The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7739.htm
LODJ
42,7
1136
Received 20 August 2020
Revised 23 March 2021
1 June 2021
11 July 2021
Accepted 16 July 2021
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 42 No. 7, 2021
pp. 1136-1152
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/LODJ-07-2020-0305
Servant leadership and
organizational deviant behaviour:
interpreting some contradictory
results from public sector
of Pakistan
Amjad Iqbal
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad,
Wah Campus, Wah Cantt, Pakistan, and
Iftikhar Ahmad and Khawaja Fawad Latif
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad,
Attock Campus, Attock, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims at ascertaining the relationship between servant leadership and employees’
organizational deviant behaviour in public sector organizations of Pakistan. Drawing on social cognitive and
social exchange theories, this research also proposes to determine the mediating role of self-efficacy and trust in
leader in this relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – Using convenience sampling method, three-wave time-lagged data were
collected from 204 employees working in secretariats of two federal ministries in Pakistan.
Findings – The results derived from partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) analysis
using SmartPLS 3.2.9 software revealed that servant leadership is not negatively related to employee
organizational deviant behaviour. Although the findings indicate that servant leadership is positively related
to employee self-efficacy and trust in leader, these factors do not mediate the relationship between servant
leadership and organizational deviant behaviour.
Practical implications – Empirical evidence of this research emphasizes the role of servant leadership in
fostering employees’ trust and self-efficacy. Additionally, this research suggests that alongside servant
leadership, a moral climate and fairness in organizational policies and decisions are also inevitable to prompt
employees to feel obligated to reduce undesirable workplace behaviours, particularly in public sector
organizations.
Originality/value – This is amongst the earlier studies that investigates the association between servant
leadership and organizational deviant behaviour of public sector employees in a developing context and
examines the mediating role of trust in leader and self-efficacy simultaneously. Being contradictory to the
underlying theories, findings of this research open the debate on effectiveness of servant leadership in public
sector organizations of developing countries and expose avenues for future research.
Keywords Servant leadership, Self-efficacy, Trust in leader, Organizational deviant behaviour, Public sector,
Pakistan
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Organizational deviant behaviour, which refers to as “voluntary behaviour that violates
significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its
members, or both” (Robinson and Bennett, 1995, p. 556), is a prevalent problem largely
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
investigated in the context of developed countries (Narayanan and Murphy, 2017). However, this Public sector of
phenomenon is more rampant in case of developing countries such as Pakistan (Javed et al., 2019) Pakistan
particularly in public-sector organizations (Yasir and Rasli, 2018). Since organizational deviant
behaviours hinder organizational performance and effectiveness (Lugosi, 2019), therefore an
increasing body of research has emerged in recent years to determine the reasons behind
organizational deviant behaviour and unearth the ways to curb such counterproductive
behaviours (e.g. Ahmed et al., 2020; Khattak et al., 2019; Verdorfer et al., 2015).
Extant research reveals that leadership is pivotal in shaping employee behaviours. In the 1137
same vein, various forms of leadership such as transformational leadership (Uddin et al., 2017),
empowering leadership (Kim and Beehr, 2017), ethical leadership (Mo and Shi, 2017) and
authoritarian leadership (Bodla et al., 2019) have been negatively associated with organizational
deviant behaviour. However, to better handle complex challenges being faced by public sector
organizations and meet the increasing demands of society, people in organizations have
become the focus of management. Therefore, a people-oriented leadership approach such as
servant leadership has received increasing attention of scholars and practitioners. Servant
leadership, a moral form of leadership, is based on the notion of putting followers first
