness, Gneezy & Kuhn, 2012) • 16 differing vignette case studies. • Pilot studies confirmed the manipulations. • Sample yielded 975 respondents which exceeds the minimum of 40 per cell. – (Myers and Hansen, 2011) • Post hoc analysis of the power exceeds 0.80 threshold. – (Tharenou et al., 2007) www.monash.edu.au 10
  • 11. Study 2 – Organisational Survey • Sample comprised of middle managers who rated the leadership and decision making style of their CEO/GM/MD. • Further, the respondents rated their job satisfaction and the level of organisational structure within their organisation. • 1,500 questionnaires were mailed out. • 336 questionnaires were returned (22.4%), well above the 200-250 recommended. – (Hair et al., 2010; Maxwell, 2000) www.monash.edu.au 11
  • 12. Decision Making Process – Study 1 H1 & 2 H3 3.8 3.6 High Dominance Involvement Low Dominance Dominance 3.6 Job Satisfaction 3.4 Job Satisfaction 3.4 3.2 3.2 3 3 High Low High Low Involvement Level of DMP Decision Dominance Making Process High Low Involvement High Low Involvement 3.47 3.23 High 3.32 3.63 Dominance 3.29 3.42 Low 3.25 3.21 www.monash.edu.au 12
  • 13. Decision Making Process – Study 2 5 low Involvement high Involvement 4.5 Job Saitsfaction 4 3.5 3 low high Servant Leadership H1 (Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008) www.monash.edu.au 13
  • 14. Organisational Structure – Study 1 H4 & 5 H6 3.8 3.6 High Formalisation Formalisation Low Formalisation Centralisation 3.6 Job Satisfaction Job Satisfaction 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3 2.8 3 High Low High Low Centralisation Organisational Structure Organisational Formalisation Structure High Low Centralisation High Low Formalisation 3.26 3.44 High 3.05 3.22 Centralisation 3.13 3.58 Low 3.48 3.68 www.monash.edu.au 14
  • 15. Organisational Structure – Study 2 5 (1) Low Form Low Cent 4.5 (2) High Form Job Satisfaction Low Cent 4 (3) Low Form High Cent 3.5 (4) High Form High Cent 3 Low High Servant Leadership H6 (Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008) www.monash.edu.au 15
  • 16. DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 1 H7 H8 3.8 3.8 High Formalisation High Centralisation Low Formalisation Low Centralisation 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3 3 2.8 High Low 2.8 Leader Involvement in the Decision Making High Low Leader Dominance in the Decision Making Process Process Formalisation Centralisation Involvement High Low Dominance High Low High 3.38 3.57 High 3.00 3.58 Low 3.15 3.32 Low 3.27 3.35 www.monash.edu.au 16
  • 17. DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 2 5 (1) Low Inv Low Form 4.5 (2) High Inv Job Satisfaction Low Form 4 (3) Low Inv High Form 3.5 (4) High Inv High Form 3 Low High Servant Leadership H7 (Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008) www.monash.edu.au 17
  • 18. DMP & Organisational Structure – Study 2 5 (1) Low Dom Low Cent 4.5 (2) High Dom Job Satisfaction 4 Low Cent (3) Low Dom 3.5 High Cent 3 (4) High Dom High Cent 2.5 Low High Servant Leadership H8 (Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2008) www.monash.edu.au 18
  • 19. Preliminary Discussion • First and foremost it reiterates the strong relationship servant leadership has with job satisfaction. • Creates context for the servant leader job satisfaction relationship. • High levels of involvement in the decision making process strengthen the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. • Low levels of organisational structure strengthen the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. www.monash.edu.au 19
  • 20. Preliminary Discussion • Under the condition of high involvement, high levels of formalisation was found to positively impact the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction as well as the hypothesised high involvement low formalisation interaction. • The relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction was weakest when dominance and centralisation were low not when they were high as hypothesised. • However, the servant leadership job satisfaction relationship was strongest when dominance was low and centralisation was high. www.monash.edu.au 20
  • 21. Timeline Activity January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 Literature Review General Discussion Conclusion Revisions 2013 Revisions Submission Writing of Journal Articles www.monash.edu.au 21
  • 22. Thank You • Questions? • Suggestions? • Comments? www.monash.edu.au 22
  • 23. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting results. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 31(4), 497-507. Andersen, J. A. (2009). When a servant-leader comes knocking. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 4. Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Particpative decision-making: An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878. Brutus, S., & Duniewicz, K. (2012). The many heels of achilles: An analysis of self-reported limitations in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 202-212. Castaneda, M., & Nahavandi, A. (1991). Link of manager behavior to supervisor performance rating and subordinate satisfaction. Group & Organization Studies, 16(4), 357. Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers' job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600-623. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1-8. Cunningham, R. (2004). Servant leadership - an introduction. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 2. Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413-452. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926. www.monash.edu.au 23
  • 24. References Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Dial, D. (2006). Students' perceptions of leadership and the ways in which leadership influences the development of student leaders. Master's thesis, Louisiana State University. Gardell, B. (1977). Autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 30(6), 515-533. Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334- 343. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (1981). Substitutes for leadership: A test of a construct. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 714-728. Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 257- 275. Jiang, J. Y., Li-Yun, S., & Law, K. S. (2011). Job satisfaction and organization structure as moderators of the effects of empowerment on organizational citizenship behaviour: A self-consistency and social exchange perspective. International Journal of Management, 28(3), 675-693. www.monash.edu.au 24
