The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

LODJ
40,4 Impact of servant leadership
on intrinsic and extrinsic
job satisfaction
472 Rami Al-Asadi, Shahnawaz Muhammed, Oualid Abidi and
Received 16 September 2018
Vladimir Dzenopoljac
Revised 21 March 2019 College of Business Administration,
11 April 2019
Accepted 13 April 2019
American University of the Middle East, Egaila, Kuwait

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which perceived servant leadership of the
supervisors impacts the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction of the followers.
Design/methodology/approach – Servant leadership factor structure was evaluated by applying Liden
et al.’s (2008) measure, and used the second-order model to test its relationship with the intrinsic and extrinsic
job satisfaction. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to test data from
205 individuals working in service-sector organizations in Kuwait.
Findings – The seven-factor structure proposed by Liden et al. (2008) holds valid in this sample, thus
providing greater validity for this measure to be used in similar contexts. The results also indicate that
second-order factor of servant leadership positively affects both intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications – Servant leadership was measured using follower perception of their
leader attributes. Next, the cross-sectional data limit the ability to demonstrate causality between servant
leadership and employee satisfaction. Further, data were collected only from service-sector organizations in
Kuwait, which limits the generalizability of results.
Practical implications – This research helps in highlighting the significance of embracing more altruistic
leadership approach in enhancing job satisfaction. Leaders in the analyzed region must be aware of the
positive outcomes of this approach on job satisfaction, which can eventually contribute to engaged employees
and their performance.
Originality/value – This research tries to add to the growing body of knowledge in terms of assessing
relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction in the service sector in the Middle East.
Keywords Kuwait, Structural equation modeling, Servant leadership, LISREL, Extrinsic job satisfaction,
Intrinsic job satisfaction
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Leadership is a key characteristic that helps in focusing efforts of all organizational actors
towards achieving the overall goals of the organization. Servant leadership has emerged as
a significant approach to leadership, which promotes leaders who serve their followers in
order to improve follower performance, and eventually the organization’s performance
(Greenleaf, 1977; McCann et al., 2014; Shahin and Wright, 2004). The approach further
focuses on more active engagement of employees in the contemporary organizations (Bass,
2000; Bobbio et al., 2012; Choi and Mai-Dalton, 1998; Russell, 2001; Sendjaya and Pekerti,
2010). Servant leadership is viewed as an approach that can have a significant impact on
organizational performance. However, prior research has found that this relationship may
also be mediated by other factors (De Waal and Sivro, 2012). One of the mediating factors
in this regard is employee job satisfaction. Since the postindustrial era, significant
technological changes, innovation and creativity have become the main pillars of
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal sustainable competitive advantage of modern companies (Huber, 1984). Therefore, job
Vol. 40 No. 4, 2019
pp. 472-484
satisfaction of employees emerged as a crucial factor for the alignment of people’s creativity
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
with organizational goals and performance (Akdol and Arikboga, 2015; Davis, 1971).
DOI 10.1108/LODJ-09-2018-0337 Furthermore, job satisfaction of the employees is considered as an important micro level
characteristic that contributes to the individual performance and eventually to the Impact of
organization’s performance (Searle and Barbuto, 2011). Hence, the objective of this paper is servant
to examine the nature of relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction, which leadership
are important organizational performance drivers.
Among the leadership theories and approaches, servant leadership is viewed as having a
unique leadership perspective that pays particular attention to the service to others
(Greenleaf, 1977). The approach has gained renewed interest in the leadership literature in 473
the last couple of decades due to the emergence of several models that operationalize and
measure servant leadership. Servant leadership is seen as an important organizational
variable that has significant impact on followers’ behaviors (Farling et al., 1999; Laub, 1999;
Liden et al., 2008; Russell and Gregory Stone, 2002; Sendjaya and Pekerti, 2010). The
increased emphasis on servant leadership is also congruent with the shift in paradigm that
puts “growing emphasis on ethical responsibility, sustainable development, [and] long-term
benefit for people, companies and society” (Bobbio et al., 2012, p. 229).
Job satisfaction being an important construct in organizational research, several
studies have investigated the impact of various leadership styles and approaches on it
( Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004; Lok and Crawford, 1999; Medley and Larochelle, 1995).
However, empirical research on servant leadership and its relationship with job
satisfaction is limited except for few studies in the education and healthcare fields
(Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016; Cerit, 2009; Farrington and Lillah, 2018;
Georgolopoulos et al., 2018). In the context of Middle Eastern organizations, there have
been even fewer studies that directly assessed the empirical relationship between servant
leadership and job satisfaction apart from some studies that focused on testing various
leadership theories (e.g. Abdalla and Al‐Homoud, 2001; Butler, 2009; Hage and Posner,
2015; Shahin and Wright, 2004). However, there is a growing interest to examine the
relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction in this region (Ahmad and
Yekta, 2010; Mohamad, 2012; Poethke and Rowold, 2017; Randeree and Chaudhry, 2012).
This research tries to add to this body of knowledge by enabling a better understanding of
servant leadership and the extent of its impact on job satisfaction.