(Greenleaf, 1970). Despite the existence of an enormous empirical evidence concerning nexus
between servant leadership and employee behaviours, as indicated in recent review of Eva et al.
(2019), limited studies have associated servant leadership with organizational deviant
behaviour (e.g. Paesen et al., 2019; Sendjaya et al., 2019b; Verdorfer et al., 2015). Additionally,
organizational deviant behaviour is one of the predominant issues in public sector
organizations of developing countries (Aryati et al., 2018; Yasir and Rasli, 2018).
Nevertheless, existing research indicates dearth of studies investigating the association
between servant leadership behaviour and organizational deviance in the context of developing
economies such as Pakistan.
Moreover, previous studies suggest that servant leadership is negatively linked to
deviance related behaviours through social-moral climate (Verdorfer et al., 2015) and
employee engagement (Sendjaya et al., 2019b). However, these studies have examined this
linkage by focusing on single mediation mechanism limiting our understanding on the
process through which servant leadership is associated with organizational deviant
behaviour. Therefore, scholars have increasingly emphasized to investigate multiple
mechanisms simultaneously to better understand the relationship between servant
leadership and employee attitudes and behaviours (Eva et al., 2019). We argue that
employees’ self-efficacy and trust in leader are critical determinants of employee behaviours
and can serve as important mechanisms linking servant leadership with organizational
deviant behaviour. We choose to focus on these two pathways for several reasons.
For instance, employees receiving developmental focus and encouragement from their
leaders have a stronger confidence in their abilities (Walumbwa et al., 2010), which prompts
them to strive for positive accomplishments instead of engaging in behaviours that violate
organizational norms (Kim and Beehr, 2017). Similarly, employees maintaining a trustworthy
relationship with leaders based on their care and support (Jaiswal and Dhar, 2017) have a
greater sense of psychological identification (Chughtai, 2016) and are less likely to engage in
behaviours that can harm the organization (Mo and Shi, 2017). Although previous research
suggests the role of trust in leader and self-efficacy in the relationship between various forms
of leadership and organizational deviant behaviour (e.g. Kim and Beehr, 2017; Mo and Shi,
2017), the extant research has yet to investigate how servant leadership is related to
organizational deviant behaviour through these competing explanatory mechanisms based
on social exchange (Blau, 1964) and social cognitive theories (Bandura, 1986).
Based on the highlighted gaps, the present study aims at contributing to the existing
literature in at least three ways. First, as discussed earlier, organizational deviant behaviour is
more prevalent amongst employees of public sector organizations of developing countries such
LODJ as Pakistan. Developing countries are commonly characterized by hierarchical societies and
42,7 high-power distance culture and it is still unclear to what extent the western concept of servant
leadership is effective in reducing employees’ engagement in undesirable behaviours
particularly organizational deviant behaviour in public sector organizations of such
countries. This research adds to the incipient evidence on the relationship between servant
leadership and organizational deviant behaviour based on a sample drawn from employees of
public sector organizations in developing context of Pakistan. Second, the current study
1138 extends the research concerning servant leadership and employee behaviours by investigating
the distinct mechanisms of employee self-efficacy and trust in leader using lens of social
cognitive (Bandura, 1986) and social exchange theories (Blau, 1964). Third, earlier studies
investigating the nexus between leadership and employee behaviours have largely followed
cross-sectional research design putting a significant caveat on the conclusions drawn from their
findings (Eva et al., 2019). However, the present study follows a time-lagged survey design and
collects data in three time points each specified for predictor, mediators and criterion variable
respectively which can not only help in drawing meaningful conclusions from the findings but
also reducing the possible contaminating effects of common method variance.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses development

