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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Work
Does servant leadership better engagement
explain work engagement, career
satisfaction and adaptive
performance than 2075

authentic leadership? Received 13 May 2019

Revised 16 August 2019
30 September 2019
Bahar Kaya 31 October 2019
Accepted 8 December 2019
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business and Economics,
Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey, and
Osman M. Karatepe
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a research model in which work engagement (WENG)
mediates the effects of servant leadership (SL) and authentic leadership (AL) simultaneously on career
satisfaction and adaptive performance. It also aims to test whether SL better explains WENG and the
aforesaid outcomes than AL.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper used time-lagged data collected from hotel employees and
their direct supervisors in Turkey. Structural equation modeling was implemented to assess the aforesaid linkages.
Findings – Among others, the indirect impact of SL on career satisfaction and adaptive performance,
through WENG, is stronger than the indirect effect of AL.
Practical implications – Management can use AL as a base to develop and boost SL. Appraising
employees’ WENG on a periodical basis would enable management to understand whether SL really
contributes to the enhancement of WENG. In addition, employees can take advantage of informal learning to
foster their adaptive performance.
Originality/value – There are calls for research to ascertain whether SL better explains outcomes than
other leadership styles such as AL. Evidence about the underlying mechanism linking SL and AL to outcomes
is still sparse. The extant research on SL and AL has neglected adaptive performance in frontline service jobs
so far. With this stated, this paper aims to fill in these voids.
Keywords Authentic leadership, Hotel employees, Work engagement, Adaptive performance,
Servant leadership, Career satisfaction
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Customer-contact employees are at the heart of a hotel firm and are required to manage
service delivery process successfully. To retain talented employees who can meet the above-
mentioned requirements, there is a need for effective leadership styles. Servant leadership
International Journal of
(SL) and/or authentic leadership (AL), which are rooted in positive psychology, are two Contemporary Hospitality
promising types for the hospitality industry (Brownell, 2010; Qiu et al., 2019). Management
Vol. 32 No. 6, 2020
pp. 2075-2095
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
Data used in our study came from part of a larger project. DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2019-0438
IJCHM Servant leaders perceive themselves as servants and work for the benefits of their
32,6 subordinates (Greenleaf, 1977). They also keep the best interests of their subordinates in
mind and make fair decisions in every aspect of the operation (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Servant leaders establish an environment where they are:
[. . .] forming relationships with subordinates, empowering subordinates, helping subordinates
grow and succeed, behaving ethically, having conceptual skills, putting subordinates first, and
2076 creating value for those outside of the organization (Ehrhart, 2004, p. 73).
Implementation of successful SL engenders positive outcomes such as better service climate,
work engagement (WENG), job satisfaction and good performance at work (Huang et al.,
2016; Ling et al., 2017).
AL is:
[. . .] a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed
organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive
behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development” (Luthans and
Avolio, 2003, p. 243).
AL is considered a root construct for other leadership types such as transformational
leadership (Avolio et al., 2004). Authentic leaders are hopeful, optimistic, confident, ethical
and assign priorities to their subordinates to be leaders in future (Luthans and Avolio, 2003).
Authentic leaders nurture positive psychology among their followers by promoting self-
awareness, balanced processing, internalized moral perspective and relational transparency,
which would result in many positive outcomes such as voice behavior, organizational trust
and good performance at work (Avolio et al., 2004; Banks et al., 2016). Though SL and AL
are two appropriate styles for the hospitality industry, it has remained unsought whether SL
better explains a number of consequences than AL (Ling et al., 2017).

Purpose
Grounded in this backdrop, this study proposes a research model where WENG is treated as
a mediator of the impacts of SL and AL simultaneously on career satisfaction and adaptive
performance. Specifically, the objectives of this paper are to test whether the positive effect
of SL on WENG, career satisfaction and adaptive performance is stronger than the positive
effect of AL and the indirect effect of SL on career satisfaction and adaptive performance,
via WENG, is greater than the indirect impact of AL.
WENG is designated by “vigor,” “dedication” and “absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
Employees who possess full energy, are inspired by the job and are connected with their
work are high on WENG (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Adaptive performance refers to customer-
contact employees’ ability to adjust their behavior to various interpersonal situations
(Hartline and Ferrell, 1996), while career satisfaction is an internal career outcome and
highlights employees’ satisfaction with various aspects of their career (Greenhaus et al.,
1990).

Significance of the present study

This paper attempts to fill in several gaps. First, Hoch et al.’s (2018) meta-analytic study
examined the relative performances of various leadership types and demonstrated that SL
better explains motivational and job outcomes than other leadership types such as AL.
Moreover, Eva et al.’s (2019) review highlights the need for research whether SL is a better
predictor of outcomes than other leadership styles. In the hospitality industry, employees
have to display heightened WENG, exhibit customized services, recover from service
failures effectively to meet customer expectations and maintain good relationships with Work
customers (Altinay et al., 2019; Chen, 2019). Both SL and AL are two relevant types for the engagement
hospitality industry (Brownell, 2010; Qiu et al., 2019). Despite this realization, it appears that
there is no empirical research about whether the indirect impact of SL, through WENG, on
career satisfaction and adaptive performance is greater than the indirect impact of AL.
Second, in their meta-analytic study, Lee et al. (2019) revealed that there is no clear
evidence about the theoretical pathway(s) explaining the direct and indirect effects.
Accordingly, this study uses reformulation of attitude theory to link the SL and AL styles to 2077
adaptive performance through WENG (Bagozzi, 1992). This study adopts social exchange
theory (SET) to relate the SL and AL styles to career satisfaction through WENG
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
Third, the relevant literature delineates studies, which have underscored various
mediators linking SL and AL to job outcomes (Eva et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019). However, to
the best of our knowledge, there are only 18 empirical studies published in major hospitality
and tourism journals between 2014 and 2019 (Table I). There is a need for additional
research to ferret out the underlying mechanism(s) through which SL and/or AL styles
influence various outcomes (Schuckert et al., 2018; Ye et al., 2019). More importantly, none of
the studies underscored adaptive performance as one of the behavioral consequences of SL
and AL (Banks et al., 2016; Eva et al., 2019). Adaptive performance is a critical outcome in
frontline service jobs because employees should attend to different customer requests and
problems (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996). Therefore, “adaptive performance” is used as the
performance outcome of these leadership styles.
Fourth, Eva et al. (2019) call for research concerning the antecedents and consequences of
SL via a time-lagged design and multiple sources of data. In line with this, this study used
three surveys one month apart and gathered data from the direct supervisors of employees
to measure their adaptive performance. This enables the researcher to minimize the risk of
common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Using one-month time lag between each
wave is congruent with the work of Schuckert et al. (2018) and is longer than other studies,
which used one-week or two-week time lag between each wave (Karatepe and Karadas,
2015; Srivastava et al., 2010). Finally, this paper is likely to offer important implications for
both managerial and non-managerial employees about how WENG, career satisfaction and
adaptive performance can be activated through the above-mentioned leadership style(s).

