Fueling Employee Innovative Behavior Through Servant Leadership: A Moderated Mediated Framework
Dr. Sajid Rahman Khattak
Assistant Professor IBMS, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar
Dr. Imran Saeed
Lecturer IBMS The University of Agriculture Peshawar
Dr. Muhammad Fayaz
Associate Professor Agriculture University Peshawar
Dr. Shams ur Rahman
Assistant Professor IBMS, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar
Dr. Abdur Rauf
Assistant Professor, Abbottabad University of Science and Technology
Abstract
The present research was an attempt to identify how servant leadership to fuel employee innovative behavior. Based on the notion of social cognitive theory, we assume that servant leadership enhances employee innovative behavior via motivating knowledge sharing. Furthermore, the impact of servant leadership on knowledge sharing is strong when employee organizational identification is high. We tested the proposed model using time-lag data collected from 180 supervisor-employee dyads from five leading electrical companies in Pakistan. We found that servant leadership has a strong association with employee innovative behavior. Knowledge sharing partially mediates the indirect effect of servant leadership and innovative behavior. Furthermore, we also found that organizational identification moderates the relationship between servant leadership and knowledge sharing. Implications and theoretical contributions are also discussed.
Key Words: Servant Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Identification, Innovative Behavior
- Introduction
In today’s dynamic business environment, a possible way for organizations is to regularly explore the ways of how to be innovative because innovation is considered the soul of every organization and it is critical for sustainable organizational performance as well as for gaining a competitive edge in the long run (Shin et al., 2017). Employees are the primary source of innovation in organizations; thus, organizations must exert considerable efforts to make their employees more innovative and creative (Khattak et al., 2015; Pieterse et al., 2010). How this innovative ability of employees will be enhanced is the question that needs a solution. However, (Eva et al., 2019) suggested that servant leadership (SL) is growth-oriented and growth oriented amakesake organizations able to improve their employees’ innovative skills. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership was first proposed in 1970, based on employee development in their critical areas like self-motivation, community, future leadership capabilities, stewardship, and task effectiveness (Liden et al., 2014).
A mounting body of research assured the desirable results of SL for both employees and organizations, such as enhancing service climate and procedural justice (Walumbwa et al., 2010), fostering employee work outcomes (Newman et al., 2018), creating serving climate (Liden et al., 2014), and improving subordinates creativity through political skills and workplace spirituality (Williams et al., 2017). Regardless of these findings, it is still under investigation of how SL triggers employee innovative behavior (Eva et a., 2019). Past research highlighted that SL influences employee creativity by creating a serving culture and prototypicality with leaders (Yoshida et al., 2014). Though, Hughes et al., (2018) argued that innovation and creativity are two different constructs having distinct processes and lead to different outcomes. The process of innovation involves more diverse and more profound individual inputs.
Moreover, the organization’s sustainability and innovativeness his a strong effect than creativity (Chiniara and Bentein, 2016). Hence, it is essential to empirically examine the mechanisms through which SL prompts innovative behavior (Zhu and Zhang, 2019). To address this phenomenon, we take a social cognitive perspective in the current research.
Based on social cognitive theory (SET) (Bandura, 1986) poses that learning occurs in a social environment through an active and mutual collaboration of the person, behavior, and environment. In an organization setting, a leader’s behavior is considered an external factor that influences workers’ behavior (Carmeli et al., 2013). The inherent employee-oriented qualities of servant leaders help followers know from them (e.g., Van Dierndonck et al., 2014). Furthermore, researchers also argued that innovation or innovative behavior of employees without in-depth knowledge is intolerable (Woodman et al., 1993). The link between knowledge and innovation is just like the link between the trunk and branches of a tree (Andersson et al., 2016). The assimilation of knowledge form different people may encourage them to think diversely and should not base on their self-knowledge only (Woodman et al., 1993). Although, knowledge sharing phenomenon is not an automatic process, however, the leader has the quality to strongly influence knowledge sharing behavior of employees (Carmeli et al., 2013). Under the canopy of SL, employees are likely to share their knowledge and expertise with their colleagues (Liden et al. 2014). Hence, we propose that through knowledge sharing, SL may conjure innovative behavior.
