International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, vol. 5, issue 3, pp. 10-21, March 2019

10

Internationa l Journa l of Management Science and

Business Adminis tra t ion

Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2019, Pages 10-21

DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.53.1002

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.18775/ ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.53.1002

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work

Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment

1 Naveed Ahmad Faraz, 2 Muhammad Farhan Mughal, 3 Fawad Ahmed, 4 Ali Raza,

5 Muhammad Khalid Iqbal 1,3,4,5 School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, P.R. China

2 School of Computer Sciences, Central China Normal University, P.R. China

Abstract: Change is the only constant phenomenon in this world, and organizations can bring it through innovation. This

innovation ultimately leads to an organization’s competitive edge and sustainability. Every new idea primarily originates

in the minds of individuals which when implemented successfully contributes for overall organizational innovation.

Nurturing employees’ innovative work behavior (EIWB) is prudent for every organization looking to enhance its

innovative outcomes. This research, at first, aimed to examine the influence of servant leadership (SL) at three distinctive

levels of employees’ innovative work behavior (EIWB) namely idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization .

Then, the influence of SL on overall EIWB is investigated. Finally, employees’ Psychological Empowerment (PE) is

assessed as a mediator through which SL exerts its influence on EIWB. Servant leadership in conjunction with Social

Exchange theories were used to develop the conceptual model of this research. Cross -sectional data were collected from

283 entry-level officers working in different Power Sector Companies of Pakistan. Partial least squares structural

equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed through Smart-PLS 3.2.8 software to analyze the hypothesized

relationships. The findings of this research show that SL positively influences each stage of EIWB as well as EIWB at

an integrated level. Employees’ Psychological Empowerment (PE) partially mediates the positive influence of SL on

EIWB. This research is one of the pioneers to examine the influence of SL at different levels of EIWB. Further,

investigating employees’ PE as mediating between the relationship of SL and EIWB is also a unique contribution of this

research. Detailed discussion on the results is carried out besides offering the theoretical and manageria l implications .

Lastly, limitations of this study and potential avenues for future research are highlighted .

Keywords: Servant leadership, Employees’ innovative Work behavior, Psychological empowerment, Power sector of

Pakistan

1. Introduction Change is the only constant phenomenon in this world. Sustaining the status quo is no longer a pragmatic choice for

organizations. Successful and continuous innovation is vibrant for the existence of organizations in this competitive

business world. Ever-changing business environment compels organizations to look at innovation as a source of

productivity, efficiency, and sustainability. The competitive advantage of an organization transpires from the ideation

and implantation of novel ideas by its individuals. Organizations are keen to explore all the antecedents having the

potential to enhance employees’ innovative work behavior (A. Agarwal, 2014; Scott & Bruce, 1994). It is a fact that

without the participation of employees no organization can achieve innovation (Abstein & Spieth, 2014). Alongside the

significance of innovation, researchers have widely acknowledged the need for leadership to focus and direct the creative

and innovative efforts of individuals to overall organizational innovation (Friedrich, Mumford, Vessey, Beeler, &

Eubanks, 2010; Tushman & Nadler, 1986) . As the business environments changed, leadership has also faced new

challenges. Particularly, one important trend in this respect is the growing dependence on human resources of

organizations (O'Leary, Lindholm, Whitford, & Freeman, 2002) . Consequently, academicians started exploring a

leadership style which is predominantly concerned with the employees’ needs, known as servant leadership. Both

academicians and practitioners substantively highlighted the need for more people-centered leadership style that forced

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

11

leadership scholars to revisit the caring style of leadership such as servant leadership (Hunter et al., 2013; Peterson,

Galvin, & Lange, 2012). Those organizations that are keen to nurture innovation must pay attention on to leadership that

can inspire and champion its vision to its employees. Professional and personal development of the followers’ so that

they can deliver their levels best is the top priority of servant leaders. Researchers have now started to explore the

influence of servant leadership on creative and innovative behavior of the employees’ (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2015; Yoshida,

Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014). A critical review of the empirical literature revealed a hand ful of studies on the

relationship between servant leadership and employees innovation (Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, van Dierendonck, & Liden ,

2018). Therefore, investigating the impact of SL on EIWB in the presence of different mediating/moderating variables

is highly justified. Moreover, this is one of the pioneer researches to examine the influence of SL at different levels of

EIWB including idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization. Employees’ Psychological Empowerment (PE) is

investigated as a mediating variable in the relationship between SL and EIWB. The theoretical lens to develop the

conceptual model of this study extracted its concepts from Social Exchange and servant leadership theories. We

introduced and tested a unique model of EIWB.