Servant leadership
The core idea of servant leadership is the altruistic outlook of the leaders to serve their
followers (Greenleaf, 1977). In an organizational context, this orientation to serve is driven
by leaders’ concerns about employee individual growth, empowerment, and development of
mutual trust. Servant leaders have the attitude of leading others from a perspective of
placing the needs of both the organization and the needs of people above their own needs
and desires. They tend to listen to followers, praise and provide support for them, and show
that they really care about their desires and needs (Yukl et al., 2002). Subordinating leaders’
self-interests to those of their followers leads to greater job satisfaction of the followers in
the workplace (Staats, 2015).
Greenleaf (1977) proposed ten attributes that servant leaders should display. These
include empathy, listening, healing, awareness, foresight, persuasion, stewardship,
conceptualization, commitment to growth and building community. Since Greenleaf’s
initial framework, researchers have identified and reported on additional constructs
related to emerging servant leadership models Mitterer (2017). The construct of servant
leadership has been conceptually related to several positive attributes increasingly seen as
significant components of today’s organizational fabric such as, servanthood (De Pree,
1989; Greenleaf, 1977; Russell, 2001), morality (Graham, 1991), authenticity (Autry, 2001;
Jaworski, 1998) and spirituality (Fairholm, 1997; Palmer, 1998). Greenleaf’s concept of
servant leadership has been further developed to make it more precise over the years by
many researchers, notably Spears (1995) and Laub (1999). Van Dierendonck (2011) and
LODJ Green et al. (2016) provide a detailed review of various measures developed thus far for
40,4 servant leadership.
This study uses Liden et al.’s (2008) measure of servant leadership based on the seven
dimensions: emotional healing, creating value for the community, conceptual skills,
empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, and
behaving ethically. This instrument has been utilized in other studies with good internal
474 consistency and validity (Hu and Liden, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2011). This measure can
also be appropriately used in situations where followers rate their superiors to assess the
superiors’ servant leader orientation, as is the case in this study.

Servant leadership and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is an important emotional construct in the workplace that significantly
affects many behavioral aspects related to the performance of individuals (Schyns et al.,
2009). It is the overall experience that describes how people feel about their job and its
diverse facets (Aziri, 2011). Organizations benefit from it because satisfied workers are less
likely to quit, perform better, experience less burnouts and are less likely to display
absenteeism and lateness (Locke and Latham, 2002; Baptiste, 2008). A high level of job
satisfaction reduces the cost to the organization, increases the employee commitment and
drives organizational performance (Currivan, 1999; McGivern and Tvorik, 1997). For
employees, job satisfaction is important because it significantly influences their overall life
satisfaction and well-being (Faragher et al., 2005).
Job satisfaction is defined as the positive affective response to one’s job situation and
working conditions (Locke, 1969; Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). It is the general attitude
regarding one’s work that sums up the affective response to a variety of work-related
factors (Blum and Naylor, 1968). This paper builds on Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory of
job satisfaction, where the employee job satisfaction is viewed as two dimensional,
comprising of motivational needs and hygiene needs. This perspective of job satisfaction
has been widely used in prior work (Hur, 2018; Kotni and Karumuri, 2018).
From this perspective, employee job satisfaction is affected by several factors; some of
which are intrinsic in nature, such as self-esteem, personal growth, accomplishment and
employee readiness (Matthews et al., 2018). Intrinsic job satisfaction (IJS) derives primarily
from the internal meaning, significance and personal characteristics experienced by the
individual and are related to the motivational needs. Other factors that affect job satisfaction
are extrinsic, such as fair treatment, amount of supervision received, and related contextual
factors such as age and tenure that shape individual experiences (Dobrow et al., 2018).
Extrinsic job satisfaction is derived from the externalities of the work and may be
considered as the hygiene needs; an important aspect of such externalities is the relational
dimension of the individual with their supervisors (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). In a recent
study on retail sector employees, Kotni and Karumuri (2018) indicate that hygiene factors
were more prominent drivers of job satisfaction.
From a relational theory perspective, working is inherently a relational act and
emphasizes relationships as the main motivation for work (Blustein, 2011). A major part of
the relational aspect of work is the follower’s relationship with the leader since it affords
accessibility to both cognitive and physical resource to advance their work (Furnham,
2006; Grant, 2008; Settoon and Mossholder, 2002). Previous studies have shown that
leaders who adopt a servant leadership approach have a positive influence on their
followers’ job satisfaction (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Guillaume et al., 2013; Jaramillo
et al., 2009; Mayer et al., 2008). In another study, Tischler et al. (2016) explored the
relationship between servant leadership and core self-evaluation and job satisfaction,
finding that servant leadership impacts job satisfaction both directly and through core
self-evaluation. Servant leadership being inherently an altruistic disposition of the leader,
it is expected to affect the followers’ intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction positively. Impact of
Hence, we hypothesize: servant
H1. Employees’ perception of servant leadership is positively related to their IJS. leadership
H2. Employees’ perception of servant leadership is positively related to their extrinsic
job satisfaction.
475
Methodology
Data collection and administration
Data were collected as part of a larger survey of employee satisfaction and leadership from
various service organizations in Kuwait. The survey yielded 205 usable responses from the
surveyed individuals. All respondents completed the questionnaire in reference to the
supervisors/leaders with whom they interact, deal and report to on a frequent basis. The
employees were assured that the individual responses would not be disclosed to
management staff, they were also informed that the data collected would be analyzed and
reported only in aggregate form and will be maintained with utmost confidentiality.
The sample indicated that on average, the respondents had been with their current
supervisors for 2.72 years. The average years of experience of the respondents with their
current organization was 3.71 years. Approximately half of the respondents in the sample
were females (51.2 percent). Most of the respondents were in their early career, with most
falling in the age bracket of 2530 years (51.71 percent). Of all respondents, 75.6 percent had
at least a bachelor’s degree and 11.2 percent out of these were holders of a master’s degree
or above.