In the SET view, an employee’s internal cognitive factors can significantly affect the indirect path (Wang et al., 2017). We believe that organizational identification (OI) can help as an internal cognitive element that strongly affects SL and innovative behavior relationship. OI is the tendency of an employee in an organization to identify with that organization (Elsbach, 2004). Employees having a high level of identification are more likely to be psychologically in touch with their jobs and gather information for self-improvement (Lee et al., 2015). Hence, playing a role of boundary condition, OI moderates the relationship of SL and knowledge sharing.
Based on the proposed conceptual framework, our research contributes to the existing body of knowledge in many ways. First, our research introduces servant leadership as an environmental factor that inspires the innovative behavior of employees. Servant leaders are generous and ready to share their knowledge and skills and offer timely assistance to their subordinates to develop their knowledge and expertise. Employees are more likely to replicate their leader’s behavior and serve others by sharing what he/she knows, thus serving leadership to promote innovative behavior (Presenza et al., 2019). Therefore, our study highlights essential insights into the role of SL that enhances innovative employee behavior. Second, we contribute to the past research by considering knowledge sharing as a mediator that extends our understanding of how SL contributes to innovative behavior from an individual behavior perspective rather than of identification constructs (Yoshida et al., 2014; Liden et al., 2014). By doing so, our research can explore how knowledge sharing transfers the benefits of servant leadership to innovative behavior (Bavik et al., 2018). Third, our study introduces organizational identification as a critical boundary condition for servant leadership and innovative behavior. Lastly, to test the proposed hypotheses, we collected data from non-Western participants i.e., managerial level employees from large electronic firms in Pakistan.
- Hypotheses Development
2.1. Servant Leadership, Innovative Behavior, and Knowledge Sharing
The founder of servant leadership Greenleaf (1977) argued that ‘going beyond the self-interest’ as the main attribute of SL. Here the leader gives priority to the followers’ interest instead of self-interest. The power of a leader becomes a means to serve their followers, and the leader practice both leading and serving interchangeably (Van Dierendonck et al., 20104). Such an attitude helps develop a sense of fairness, trust, and psychological safety between workers (Hu and Liden, 2011). The relationship between employees and leaders will be enhanced when employees’ psychological demands are satisfied. Such a positive work environment may motivate employees to work creatively (Qi Zhang et al., 2019).
Based on the social cognitive theory of Bandura (1986), individuals get knowledge primarily from two possible sources i.e., mastery model experience and enactive mastery experience. In the mastery model, experience employees observe the situation, memorize it, and learn from their role models or leaders. On the other hand, in enactive mastery experience, an individual practices a task or skill and becomes a master of it. Thus, observers engage in behavior learned from external situational and internal cognitive factors (Bandura, 1986). Based on this notion, we considered servant leaders as an external factor that is imposed on employees. Frequent interaction with their leaders makes employees learn unconsciously and behave what he/she learns from their servant leaders. Such employees act as a servant, and they eagerly share what he/she knows to their collogues. Thus, they share their tacit and explicit knowledge with others (Liden et al., 2014).
Furthermore, servant employees are considered more responsible for their results and explore new ways to find the best solutions. Such employees are inclined to work cooperatively, listen to others, and share their views to find the best acceptable solutions (Zhang et al. 2016). In this way, an active, sundry, and outspoken community is generated, allowing employees to share unique ideas (Gong et al. 2012).