  • 25. References Kearney, R. C., & Hays, S. W. (1994). Labor-management relations and participative decision making: Toward a new paradigm. Public Administration Review, 54(1), 44-51. Kezar, A. (2001). Investigating organizational fit in a participatory leadership environment. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 23(1), 85-101. Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Allen, R. (2006). Correlates of correctional officer job stress: The impact of organizational structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 227-246. Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organisation: Development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (sola) instrument. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 434-458. Mayer, B. W., Dale, K., & Fox, M. L. (2011). Processes for developing simulation self-esteem. Business Education Innovation Journal, 3(1), 65-76. Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), 153-180. Miears, L. D. (2004). Servant-leadership and job satisfaction: A correlational study in Texas education agency region x public schools. Ed.D. 3148083, Texas A&M University - Commerce, United States -- Texas. Moyes, G. D., & Redd, T. C. (2008). Empirical analysis of factors influencing the level of job satisfaction of Caucasian and Hispanic accounting professionals. International Business & Economics Research Journal 7(10), 21-42. Myers, A., & Hansen, C. H. (2011). Experimental psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. www.monash.edu.au 25
  • 26. References Parnell, J. A., & Menefee, M. (1995). The business strategy-employee involvement contingency: The impact of strategy-participation fit on performance. American Business Review, 13(2), 90. Pool, S. W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership behavior, and work motivation. Journal of Psychology, 131, 271-283. Provan, K. G., & Skinner, S. J. (1989). Interorganizational dependence and control as predictors of opportunism in dealer-supplier relations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 202-212. Rus, D., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader self-definition and leader self-serving behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 509-529. Rus, D., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2012). Leader power and self-serving behavior: The moderating role of accountability. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 13-26. Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424. Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257-283. Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management research methods. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press. Tymon, W. G. J. (1988). An empirical investigation of a cognitive model of empowerment. doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia. Ugboro, I. O., & Obeng, K. (2000). Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in tqm organizations: An empirical study. Journal of Quality Management, 5(2), 247-272. www.monash.edu.au 26
  • 27. References Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261. Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business Psychology, 26(3), 249-267. Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25-37. Van Quaquebeke, N., Van Knippenberg, D., & Eckloff, T. (2011). Individual differences in the leader categorization to openness to influence relationship. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 605-622. Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of transformational leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 765- 782. Weisbord, M. R. (2004). Productive workplaces revisited: Dignity, meaning, and community in the 21st century (2 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Williams, T. (1998). Job satisfaction in teams. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(5), 782-799. Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Does structure matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 75-89. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289. www.monash.edu.au 27
  • 28. Experiment Scales • Job Satisfaction – (Moyes & Redd, 2008) • Age • Gender • Degree • Major • Current Year of Study www.monash.edu.au 28
  • 29. Survey Scales • Servant Leadership – (Sendjaya et al., 2008) • Decision Making Process (Involvement/Dominance) – (Mayer et al., 2011) • Organisational Structure (Formalisation/Centralisation) – (Provan & Skinner, 1989) • Job Satisfaction – (Moyes & Redd, 2008) • Size (number of employees) • Tenure under the leader • Age • Gender www.monash.edu.au 29
  • 30. Sample Questions • Servant Leadership – Leads by personal example • Involvement – My CEO participates in most strategic decision making meetings • Dominance – My CEO is reluctant to compromise their decisions with others’ views. • Centralisation – Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer • Formalisation – The company has a large number of written rules and policies www.monash.edu.au 30
  • 31. Experiment Manipulations • Servant Leadership – “Your supervisor constantly listened to your opinions, often going out of her way to help you resolve problems, even if it disadvantaged her. Over the journey your supervisor has acted as a mentor being very open and honest, helping you through different and varied situations. • High Involvement Low Dominance – “In these discussions your supervisor was always present and active. From your interactions, you noticed that your supervisor listened intently, was well informed of all the situations inside and outside of the company.” • High Dominance Low Involvement – “…your supervisor empowered your team to run your own meetings; however she was quite dominant in every decision. From your interactions, you noticed she would only appreciate views that were aligned with her own, always pushed to have her decisions implemented and was reluctant to compromise on her position.” www.monash.edu.au 31
  • 32. Experiment Manipulations • High Formalisation – “You were handed a rules and procedure manual and were told that every question you had about your job could be found in there. Once you looked inside, you found a clear job description telling you what you needed to do for each job rotation and guidelines to follow if any issue arose.” • High Centralisation – “…you were told by one of the workers that “you’ll learn quickly, that in this company you can’t use your own discretion – you do what they tell you”. Thinking back, you realise that many of the decisions you have made, had to be approved by your supervisor...” www.monash.edu.au 32

Editor's Notes

  1. This research draws its theoretical origins from empowerment literature. Leadership – employees empowered through leaders creating a shared vision of the future, transforming the organisation (reflected by SL)Motivational – employees empowered through their ability to influence work outcomes (involvement or dominance in the DMP)Structural – employees empowered through being granted power through structural processes such as decentralisation (Form and Cent)
  2. Involvement in the decision making process refers to what extent the leader is actively involved with the employees in the strategic decisions made by the organisation.Dominance in the decision making process refers to what extent the leader dominants the strategic decision making process, striving to have their views implemented.Inv are better able to communicate why strategic decisions, develop enthusiasm and bring expertise to the DMP. Dominant leaders disengage their employees through narrowly focusing on their own opinion.