Research model and hypotheses

Research model
This study tests whether SL is a better predictor of WENG, career satisfaction and adaptive
performance than AL. Specifically, the research model (Figure 1) contends that the positive
influence of SL on WENG, career satisfaction and adaptive performance is stronger than the
positive influence of AL. The model contends that WENG activates both career satisfaction
and adaptive performance. In addition, the indirect impact of SL on career satisfaction and
adaptive performance, through WENG, is stronger than the indirect impact of AL. The
hypothesized linkages are developed based on reformulation of attitude theory (Bagozzi,
1992) and SET (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). This study controls for gender and
organizational tenure (Ling et al., 2016; Ye et al., 2019).

Hypotheses
SET proposes that both the employers and employees would enjoy having a trusting and
quality relationship as long as they adhere to the exchange rules (Cropanzano and Mitchell,
2005). The positive actions of an employer would give rise to the positive responses or

Table I.
2014 and 2019)
studies on SL and
literature (between
Summary of recent
AL in the hospitality
Source
Bavik et al. (2017)
Bouzari and Karatepe (2017)
He et al. (2019)
Hsiao et al. (2015)
Huang et al. (2016)
Huertas-Valdivia et al. (2019)
Ilkhanizadeh and
Karatepe (2018)
Jang and Kandampully (2018)
Khosh and Ghatri (2018)
Koyuncu et al. (2014)
Ling et al. (2016)
Ling et al. (2017)
32,6
2078
IJCHM
Country Sample Main results
Macau Hotel employees Job crafting was a complete mediator of the impact of SL on interpersonal
citizenship behavior
Iran Hotel salespeople Psychological capital completely mediated the effect of SL on lateness attitude,
proclivity to remain in the organization, service-sales ambidexterity and
service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors
China Employees of an exhibitor Conceptual skills and commitment to the growth of people were linked to
exhibitor’s team performance directly and indirectly through swift trust
Taiwan Hotel employees Psychological capital affected customer value co-creation only via service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Psychological capital partly
mediated the association between SL and service-oriented organizational
citizenship behaviors
China Chief human resource managers Service climate fully mediated the impact of CEO SL on firm performance.
and chief financial officers Competitive intensity moderated the indirect impact of CEO SL on firm
performance through service climate
Spain Hotel employees Empowering leadership and paradoxical leadership were significantly related
to psychological empowerment, while SL was not. Both empowering and SL
predicted WENG, while paradoxical leadership did not
Turkey Cabin attendants Trust in organization partly mediated the effect of SL on job and career
satisfaction, while trust in organization, job and career satisfaction completely
mediated the linkage between SL and life satisfaction
USA Restaurant employees Organizational commitment functioned as a full mediator between SL and
turnover intention
India Hotel employees SL was a significant determinant of customer treatment, service failure
prevention and service recovery
Turkey Hotel employees High levels of SL led to better delivery of service quality
China Hotel employees The effect of middle-level SL on delivery of service quality was completely
mediated by employee’s service-oriented behaviors, while middle-level SL
partly mediated the linkage between top-level SL and employee’s service-
oriented behaviors
China Hotel employees SL predicted WENG, organizational commitment, trust climate and employee
performance better than AL. Trust climate was a complete mediator of the
effects of SL and AL on organizational commitment. Trust climate was also a
complete mediator of the impacts of SL and AL on WENG
(continued)
Source
Luu (2019)
Qiu et al. (2019)
Ruiz-Palomino et al. (2019)
Schuckert et al. (2018)
Ye et al. (2019)
Zou et al. (2015)
Notes: SL = Servant leadership; AL = authentic leadership; WENG = work engagement
Table I.
Country Sample Main results
Vietnam Hotel employees Environmentally specific SL positively influenced organizational citizenship
behaviors directly and indirectly via employee environmental engagement.
Both organizational support for green behaviors and pro-environmental
person–group fit strengthened the association between environmentally
specific SL and employee environmental engagement
China Hotel employees Trust in leaders partly mediated the association between AL and customer-
oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Customer-oriented organizational
citizenship was also reported to be positively linked to service quality
Spain Hotel human resource managers Encouragement of participation and employee voice sequentially mediated the
effect of chief executive officer SL on firm innovativeness
South Hotel employees The effect of AL on service innovation behavior, through psychological capital,
Korea was higher than that of transformational leadership
China Hotel employees The impact of SL on proactive customer service performance was partly
mediated by harmonious passion for work and customer orientation. The
positive association between SL and harmonious passion for work was
moderated by others’ approval of self-esteem
China Hotel employees The effect of SL on helping behavior was partly mediated by leader–member
exchange and team–member exchange. Positive reciprocity belief strengthened
the association between SL and leader–member exchange and team–member
exchange. The effect of SL on helping behavior through leader–member
exchange and team–member exchange was stronger when there was a high
level of positive reciprocity belief
2079
Work
engagement
IJCHM Time 1 1-month time lag Time 2 1-month time lag Time 3
32,6
Promising leadership styles for Motivational variable Organizationally valued
the hospitality industry satisfaction outcome

Servant Career
leadership satisfaction
2080
Work Supervisor rating:
engagement Organizationally valued
performance outcome

Authentic Adaptive
leadership performance

Control variables H1. The positive influence of servant leadership on work engagement is stronger than the
Gender and organizational positive influence of authentic leadership.
tenure H2. The positive influence of servant leadership on career satisfaction is stronger than the
positive influence of authentic leadership.
H3. The positive influence of servant leadership on adaptive performance is stronger than the
positive influence of authentic leadership.
H4. Work engagement is positively related to career satisfaction.
H5. Work engagement is positively related to adaptive performance.
H6. The indirect impact of servant leadership on career satisfaction, via work engagement, is
Figure 1. stronger than the indirect impact of authentic leadership.
H7. The indirect impact of servant leadership on adaptive performance, via work engagement,
Research model is stronger than the indirect impact of authentic leadership.