The layout of this article is as follows: the next section will elaborate on the theoretical grounds of variables under

consideration. Then based on theoretical and empirical evidence, hypotheses are proposed followed by pictorial

representations of conceptual models. After that, the research methodology is presented followed by the results and

analysis section. Lastly, discussion on results, theoretical and practical implications are presented while ending the article

with the study’s limitations and potential avenues for future research.

2. How to Recognize a Good Manager? 2.1 Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior (EIWB)

The first time definition of EIWB was given by West and Farr (West & Farr, 1989) as “all employee behavior directed

at the generation, introduction and/ or application (within a role, group or organization) of ideas, processes, products or

procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption that supposedly significantly benefit the relevant unit of adoption”.

Following West and Farr, Janssen (Janssen, 2000) defined EIWB as “the intentional creation, introduction, and

application of new ideas within a work role, group, or organization, to benefit role performance, the group, or the

organization.” Janssen identified three separate stages: idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization (Janssen,

2000). Organizations should foster employee innovation to create organizational success (Axtell, Holman, & Wall, 2006).

For organizations to innovate and be successful with the implementation of innovation, they must rely on their employees

to deliver their processes, methods, and operations (Ramamoorthy, Flood, Slattery, & Sardessai, 2005). This is done

through employee engagement in individual innovative behavior. Innovative behavior is unlike cre ativity in the sense

that it is intended to provide some sort of benefit to the organization (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Creativity is utilized

and necessary only for the stage of idea realization. Idea generation of an employee is his/her out of the box thinking and

coming up with distinctive solutions or improvements related to prevailing services, products or processes (Amabile,

1988). Idea promotion is necessary to win the support of the relevant decision making authorities for new ideas that often

go against the grain and can be costly, leading to unwanted risk. Thus, the backing and support of highly committed

people at powerful positions are needed for the accomplishment of innovative ideas (Howell, Shea, & Higgins, 2005).

Lastly, idea realization involves bringing concepts in actual products, processes, or services so that everyone can see the

innovation (Moss Kanter, 1988). EIWB is the basic building block for improved organizational performance, and thus,

it is highly justified to explore all the factors that aid or boost such behaviors of the employees (Scott & Bruce, 1994).

2.2 Servant Leadership (SL)

Greenleaf (Robert, 1977) refers to servant leadership not as a management technique but as a way of life, which starts

with a “natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (p.14), then aims to lead. Hale et al. defined servant

leadership as, “an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the

leader, emphasizing leader behaviors that focus on follower development, and de-emphasizing glorification of the leader”

(Hale & Fields, 2007). Liden et al. (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008) described the essential characteristics of

servant leadership into seven dimensions including: 1-Emotional healing, 2-Empowering, 3-Helping subordinates grow

and succeed, 4-Putting subordinates first, 5-Creating value for the community, 6-Having conceptual skills, and 7-

Behaving ethically. Emotional healing requires demonstrating care and sensitivity towards followers and ensuring their

well-being. Empowering subordinates’ includes facilitation and encouragement of their abilities to take responsibility

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

12

and provide them the necessary freedom to act upon and manage the tough situations in their way. Such leaders also aid

their followers to grow and succeed by showing genuine concern in their career development a nd goals attainment by

offering appropriate opportunities to polish their skills. These leaders put their subordinates’ interest and achievements

ahead of their own. Another unique characteristic of servant leaders is their concern for the community develo pment

outside the premises of the organization. They also encourage their followers to follow the same footsteps. Servant leaders

own and exhibit a lot of conceptual skills. Because of their sound understanding and information about the organization,

its goals, and the tasks, they are usually in a position to offer timely support, direction and resources to the followers’.

Finally, ethical behavior by virtue of open, fair and honest integration with others is also a valuable trait of servant

leaders. There is a growing interest of the scholars to enlarge servant leadership’s nomological network by exploring and

proving the practical utility of this leadership style through empirical evidence. Servant leadership has proven its utility

by yielding diversified positive outcomes at organizational (Choudhary, Akhtar, & Zaheer, 2013; Liden, Wayne, Liao ,

& Meuser, 2014), team/group (Yang, Liu, & Gu, 2017; Yoshida et al., 2014) and individual level (Donia, Raja, Panaccio,

& Wang, 2016; Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne, & Cao, 2015; Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, &

Alkema, 2014).

2.3 Servant Leadership (SL) and Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior (EIWB)

Leaders always have the potential to influence the capacity of followers to come up with novel and pract ical ideas to

resolve the problems (Amabile, 1988; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). ]. Servant leaders can enhance EIWB by offering them

empowerment and courage to take risks. Empowerment, helping to grow and succeed, and conceptual skills are such

characteristics of SL which are closely related to shape EIWB at the workplace. Yoshida et al. (Yoshida et al., 2014) ]

investigated that by way of relational identification, servant leaders stimulate innovative behavior of subordinates’.