  3. Formalisation refers to the rules and regulations set out by the organisation. This includes what decisions to make when confronted with different circumstances.Centralisation refers to focusing the decision making on one central point in an organisation. A more centralised organisation will have decision making power originating from one or few individuals.Form – SL especially as it reduces their ability to impact their employees, be available for them and empower them through a shared vision or mentoring employees. Cent – reducing collaboration, accountability to employees, shared vision and empowerment.
  4. With the leader involved in the DMP – this will increase JS.Inv Form – relationship between SL and JS will be stronger when Inv is high and Form is LowDom Cent – RS bw SL & JS weaker when Dom High and Cent H
  5. Increased call in leadership research due to self-report limitations. Tested in an experiment which was high in internal validity Method previously been used in leadership research by Van Knippenberg and associates.
  6. Vignettes – chosen as ease of administration and the timely manner they can be produced and administered. Pilot Studies – 48 business studentsG*Power
  7. Data divided into groups based on the hypotheses.All hypotheses were supported.Although these findings do justify the hypotheses, they do not speak on the applicability in a real world situation. Therefore, in order to further validate the hypotheses, they must be run in an organisational setting.
  8. Hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS.Hyp 1 supported, Hyp 2 and 3 not supported. Simple slopes analysis - illustrated using one standard deviation above and below the mean of involvement to represent high and low involvement in the decision making processThe more a leader is involved in the decision making process, the stronger the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction.
  9. Data divided into groups based on the hypotheses.All hypotheses were supported.
  10. Hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS.Hyp 4 and 5 not supported, Hyp 6 supported. Simple slopes analyses and post hoc tests for slope differences Showed a difference between Slope 1 (Low F Low C) and Slope 2 (High F Low C) and Slope 3 (Low F High C) but not Slope 4 (High F High C)
  11. Data divided into groups based on the hypotheses.All hypotheses were supported. H7 HighestH8 Lowest
  12. Hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS.Hyp 7 supportedSimple slopes analyses and post hoc tests for slope differences Showed a difference between Slope 2 (High Inv Low Form) and Slope 1 (Low Inv Low Form) but not Slope 3 (Low I High F) and Slope 4 (High In High F)Still the second highest gradient.
  13. Hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS.Hyp8 supportedSimple slopes analyses and post hoc tests for slope differences Showed a difference between Slope 4 (High D High C) and Slope 1 (Low D Low C) and Slope 3 (Low D High C) but not Slope 1 (Low D Low C)Weakest Low Dom Low Cent (employee autonomy = happy so SL won’t affect it) Strongest Low Dom High Cent. Tells us that keep dominance low. People are fine with High Cent with a Servant Leader. Understanding that the structure that enforces SL to check off decisions not the leader (as they are not dom).More importantly it tells us that if you are having High C you need to have a leader who displays SL behaviours or you will at the bottom as people don’t like centralisation. By implementing SL in a highly centralised organisation we see that it creates a change in JS.
  14. This has not been done in as much depth, with experiments or with simple slopes analysisNever been looked at with mod factorsInv DMP – not only has it provided empirical evidence that SL are more inclined to undertake an Inv style – it has also shown that the more involved a SL is in the DMP the higher levels of job satisfaction will be felt by the employees.Both the exp and the survey showed that the relationship between SL and JS was the strongest in low C & F enviro. However of note was the strong relationship present in a HF HC context – it does make theoretical and practical sense. A leader who shows SL is more preferable than one who doesnt (especially in a High struc org).
  15. Surprising, however it is not uncommon to find form = JS in small to medium firmsAs the Inv SL are writing the procedures this would naturally have an involved / SL flair. Cent Dom – As I’ve already covered although still interpreting this finding