actions displayed by employees (Saks, 2006). For example, servant leaders or authentic
leaders may create an environment where employees can make use of various resources (e.g.
support). Under these circumstances, such employees feel obliged to repay the employer
through high levels of WENG (Saks, 2006). These employees would also show that they are
satisfied with their career in the company and focus more on their work to be able to
enhance their adaptive performance in service encounters.
Servant leaders “[. . .] share their wisdom, seek to develop understanding [. . .] and are
consensus builders” (Russell and Stone, 2002, p. 151). This shows that they try to persuade
their subordinates rather than forcing them to get things done or using manipulative
methods (Van Dierendonck, 2011). They hinge upon persuasion (e.g. factual evidence) in
their discussions with subordinates (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Persuasion might also exist in
other leadership styles. For instance, a two-way communication in ethical leadership seems
to be similar to persuasion and open culture specified in SL (Van Dierendonck, 2011). In AL,
leaders may take advantage of emotions to persuade their subordinates to be engaged in
positive thinking (Avolio et al., 2004). However, Russell and Stone (2002) underscore
persuasion and listening as the critical characteristics of servant leaders. This also echoes
the work of Joseph and Winston (2005) that in SL, leaders “[. . .] rely upon persuasion, rather
than positional authority, in making decisions within an organization” (p. 10).
Servant leaders delegate authority to their subordinates and foster their growth and
development (Van Dierendonck, 2011). They focus on stewardship (e.g. social
responsibility), providing direction (e.g. giving the right degree of accountability), showing Work
interpersonal acceptance (e.g. empathy) and being authentic (e.g. keeping promises) (Van engagement
Dierendonck, 2011). Humility, which focuses on putting employees’ interests first, is a
critical element of SL (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
As highlighted by Van Dierendonck (2011, p. 1231),
[. . .] working from a need to serve does not imply an attitude of servility in the sense that the
power lies in the hands of followers or that leaders would have low self-esteem. 2081
Instead, servant leaders take advantage of power to use it for the benefits of subordinates. On
the other hand, openness and truthfulness in relationships represent authentic leaders’
relational transparency (Gill and Caza, 2018). Authentic leaders are awake to their abilities,
values, strengths and weaknesses (self-awareness) and make a decision by having a deep but
objective analysis of relevant information (balanced processing) (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Authentic leaders also center on honesty, integrity and moral values in their dealings with the
subordinates and encourage their followers to behave in the same way (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
It appears that putting employees’ interests first is the major difference between SL and
AL (Hoch et al., 2018; Van Dierendonck, 2011). The extant literature presents findings
supporting the premise that the effect of SL on outcomes is stronger than the effect of AL.
For example, Ling et al.’s (2017) study showed that the effect of SL on WENG was stronger
than the effect of AL. Hoch et al. (2018) demonstrated that the correlation ( r ) between AL
and WENG (job satisfaction) was 0.47 (0.48), while the correlation between SL and WENG
(job satisfaction) was 0.52 (0.66). Hoch et al. (2018) further reported that the correlation
between AL and task performance (0.12) was smaller than the correlation between SL and
task performance (0.23), while the correlation between SL and overall organizational
citizenship behaviors (0.40) was greater than the one between AL and overall organizational
citizenship behaviors (0.33).
In short, servant leaders focus on equal power, contribute to the growth and development
of their subordinates and pay particular attention to their subordinates’ interests and well-
being (Van Dierendonck, 2011). As Ling et al. (2017) have stated, “Servant leadership
incorporates traits and behaviors from a deeper level to express the message ‘practical work
is more powerful than empty talk’” (p. 56), which highlights reciprocal exchanges.
Accordingly, SL enables leaders to affect the subordinates more through behaviors than AL.
Therefore, the following hypotheses will be tested:

H1. The positive influence of SL on WENG is stronger than the positive influence of AL.
H2. The positive influence of SL on career satisfaction is stronger than the positive
influence of AL.
H3. The positive influence of SL on adaptive performance is stronger than the positive
influence of AL.
As SET contends, a trusting and quality relationship between the company and employees
emerges because of the adherence to the exchange rules (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
Employees repay the organization by being highly engaged in their work. They also continue
to be high on WENG because of favorable reciprocal exchanges (Saks, 2006). Under these
conditions, they become satisfied with their career in the company. Empirically, Karatepe
and Karadas (2015) reported that WENG stimulated hotel employees’ career satisfaction. Joo
and Lee (2017) showed that WENG enhanced career satisfaction. Accordingly, the following
hypothesis will be tested:
IJCHM H4. WENG is positively related to career satisfaction.
32,6 SET posits that a good relationship between the employer and employees makes employees
feel obliged to reciprocate (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Employees are high on WENG
and therefore exhibit better performance outcomes because of the continuation of favorable
reciprocal exchanges (Saks, 2006). Based on this discussion, it is surmised that hotel
employees high on WENG can handle a variety of requests in service encounters and are
2082 sensitive to the needs of their customers. Such employees are likely to implement different
approaches to be able to understand different customer requests and respond to them
successfully (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996). Hotels are really in need of employees who can
display adaptive performance at elevated levels. Employees with better adaptive
performance can also return angry customers to a state of satisfaction.
The relevant writings delineate studies that refer to the WENG–performance outcome(s)
linkage(s). However, it seems that evidence about the effect of WENG on customer-contact
employees’ adaptive performance is sparse. For instance, Grobelna (2019) reported that
WENG fostered hotel employees’ job performance. Another study revealed that restaurant
employees high on WENG reported higher service performance (Kim et al., 2019).
Accordingly, the following hypothesis will be tested:

H5. WENG is positively related to adaptive performance.