Organizational deviant behaviour
Deviant behaviour is a common problem faced by organizations, particularly in developing
countries (Narayanan and Murphy, 2017) and even more prevalent in their public sector
organizations (Yasir and Rasli, 2018). Workplace deviance is regarded as any significant
violation of organizational norms and values that impede the wellbeing or prosperity of an
organization as well as its members (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Workplace deviant
behaviour has been frequently bifurcated into two prominent dimensions, namely,
organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. However, the present research focuses
on deviant behaviour directed at organization for at least two reasons. First, in public sector
organizations of developing countries particularly in Pakistan, the employee deviant
behaviours are mostly directed at organizations. These behaviours frequently involves
stealing office equipment or making their personal use, making fake medical claims, taking
prolonged lunch and tea breaks, habitually arriving late in office and leaving place of duty
without permission or before specified time (Nasir and Bashir, 2012; Yasir and Rasli, 2018).
Second, prior research argues that organizational deviance is more harmful for
organizational health, progress and prosperity (e.g. Javed et al., 2019; Qiuyun et al., 2020).

Servant leadership and organizational deviant behaviour

Servant leadership is an emerging leadership concept and has received immense attention
amongst leadership scholars and practitioners in recent years (Eva et al., 2019). The core
principle of servant leadership theory is that the leaders with servant behaviours prioritize
interests of their followers and put subordinates’ needs first rather than their own (Greenleaf,
1970). The current study follows seven-dimensional conceptualization of servant leadership
presented by Liden et al. (2008) that appears to be used frequently in existing research
(e.g. Chughtai, 2016; Iqbal et al., 2020; Karatepe et al., 2019). This model suggests that servant
leadership entails seven essential characteristics: emotional healing, empowering followers,
helping followers to grow and succeed, putting followers first, creating value for the
community, having conceptual skills and exhibiting ethical behaviour.
Based on proposition of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), previous research reveals
that when leadership treats their followers inequitably, they can provoke employee deviance
at work (Javed et al., 2019). On the contrary, exhibition of ethical behaviour, respect and
mutual trust by leadership can prompt followers to engage in desirable behaviours such as Public sector of
organizational citizenship behaviour (Walumbwa et al., 2010), customer-oriented prosocial Pakistan
behaviour (Chen et al., 2015), voice behaviour (Chughtai, 2016) and helping behaviour
(Sendjaya et al., 2019b). Servant leadership is based on the notion of serving-others and thus
empowers subordinates, focuses on their growth and development, and emphasizes their
interests (Van Dierendonck, 2011). In line with social exchange theory, these leadership
characteristics motivate employees to show greater work responsibility (Hale and Fields,
2007). Moreover, servant leadership demonstrates empathy, stewardship and emotional 1139
healing towards their followers (Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Such supportive
and positive leadership behaviours encourage employees to reciprocate with improved
performance and reduce negative emotions and avoid undesirable attitudes (Karatepe et al.,
2019). Following these lines of logic, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Servant leadership is negatively related to organizational deviant behaviour.

Mediating role of self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is a process of self-belief whereby a person believes that he/she can achieve the
desired performance (Bandura, 1997). Based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1997,
1986), the construct of self-efficacy has been divided into three dimensions, namely,
magnitude or level, strength and generality. However, scholars have increasingly focused on
generality dimension of self-efficacy which is a trait-like facet of self-efficacy and has been
regarded as general self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001). Consistent with earlier investigations (e.g.
Kim and Beehr, 2017), the current research has followed general self-efficacy definition to
study its role as mediator between the relationship of servant leadership and employees’
organizational deviant behaviour. According to Judge et al. (1997), general self-efficacy refers
to as “individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of different
situations” (p. 170). Self-efficacy helps individuals to set superior objectives and remain
committed to meet these objectives (Bandura, 1986) and thus achieve the desirable
performance outcomes (Chen et al., 2001). In earlier studies, self-efficacy has been studied as
an outcome of positive leadership behaviours and a robust predictor of a broad range of
individual outcomes such as organizational citizen behaviour (Walumbwa et al., 2010),
customer-oriented prosocial behaviour and service-related performance (Chen et al., 2015).
Social cognitive theory posits that employees’ self-efficacy beliefs can be fostered through
encouragement and observational learning (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Prior research suggests
that leadership is crucial in fostering employees’ efficacy beliefs. For instance, when leaders
clarify employees’ work roles and offer them necessary support at work, they can stimulate
their self-efficacy (Kim and Beehr, 2017). Servant leadership is a form of leadership which is
more concerned about personal development of subordinates and focuses on fulfilling their
needs and developing their knowledge, skills and capabilities (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Such
behaviours of servant leaders enhance employees’ self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2015).
The heightened level of self-efficacy invokes followers to respond stressful situations with
desirable attitudes instead of exhibiting deviant behaviours at work (Kim and Beehr, 2017).
This is based on the reasoning that self-efficacy reflects favourable assessments of an
individual’s self-worth (Judge et al., 1997) which can reduce the likelihood he/she engages in
behaviours that contradict those assessments (Huck et al., 2017) and motivate them to achieve
more positive accomplishments (Kim and Beehr, 2017). Therefore, based on the tenets of
social cognitive theory, it is proposed that servant leadership can augment employees’
self-efficacy which will in turn reduce their tendency to demonstrate deviant behaviour at
work. Consequently, the following hypotheses are suggested:
H2. Servant leadership is positively related to self-efficacy.
LODJ H3. Self-efficacy is negatively related to organizational deviant behaviour.
42,7 H4. Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between servant leadership and
organizational deviant behaviour.