Measurement of servant leadership

Servant leadership was measured using Liden et al.’s (2008) 28-item servant leadership
instrument. The scale measures employees’ perceptions regarding seven dimensions of their
immediate supervisors’ servant leadership: emotional healing, creating value for the
community, conceptual skills, empowering employees, helping subordinates grow and
succeed, putting subordinates first and behaving ethically. Respondents rated agreement
with each of the 28 items on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 representing “strongly disagree”
and 5 representing “strongly agree”. Each of the seven dimensions had good reliability for
each of the constructs as indicated by Cronbach’s α in the original study: conceptual skills
(α ¼ 0.80); empowerment (α ¼ 0.79); helping subordinates grow and succeed (α ¼ 0.82);
putting subordinates first (α ¼ 0.86); behaving ethically (α ¼ 0.83); emotional healing
(α ¼ 0.76); and creating value for the community (α ¼ 0.83) (Liden et al., 2008).

Measurement of job satisfaction

IJS and extrinsic job satisfaction were measured using items adapted from the MCMJSS job
satisfaction scale (Mohrman et al., 1977). This measure has been widely used in job
satisfaction research (Emmanuel and Hassan, 2015; McKee, 1991; Shamsi et al., 2016;). The
intrinsic factors were related to self-esteem/self-respect, personal growth and development,
accomplishments, and expectations, whereas the extrinsic job satisfaction factors were
related to respect and fair treatment, being informed, the amount of supervision received,
and opportunity to participate in the methods, procedures and goals of the organization.
The items measured were similar to those utilized by McKee (1991), with a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 being the lowest level of satisfaction to 5 being the highest
level of satisfaction. Reliability coefficients for IJS and extrinsic job satisfaction were
reported to be 0.87 and 0.82, respectively, in the original study (Mohrman et al., 1977).
LODJ Data analysis
40,4 Survey data were subjected to initial screening and missing data analysis. There were only
three missing entries and these were randomly disbursed in the data set and were
considered not to be a significant problem for further analysis. Since Liden et al.’s (2008)
servant leadership measure has been widely used and has shown correlation with other
measures of servant leadership, such as that proposed by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten
476 (2011), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted, with seven proposed factors to
evaluate the factor structure. At this stage, alternate models with five and eight factors were
also evaluated because many studies related to servant leadership have reported similar
numbers of final factors compared to what was initially proposed (see reviews by Green
et al., 2016; Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Next, the measurement model for servant leadership, IJS, and extrinsic job satisfaction is
tested using structural equation modeling in LISREL. Servant leadership was also tested as
a second-order model to evaluate the existence of a more parsimonious measure and to test
its effect on intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. The model-data fit was evaluated using
various commonly reported fit measures (Hooper et al., 2008). Once measurement models
were validated, the structural model is evaluated to investigate the hypotheses relating
servant leadership to intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction.