SET is used to develop the SL and AL ! WENG ! career satisfaction linkages
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). In an organization where SL or AL is practiced
successfully, both the employer and employees show adherence to the exchange rules.
Under these conditions, employees repay the organization via elevated levels of WENG and
therefore display higher career satisfaction.
Reformulation of attitude theory gives guidance about development of the SL and
AL ! WENG ! adaptive performance associations. Broadly speaking, employees’
cognitive evaluations of their work environment in terms of leaderships styles (SL or AL)
lead to WENG (emotional response), which in turn determines their adaptive performance
(behavior) (Bagozzi, 1992).
On the other hand, the indirect effect of SL on adaptive performance, via WENG, may
be stronger than the indirect effect of AL. As mentioned earlier, servant leaders’ primary
focus is on their subordinates or followers. They are “primus inter pares-first among
equals” (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders aim to get things done by persuading
and convincing their subordinates (Van Dierendonck, 2011). They rely on and use
persuasion to make decisions within a company (Joseph and Winston, 2005). Although
this can be observed in other leadership styles, it is one of the important characteristics of
servant leaders (Russell and Stone, 2002). As stated by Eva et al. (2019).
[. . .] servant leaders are authentic not for the sake of being authentic, but because they are driven
either by a sense of higher calling or inner conviction to serve and make a positive difference for
others (p. 113).
This implicitly shows that servant leaders put employees’ interests first (Hoch et al., 2018;
Van Dierendonck, 2011). However, when the other leadership styles such as AL are
considered, they focus on the well-being of the organization (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Hoch et al. (2018) reported that SL better explained various consequences than other
leadership types such as AL. Lee et al. (2019) showed that SL had strong incremental impacts
on task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors at the individual level over AL
and ethical leadership. In view of what has been presented so far, we propose that in an
environment where SL is practiced effectively, hotel employees report higher WENG and Work
therefore display high levels of career satisfaction (e.g. achievement of goals for income) and engagement
exhibit better adaptive performance. Accordingly, the following hypotheses will be tested:

H6. The indirect impact of SL on career satisfaction, via WENG, is stronger than the
indirect impact of AL.
H7. The indirect impact of SL on adaptive performance, via WENG, is stronger than the 2083
indirect impact of AL.

Method
Respondents and data collection
Data came from customer-contact employees such as reception clerks, guest relations
representatives, waiters and waitresses and concierges who had frequent interactions with
customers. They were employed in the five-star hotels in Antalya in Turkey. This city is one of
the leading tourism destinations in Turkey (Nart et al., 2019). The researchers were able to
contact management of 14 hotels in the Manavgat region in Antalya. However, management of
only three national five-star and one international five-star hotels granted permission for data
collection. To decrease the potential risk of selection bias, human resource managers were
asked to distribute the surveys to a wide range of employees in customer-contact positions.
This study used various procedural solutions to curtail common method variance
(Podsakoff et al., 2012). First, the cover page of each survey included information such as
“There are no right or wrong answers in this questionnaire,” “Any sort of information
collected during our research will be kept confidential,” “Participation is voluntary but
encouraged” and “Management of your hotel fully endorses participation.” Second, this
study used a temporal separation where “[. . .] a time delay between measures is introduced
[. . .]” (Podsakoff et al., 2012, p. 549). In light of this, data were gathered from employees in
three waves. The time lag between waves was one month. Employees’ adaptive
performance was rated by their direct supervisors.
Third, all of the participants were ensured anonymity. The survey was distributed to
each respondent in an envelope. After completing the survey, he or she returned the survey
in a sealed envelope that would be placed in a box. Only the researchers were eligible to open
the boxes. Fourth, identification codes were used to serve the purpose of matching the
employee and supervisor surveys. This was carried out by the researchers. Fifth, this paper
used different scale format and/or anchors for the employee surveys (e.g. SL, WENG).
In total, 350 customer-contact employees took part in the study to complete the Time 1
surveys. In total, 325 surveys were received. The same 325 employees were requested to
complete the Time 2 surveys. In total, 296 Time 2 surveys were returned. Of these, 15
surveys were eliminated because they had missing information. After this stage, 281
employees were invited to complete the Time 3 surveys. In total, 242 Time 3 surveys were
returned. However, 16 surveys were excluded from the analysis because of missing
information. The remaining number of surveys at Time 3 was 226. This yielded a response
rate of 64.6 per cent. In total, 29 supervisors took part in the study to assess employees’
adaptive performance. Table II provides respondents’ profile.

Instrumentation
Seven items were used to assess SL (Time 1 survey). These items came from Liden et al.
(2014). To gauge AL (Time 1 survey), this study used seven items from Wong and
Cummings (2009). However, “how often” was added to each statement. A sample item is
IJCHM Variables Frequency (%)
32,6
Age (years)
18-27 66 29.2
28-37 78 34.5
38-47 60 26.6
48-57 19 8.4
2084 58 and over 3 1.3
Gender
Male 124 54.9
Female 102 45.1
Education
Primary school 23 10.2
Secondary and high school 89 39.4
Two-year college degree 84 37.2
Four-year college degree 26 11.5
Graduate degree 4 1.7
Organizational tenure (years)
Under 1 52 23.0
1-5 90 39.8
Table II. 6-10 54 23.9
Respondents’ profile 11-15 23 10.2
(n = 226) 16-20 7 3.1

“How often does your manager ask for feedback on how his or her actions affect other
people’s performance?” A seven-point scale was deployed where 7 corresponded to “always”
and 1 corresponded to “never.” The presence of SL and/or AL in each hotel was measured
based on employees’ perceptions.
WENG (Time 2 survey) was operationalized through nine items. These items were
received from the “Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (UWES-9)” (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
Participants were requested to demonstrate how often they felt WENG via a seven-point
frequency rating scale where 6 represented “always” and 0 represented “never.” Five items
from Greenhaus et al. (1990) were used to assess career satisfaction (Time 3 survey).
Participants were requested to respond to the items via a five-point scale (“5 = strongly
agree” to “1 = strongly disagree”).
Employees’ direct supervisors rated their adaptive performance, which was
operationalized via ten items from Hartline and Ferrell (1996). Three items were reverse-
scored. Participants responded to the SL and adaptive performance items through a seven-
point scale where 7 corresponded to “strongly agree” and 1 corresponded to “strongly
disagree.” Gender and organizational tenure were controlled in this study.
All of the surveys were prepared in English. Then they were translated into Turkish via
the back-translation technique. Each employee’s survey was subjected to a pilot study of
five employees, while the supervisor’s survey was tested via a pilot study of five
supervisors. The findings did not lead to any changes in scale items.