The proposed model of Woodman et al. (1993) indicates that innovation is determined by intrinsic motivation, personality, cognitive abilities, and knowledge. Besides one’s knowledge, knowledge assimilated from diverse sources makes individuals learn new things and, based on it, generate new and unique ideas. The best way to acquire knowledge is to share what you know or share your knowledge (Zhou and Li, 2012). Sharing knowledge with collogues will help you to get benefits from their diverse field of expertise, which makes employees able to thoughts and generate new and diverse ideas (Sosa 2011). Furthermore, employee disseminating their knowledge with colleagues is also considered a vital enabler of innovation. To solve a problem, an employee first generates basic ideas, but if he/she shares this idea with their co-workers, new ideas or knowledge will be created through their tacit and explicit knowledge (Gong et al. 2012). Besides, past researches also mentioned that internalization, socialization, combination, and externalization of knowledge are perceived to intensify innovative ability (Zhou and Li 2012). Based on the cited literature, we proposed that:
H1: Servant leadership is significantly related to employees’ innovative behavior
H2: The relationship between servant leadership and employee’s innovative behavior is mediated by knowledge-sharing
2.2. Organizational Identification (OI) a Possible Moderator
The concept of organizational identification (OI) is entirely new, and it explains the degree to which one identifies with the organization behaviorally, emotionally, and cognitively (Elsbach 2004). It includes one’s identification extending from awareness, shared characteristics, emotional investment, and goal congruence to detect positive behavior (Ashforth et al., 2008). OI explains the attitude and behavior of employees in organizations because it is considered as a base where these attitudes and behaviors are provoked (Lee et al., 2015). An employee with higher OI is likely to benefit the whole organization instead of their benefit. Employees’ emotional responses to their jobs are also enhanced due to OI, as they typically view themselves positively. Taking extra roles such as voice behavior and citizenship behavior is the possible outcome of OI. These behaviors are not part of job descriptions and formal reward systems of an organization (Riketta, 2005). Moreover, employees with high identification perceived that helping their co-workers solve problems related to their organization seemed like helping themselves. Thus, such employees are good organizational citizens, and they do their best to achieve organizational goals. SET (Bandura 1986) suggested that external mastery models (servant leaders) bring employee innovative behavior and knowledge-sharing behavior. When employees perceive servant leaders as their ideal members, they become primary sources and role models from which employees learn organizational objectives (Panaccio et al., 2015).
The perception of those employees having a reliable organizational identification as that they would consider themselves as more representative or members of the organization. Still, they believe that organizational values are their values. This attribute makes them able to resonate and absorb with servant leadership and become more effective and efficient (Elsbach, 2004). In such a scenario, employees are motivated to achieve organizational goals instead of self-achievements. Employees having reliable identification can quickly adopt their leaders’ attributes and willingly share their knowledge and expertise with others (Riketta, 2005). Consequently, they consider themselves responsible for disseminating that identification, encouraging them to altruistically share what he/she knows with their co-workers and thus at the end help to boost innovation in the organization. Thus, we proposed that:
H3: The relationship between servant leadership and knowledge sharing is moderated by organizational identification, such that this relationship is more reliable when identification is higher
Figure 1: Proposed Model of the Study
- Method
3.1. Participants and Data Collection
We tested the proposed model on employees working in the large electrical firms operated in Pakistan. We collect the data from the employees through adopted scales. Through purposive sampling, 500 respondents were contacted to fill the survey scale. We received 180 usable responses with a response rate of 36%. Demographics information shows that majority of the respondents were male (76%). Their length of experience varies from 20 years (15%), 15 years (20%), 10 years (35%), and 5 years (30%), respectively. The majority of respondents have MA/MS.C. qualification (70%) followed by MS/MPhil (25%) and BA/BS.C. (5%).