Mediating role of trust in leader

Trust in leader is labelled as a psychological state involving employees’ positive expectations
1140 about the leader’s behaviours and intentions in a risky situation (Gao et al., 2011). Social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is the prominent theoretical lens that can be used to explain the
role of trust in leader in the association between leadership and deviant behaviour. Social
exchange theory focuses on relational interdependence and exchange relationship between
partners. This exchange relationship prompts employees to go beyond transactional
obligations and engage in behaviours and attitudes that reap benefits for the organization
(Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). In line with these propositions, prior studies have documented
ample evidence that leaders who focus on wellbeing of their followers prompt them to
reciprocate with gratitude and trust. For instance, servant leaders put followers’ needs first,
demonstrate behavioural integrity and consistency, and empower subordinates and focus on
their development (Van Dierendonck, 2011). These behavioural characteristics enhance
followers’ trust in their leaders (Jaiswal and Dhar, 2017; Karatepe et al., 2019).
Previous research also suggests the role of trust in leader in translating the influence of
servant leadership on employee outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviour
(Sendjaya et al., 2019a) and creativity (Jaiswal and Dhar, 2017). Likewise, trust in leader
enhances the confidence level amongst employees (Mayer et al., 1995) which enables leaders
to extract higher performance from subordinates in an effective way (Karatepe et al., 2019).
Organizational deviant behaviour is an indicator of employees’ emotional response to trust
violations of their leaders (Spector and Fox, 2010). This is grounded in the reasoning that
leaders are regarded as embodiment of the organization and, therefore, any distrust in leaders
is attributed to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2010; Gatling et al., 2017).
Consequently, distrust in leaders can raise employees’ negative conduct (Yasir and Khan,
2020) and prompt them to retaliate against the organization and leaders by exhibiting
counterproductive behaviours such as organizational deviant behaviour (Gatling et al., 2017).
On the contrary, caring, supportive and trustworthy behaviour of leaders portrays
organization’ goodwill which enhances employees’ psychological identification
(Chughtai, 2016) and prevents them from engaging in behaviours that are harmful for the
organization (Ahmad et al., 2020). Consistent with these arguments, prior research has
provided plentiful empirical evidence that individuals tend to less engage in workplace
misbehaviours such as deviant behaviours when they perceive a trustworthy relationship
with their leaders (Mo and Shi, 2017). Thus, drawing on social exchange theory, it is proposed
that supportive and positive leadership behaviours engender followers’ trust in leaders which
in turn prompts them to reduce undesirable behaviours at work such as organizational
deviant behaviour. Hence, the following hypotheses are deduced (see Figure 1):
H5. Servant leadership is positively related to trust in leader.
H6. Trust in leader is negatively related to organizational deviant behaviour.
H7. Trust in leader mediates the relationship between servant leadership and
organizational deviant behaviour.

Methodology
Sample and procedures
Deviant behaviour is more prevalent in public sector organizations impeding the health of the
organizations, particularly in developing countries (Narayanan and Murphy, 2017) such as
 H4(–) Public sector of
Pakistan

Self-efficacy

H2(+) H3(–)
1141

H1(–) Organizational
Servant
Leadership Deviant
Behaviour

H5(+) H6(–)

Trust in Leader
Figure 1.
Proposed
research model
H7(–)

Pakistan (Aryati et al., 2018; Nasir and Bashir, 2012). Therefore, the current study intends to
verify the proposed research model by drawing a sample from public sector employees
working in secretariats of two federal ministries in Pakistan. One of the authors had close
contacts with departmental heads in the secretariats, and their permission was obtained after
explaining purpose of the research. At the beginning, participants were briefed about data
collection procedure and complete confidentiality was guaranteed. Convenience sampling
technique was employed to collect data from participants at three different time points each
separated with an interval of 4 weeks, which helped to reduce common method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Initially, Time 1 (T1) survey questionnaires were distributed amongst 326 employees out of
which 297 employees filled the survey and reported their demographic information and rated
servant leadership behaviour of their immediate supervisors. At Time 2 (T2), participants were
asked to rate their trust in leader and self-efficacy. Finally, employees rated their engagement in
organizational deviant behaviour at Time 3 (T3). Of the initial 326 participants, a sample with
matched data of 204 employees was achieved showing a response rate of 62.57%. This sample
size is adequate for structural equation modelling analysis (Iqbal et al., 2019; Kline, 2010).
The demographics revealed male dominance in the sample (73.52%) and indicated that the
organizations had engaged relatively young employees with age less than 45 years (85.77%) and
well-educated personnel having at least 4 years of education (59.31%). Moreover, about 47% of
the respondents were having a job tenure of 5–8 years.