Results
Measurement model
This paper tested the five-factor measurement model through confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) in LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). Some of the scale items which were
 Work
Scale items t-value AVE CR a
Standardized loading
engagement
SL 0.63 0.92 0.92
My manager can tell if something work-related 0.76 13.32
is going wrong
My manager makes my career development a 0.82 14.84
priority 2085
I would seek help from my manager if I had a 0.82 14.76
personal problem
My manager emphasizes the importance of 0.78 13.61
giving back to the community
My manager puts my best interests ahead of his 0.82 14.82
or her own
My manager gives me the freedom to handle 0.77 13.51
difficult situations in a way that I feel is best
My manager would NOT compromise ethical 0.79 14.05
principles to achieve success
AL 0.69 0.94 0.95
How often does your manager ask for feedback 0.78 13.79
on how his or her actions affect other people’s
performance?
How often is your manager clear about his or 0.79 14.03
her philosophy of leadership?
How often does your manager actively listen to 0.79 14.01
diverse points of view?
How often does your manager follow through on 0.83 14.96
promises he or she makes?
How often does your manager treat others with 0.86 16.04
dignity and respect?
How often does your manager give the members 0.87 16.33
of the team lots of appreciation and support for
their contributions?
How often does your manager give people a 0.89 16.77
great deal of freedom and choice in deciding
how to do their work?
WENG 0.57 0.90 0.91
At my work, I feel bursting with energy 0.81 14.36
At my work, I feel strong and vigorous 0.84 15.30
I am enthusiastic about my work 0.80 14.16
My work inspires me 0.74 12.61
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to – –
work*
I feel happy when I am working intensely* – –
I am proud of the work that I do 0.70 11.70
I am immersed in my work 0.68 11.19
I get carried away when I am working 0.69 11.43
Career satisfaction 0.49 0.83 0.82
I am satisfied with the success I have achieved 0.55 8.33
in my career Table III.
I am satisfied with the progress I have made 0.75 12.43 Measurement model:
toward meeting my overall career goals confirmatory factor
(continued) analysis results
IJCHM
Scale items t-value AVE CR a
32,6 Standardized loading

I am satisfied with the progress I have made 0.75 12.50

toward meeting my goals for income
I am satisfied with the progress I have made 0.76 12.62
toward meeting my goals for advancement
2086 I am satisfied with the progress I have made 0.68 11.01
toward meeting my goals for the development of
new skills
Adaptive performance 0.66 0.95 0.94
This employee knows that every customer 0.88 16.65
requires a unique approach
This employee can easily change to another 0.86 15.98
approach when he or she feels that his or her
approach is not working
This employee likes to experiment with different 0.87 16.28
approaches
This employee does not change his or her 0.86 16.09
approach from one customer to another (–)
This employee is very sensitive to the needs of 0.78 13.94
his or her customers
This employee finds it difficult to adapt his or – –
her style to certain customers (–)*
This employee varies his or her approach from 0.81 14.55
situation to situation
This employee tries to understand how one 0.79 14.05
customer differs from another
This employee feels confident that he or she can 0.78 13.78
effectively change his or her approach when
necessary
This employee treats all customers pretty much 0.63 10.39
the same (–)

Notes: All loadings are significant at the 0.01 level. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite
Table III. reliability; and a = coefficient alpha. (–) Reverse coded; * Dropped during confirmatory factor analysis

discarded because of correlation measurement errors during CFA are presented in Table III.
The item-deletion process was suggested as a method by Anderson and Gerbing (1988),
“[. . .] for respecifying indicators that do not work out” (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996, p. 64). For
instance, Hartline and Ferrell (1996) discarded three items from the adaptive performance
measure based on CFA. The item dropped from the adaptive performance measure in this
study was also deleted in Hartline and Ferrell’s (1996) study.
A search made in the hospitality literature reveals that various empirical studies dropped
several items from the UWES-9 scale during CFA (Altinay et al., 2019). This is not
surprising because the WENG items are highly interrelated (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The items
deleted from this scale were “I feel happy when I am working intensely” and “When I get up
in the morning, I feel like going to work.” The first item or the second item was also
discarded in recent papers (Altinay et al., 2019; Olugbade and Karatepe, 2019).
The findings concerning the fit indices were acceptable: x 2 = 1113.24, df = 547,
x 2 /df = 2.04; “comparative fit index” (CFI) = 0.91; “parsimony normed fit index”
(PNFI) = 0.77; “root mean square error of approximation” (RMSEA) = 0.068; and
“standardized root mean square residual” (SRMR) = 0.044. All of the loadings (> Work
0.50) were significant. The average variance extracted (AVE) by each latent variable engagement
met the 0.50 threshold. However, the AVE by career satisfaction (0.49) was slightly
below 0.50. In short, convergent validity was confirmed (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The AVEs exceeded the square of the correlation between the corresponding pair of
variables. However, the AVE for career satisfaction (0.49) was lower than the square of the
correlation between SL and career satisfaction (0.50) and AL and career satisfaction (0.53).
As a remedy, we tapped Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) criterion to re-check discriminant
2087
validity. The x 2 different test for SL and career satisfaction was significant (D x 2 = 195.29,
df = 1, p < 0.05). The x 2 different test for AL and career satisfaction was also significant
(D x 2 = 192.46, df = 1, p < 0.05). Accordingly, discriminant validity was verified (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Composite reliability scores were larger than 0.60, while coefficient alphas were above
0.70 (Table III). These scores were deemed acceptable (Kim et al., 2019). Table IV delineates
the descriptive statistics and correlations.

Structural model
The skewness (kurtosis) score for SL, AL, WENG, career satisfaction and adaptive
performance was –1.68 (2.31), 1.52 (2.09), 1.52 (2.00), 1.63 (2.80) and 1.96 (3.45),
respectively. The skewness scores were below 3.00, while the kurtosis scores were
below 8.00. These findings highlighted no evidence of non-normality of data (Kline,
2011).
The hypothesized (partially) mediated model ( x 2 = 1167.03, df = 608) appeared to
provide a better fit (D x 2 = 136.27, Ddf = 4) than the fully-mediated model ( x 2 = 1303.30,
df = 612). The partially-mediated model that fit the data acceptably ( x 2 = 1167.03, df = 608;
x 2/df = 1.92; CFI = 0.91; PNFI = 0.76; RMSEA = 0.064; SRMR = 0.043) was deployed to test
the linkages.
As given in Figure 2, H1 was supported because the positive impact of SL ( b 31 = 0.45,
t = 4.88) on WENG was stronger than that of AL ( b 32 = 0.32, t = 3.58). H2 was not
supported because the positive effect of AL ( b 42 = 0.40, t = 4.05) on career satisfaction was
stronger than the positive effect of SL ( b 41 = 0.29, t = 2.90). The findings lent support to H3,
which highlighted that the positive influence of SL ( b 51 = 0.39, t = 4.98) on adaptive
performance was stronger than the positive influence of AL ( b 52 = 0.30, t = 4.17). The
findings further demonstrated that WENG positively influenced career satisfaction

Constructs Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender 0.45 0.50 –

2. Organizational tenure 2.31 1.03 0.053 –
3. SL 5.32 1.01 0.008 0.128 –
4. AL 5.47 1.11 0.003 0.148* 0.683** –
5. WENG 4.74 0.82 0.018 0.065 0.619** 0.600** –
6. Career satisfaction 3.95 0.69 0.015 0.104 0.622** 0.648** 0.557** – Table IV.
7. Adaptive performance 5.43 1.01 0.047 0.114 0.731** 0.703** 0.643** 0.620** – Measure correlations,