Although the literature on investigating the influence of SL on EIWB is scarce, there are few empirical studies where SL

has shown its positive influence in enhancing EIWB (Krog & Govender, 2015; Panaccio et al., 2015; Rasheed, Lodhi, &

Habiba, 2016). ]. Employing the theoretical lens of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is also useful in understanding

the impact of SL on EIWB. Servant leaders believe in forming a close relationship with the subordinates’ by putting them

first, helping them and always reaming honest to them. Servant leaders close iteration creates an obligation on their

followers’ to reciprocate the same in their jobs. There is not a single study which has examined the influence of SL on

different stages of EIWB. However, the other leadership styles like transformational and relational leadership have been

investigated to demonstrate their influence at different levels of EIWB. In the same analogy, this research formulated the

following hypothesis:

H1: Servant Leadership directly and positively affects the Idea Generation stage of EIWB.

H2: Servant Leadership directly and positively affects the Idea Promotion stage of EIWB.

H3: Servant Leadership directly and positively affects the Idea Realization stage of EIWB.

H4: Servant Leadership directly and positively affects the overall construct of EIWB.

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

13

2.4 Servant Leadership and Employees’ Psychological Empowerment

Meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact are four sub-constructs that form the overall constructs of PE

which is theorized similar to intrinsic motivation (Spreitzer, 1995). Though researchers reasoned that PE is the way

through SL exerts its positive impact on the followers’ outcomes (Liden et al., 2008; Russell & Gregory Stone, 2002),

the empirical evidence to verify this argument is limited (Newman, Schwarz, Cooper, & Sendjaya, 2017). This is even

though almost all the SL scales emphasized the importance of empowerment as an important trait of servant leaders

(Ehrhart, 2004; Laub, 1999; Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Through empo werment, SL can

influence the employees’ outcomes in many ways. First, providing them development opportunities and focusing on their

personal needs (Gregory Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004; Newman et al., 2017). Secondly, fair treatment and respect

instead of considering them as a source of personal or organizational advantage. Walumbwa et al. (Walumbwa, Hartnell,

& Oke, 2010) recently investigated the impact of SL on employees’ self-efficacy, a construct similar to competence

dimension of PE, and found significantly positive results. Further, servant leaders create a sense of competence in their

followers’ by giving them the chances to acquire new skills through training. Thirdly, SL believes in participative

decision making which possibly heightens the self-determination perception of the followers’(Robert, 1977; Van

Dierendonck, 2011). Lastly, SL realizes their followers about their jobs’ impact on the overall organizational level which

allows them to understand the worth (meaning) of their jobs. To conclude, servant leaders by increasing the subordinates’

perceptions of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact augment the psychological empowerment of the

followers’. Thus, the following hypothesis is framed:

H5: Servant Leadership directly and positively affects the EPE.

2.5 Psychological Empowerment and Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior

PE gives a good feeling regarding the tasks the employees’ are performing. They also start perceiving their jobs

challenging and meaningful. This positive perception leads them to demonstrate innovative behaviors by aligning

personal goals with that of the organization’s (Jha, 2014). Control over decision-making control, freedom, the capability

to impact others, flexibility and meaningfulness of the work encourage employees to perform innovatively in their jobs

(Kendall, Chu, Gifford, Hayes, & Nauta, 1998). When employees are empowered, they find their work meaningful which

gives them the intrinsic motivation that ultimately leads to innovative work behavior (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, &

Wilk, 2004). Psychological empowerment encourages change and employees’ innovative work behavior is another way

to bring change (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Psychological empowerment leads intrinsic motivation, flexibility, and self-

determination in performing a job which allows the employees’ to perform innovative work behav ior (Ryan & Deci,

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

14

2000). Recent empirical evidence have also established a positive association of employees’ PE with IWB (Afsar, F.

Badir, & Bin Saeed, 2014). This discussion leads to postulate the following hypothesis:

H6: PE directly and positively affects their IWB.

2.6 Mediating role of Employees’ Psychological Empowerment

When employees’ are empowered, they start believing in their self-worth, skills, capabilities, abilities and show

confidence to impact their work outcomes meaningfully and by offering value addition. Such positive belief allows them

to participate in creative and innovative initiatives(Burleson, 2005), besides involvement in extra -role efforts and coming

up with new ideas and reasons to implement those ideas. When employees recognize that their jobs are autonomous,

meaningful and personally valuable, they will start to deal with complex problems and look for new ways of improvement

(Gilson & Shalley, 2004). Further, servant leadership is an approach which remains more open to employe es; servant

leaders share more information and always remain open to hearing from their subordinates. Researchers have already

emphasized the mediating role of psychological empowerment in different leadership styles and important individual and

group level outcomes (Afsar et al., 2014; Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Milton and van Dierendonck (Jorge Correia

de Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2014) identified PE as mediator in relationship of SL with employee engagement. More

specifically, Camilla L. Krog and Krishna Govender (Krog & Govender, 2015) investigated employee PE as a mediato r

in the relationship between SL and EIWB. Their findings suggested that employees’ PE mediates the said relationship.

Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H7: PE significantly mediates the positive influence of SL on EIWB.

3. Research Methods 3.1 Sample and Procedure

A list of all the entry level officers working in the Power Sector Companies of Pakistan was requested from the concerned

HR-Department. Systematic sampling, a probability sampling, technique was used for the selection of 450 samples.

Cross-sectional data through self-administered questionnaire was collected from the sampled respondents. Besides, data

on the constructs, demographic information was also requested voluntarily while ensuring anonymity and secrecy. The

questionnaire was designed with Google docs. Webb-link of the online questionnaire was sent to 450 entry-level officers.

Two hundred ninety-two (292) completed questionnaires were received and out of those 283 questionnaires were retained

for final analysis. Nine (09) questionnaires were discarded due to incompleteness or no variation at all. Thus, the final

response rate of this research is 62.89%. The entire questionnaire was in English language being the medium of official

dealings in Pakistan (Faraz, Yanxia, Ahmed, Estifo, & Raza, 2018).

Servant

Leadership

Employees’

IWB

Psychological

Empowerment H5

+

H4

+

Figure-2: Conceptual

Model-II

H6

+ Med

iation

H7

+

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

15

3.2 Measurement

All the responses were measured by the ratings of the respondents on a five-point Likert scale where ‘1’ represents

‘strongly disagree’ and ‘5’ represents ‘strongly agree’. Employees’ innovative work behavior: This construct was

measured by nine (09) item scale developed by Janssen (Janssen, 2000). The scale comprised of three distinctive

dimensions namely idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization that form the overall EIWB construct. Each

dimension consists of three (03) items. The scale has established validity. Servant leadership: SL was assessed by the

respondents’ rating on a seven (07) item scale developed by Liden et al.(Liden et al., 2015). The scale comprised of items

the seven (07) dimensions of SL construct. Psychological Empowerment: Spreitzer (Spreitzer, 1995) developed a twelve

(12) item scale to measure psychological empowerment. There are four sub-dimensions of this scale namely: meaning,

competence, self-determination, and impact. Each sub-dimension is measured with three (03) items.

3.3 Sample Profile

Table-1, presented below, summarizes the sample profile of this research. Information regarding gender, age, job nature,

tenure, and education level of 283 respondents is precisely elaborated.

Table-1: Sample Profile

Total respondents 283

Gender Male (68% ) Female (32% )

Age in Years 18 to 25 (31% ) 26 to 35 (29% ) 36 to 45 (24% ) 46 to 55 (13% ) 55 & Above (03% )

Nature of the Job Technical (66% ) Non-Technical (34% )

Tenure in Years Less than 1 (7% ) 1-5 (20% ) 6-10 (36% ) 11-15 (28% ) Above 15 09%

Education Level Below Graduation (05% ) Graduation (39% ) Master (56% )

Sample profile of the respondents revealed that 68% of respondents are male as compared to 32% of female. Seemingly

this indicates male dominance of employees; however, it is embedded in the culture of Pakistan and corroborates

employment trends of the country. The statistics regarding age showed that majority of the respondents’ age is within the

brackets of 18 to 45 years. This is a positive indicator and proves the absence of old age phenomenon in the employment.

Majority of the respondents’ job nature is technical which is consistent with the fact that the Power Sector Companies of

Pakistan employ individuals having technical expertise. As far as the tenure of the respondents is concerned, 36% of the

respondents have 06 to 10 years of experience which is the highest percentage in the dataset. Lastly, the edu cation level

of the respondents is also consistent with the job requirements in the Power Sector of Pakistan and the majority of the

respondents are very well educated (Graduation & Master).

4. Results and Analysis 4.1 Measurement Model Evaluation

The evaluation of the measurement model in PLS-SEM is based on individual indicator reliability, construct reliability ,

convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The upcoming sections present the evaluation of the measurement model

of this research.

4.1.1 Reliability

Internal consistency of items in measuring a construct is known as ‘Reliability’ of the construct. It is the extent to which

the items on an instrument are homogenous and reflect the same underlying construct (Cooper & Schindler, 2014).