Measures
Servant leadership. To measure servant leadership, we used 7-item unidimensional shorter
version of 28-item scale which has been developed by Liden et al. (2015) . Sample item
includes: “My boss makes my career development a priority”.
LODJ Trust in leader. To examine employees’ trust in leader, we adopted Robinson and
42,7 Rousseau’s (1994) scale with seven items. Sample item includes: “My supervisor is open and
upfront with me”.
Self-efficacy. A generalized 8-item scale of self-efficacy developed by Chen et al. (2001) was
employed to assess employees’ self-efficacy. Sample item included “I believe I can succeed at
most any endeavor to which I set my mind”.
Organizational deviant behaviour. In the present study, 10 items were adopted from
1142 Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) 12-item scale for measurement of employees’ workplace
deviant behaviour directed at organization. Two items were not included due to their
irrelevancy to the context of current study. These items included “I falsify a receipt to get
reimbursed for more money than I spent on business expenses” and “I drag out work in order
to get overtime”. Exclusion of these items is based on the reasoning that in the understudy
context there is a designated department for business expenses such as office supplies and
employees have no need to make such expenses and get them reimbursed. Similarly, there is
no option for overtime in secretariats of both ministries. Participants were asked to indicate
the extent to which they had engaged in deviant behaviour over the past year. Sample item
includes: “Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at our workplace”.
Control variables. Following recent studies related to employees’ workplace deviant
behaviour (e.g. Javed et al., 2019; Kim and Beehr, 2018), demographic factors, namely, age,
gender, education and job tenure of the respondents were included as control variables for
better estimation of the hypotheses.

Analysis and results

We applied partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) technique to
analyse the data. PLS-SEM is applied for better handling of small sample size and non-normal
data (Hair et al., 2011). Additionally, PLS-SEM is a prediction-oriented technique that is more
suitable when purpose of the investigation is to test existing theories in an exploratory way
(Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2011; Ringle et al., 2020). Based on these reasoning, PLS-SEM is gaining
popularity in research concerning counterproductive behaviours such as deviant behaviours
(e.g. Haldorai et al., 2019). PLS-SEM analysis is composed of two stages: assessment of
measurement model and evaluation of structural model (Hair et al., 2011; Ringle et al., 2020).
The present study applied PLS-SEM technique utilizing SmartPLS 3.2.9 software package
(Ringle et al., 2015) and followed recent guidelines for data analysis suggested by Ringle
et al. (2020).

Measurement model assessment

Assessment of measurement model is the first stage in PLS-SEM analysis and carried out to
ensure that the constructs exhibiting good indicator reliability, composite reliability,
convergent validity and discriminant validity are used in structural path model. The criteria
of factor loading were used to assess indicator reliability. Consistent with the
recommendations of Hulland (1999), items with factor loading below 0.50 (SE2, ODB1,
ODB2, ODB8 and ODB9) were removed. The results given in Table 1 reflect that factor
loadings of all the remaining reflective indicators are above 0.60 satisfying the condition of
indicator reliability (Hair et al., 2011). Internal consistency reliability was evaluated through
composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha. The results reflected in Table 1 indicate that
CR and Cronbach’s alpha values of all the constructs are above 0.70 and below 0.9 and meet
the suggested criteria (Ringle et al., 2020).
After establishment of reliability, convergent validity of the constructs was examined.
Convergent validity is typically measured through values of average variance extracted (AVE)
Construct Coding Loading CR Cronbach’s alpha AVE
Public sector of
Pakistan
Servant leadership SL1 0.75 0.90 0.87 0.56
SL2 0.76
SL3 0.77
SL4 0.74
SL5 0.76
SL6 0.76 1143
SL7 0.72
Trust in leader TL1 0.80 0.88 0.84 0.50
TL2 0.78
TL3 0.62
TL4 0.68
TL5 0.67
TL6 0.73
TL7 0.66
Self-efficacy SE1 0.77 0.88 0.84 0.50
SE3 0.77
SE4 0.64
SE5 0.73
SE6 0.66
SE7 0.66
SE8 0.72
Organizational deviant behaviour ODB3 0.65 0.86 0.83 0.52
ODB4 0.83
ODB5 0.78
ODB6 0.76
ODB7 0.68
ODB10 0.60 Table 1.
Note(s): SL 5 servant leadership, SE 5 self-efficacy, TL 5 trust in leader, ODB 5 organizational deviant Factor loading,
behaviour reliability and AVE