Notes: SD = standard deviation. Gender was coded as a binary variable (0 = male and 1 = female). means and standard
Organizational tenure was measured in five categories (1 = under one year, 2 = one to five years, 3 = 6- deviations (observed
10 years, 4 = 11-15 years and 5 = 16-20 years); *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 variables)
IJCHM Time 1 1-month time lag Time 2 1-month time lag Time 3
32,6
Promising leadership styles for Motivational variable Organizationally valued
the hospitality industry satisfaction outcome

E41 = 0.29, t = 2.90

Servant Career
leadership satisfaction
2088 E31 = 0.45, t = 4.88 E43 = 0.20, t = 2.31

Work Supervisor rating:

engagement Organizationally valued
E32 = 0.32, t = 3.58 performance outcome

E53 = 0.26, t = 3.89

Authentic Adaptive
leadership performance
E52 = 0.30, t = 4.17
E51 = 0.39, t = 4.98

E42 = 0.40, t = 4.05

z-value
Servant leadership  work engagement  career satisfaction 0.09 2.11 (partial mediation)
Servant leadership  work engagement  adaptive performance 0.12 3.15 (partial mediation)
Authentic leadership  work engagement  career satisfaction 0.06 1.97 (partial mediation)
Authentic leadership  work engagement  adaptive performance 0.08 2.67 (partial mediation)

Figure 2. Organizational tenure  authentic leadership (J22) 0.16 2.29

Structural model: test 2

R for servant leadership 0.02; authentic leadership 0.02; work engagement 0.51; career satisfaction 0.63, and adaptive performance 0.71.
of research
hypotheses
Notes: T- values: two-tailed test t > 1.96, p < 0.05; t > 2.58, p < 0.01

(H4, b 43 = 0.20, t = 2.31) and adaptive performance (H5, b 53 = 0.26, t = 3.89). Hence, H4 and
H5 were supported.
To establish mediation, the following conditions were met (Baron and Kenny, 1986):
 SL and AL were significantly linked to WENG.
 SL and AL were significantly associated with both career satisfaction and adaptive
performance.
 WENG was significantly related to the aforesaid outcomes.
 The partially-mediated model was used because SL and AL were significantly
associated with both career satisfaction and adaptive performance when WENG
was controlled. This condition was met by comparing the hypothesized model with
the fully-mediated model.

There was empirical support for H6 based on the Sobel test because the indirect effect of SL
(0.09, z = 2.11) on career satisfaction, through WENG, was higher than the indirect influence
of AL (0.06, z = 1.97). H7 also obtained support as a result of the Sobel test because the
indirect influence of SL (0.12, z = 3.15) on adaptive performance, via WENG, was higher
than the indirect impact of AL (0.08, z = 2.67). The findings concerning the significance of
the direct and indirect effects did not result in any changes when the control variables were
not included in the model. The findings illustrated that organizational tenure was positively
linked to AL ( g 22 = 0.16, t = 2.29). Employees with longer tenure had favorable perceptions Work
of AL. The other control variables were not significantly related to the study constructs. engagement
Discussion
Conclusions
Excluding the hypothesis regarding the direct effect of SL on career satisfaction, all of the
hypotheses were supported. Specifically, the positive impact of SL on WENG and adaptive 2089
performance is stronger than the positive effect of AL. These findings received support from
Hoch et al.’s (2018) study that the positive association between SL and WENG and
performance outcomes is larger than the one between AL and WENG and performance
outcomes. Hotel employees are plagued with excessive workload and experience different
types of stressors such as role stress (Olugbade and Karatepe, 2019). Help, direction and
support provided by servant leaders enable the subordinates to manage problems (Ling
et al., 2017). Consistent with SET (Saks, 2006), such employees reciprocate with elevated
levels of WENG and adaptive performance. In short, SL is a better predictor of WENG and
adaptive performance than AL.
WENG predicts both career satisfaction and adaptive performance. The finding
regarding the effect of WENG on career satisfaction is consonant with other writings (Joo
and Lee, 2017). As proposed by SET, both employers’ and employees’ adherence to the
exchange rules establishes a trusting and quality relationship between the company and
employees (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Employees reciprocate by displaying higher
adaptive performance and reporting that they are satisfied with their career in the company.
An examination of the findings implicitly demonstrates that the effect of WENG on adaptive
performance is greater than on career satisfaction. In agreement with other writings
(Olugbade and Karatepe, 2019), this suggests that WENG is the construct most proximate to
employees’ performance at work.
The findings concerning the indirect influence of SL on career satisfaction and adaptive
performance, through WENG, are stronger than the indirect influence of AL. In line with
SET, a trusting and quality relationship between the company and employees because of
their adherence to the exchange rules makes employees become engaged in their work (Saks,
2006). These employees in turn exhibit higher career satisfaction. As reformulation of
attitude theory contends (Bagozzi, 1992), employees’ cognitive evaluations of the work
environment (SL or AL) result in affective response (WENG), which in turn leads to
behavioral response (adaptive performance).
In an organization where SL is implemented effectively, employees are high on WENG
and therefore display higher career satisfaction and better adaptive performance.
Employees pay particular attention to how their supervisors behave. Servant leaders’ focus
on equal power, attention given to the subordinates’ interests and well-being, humility,
interpersonal acceptance and provision of direction may motivate employees more than AL
(Hoch et al., 2018; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Under these conditions, such employees may be
more satisfied with their career and may exhibit better adaptive performance.
Contrary to the study prediction, the positive influence of AL on career satisfaction is
greater than the positive influence of SL on career satisfaction. However, it should be noted
that this study assessed hotel employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ leadership styles.
Employees may perceive that their supervisors use SL in some situations more than AL or
vice versa. With this realization, this finding might be because of the fact that some
employees might have perceived servant leaders’ help, direction and support insufficient for
achieving career progress in the organization. That is, they might have perceived authentic
IJCHM leaders’ guidance about career progress more useful and practical than that of servant
32,6 leaders.