Typically, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicates the consistency of the measurement items. However, Hair et al. (Joseph

F Hair Jr, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2016) argue that Cronbach's alpha might not be a suitable measure of reliability

because it assumes that all indicators are equally reliable and the loadings of items on a construct are equal. PLS-SEM

uses another measure of internal consistency named as ‘Composite Reliability (CR)’ (Joseph F Hair Jr et al., 2016). The

CR is the extent to which reflective items indicate the latent variable, and it deals with the reliability of the individual

item. Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability values are presented in Table -2 below.

4.1.2 Convergent Validity

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

16

Convergent validity is the degree to which responses on an item correlates with responses of other items for the same

construct (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Hair et al. (Joseph F Hair Jr et al., 2016) suggested ‘Average Variance Extracted

(AVE)’ must be considered to assess the convergent validity of a reflective measure. AVE is a good measure of

convergent validity and is defined as the total amount of variance in the indicators accounted for the latent variables with

the cutoff point of 0.5 (Joseph F Hair Jr et al., 2016). The AVE values along with other descriptive statistics are shown

in Table-2 below.

Nonetheless, this idea or this study has its limits; it is questionable. It makes a very theoretical portrait: in fact, the woman

would be more enterprising, more honest, more endowed to create a cohesion of a team, but not very strong in initiative

taking, which is more recognized as a male skill. To say that she would be more honest in her management may be a

common stereotype in the same way as to say that she pays better attention to others . Alternatively, even greater integrity,

leaving superiority to men over the ability to develop a strategic point of view for the company.

Besides, some argue that nothing scientifically proves that a woman manages differently from a man, and it is life

experiences, but not gender, that forges the character of a manager. Other critics like Mickael Hingan, in 2016, went even

further to say that this article by Diana Rillet was useless. For him, the truth is that it is each individual (man or woman )

with his own "human qualities", "Skills" and "experiences" that will make the much-awaited difference in the area in

which he or she evolves according to his or her sensitivities. Moreover, that is because the author of this article is

paradoxically a woman. Worse, there are women who manage like men and vice versa (Look for example politics is a

beautiful showcase that illustrates that). Also, if we look around ourselves, we will see that there are men who develop

their femininity and women their masculinity.

Table-2: Descriptive Statistics and Reliability/ Validity Indicators

Variable Name / Reliability & Validity Indicators Item Loadings Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior (EIWB)

Alpha=0.966, CR=0.970, AVE=0.728

IG1 0.759 3.551 1.134 -0.287 -0.614

IG2 0.717 3.312 1.147 -0.413 -0.527

IG3 0.809 3.261 1.210 -0.354 -0.723

IP1 0.804 3.109 1.136 -0.404 -0.609

IP2 0.813 3.447 1.143 -0.304 -0.491

IP3 0.869 3.468 1.215 -0.283 -0.508

IR1 0.743 3.109 1.085 -0.304 -0.599

IR2 0.788 3.048 1.124 -0.207 -0.581

IR3 0.811 3.308 1.087 -0.189 -0.498

Psychological Empowerment (PE)

Alpha=0.963, CR=0.968, AVE=0.714

M1 0.745 3.067 1.067 0.043 -0.368

M2 0.752 3.291 1.004 -0.336 0.509

M3 0.791 3.049 1.135 -0.265 -0.622

C1 0.744 3.434 1.012 -0.381 0.530

C2 0.805 3.646 1.125 -0.414 -0.651

C3 0.743 3.120 1.039 -0.313 -0.591

SD1 0.802 3.591 1.206 -0.258 0.465

SD2 0.821 3.287 1.109 -0.339 -0.599

SD3 0.819 3.404 1.166 -0.264 -0.410

I1 0.808 3.349 1.022 -0.446 0.526

I2 0.819 3.268 1.007 -0.238 -0.609

13 0.730 3.409 1.031 -0.204 -0.457

Servant Leadership (SL)

SL1 0.822 3.445 1.109 -0.288 -0.702

SL2 0.85 3.621 1.221 -0.303 0.513

SL3 0.879 3.520 1.035 -0.379 -0.525

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

17

Variable Name / Reliability & Validity Indicators Item Loadings Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

Alpha=0.923, CR=0.939, AVE=0.687 SL4 0.879 3.209 1.109 -0.288 -0.673

SL5 0.856 3.524 1.116 -0.373 0.562

SL6 0.737 3.140 1.102 -0.452 -0.590

SL7 0.768 3.237 1.025 -0.362 -0.571

Note: CR (Composite Reliability), AVE (Average Variance Extracted), IG (Idea Generation), IP (Idea Promotion), IR (Idea

Realization), M (Meaning), C (Competence), SD (Self-determination), I (Impact).