with an acceptable cut-off value of 0.50 or above (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 1
demonstrates that AVE values of all the constructs are above 0.50. Finally, discriminant
validity was assessed using heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratios method. Table 2
demonstrates descriptive statistics and correlations amongst constructs and their
discriminant validity. Table 2 presents that HTMT ratios between constructs are below the
cut-off value of 0.85 and corresponding confidence intervals lower than one, thus establishing
discriminant validity. In sum, the above analysis indicates that reliability and validity of the
study constructs is established, and the measurement model is adequate for structural analysis.

Mean SD SE SL TL ODB

SE 4.11 0.78 0.71 0.45 [0.28; 0.61] 0.46 [0.29; 0.67] 0.15 [0.13; 0.32]
SL 3.52 1.17 0.40*** 0.75 0.61 [0.47; 0.72] 0.11 [0.11; 0.27]
TL 3.96 0.87 0.40*** 0.54*** 0.71 0.19 [0.16; 0.32]
ODB 2.23 1.07 0.14 0.09 0.13 0.72
Note(s): Italic elements in diagonal are square root of AVE. Values below the diagonal elements are the Table 2.
correlations between constructs. Italicized values above diagonal elements are the HTMT ratios with their Descriptive statistics,
respective confidence intervals in parentheses. SL 5 servant leadership, SE5Self-efficacy, TL 5 trust in correlations and
leader, ODB 5 organizational deviant behaviour, SD 5 standard deviation; ***p < 0.001 discriminant validity
LODJ Structural model evaluation
42,7 Evaluation of structural path model includes evaluation of path coefficients (relationships
amongst study constructs) and their statistical significance (Hair et al., 2011). The current
research followed general guidelines of Ringle et al. (2020) for evaluation of structural model
and reporting of the results. Consequently, bootstrapping procedure using 5,000 resamples
was applied to generate t-values and p-values to test statistical significance of path
coefficients of hypothesized relations. Regarding examination of mediation effects, Preacher
1144 and Hayes’s (2008) method in line with recommendations and guidelines suggested by Nitzl
et al. (2016) was followed.
Figure 2 portrays structural path coefficients and the results of structural model
evaluation are given in Table 3. H1 proposes that servant leadership is negatively related to
organizational deviant behaviour. Path coefficients reflected in Table 3 indicate that although
servant leadership is negatively related to organizational deviant behaviour, but this
negative relationship is not statistically significant (β 5 002, p > 0.05). Hence H1 is not
supported.
H2 predicted that servant leadership is positively related to self-efficacy. Path coefficients
given in Table 3 exhibit that that there is a positive relationship between servant leadership
and employee self-efficacy (β 5 0.395, p < 0.05). Hence, H2 is empirically substantiated. H3
predicted that employee self-efficacy is negatively related to organizational deviant
behaviour. Path coefficients given in Table 3 exhibit that that there is no significant
negative relationship between employee self-efficacy and organizational deviant behaviour
(β 5 0.111, p > 0.05). This result does not lend support for H3. H4 proposed that self-efficacy
mediates the relationship between servant leadership and organizational deviant behaviour.
Table 3 demonstrates indirect effects and their statistical significance generated through

SE1 SE3 SE4 SE5 SE6 SE7 SE8

0.640 0.727 0.658 0.662

0.773 0.768 0.721

0.156
SL1
ODB10
SL2 SE
0.748 0.395 0.111
0.596 ODB3
SL3 0.757
0.773 0.652
0.832
ODB4
SL4 0.741 –0.002 0.027
0.779
0.756 0.758 ODB5
SL5 0.757
0.681
0.719 SL
0.540 0.085 ODB ODB6
SL6
ODB7
SL7
0.291