Theoretical implications
This research contributes to the hospitality literature. Specifically, the indirect impact of SL
on career satisfaction and adaptive performance, through WENG, is stronger than the
2090 indirect impact of AL. By making an assessment of these linkages, this paper responds to
call for additional research in leadership studies (Eva et al., 2019). The current study also
uses reformulation of attitude theory and SET to develop the hypotheses about the SL !
WENG ! career satisfaction and adaptive performance relationships and the AL !
WENG ! career satisfaction and adaptive performance relationships. This enhances
current knowledge about the theoretical pathways, which have explained the direct and
indirect effects (Lee et al., 2019).
This study further demonstrates that WENG is a mechanism underlying SL and AL to
the previously mentioned outcomes. This is important because the hospitality literature
delineated only 18 empirical studies about SL and/or AL published between 2014 and 2019.
Finally, a careful search made in the hospitality literature shows that adaptive performance
has remained unexplored among customer-contact employees in SL- and AL-related studies.
This can also be observed in recent meta-analytic inquires, which do not delineate any
evidence about adaptive performance as one of the outcomes of SL and AL (Banks et al.,
2016; Lee et al., 2019). This study fills in this gap by adding adaptive performance to the
research model.

Practical implications
The findings mentioned above lead to important implications for hotel managers. First, AL
is considered a root construct for other types of leadership (Avolio et al., 2004). However, SL
is a better predictor of WENG and adaptive performance and its indirect effect on career
satisfaction and adaptive performance is greater than the indirect effect of AL. Therefore,
hotels can use AL as a base to develop and enhance SL (Ling et al., 2017). By empowering
their subordinates, providing them an opportunity for growth and development, showing
empathy to them, putting their interests first and giving the right degree of accountability
(Van Dierendonck, 2011), leaders would accomplish an effective implementation of SL. For
instance, management can organize training programs to teach employees how to practice
empowerment using case studies. This is important because employees are faced with
different requests and complaints. Using case studies would enable them to respond to these
requests and complaints on the spot and take corrective actions when needed. Hotels can
arrange workshops where employees can voice their ideas regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of the organization and provide suggestions for improvement. Management can
also conduct surveys to understand employees’ happiness associated with leadership
practices in the company. It is important to note that if supervisors are not empowered, they
are unable to empower their subordinates to carry out tasks as expected. Under these
conditions, SL would fail.
Second, a company’s future in the hospitality industry is closely related to the quality of
interactions between customer-contact employees and customers (Solnet et al., 2010). The
successful implementation of the aforementioned SL practices would make employees
highly engaged in their work and enable them to contribute significantly to service delivery
process. As a result, the company is likely to achieve a reputation for superior services
delivered to customers.
 Third, top managers should provide an online video presentation about the Work
organization’s mission, vision and strategies to inform the potential candidates about the engagement
quality standards in the company. The ones who are interested in applying for the vacant
supervisory or managerial positions would possess a detailed understanding of the
organizational expectations. Then, management should use rigorous selection procedures to
hire the candidates for these positions considering the requirements of SL (e.g. stewardship).
As servant leaders’ priority is to put their subordinates’ interests first, management should
pay utmost attention to whether the candidates may implement a personal, individualized 2091
and cooperative leadership (Liden et al., 2014).
Fourth, organizing training programs to cultivate current servant leaders’ knowledge and
skills through scenario-based tests would enable management to have motivated supervisors
who are ready to perform their tasks effectively. Management can also arrange workshops
where the potential supervisors or non-supervisory employees would learn the characteristics
of SL (e.g. stewardship) through mini case studies. Such workshops would transmit and inject
SL to these individuals.
Fifth, employees may not always be successful in attending to each customer request.
Therefore, management can encourage employees to use informal learning. Employees can
use various sources such as managers, coworkers and online information to initiate informal
learning and enhance their adaptive performance. Finally, it is important to appraise
employees’ WENG on a periodical basis. This can be done using Schaufeli et al.’s (2006)
scale. It would be possible to make sure that the current SL practices really make significant
contributions to employees’ WENG throughout the year. Some of the above-mentioned
practices may be acknowledged among practitioners. However, their continuous successful
implementation is one of the major challenges in the hotel industry.

Limitations and future research

This paper is constrained by several limitations, which draw attention to avenues for future
research. First, the indirect influence of SL on career satisfaction and adaptive performance,
through WENG, was greater than the indirect influence of AL. In future studies, adding ethical
leadership to the research model and ferreting out whether the indirect effect of SL on the
aforementioned job outcomes, through WENG, is greater than the indirect effects of AL and
ethical leadership would contribute to the hospitality literature. Second, WENG was treated as
a mediator of the impacts of SL and AL on career satisfaction and adaptive performance. Using
multiple mediators such as WENG and job embeddedness to determine the indirect effects of
these leadership styles on job outcomes would be beneficial (Lee et al., 2019).
Third, it appears that there are studies, which have focused on employees’ pro-
environmental behaviors (Luu, 2019). Green recovery performance has scarcely been
subjected to empirical investigation (Luu, 2018). Future research can incorporate this
outcome into the research model to determine whether the indirect influence of SL on
green recovery performance, through WENG, is stronger than the indirect impact of
AL. On the other hand, employees can exhibit negative environmental behaviors (Paillé
et al., 2019). In today’s competitive marketplace, managers/leaders are expected to be
sensitive to environmental sustainability. Therefore, future research can gauge the
effects of environmentally specific SL and AL on non-green behaviors to contribute to
the literature.
Fourth, this study did not gather data about respondents’ tenure in the hotel
industry. An employee could be new to the current hotel, but could have a long tenure in
the industry. Therefore, collecting data about participants’ industrial tenure and using
it as a control variable would be useful. In closing, it is important to consider the
IJCHM generalization of the empirical findings to other hospitality or service settings. One
32,6 potential way is that future research can test the hypothesized linkages through cross-
national data and contribute to the issue of generalizability.