3.2. Measurement
Our study used adopted instruments for data collection. All instruments were measured on a five-point scale rating from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. We assured the scales reliability through Cronbach’s alpha and validity through confirmatory factor analysis. The results of both were reported in the next section. Servant leadership was measured on 23 items scale initially developed by (Barbuto and Wheeler’s 2006). Sample items include ‘My leader does everything he/she can to serve me’ and ‘My leader puts my best interests ahead of his/her own’ (Alpha = 0.845). Employees were asked to report their identification with the organization through 5 items scale initially developed by Smidts et al., (2001). Sample items include ‘I experience a strong sense of belonging to the organization’ and ‘I feel strong ties with this organization’ (Alpha = 0.803). Knowledge sharing was measured on 5 items scale in which 3 items were used to measure explicit knowledge, and 2 items measure tacit knowledge, initially developed by Bock et al., (2005). The sample item includes, ‘I am willing to share my work reports and documents with organizational members’ (Alpha = 0.732). Innovative behavior was measured through a scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1994). This scale consists of 6 items. The sample item includes ‘This employee searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and product ideas’ (Alpha = 0.796).
- Results
Table 1 reports the reliability and validity statistics of the scales used in the study as depicted the alpha value of all the scales were above 0.6, showing that the scales are reliable. Similarly, CFA results show that the model is good fitted. The values of GFI, AGFI, CFI, RMSEA, and χ2/df shows good model fitness.
Table 1: CFA and Alpha Statistics
Var Alpha CMIN df χ2/df RMR GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA
SL .845 44.325 24 1.847 .045 .901 .851 .928 .034
KS .732 103.132 57 1.812 .047 .960 .866 .950 .042
OI .803 105.410 59 1.849 .045 .894 .878 .924 .045
IB .796 107.332 56 1.916 .048 .952 .861 .946 .042
The table reported below highlights composite construct reliability (CCR), average variance extraction (AVE), and intercorrelation among the tested variables. The results based on Harman’s one-factor test, confirm that there is no common method bias issue (Min et al., 2016). The values of CCR are below 0.7 among variables, and the correlation is significant.
Table 2: Correlation, AVE, and CCR
IB SL KS OI
IB 1
SL .648** 1
KS .574** .412** 1
OI .512** .403** .343** 1
Mean 3.52 3.39 3.80 3.76
SD .863 .837 .763 .717
AVE .708 .794 .683 .749
CCR .813 .901 .945 .889
4.1. Hypotheses Testing
We tested the proposed hypotheses through a bootstrapping method in PROCESS. As per Hayes and Preacher’s (2014) suggestion, model 7 was selected for moderated mediation. We found that servant leadership has significant relation with innovative behavior (B = 0.36, p = .000) on 95% confidence level. Furthermore, KS mediates the relationship of SL and innovative behavior (B = 0.61, p = .000). Thus, the first two hypotheses are accepted. The direct and indirect effects of X on Y through the value of the mediator are also reported.
Table 3a: Model Summary and Coefficients
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.87 .75 .13 229.36 2.00 177.00 .00
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant .02 .17 .14 .89 -.32 .37
KS .61 .05 12.75 .00 .52 .71
SL .36 .04 8.43 .00 .27 .44
Outcome: IB
Table 3b: Direct effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
.36 .04 8.43 .00 .27 .44
Table 3c: Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s): Mediator
ID Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
KS 2.66 .06 .06 -.06 .17
KS 3.51 -.04 .05 -.14 .04
KS 4.36 -.15 .05 -.26 -.07
We tested the proposed hypothesis 3, and as stated in the table reported below, OI significantly moderates the relationship between SL and knowledge sharing. As per Hayes and Preacher (2014), the interaction effect’s value must be significant for moderation analysis. As seen in the table, the value of interaction effect is significant (i.e., p =0.000); thus, our third hypothesis that is ‘OI moderate the relationship between SL and knowledge sharing’ is accepted.
Table 4: Model Summary and Coefficients
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.57 .33 .36 31.89 3.00 176.00 .00
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant .02 .69 .03 .97 -1.34 1.38
SL .65 .24 2.73 .01 .18 1.12
ID 1.18 .19 6.10 .00 .80 1.56
int_1 -.20 .06 -3.45 .00 -.32 -.09
Following Aiken and West’s (1991) method, the plot for interaction effect is created as elaborated in Figure 2. The relationship between servant leadership and knowledge sharing is higher for employees who have higher organizational identification, thus, supporting our third hypothesis.