Results
Evaluation of measurement models
CFA with seven factors using varimax rotation with all 28 items of servant leadership
indicated that most items loaded on their respective dimensions. After item purification, at
least three items that best represented the construct were retained in the final measurement
model of servant leadership. Fit indices indicated good fit between the data and the
measurement model of servant leadership with a χ2 of 278.88 for 168 df. and RMSEA 0.057
(90% confidence interval for RMSEA between 0.045 and 0.068, GFI ¼ 0.88, AGFI ¼ 0.84,
CFI ¼ 0.98, NFI ¼ 0.96, NNFI ¼ 0.97). The measurement model with seven dimensions had a
much better fit compared to five and eight factors and was retained for further analysis. The
standardized loadings of the items with each of the dimensions of servant leadership in this
model ranged from 0.63 to 0.91 and were significant at p o0.05. The correlations between
the seven dimensions are indicated in Table I. All correlations between the first-order factors
were also significant at p o0.05. Each of the dimensions also had good reliabilities ranging
from 0.76 to 0.90.
Next, a second-order factor of servant leadership was constructed with the summated
scales of the sub-dimensions. A second-order factor represents a higher order latent variable
comprising of its sub-dimensions and is a more parsimonious way to test the impact of
servant leadership on intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. The final summated second-

Mean SD EH VC CS EE HS SF BE

EH 3.55 1.00 (0.78)

VC 3.30 0.94 0.77 (0.87)
CS 3.87 0.84 0.53 0.53 (0.76)
Table I. EE 3.44 1.04 0.69 0.54 0.57 (0.87)
Univariate statistics,
HS 3.62 0.95 0.56 0.52 0.68 0.59 (0.86)
reliabilities (in
parenthesis) and SF 2.69 0.99 0.52 0.43 0.37 0.48 0.63 (0.90)
Pearson correlations BE 3.74 0.92 0.50 0.53 0.73 0.44 0.59 0.44 (0.79)
of the servant leader Notes: EH, emotional healing; VC, creating value for community; CS, conceptual skills; EE, empowering
dimensions employees; HS, helping subordinates grow and succeed; SF, putting subordinates first; BE, behaving ethically
order factor model had a good fit with a χ2 of 25 for 11 df. Other relevant fit indices for the Impact of
model were: RMSEA 0.079, GFI ¼ 0.97, AGFI ¼ 0.91, CFI ¼ 0.98, NFI ¼ 0.97, NNFI ¼ 0.97. servant
second-order model of servant leadership had a target coefficient of 0.74, with an overall leadership
reliability of 0.86 indicating reasonable evidence for a second-order construct (Marsh and
Hocevar, 1985).
To evaluate the measurement model of IJS and extrinsic job satisfaction (EJS), CFA was
conducted with two factors and all eight items measuring job satisfaction. All items loaded 477
on their respective factors except for one item (the feeling of self-esteem or self-respect one
receives from work), which was weakly loaded on both the factors (0.44 and 0.47). After
removing this item and refining the model, the measurement model indicted good fit ( χ2 of
15.05 for 11 df, RMSEA 0.042, GFI ¼ 0.99, AGFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.98, NFI ¼ 0.98,
NNFI ¼ 0.98), and reliability (α ¼ 0.91 for IJS and α ¼ 0.81 for extrinsic job satisfaction
and α ¼ 0.80 overall as a second-order factor).

Structural model of servant leadership and job satisfaction

In order to test the hypotheses that servant leadership positively impacts IJS and extrinsic job
satisfaction of the employees, the structural model (Figure 1) was tested with second-order
factor of servant leadership impacting IJS and extrinsic job satisfaction. In this model, the
error correlations of the items were maintained as defined in the final measurement model.
This model had a good fit ( χ2 of 93.38 for 68 df, RMSEA 0.043, Model AIC ¼ 167.38,
GFI ¼ 0.94, AGFI ¼ 0.91, CFI ¼ 0.99, NFI ¼ 0.98, NNFI ¼ 0.99), with 90% confidence interval
for RMSEA between 0.017 and 0.063. All loadings were significant at p-valueso0.01
indicating that perceived servant leadership had a strong and positive relationship with both
the IJS (γ ¼ 0.69, po0.01) and extrinsic job satisfaction (γ ¼ 0.80, po0.01) of the employees
surveyed, supporting H1 and H2. IJS and extrinsic job satisfaction were allowed to correlate
freely in the model as they were expected to be interrelated with each other. The correlations
between them (0.23) were also significant in the model.
To eliminate the possibility of over-fitting the model based on data, the structural
model was also tested without any of the error correlations to determine whether it
had any impact on the relationships that were hypothesized (Bollen, 1989). The
structural model without any of the error correlations provided an acceptable fit ( χ2 of
196.25 for 75 df, RMSEA 0.089, Model AIC ¼ 256.25, GFI ¼ 0.88, AGFI ¼ 0.83, CFI ¼ 0.97,
NFI ¼ 0.95, NNFI ¼ 0.96) with a 90% confidence interval for RMSEA between 0.074 and
0.10. All loadings were significant at p-values o 0.01, and the coefficients from servant
leadership to IJS and extrinsic job satisfaction were 0.78 and 0.89. These results were
consistent with those obtained with error correlations and did not deviate significantly
from the earlier results.