4.1.3 Discriminant Validity

Fornell & Larcker (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) ] proposed a stringent approach to assess discriminant validity. They

recommend that the square root of each construct’s AVE needed to be more than its highes t correlation with any other

construct. Another method to access discriminant validity was proposed by Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (Henseler,

Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015) which is based on the hetrotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of the correlations. In the latest

guidelines of PLS-SEM, HTMT is strongly suggested to be reported for establishing discriminant validity of the

constructs. For models having similar constructs, the threshold value of 0.90 HTMT is a good indicator to establish

discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). Discriminant validity through different established criteria is ensured in

Table-3 given below.

Table-3: Discriminant Validity of the Constructs

Constructs IG IP IR SL PE EIWB

Idea Generation 0.910 0.814 0.729 0.772

Idea Promotion 0.809 0.845 0.806 0.831

Idea Realization 0.882 0.835 0.853 0.765

SL 0.721 0.787 0.727 0.829 0.831 0.765

PE 0.786 0.845 0.806

EIWB 0.727 0.836 0.853

Note: Values at the diagonal denote the square root of AVE. Above the diagonal, the values of HTMT have been placed. Further,

values of the correlations among the constructs have been depicted underneath the diagonal.

4.2 Structural Model Evaluation

Results of the structural model will be used to analyze whether the formulated relationships (hypotheses) are statistically

significant or otherwise. Evaluation of the structural model is done through the values of path coefficients (β), t-values,

p-values and confidence intervals (bias corrected). Table-4 below presents values of all those indicators. For the model

quality, the values of R2 are also given in the said Table.

Table-4: Results of Hypotheses

Hypothesized Relations β-Value SD t-Value

Confidence Interval

(Bias Corrected) Result R2

5 % LL 95% UL

H1: SL -> Idea Generation 0.721 0.038 19.100 0.645 0.773 Supported 0.520

H2: SL -> Idea Promotion 0.878 0.034 23.276 0.713 0.829 Supported 0.619

H3: SL -> Idea Realization 0.727 0.043 17.057 0.640 0.787 Supported 0.529

H4: SL -> EIWB 0.726 0.042 17.330 0.647 0.786 Supported 0.527

H5: SL -> PE 0.786 0.031 25.428 0.724 0.831 Supported 0.618

H6: PE -> EIWB 0.693 0.062 11.154 0.589 0.791 Supported 0.185

Hypothesized Relations Indirect

Effect SD t-value

Confidence Interval

(Bias Corrected) Result R2

5 % LL 95% UL

H7: SL -> PE -> EIWB 0.545 0.050 10.932 0.470 0.628 Supported 0.712

Note: We used a bootstrapping routine as suggested by Hair et al. (Joe F Hair Jr, Matthews, Matthews, & Sarstedt, 2017) with 5000

subsamples, 283 observations per subsample, and a no sign change option to determine the significance of the path coefficients. p <

.05, one-tailed was used. LL (Lower Limit), UL (Upper Limit).

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

18

Results, presented in Table-4 above, clearly validated all the hypothesized paths are significant (p < 0.05). Servant

leadership is positively and significantly related to Idea Generation (β=0.721, t=19.100, p < 0.05), to Idea Promotion (β=

0.878, t=23.276, p < 0.05), to Idea Realization (β= 0.727, t=17.057, p < 0.05), and to overall EIWB (β= 0.726, t=17.330,

p < 0.05). The direct path from SL to PE gives (β= 0.786, t=25.428, p < 0.05), while PE to EIWB (β= 0.693, t=11.154, p

< 0.05). As far as the result of mediation analysis from SL to EIWB through PE is concerned, it is positive and significant

(β= 0.545, t=10.932, p < 0.05). Further, in accordance to the latest instructions regarding use of confidence intervals

(bias-corrected) rather the p-values, results of this study fully supported that the hypothesized relationships are

significantly supported because the confidence intervals did not contain a zero value (Sarstedt, 2017). The R2 values are

used to determine the percentage of variance explained by the exogenous constructs in the endogenous constructs (Joseph

F Hair Jr et al., 2016). Hock and Ringle (Hock & Ringle, 2010) stated that the results more than the cutoffs of 0.67, 0.33

and 0.19 to be labeled as ‘substantial’, ‘moderate’, and ‘weak’ respectively. The findings of this research demonstrate

that the model explains more than 71% variance in EIWB which can be labeled as ‘substantial’ variance explained. As

far as the stages of EIWB are concerned, SL explains the greatest variance in Idea Promotion stage equal to 61.90%. The

specific amount of variance explained by PE is 18.5% which should be considered as ‘weak’ in the guidelines referred

above. Figure-3 below gives an overview of the PLS-SEM structural model.