- Discussion
The present research proposed and tested a novel model by adding boundary conditions and mediating path to servant leadership and innovative behavior relationship. Based on social cognitive theory, we treated SL as an external environmental factor and interpreted OI as a personal cognitive factor that affects an employee’s innovative behavior and knowledge sharing. We studied that these environmental and personal factors interact and affect employee innovative behavior through mediator knowledge sharing.
We found that SL positively effects innovative behavior through knowledge sharing, indicating that there are other external environmental factors, including leadership styles that affect innovative behavior (Chiniara and Bentein, 2016). Our findings suggest that sharing ideas willingly and proactively with others enhance innovative employee behavior. Furthermore, our research reveals that OI moderates the relationship between SL and knowledge sharing at the level first. Finally, our empirical findings recommend that in the case where the level of organizational identification is high, KS bridge the connection of SL and innovative behavior.
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
Based on the findings of this research, we highlight critical theoretical contributions. First, we contribute to the leadership theory by exploring the mechanisms of how SL motivates IB in Pakistani organizations. Though leadership scholars acknowledged that how servant leader behavior is essential in follower’s creative performance (e.g., Opoku et al., 2019; Ortiz-Gomez et al., 2020; Newman et al., 2018), but the boundary conditions insights to the model of leadership and innovative behavior linkages still need exploration (Eva et al., 2019). By introducing this integrative model, we provide insights for further research in the Pakistani context.
Second, our research identifies how important individual cognitive factor i.e., OI reinforce the association of SL and knowledge sharing. Our findings suggest that SL is more positively related to knowledge sharing when OI is high. This finding is in line with Johnson et al. (2012) ‘s findings as they found that OI is highly correlated with knowledge sharing.
Finally, our integrated model contributes valuable insight by highlighting how SL effect innovative behavior. Past findings suggest that supportive leadership enhance creative performance (e.g., Newman et al., 2018) and employee creativity (Fabio and Peiro, 2018; Alafeshat and Tanova, 2019). But we found that only serving the behavior of leaders is not enough to promote innovative behavior in the organizations. It is contingent on personal cognitive factors like employee organizational identification (in our case). Thus, our findings not only confirm the importance of SL but also highlight the mechanisms on how to improve innovative employee behavior.
5.2. Managerial Implications
Our findings on how SL fuel innovative behavior is chiefly based on large electrical firms in Pakistan. Innovation is the soul of every organization, and it is considered an essential element for organizational development. By studying such a relationship allow us to explore new ways to aggravate innovative behavior.
Our results suggest that both internal cognitive factors and external SL are essential pillars of improving innovative behavior. Thus, facilitating knowledge sharing demanded that leaders should serve first and create a serving culture in the organization that may motivate followers to follow their role models. Therefore, followers are more likely to share their tacit and explicit knowledge and experience with others, thus, facilitating knowledge sharing. Our findings suggest that HR departments arrange training sessions to enhance employee’s organizational identification.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Avenues
Irrespective of what our study offers, our study has some unavoidable limitations that must be addressed. First, we studied the SL and innovative behavior relationships and did not control for other leadership-related antecedents. Future researchers may introduce other possible factors like charismatic, ethical, and transformational leadership styles. Second, we collect the data from a single sector, i.e., the pharma industry, that may affect the findings’ generalizability. Future researchers replicate the findings by selecting samples from the diverse nature of organizations. Third, we explore this phenomenon in the Pakistani cultural context. In the future, a sample from other cultures is vital for external validity and generalizability of the findings.
5.4. Conclusion
This research highlighted a few vital issues regarding the relationship between SL and innovative behavior. Our findings direct that OI moderate the relationship between SL and knowledge sharing. Meanwhile, KS mediates the relationship between SL and innovative behavior. Based on the findings of this integrative framework, we concluded that managers should exhibit more serving attributes towards their employees, this will make them more innovative through sharing knowledge and useful ideas with their co-workers. We expect that this study motivates future research on SL in different contexts, thereby introducing a mechanism of how servant leadership fuel employee’s innovative behavior.