Intrinsic Job
Satisfaction
Servant Leadership
0.69
• Emotional healing
• Value for community Figure 1.
• Conceptual skills 0.23
• Empowering
Structural model of
• Helping subordinates
the impact of servant
• Putting subordinates first leadership on intrinsic
• Behaving ethically 0.80 job satisfaction and
Extrinsic Job extrinsic job
Satisfaction satisfaction
LODJ Discussion
40,4 The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of servant leadership on followers’
intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction and to evaluate the dimensionality of the servant
leadership in this sample. The results indicate that the seven dimensions of servant
leadership as measured by Liden et al. (2008) are evident in the current sample with good
reliability and discriminant validity. They provide greater confidence in using this
478 measure in the Middle Eastern context as Kuwait is considered to be part of the Middle
Eastern cluster and shares similar leadership traits as per the GLOBE leadership study
(House et al., 2004). The findings are consistent with other studies that have found
evidence for factorial validity of servant leadership measures in multiple contexts, for
instance in China (Hu and Liden, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2011) using Liden et al.’s (2008)
measure; in Italy, Netherlands and the UK (Bobbio et al., 2012) using an SLS instrument;
and in the USA and Ghana (Hale and Fields, 2007) using the instrument proposed by
Dennis and Bocarnea (2005). However, Liu, Hu and Cheng (2015) failed to identify all
dimensions in a study conducted among public sector employees in China for Liden et al.’s
(2008) measure highlighting the need to assess its dimensionality in diverse contexts.
Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) measure suggested that there might be factors other than
the cultural contexts that affect the interpretation of servant leadership. Thus, future
research may focus on those aspects that influence how servant leadership is interpreted
within specific communities.
The results also suggest that servant leadership can be more parsimoniously represented
as a second-order construct even when it is measured with all its dimensions compared to
using a single dimensional first-order measure, as posited by Ehrhart (2004) and Liden
et al.’s (2015) simplified seven-item measure. A multidimensional measure ensures that the
instrument captures various aspects of servant leadership more comprehensively, and being
able to model it into a single second-order construct facilitates testing of hypotheses related
to the antecedents or impacts of servant leadership in a more simple manner. The error
correlations between the servant leadership dimensions in the measurement model suggests
the possibility of a third variable affecting those dimensions. This may suggest an internal
structure between the dimensions of servant leadership with the possibility of the third
variable being other dimensions within servant leadership. This is highly probable since the
dimensions are closely correlated. Future research may investigate this aspect of servant
leadership further as it has not received much attention in the extant literature.
The results of the structural model are also consistent with earlier findings in other
contexts (mostly in the field of education) that relate servant leadership to job satisfaction
(Cerit, 2009; Drury, 2004). Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) also found that servant leadership
had strong relationship with other positive outcomes for employees as well, for instance the
extra effort put forth by them, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Future
research may explore these and other individual and organizational level outcomes of
servant leadership in various contexts.
By testing the second-order structure of servant leadership and its impact on employee
job satisfaction, this study demonstrates the holistic nature of servant leadership. It also
provides greater support for the influence servant leadership has on both the intrinsic and
extrinsic job satisfaction of employees, which has not been sufficiently investigated in a
business context or in the Middle Eastern context except for a notable few (e.g. Ahmad and
Yekta, 2010; Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016; Butler, 2009; McDonald and Makin, 2000;
Shahin and Wright, 2004; Zhang et al., 2016). The results suggest that even though there are
specific differences in the context of Kuwait regarding the prevailing leadership style as
identified in the GLOBE culture study and reported as part of the Middle Eastern cluster
(House et al., 2004), Kuwaiti employees remain positively responsive to servant leadership
similar to the findings from other studies around the globe. Traditionally, job satisfaction in
this population is viewed as being impacted by wages, relationships with colleagues, type of Impact of
work, career progress and other organizational incentives (Al-Mashaan, 2003). servant
Although servant leadership had a larger impact on extrinsic job satisfaction than on IJS, leadership
both the impacts were significant and substantial. It is not surprising that servant
leadership affects employees’ extrinsic job satisfaction more since it relates to the hygiene
dimension- components of which include supervision and interpersonal relations (Herzberg,
1966). It is notable that IJS is also impacted strongly and positively by servant leadership, 479
implying that employees find more internal meaning in their work in situations where their
managers adopt a servant leadership approach. Our research helps to highlight the
significance of embracing more altruistic leadership approaches such as servant leadership
in promoting employee job satisfaction. Leaders in this region must be aware of the positive
outcomes of this approach on job satisfaction which can eventually contribute to engaged
employees and improve their performance that are essential for contemporary organizations
(Lu et al., 2016; Sony and Mekoth, 2016).
The results of this study should be interpreted in the light of several important
limitations. First, servant leadership is measured using employees’ perceptions regarding
the various aspects of the supervisor’s leadership orientations and cannot constitute an
objective measure of the supervisor’s leadership attributes. Though this is a common
practice in the leadership literature, especially in the context of studying its effects on the
followers, future research may explore ways to validate objectively servant leadership
dimensions of the leader. Other factors such as leader’s core self-evaluations may influence
follower’s perception of servant leadership (Flynn et al., 2016). Future research may include
such variables to understand its interaction on the effect of servant leadership on job
satisfaction. Second, the cross-sectional data used in the study limits the ability to
demonstrate causality that servant leadership leads to employee satisfaction. It is likely that
employees who are more satisfied with their work rate their supervisors higher concerning
the dimensions of servant leadership. Third, the sample was selected based on convenience
and ease of access to the organizations in which the study was conducted and represented
mostly private service-based institutions; therefore, the generalizability is limited to the
private sector organizations in Kuwait. However, having respondents from multiple
organizations that represented various sectors mitigates this to some degree. Replicating
these findings in future research, which could cover both public and private institutions
with a more random selection process, may provide greater confidence in generalizing these
findings. Earlier research had indicated that there were marked differences in job
satisfaction among public and private sector employees (Maidani, 1991).
Future research can also focus on the mediating role of gender and age/seniority on the
relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. The influence of servant
leadership on organizational commitment and retention can be explored in Kuwaiti
organizations as turnover rates tend to be noticeably high in the region despite lucrative
compensation packages (Iqbal, 2010). The effects of intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction on
employee performance and other organizational performance indicators also represent
another pertinent research avenue. Finally, future research can investigate the differences in
relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction among various industries.
Since the current sample study is heterogeneous with access to limited number of
organizations in this geographic region, this analysis was not possible in the current study.