Figure-3: PLS-SEM Structural Model

5. Discussion and Implications Conclusion We can say that women manage differently than men because they have a de facto management while men apply

management of law. It appears that they have made much progress because they are more present in major decision-

making; which was not the case before. Also, this is due to their management style (participative) different from that of

men (authoritarian, directive and often laissez-faire). Moreover, some women adopt a type of management similar to that

of men. There are, of course, common characteristics that identify the leaders and that correspond to the culture of the

company and the sector of activity. Denying the values of a woman manager would be reductive. Women have had to

develop specific skills through corporate culture. However, do women allow better group cohesion?

5.1 Discussion

This research was aimed to investigate the impact of SL at different stages of EIWB along with identification of the path

through which SL exerts its influence on EIWB. The results of this research strongly indicate that SL has a direct positive

impact on all the stages of EIWB. SL explains more than 50% of the variance in idea generation, idea promotion and

idea realization stages of EIWB. Moreover, SL has significant direct positive impact on EIWB. This finding is consistent

with the other studies which tried to investigate this relationship (Krog & Govender, 2015; Rasheed et al., 2016). The

results of this research can also be corroborated by the theoretical lens of social exchange perspective. The amount of

variance SL explains in EIWB in this study is almost 53%. Employees’ psychological empowerment has been identified

as a mediator by which SL exerts its influence on EIWB. The additional variance explained by PE in EIWB is accounted

for 18.5%. As far as the magnitude of the mediation through PE is concerned, it is found as ‘partial mediation, which

means that even after the significant positive mediation of PE, the path from SL to EIWB is still significant. Form this it

can be inferred that there could be additional mediators which can be analyzed in the relationship of SL to EIWB.

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

19

5.2 Theoretical and Managerial Implications

This study has offered three distinctive theoretical contributions. At first, this is one of the pioneer researches where the

impact of servant leadership style has been investigated at different stages o f employees’ innovative work behavior.

Secondly, this study has employed employees’ psychological empowerment as a mediator in the relationship between

servant leadership and employees’ innovative work behavior. This inclusion makes the conceptual model of this research

a unique model that has never been investigated in the past. Third and lastly, this research included self-determination as

a component of employees’ PE construct making this construct similar to intrinsic motivation. It has partially respon ded

to the call for investigation (Eva et al., 2018). Theoretically speaking all of the above-mentioned contributions are

important for the academicians to get a deeper understanding of the knowledge stream on SL and EIWB.

The findings of this research are also helpful to practitioners. This research showed the positive influence of SL at

different levels of EIWB as well as at aggregate level. Moreover, psychological empowerment has been found as mediator

in the relationship between SL and EIWB. This showed that SL is an employee oriented leadership style. Servant leaders

believe in empowering their followers who in return offers a valuable contribution to the organization like EIW B.

Precisely speaking, the results of this research supported the argument that empowerment, emotional healing, ethical

behavior and the help of subordinates’ by a servant leader can be recognized as significant ‘tools’ by which employees’

behavior regarding idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization can be improved. Thu s, managers should have a

keen focus on such attributes if they want to have the greater innovative workforce in their organizations.

5.3 Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions

At the outset, it is accepted that this is cross -sectional research and hence lacks in proving causality. This limitation can

be undermined through a longitudinal research design. The data of this study were collected on a self -reported

questionnaire which can cause common method and social desirability biases. To overcome this limitation, it is suggested

to get data regarding EIWB from the immediate supervisors or colleagues of employees. Further, this research

investigated only one mediator, psychological empowerment in the relationship between SL and EIWB. Future research

should include additional mediators and moderators to develop a rigorous and comprehensive model. Lastly, this research

included employees from the Power Sector Companies of Pakistan only. Inclusion of multiple industries and contextual

settings will enhance the generalizability of the findings.

References Agarwal, U. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review,

43(1), 41-73. Crossref

Abstein, A., & Spieth, P. (2014). Exploring HRM meta‐ features that foster employees' innovative work behaviour

in times of increasing work–life conflict. Creativity and innovation management, 23(2), 211-225. Crossref

Afsar, B., F. Badir, Y., & Bin Saeed, B. (2014). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior.

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(8), 1270-1300. Crossref

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,

10(1), 123-167.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment :

Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational

Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,

25(8), 951-968. Crossref

Axtell, C., Holman, D., & Wall, T. (2006). Promoting innovation: A change study. Journal of occupational and

organizational psychology, 79(3), 509-516. Crossref

Blau, P. (1964). 1964 Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Burleson, W. (2005). Developing creativity, motivation, and self-actualization with learning systems. International

Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4-5), 436-451. Crossref

Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant leadership on

organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 433-440. Crossref

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of

management review, 13(3), 471-482. Crossref

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

20

Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Methods.© The McGraw− Hill Companies.