TL
0.803 0.778 0.657
0.623 0.681 0.673 0.729

Figure 2. TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 TL7

Structural model with
path coefficients
Note(s): SL = servant leadership, TL = trust in leader, SE = self-efficacy,
ODB = organizational deviant behaviour
Relationships Path coefficients T values p values
Public sector of
Pakistan
Direct effects
SL → ODB 0.002 0.01 0.99
SL → SE 0.395 5.40 0.00
SE → ODB 0.111 0.90 0.37
SL → TL 0.540 10.18 0.00
TL → ODB 0.085 0.60 0.55 1145
Indirect effects
SL → SE → ODB 0.044 0.860 0.390
SL → TL → ODB 0.046 0.582 0.561 Table 3.
Note(s): SL 5 servant leadership, SE 5 self-efficacy, TL 5 trust in leader, ODB 5 organizational deviant Results of structural
behaviour model evaluation

bootstrapping procedure (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The results show that self-efficacy does
not mediate relationship between servant leadership and organizational deviant behaviour
(β 5 0.044, p > 0.05). Hence, H4 is also not supported.
H5 predicted that servant leadership is positively related to trust in leader.
Path coefficients reflected in Table 3 exhibit that that there is a positive relationship
between servant leadership and employee trust in leader (β 5 0.540, p < 0.05). Hence, H5 is
empirically substantiated. H6 predicted that employee trust in leader is negatively related to
organizational deviant behaviour. Path coefficients portrayed in Table 3 exhibit that there is
no statistically significant negative relationship between employee trust in leader and
organizational deviant behaviour (β 5 0.085, p > 0.05). This result does not lend support for
H6. Finally, H7 proposed that employees’ trust in leader mediates the relationship between
servant leadership and organizational deviant behaviour. Table 3 demonstrates indirect
effects which show that trust in leader does not mediate relationship between servant
leadership and organizational deviant behaviour (β 5 0.046, p > 0.05). Hence, H7 is also not
supported.