References
Altinay, L., Dai, Y.-D., Chang, J., Lee, C.-H., Zhuang, W.-L. and Liu, Y.-C. (2019), “How to facilitate hotel
2092 employees’ work engagement: the roles of leader-member exchange, role overload and job security?”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1525-1542.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F. and May, D.R. (2004), “Unlocking the mask: a
look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 801-823.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1992), “The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior”, Social Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 178-204.
Banks, G.C., McCauley, K.D., Gardner, W.L. and Guler, C.E. (2016), “A meta-analytic review of authentic
and transformational leadership: a test for redundancy”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 634-652.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bavik, A., Bavik, Y.L. and Tang, P.M. (2017), “Servant leadership, employee job crafting, and
citizenship behaviors: a cross-level investigation”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 364-373.
Bouzari, M. and Karatepe, O.M. (2017), “Test of a mediation model of psychological capital among hotel
salespeople”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 2178-2197.
Brownell, J. (2010), “Leadership in the service of hospitality”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 3,
pp. 363-378.
Chen, C.-Y. (2019), “Does work engagement mediate the influence of job resourcefulness on job crafting?
An examination of frontline hotel employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1684-1701.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
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.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D. and Liden, R.C. (2019), “Servant leadership: a systematic
review and call for future research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 111-132.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Gill, C. and Caza, A. (2018), “An investigation of authentic leadership’s individual and group influences
on follower responses”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 530-554.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W.M. (1990), “Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-86.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership, Paulist Press, New York, NY.
Grobelna, A. (2019), “Effects of individual and job characteristics on hotel contact employees’ work Work
engagement and their performance outcomes: a case study from Poland”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 349-369.
engagement
Hartline, M.D. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), “The management of customer-contact service employees: an
empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 52-70.
He, H.(K.)., Li, C.(S.)., Lin, Z. and Liang, S. (2019), “Creating a high-performance exhibitor team: a
temporary-organization perspective”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 81,
pp. 21-29. 2093
Hoch, J.E., Bommer, W.H., Dulebohn, J.H. and Wu, D. (2018), “Do ethical, authentic, and servant
leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 501-529.
Hsiao, C., Lee, Y.-H. and Chen, W.-J. (2015), “The effect of servant leadership on customer value
co-creation: a cross-level analysis of key mediating roles”, Tourism Management, Vol. 49,
pp. 45-57.
Huang, J., Li, W., Qiu, C., Yim, FH-K. and Wan, J. (2016), “The impact of CEO servant leadership on firm
performance in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 945-968.
Huertas-Valdivia, I., Gallego-Burín, A.R. and Lloréns-Montes, F.J. (2019), “Effects of different leadership
styles on hospitality workers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 71, pp. 402-420.
Ilkhanizadeh, S. and Karatepe, O.M. (2018), “Does trust in organization mediate the influence of servant
leadership on satisfaction outcomes among flight attendants?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 3555-3573.
Jang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2018), “Reducing employee turnover intention through servant
leadership in the restaurant context: a mediation study of affective organizational
commitment”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 125-141.
Joo, B.K. and Lee, I. (2017), “Workplace happiness: work engagement, career satisfaction, and subjective
well-being”, Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 206-221.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software
International, Chicago.
Joseph, E.E. and Winston, B.E. (2005), “A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 6-22.
Karatepe, O.M. and Karadas, G. (2015), “Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline
employees’ satisfaction? A study in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1254-1278.
Khosh, G. and Ghatri, N. (2018), “Does servant leadership work in hospitality sector: a representative
study in the hotel organizations”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 37,
pp. 117-127.
Kim, T.T., Karatepe, O.M. and Chung, U.Y. (2019), “Got political skill? The direct and moderating
impact of political skill on stress, tension and outcomes in restaurants”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1367-1389.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J., Astakhova, M., Eren, D. and Cetin, H. (2014), “Servant leadership and
perceptions of service quality provided by frontline service workers in hotels in Turkey:
achieving competitive advantage”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1083-1099.
IJCHM Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A.W. and Knight, C. (2019), “Servant leadership: a meta-analytic
examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation”, Journal of Occupational
32,6 and Organizational Psychology.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Liao, C. and Meuser, J.D. (2014), “Servant leadership and serving culture:
influence on individual and unit performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 5,
pp. 1434-1452.
Ling, Q., Lini, M. and Wu, X. (2016), “The trickle-down effect of servant leadership on frontline
2094 employee service behaviors and performance: a multilevel study of chinese hotels”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 52, pp. 341-368.
Ling, Q., Liu, F. and Wu, X. (2017), “Servant versus authentic leadership: assessing effectiveness in
china’s hospitality industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Authentic leadership: a positive developmental approach”, in
Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship:
Foundations of a New Discipline, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, pp. 241-261.
Luu, T.T. (2018), “Employees’ green recovery performance: the roles of green HR practices and serving
culture”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1308-1324.
Luu, T.T. (2019), “Building employees’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment:
the role of environmentally-specific servant leadership and a moderated mediation
mechanism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 406-426.
Nart, S., Sututemiz, N., Nart, S. and Karatepe, O.M. (2019), “Internal marketing practices, genuine
emotions and their effects on hotel employees’ customer-oriented behaviors”, Journal of Human
Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-70.
Olugbade, O.A. and Karatepe, O.M. (2019), “Stressors, work engagement and their effects on hotel
employee outcomes”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 39 Nos 3/4, pp. 279-298.
Paillé, P., Morelos, J.H.M., Raineri, N. and Stinglhamber, F. (2019), “The influence of the immediate
manager on the avoidance of non-green behaviors in the workplace: a three-wave moderated-
mediation model”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 155 No. 3, pp. 723-740.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 539-569.
Qiu, S., Alizadeh, A., Dooley, L.M. and Zhang, R. (2019), “The effects of authentic leadership on trust in
leaders, organizational citizenship behavior, and service quality in the Chinese hospitality
industry”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 40, pp. 77-87.
Ruiz-Palomino, P., Hernández-Perlines, F., Jiménez-Estévez, P. and Gutiérrez-Broncano, S. (2019), “CEO
servant leadership and firm innovativeness in hotels: a multiple mediation model of
encouragement of participation and employees’ voice”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1647-1665.
Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), “A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical
model”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 145-157.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schuckert, M., Kim, T.T., Paek, S. and Lee, G. (2018), “Motivate to innovate: how authentic and
transformational leaders influence employees’ psychological capital and service innovation
behavior”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 776-796.
Solnet, D., Kandampully, J. and Kralj, A. (2010), “Legends of service excellence: the habits of seven Work
highly effective hospitality companies”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 889-908. engagement
Srivastava, A., Locke, E.A., Judge, T.A. and Adams, J.W. (2010), “Core self-evaluations as causes of
satisfaction: the mediating role of seeking task complexity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 255-265.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011), “Servant leadership: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1228-1261. 2095
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S. and Peterson, S.J. (2008), “Authentic
leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-126.
Wong, C.A. and Cummings, G.G. (2009), “The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on trust and
work outcomes of health care staff”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 6-23.
Ye, Y., Lyu, Y. and He, Y. (2019), “Servant leadership and proactive customer service performance”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1330-1347.
Zou, W.-C., Tian, Q. and Liu, J. (2015), “Servant leadership, social exchange relationships, and follower’s
helping behavior: positive reciprocity belief matter”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 51, pp. 147-156.

Corresponding author
Osman M. Karatepe can be contacted at: osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr

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