De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and innovation

management, 19(1), 23-36. Crossref

Donia, M. B., Raja, U., Panaccio, A., & Wang, Z. (2016). Servant leadership and employee outcomes: The

moderating role of subordinates’ motives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25 (5), 722-

734. Crossref

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit ‐ level organizational

citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61-94. Crossref

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2018). Servant leadership: A systematic

review and call for future research: The leadership quarterly yearly review for 2019. The Leadership Quarterly.

Crossref

Faraz, N. A., Yanxia, C., Ahmed, F., Estifo, Z. G., & Raza, A. (2018). THE INFLUENCE OF TRANSACTIONAL

LEADERSHIP ON INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR-A MEDIATION MODEL. European Journal of Business

and Social Sciences, 7(01), 51-62.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error:

Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382-388. Crossref

Friedrich, T. L., Mumford, M. D., Vessey, B., Beeler, C. K., & Eubanks, D. L. (2010). Leading for innovation:

Reevaluating leader influences on innovation with regard to innovation type and complexity . International studies

of management & organization, 40(2), 6-29. Crossref

Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in

creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453-470. Crossref

Gregory Stone, A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference

in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349-361. Crossref

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation

modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage Publications. Crossref

Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines

on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123. Crossref

Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and

the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417. Crossref

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance -

based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of mark eting science, 43(1), 115-135. Crossref

Hock, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2010). Local strategic networks in the software industry: an empirical analysis of the

value continuum. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 4(2), 132. Crossref

Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product innovations: defining, developing, and

validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of business venturing, 20(5), 641-661. Crossref

Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire

servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2),

316-331. Crossref

Jaiswal, N. K., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and

employee creativity: A multilevel study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51 , 30-41. Crossref

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐ reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of

occupational and organizational psychology, 73 (3), 287-302. Crossref

Jha, S. (2014). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: Determinants of organizational

citizenship behavior. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 3 (1), 18-35. Crossref

Jorge Correia de Sousa, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2014). Servant leadership and engagement in a merge process

under high uncertainty. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27 (6), 877-899. Crossref

Kendall, P. C., Chu, B., Gifford, A., Hayes, C., & Nauta, M. (1998). Breathing life into a manual: Flexibility and

creativity with manual-based treatments. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 5(2), 177-198. Crossref

Krog, C. L., & Govender, K. (2015). The relationship between servant leadership and employee empowerment ,

commitment, trust and innovative behaviour: A project management perspective. SA Journal of Human Resource

Management, 13(1), 12. Crossref

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J. E., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of

workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of

Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25 (4), 527-545. Crossref

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization. Development of the servant organizational leadership

(SOLA) instrument.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on

individual and unit performance. Academy of management journal, 57(5), 1434-1452. Crossref

Naveed Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad Farhan Mughal, Fawad Ahmed, Ali Raza1,

Muhammad Khalid Iqbal

The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment

21

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short

form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254-269. Crossref

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a

multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177. Crossref

Moss Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation

in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, eds. Staw BM and Cummings LL, 10 .

Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences organizational

citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics,

145(1), 49-62. Crossref

O'Leary, B. S., Lindholm, M. L., Whitford, R. A., & Freeman, S. E. (2002). Selecting the best and brightest:

Leveraging human capital. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business

Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management,

41(3), 325-340. Crossref

Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X. (2015). Toward an understanding of when and

why servant leadership accounts for employee extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 657-

675. Crossref

Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and

firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 565-596. Crossref

Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of innovative work behaviour:

Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and innovation management, 14(2), 142-150. Crossref

Rasheed, A., Lodhi, R. N., & Habiba, U. (2016). An Empirical Study of the Impact of Servant Leadership on

Employee Innovative Work Behavior with the Mediating Effect of Work Engagement: Evidence from Banking

Sector of Pakistan. Global Management Journal for Academic & Corporate Studies, 6 (2), 177.

Robert, G. (1977). Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New Jersey.

Russell, R. F., & Gregory Stone, A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23 (3), 145-157. Crossref

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social

development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68. Crossref

Sarstedt, M. R., C.M.; Hair, J.F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling Handbook of Market

Research (pp. 01-40). New York, NY, USA: Springer. Crossref

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in

the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580-607. Crossref

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.

Academy of management journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. Crossref

Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California management review, 28(3), 74-92.

Crossref

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-

1261. Crossref

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a

multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267. Crossref

Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the

differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The

Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544-562. Crossref

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate,

employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a cross -level investigation. Journal of applied

psychology, 95(3), 517. Crossref

West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social behaviour.

Yang, J., Liu, H., & Gu, J. (2017). A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: The roles of self-efficacy

and power distance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38 (5), 610-629. Crossref

Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and

innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67(7),

1395-1404. Crossref

Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future

research Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 165-217): Emerald Group Publishing

LimitedCrossref