Conclusion
Servant leadership is gaining renewed interest today across the globe as a competing
leadership model that can potentially bring significant benefits to organizations and the
society. This study confirms the structural dimensions of Liden et al.’s (2008) measure of
servant leadership in this sample, supporting other studies that have investigated servant
LODJ leadership in various contexts across the globe (Hu and Liden, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2011),
40,4 and contributes to the call for greater research on cross-national organizational contexts (Tsui
et al., 2007). The study also confirms the usability of this measure in predicting the intrinsic
and extrinsic job satisfaction of the followers whose leader demonstrates a servant leadership
orientation. We hope this study will further the research agenda on servant leadership in the
region and prompt managers to consider it as a viable option to bring greater employee
480 commitment and change to organizations in the region. Adoption of the servant leadership
approach by managers in the region has the potential to improve job satisfaction among their
employees and possibly encourage better engagement with their organizations.

References
Abdalla, I.A. and Al‐Homoud, M.A. (2001), “Exploring the implicit leadership theory in the Arabian
Gulf states”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 506-531.
Ahmad, Z.A. and Yekta, Z.A. (2010), “Relationship between perceived organizational support,
leadership behavior, and job satisfaction: an empirical study in Iran”, Intangible Capital, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 162-184.
Akdol, B. and Arikboga, F.S. (2015), “The effects of leader behavior on job satisfaction: a research on
technology Fast50 Turkey companies”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 195,
pp. 278-282.
Al-Mashaan, O.S. (2003), “Associations among job satisfaction, optimism, pessimism, and
psychosomatic symptoms for employees in the government sector in Kuwait”, Psychological
Reports, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Alonderiene, R. and Majauskaite, M. (2016), “Leadership style and job satisfaction in higher education
institutions”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 140-164.
Autry, J.A. (2001), The Servant Leader, Prima, Roseville, CA.
Aziri, B. (2011), “Job satisfaction: a literature review”, Management Research and Practice, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 77-86.
Baptiste, N.R. (2008), “Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance: a
new dimension for HRM”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 284-309.
Barbuto, J.E. Jr and Wheeler, D.W. (2006), “Scale development and construct clarification of servant
leadership”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 300-326.
Bass, B.M. (2000), “The future of leadership in learning organizations”, Journal of Leadership Studies,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 18-40.
Blum, M.L. and Naylor, J.C. (1968), Industrial Psychology: Its Theoretical and Social Foundations, Harper
& Row, New York, NY.
Blustein, D.L. (2011), “A relational theory of working”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Bobbio, A., Dierendonck, D.V. and Manganelli, A.M. (2012), “Servant leadership in Italy and its relation
to organizational variables”, Leadership, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 229-243.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), “A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models”, Sociological
Methods & Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 303-316.
Butler, C. (2009), “Leadership in a multicultural Arab organization”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Cerit, Y. (2009), “The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers’
job satisfaction”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 600-623.
Choi, Y. and Mai-Dalton, R.R. (1998), “On the leadership function of self-sacrifice”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 475-501.
Currivan, D.B. (1999), “The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of
employee turnover”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 495-524.
Davis, L.E. (1971), “Job satisfaction research: the post-industrial view”, Industrial Relations: A Journal Impact of
of Economy and Society, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 176-193. servant
De Pree, M. (1989), Leadership is An Art, Dell Publishing, New York, NY. leadership
De Waal, A. and Sivro, M. (2012), “The relation between servant leadership, organizational
performance, and the high-performance organization framework”, Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 173-190.
Dennis, R.S. and Bocarnea, M. (2005), “Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument”, 481
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 600-615.
Dobrow, R.S., Ganzach, Y. and Liu, Y. (2018), “Time and job satisfaction: a longitudinal study of the
differential roles of age and tenure”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 2558-2579.
Drury, S. (2004), “Employee perceptions of servant leadership: comparisons by level and with
job satisfaction and organizational commitment”, PhD thesis, Regent University, Virginia
Beach, Virginia.
Ehrhart, M.G. (2004), “Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit level
organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 61-94.
Emmanuel, A.O. and Hassan, Z. (2015), “The effects of transformational leadership on job satisfaction:
a study on four and five star hotels in Kuala Lumpur”, International Journal of Accounting,
Business and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Fairholm, G.W. (1997), Capturing the Heart of Leadership: Spirituality and Community in the New
American Workplace, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Faragher, B., Cass, M. and Cooper, C. (2005), “The relationship between job satisfaction and health: a
meta-analysis”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 105-112.
Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G. and Winston, B. (1999), “Servant leadership: setting the stage for empirical
research”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-72.
Farrington, S.M. and Lillah, R. (2018), “Servant leadership and job satisfaction within private
healthcare practices”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 148-168.
Flynn, C.B., Smither, J.W. and Walker, A.G. (2016), “Exploring the relationship between leaders’ core
self-evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of servant leadership: a field study”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 260-271.
Furnham, A. (2006), The Psychology of Behavior at Work: The Individual in the Organization,
Psychology Press, Hove.
Georgolopoulos, V., Papaloi, E. and Loukorou, K. (2018), “Servant leadership as a predictive factor of
teachers job satisfaction”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 14-27.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-
domain perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
Graham, J.W. (1991), “Servant-leadership in organizations: inspirational and moral”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 105-119.
Grant, A.M. (2008), “The significance of task significance: job performance effects, relational
mechanisms, and boundary conditions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 108-124.
Green, M.T., Rodriguez, R.A., Wheeler, C.A. and Baggerly-Hinojosa, B. (2016), “Servant leadership: a
quantitative review of instruments and related findings”, Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 76-96.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ.
Guillaume, O., Honeycutt, A. and Savage-Austin, A.R. (2013), “The impact of servant leadership on job
satisfaction”, Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 444-448.
Hage, J. and Posner, B.Z. (2015), “Religion, religiosity, and leadership practices: an examination in
the Lebanese workplace”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 396-412.
LODJ Hale, J.R. and Fields, D.L. (2007), “Exploring servant leadership across cultures: a study of followers in
40,4 Ghana and the USA”, Leadership, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 397-417.
Herzberg, F.I. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing Company, Cleveland.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M.R. (2008), “Structural equation modelling: guidelines for
determining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds) (2004), Culture, Leadership,
482 and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hu, J. and 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, Vol. 96 No. 4,
pp. 851-862.
Huber, G.P. (1984), “The nature and design of post-industrial organizations”, Management Science,
Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 928-951.
Hur, Y. (2018), “Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation in the public sector: is it applicable
to public managers?”, Public Organization Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 329-343.
Iqbal, A. (2010), “Employee turnover: causes, consequences and retention strategies in the Saudi
organizations”, The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 275-281.
Janssen, O. and Van Yperen, N.W. (2004), “Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member
exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 368-384.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D.B., Chonko, L.B. and Roberts, J.A. (2009), “Examining the impact of servant
leadership on sales force performance”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 257-275.
Jaworski, J. (1998), “Destiny and the leader”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on Servant Leadership:
Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 258-268.
Kotni, V.D.P. and Karumuri, V. (2018), “Application of Herzberg two-factor theory model for motivating
retail salesforce”, IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 24-42.
Laub, J.A. (1999), “Assessing the servant organization: development of the organizational leadership
assessment (OLA) instrument”, PhD thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., Wu, J. and Liao, C. (2015), “Servant leadership: validation of
a short form of the SL-28”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 254-269.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H. and Henderson, D. (2008), “Servant leadership: development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 161-177.
Liu, B., Hu, W. and Cheng, Y.C. (2015), “From the west to the east: validating servant leadership in the
Chinese public sector”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 25-45.
Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-336.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002), “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation: a 35-year odyssey”, American Psychologist, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 705-717.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (1999), “The relationship between commitment and organizational culture,
subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 365-374.
Lu, L., Lu, A.C.C., Gursoy, D. and Neale, N.R. (2016), “Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover
intentions: a comparison between supervisors and line-level employees”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 737-761.
McCann, J.T., Graves, D. and Cox, L. (2014), “Servant leadership, employee satisfaction, and
organizational performance in rural community hospitals”, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 9 No. 10, pp. 28-38.
McDonald, D.J. and Makin, P.J. (2000), “The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job Impact of
satisfaction of temporary staff”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, servant
pp. 84-91.
leadership
McGivern, M.H. and Tvorik, S.J. (1997), “Determinants of organizational performance”, Management
Decision, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 417-435.
McKee, J.G. (1991), “Leadership styles of community college presidents and faculty job satisfaction”,
Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-46. 483
Maidani, E.A. (1991), “Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction among
public and private sectors”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-448.
Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, D. (1985), “Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-
concept: first-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 562-582.
Matthews, B., Daigle, J. and Houston, M. (2018), “A dyadic of employee readiness and job satisfaction:
does there exist a theoretical precursor to the satisfaction-performance paradigm?”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 842-857.
Mayer, D.M., Bardes, M. and Piccolo, R.F. (2008), “Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An
organizational justice perspective”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 180-197.
Medley, F. and Larochelle, D.R. (1995), “Transformational leadership and job satisfaction”, Nursing
Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, p. 64JJ.
Mitterer, D.M. (2017), “Servant leadership and its effect on employee job satisfaction and turnover
intent”, PhD thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.
Mohamad, M.S. (2012), “Transformational leadership and employees’ job satisfaction and commitment:
a structural equation investigation”, Journal of American Science, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 11-19.
Mohrman, A.M., Cooke, R.A., Mohrman, S.A., Duncan, R.B. and Zaltman, G. (1977), An Assessment of a
Structural Task Approach to Organizational Development in a School System, National Institute
of Education, Washington, DC.
Palmer, P.J. (1998), “Leading from within”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on Leadership Service,
Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 197-208.
Poethke, U. and Rowold, J. (2017), “The impact of cultural and individual values on transformational
and instrumental leadership”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Academy of Management,
Briarcliff Manor, NY, Vol. 2017, pp. 13870.
Randeree, K. and Chaudhry, A.G. (2012), “Leadership–style, satisfaction and commitment: an
exploration in the United Arab Emirates’ construction sector”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 61-85.
Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 76-84.
Russell, R.F. and Gregory Stone, A. (2002), “A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a
practical model”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 145-157.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S.S. and Peng, A.C. (2011), “Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators
of leader behavior influences on team performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4,
pp. 863-871.
Schyns, B., van Veldhoven, M. and Wood, S. (2009), “Organizational climate, relative psychological
climate and job satisfaction: the example of supportive leadership climate”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 649-663.
Searle, T.P. and Barbuto, J.E. Jr (2011), “Servant leadership, hope, and organizational virtuousness: a
framework exploring positive micro and macro behaviors and performance impact”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 107-117.
Sendjaya, S. and Pekerti, A. (2010), “Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 643-663.
LODJ Settoon, R.P. and Mossholder, K.W. (2002), “Relationship quality and relationship context as
40,4 antecedents of person-and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 255-267.
Shahin, A.I. and Wright, P.L. (2004), “Leadership in the context of culture: an Egyptian perspective”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 499-511.
Shamsi, V., Mahmoudi, H., Nir, M.S. and Darzi, H.B. (2016), “Effect of job specialization on the hospital
stay and job satisfaction of ED nurses”, Trauma Monthly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
484
Sony, M. and Mekoth, N. (2016), “The relationship between emotional intelligence, frontline employee
adaptability, job satisfaction and job performance”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 30, pp. 20-32.
Spears, L.C. (1995), Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership
Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers, Wiley, New York, NY.
Staats, C. (2015), “The adaptable emphasis leadership model: a more full range of leadership”, Servant
Leadership: Theory & Practice, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 12-26.
Tischler, L., Giambatista, R., McKeage, R. and McCormick, D. (2016), “Servant leadership and its
relationships with core self-evaluation and job satisfaction”, The Journal of Values-Based
Leadership, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007), “Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior
research: advances, gaps, and recommendations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 426-478.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011), “Servant leadership: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1228-1261.
Van Dierendonck, D. and Nuijten, I. (2011), “The servant leadership survey: development and
validation of a multidimensional measure”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 249-267.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 1-74.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A. and Taber, T. (2002), “A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: integrating
a half century of behavior research”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 15-32.
Zhang, Z., Lee, J.C.K. and Wong, P.H. (2016), “Multilevel structural equation modeling analysis of the
servant leadership construct and its relation to job satisfaction”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1147-1167.

Further reading
Gilbert, S. and Kelloway, E.K. (2018), “Self-determined leader motivation and follower perceptions of
leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 608-619.

Corresponding author
Shahnawaz Muhammed can be contacted at: shahnawaz.muhammed@aum.edu.kw

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com