References
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Alafeshat, R., & Tanova, C. (2019). Servant Leadership Style and High-Performance Work System Practices: Pathway to a Sustainable Jordanian Airline Industry. Sustainability, 11(22), 6191.
Andersson, U., Dasí, Á., Mudambi, R., & Pedersen, T. (2016). Technology, innovation, and knowledge: The importance of ideas and international connectivity. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 153-162.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986, 23-28.
Barbuto, Jr, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326.
Bavik, Y. L., Tang, P. M., Shao, R., & Lam, L. W. (2018). Ethical leadership and employee knowledge sharing: Exploring dual-mediation paths. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 322-332.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly, 87-111.
Carmeli, A., Sheaffer, Z., Binyamin, G., Reiter‐Palmon, R., & Shimoni, T. (2014). Transformational leadership and creative problem‐solving: The mediating role of psychological safety and reflexivity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(2), 115-135.
Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124-141.
Di Fabio, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2018). Human Capital Sustainability Leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability, 10(7), 2413.
Elsbach, K. D. (2004). Interpreting workplace identities: The role of office décor. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(1), 99-128.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111-132.
Gong, Y., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of management, 38(5), 1611-1633.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership (PaulistPress, New York).
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 67(3), 451-470.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied psychology, 96(4), 851.
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569.
Khattak, S. R., Batool, S., & Haider, M. (2017). Relationship of leadership styles and employee creativity: A mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of organizational climate. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 11(2), 698-719.
Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 141(5), 1049.
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.
Min, H., Park, J., & Kim, H. J. (2016). Common method bias in hospitality research: A critical review of literature and an empirical study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 56, 126-135.
Newman, A., Neesham, C., Manville, G., & Tse, H. H. (2018). Examining the influence of servant and entrepreneurial leadership on the work outcomes of employees in social enterprises. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(20), 2905-2926.
Opoku, M. A., Choi, S. B., & Kang, S. W. (2019). Servant leadership and innovative behaviour: An empirical analysis of ghana’s manufacturing sector. Sustainability, 11(22), 6273.
Ortiz-Gómez, M., Giorgi, G., Molina-Sánchez, H., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2020). Development and Validation of a Spanish Short Servant Leadership Survey (SSLS6-3F) among Spanish Workers in Religious Non-Profit Organizations. Sustainability, 12(9), 3766.
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of organizational behavior, 31(4), 609-623.
Presenza, A., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Natalicchio, A. (2019). Business model innovation for sustainability. Highlights from the tourism and hospitality industry.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of vocational behavior, 66(2), 358-384.
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.
Shin, S. J., Yuan, F., & Zhou, J. (2017). When perceived innovation job requirement increases employee innovative behavior: A sensemaking perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 68-86.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.
Sosa, M. E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1-21.
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.
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.
Wang, M., Kwan, H. K., & Zhou, A. (2017). Effects of servant leadership on work–family balance in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 55(4), 387-407.
Williams, W. A., Brandon, R. S., Hayek, M., Haden, S. P., & Atinc, G. (2017). Servant leadership and followership creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of management review, 18(2), 293-321.
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.
Zhang, Q., Sun, S., Zheng, X., & Liu, W. (2019). The role of cynicism and personal traits in the organizational political climate and sustainable creativity. Sustainability, 11(1), 257.
Zhang, Z., Lee, J. C. K., & Wong, P. H. (2016). Multilevel structural equation modeling analysis of the servant leadership construct and its relation to job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic management journal, 33(9), 1090-1102.
Zhu, C., & Zhang, F. (2020). How does servant leadership fuel employee innovative behavior? A moderated mediation framework. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(3), 356-377.