Discussion and implications

The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between a contemporary and
moral form of leadership, i.e. servant leadership and employee organizational deviant
behaviour and determining the mediating role of employee self-efficacy and their trust in
leader in the underlying relationship. Consequently, hypotheses were proposed drawing on
social-based theories namely social cognitive theory and social exchange theory and relevant
literature. To test the proposed hypotheses empirically, data were collected in three waves
from employees working in secretariats of two federal ministries in Pakistan.
Hypothesis 1 proposed negative relationship between servant leadership and
organizational deviant behaviour. Although the results indicated a negative association
between servant leadership and followers’ organizational deviant behaviour, however, this
association was not found significant. This finding contradicts the well-conceived notion that
when leaders put their followers first, lend the support and encouragement through
delegation and empowerment and seeking their feedback, they can prompt their followers to
engage in positive behaviours such as customer-oriented prosocial behaviour (Chen et al.,
2015) and reduce counterproductive behaviour such as organizational deviant behaviour
(Paesen et al., 2019). This contradictory result may possibly be attributed to at least two
reasons.
First, there may be little existence of organizational facilitators such as justice or social-
moral climate (Shkoler and Tziner, 2017; Verdorfer et al., 2015) in public sector organizations
LODJ of Pakistan which hinders the influence of servant leadership on employees’ undesirable
42,7 behaviours. Although prior investigations conducted in western context conclude that
servant leadership is self-sufficient in shaping positive organizational climate such as justice
(Walumbwa et al., 2010) and social-moral climate (Verdorfer et al., 2015), this is not the case
with our research context due to several reasons. For instance, due to hierarchical structure in
public sector organization of Pakistan, immediate supervisors have little role in formulating
organizational policies. Employees generally perceive organizational policies in terms of
1146 procedural unfairness when they observe that their extra-role performance, even so reported
by their immediate supervisor, is not valued by the organization. Such perceived procedural
unfairness elicits negative feelings amongst employees leading towards their engagement in
organizational deviant behaviour (Khattak et al., 2019). Similarly, despite the demonstration
of servant leadership behaviour by immediate supervisors, the bureaucratic nature of public
sector organizations in Pakistan impede the development of a social-moral climate due to lack
of communication between employees and higher levels of management and employees’
participation in decision making. Inadequacy of social-moral climate can thus enhance
employees’ tendency to exhibit counterproductive behaviours.
Second, public sector organizations are primarily characterized by high power distance.
In such organizations, employees accept unequal distribution of power and favourably
respond to the authoritarian leaders to some level (Huang et al., 2015) and may not engage in
organizational deviance (Bodla et al., 2019). On the contrary, in organizations with high power
distance culture, servant leadership may be less effective (Eva et al., 2019) because employees
may take soft view of servant leadership which increases their propensity to engage in
deviant behaviour. Based on these arguments, justification for contradictory findings of this
research may be gleaned from situational strength theory (Meyer et al., 2010) which suggests
that situational constraints, such as high-power distance and/or lack of justice and
social-moral climate, might attenuate the relationship of servant leadership and employee
deviant behaviour (Eva et al., 2019; Peng and Kim, 2020). The finding suggests that servant
leadership behaviour is not the only panacea to limit employees’ misbehaviours; instead
organizations should also focus on engendering social-moral or justice climate through
organizational fairness and equality in employee related policies and decisions to better cope
with employees’ counterproductive behaviours. Hence, it can be deduced from the preceding
arguments that successful application of western concept of servant leadership in public
sector organizations of developing countries such as Pakistan largely hinges on fulfilment of
certain boundary conditions. In sum, this finding poses a smouldering question for future
researchers how the boundary conditions such as organizational climate and power distance
buffer the relationship between servant leadership and employee deviant behaviour.
H2 and H3 hypothesized positive relationship between servant leadership and employee
self-efficacy and negative relationship between self-efficacy and employee organizational
deviant behaviour, respectively. Whereas H4 proposed mediating role self-efficacy.
The results show strong positive association between servant leadership and employee
self-efficacy. This positive nexus between servant leadership and employee self-efficacy is
consistent with the core proposition of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and
corroborates earlier empirical studies (e.g. Kim and Beehr, 2017) which suggest positive
association between moral forms of leadership and employee self-efficacy. Servant leaders
who are more concerned about followers’ empowerment and focus on their knowledge,
capabilities and goals can boost their competence (Liden et al., 2014; Walumbwa et al., 2010).
Leaders with such support stimulate full potential and foster followers’ belief in their own
competence and performance, enhancing their self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997;
Liden et al., 2014).
Although the employee self-efficacy has been found strongly and positively related to
servant leadership, it fails to translate the influence of servant leadership in reducing
employees’ deviant behaviour. This finding is not in line with the propositions of social Public sector of
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) and prior studies which have concluded negative Pakistan
association between employee self-efficacy and deviant behaviour (e.g. Kim and Beehr,
2017). One of the possible reasons for this finding is that self-efficacy is an individual’s belief
about his competencies and capabilities. Therefore, instead of serving as an explanatory
factor between leadership and deviant behaviour, it may serve as an individual level
moderating factor that can strengthen or weaken the negative influence of positive leadership
behaviours on employees’ deviant behaviour (Kim and Kim, 2016). This conclusion exposes 1147
avenue for future researchers to examine the moderating role of self-efficacy in the
relationship between servant leadership and employees’ deviant behaviour.
H5 and H6 hypothesized positive relationship between servant leadership and
employee trust in leader and negative relationship between trust in leader and employee
workplace deviant behaviour, respectively. Whereas H7 proposed mediating role of trust
in leader. The results show strong positive linkage between servant leadership and
employee trust in leader. This finding validates the core propositions of social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964) which suggests a reciprocal relationship between exchange partners
based on norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Servant leaders, who demonstrate ethical
behaviour and focus on interests, development, and empowerment of subordinates,
increase their trust (Jaiswal and Dhar, 2017; Karatepe et al., 2019). Despite strong positive
association between servant leadership and followers’ trust in leader, the present study
did not find negative relationship between trust in leader and organizational deviant
behaviour thus refuting its mediating role in this relationship. This finding is not
consistent with the core tenets of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and prior studies
which have demonstrated negative linkage between trust in leader and workplace
deviant behaviour (e.g. Mo and Shi, 2017). Two possible explanations can be argued for
non-existence of negative relationship between trust in leader and deviant behaviour.
First, employees who trust their supervisors may not necessarily experience their trust
being reciprocated by the supervisors (Brower et al., 2000). Such employees are less
likely to avoid counterproductive behaviours such as organizational deviance. Second,
trust in leader instead of influencing deviant behaviour directly may first engender
employees’ affective commitment or their attachment to the organization which in
turn can reduce their engagement in deviant and antisocial behaviours (Demir, 2011;
Thau et al., 2007).
Apropos to above discussion, the current study extends existing leadership and
organizational behaviour literature by advancing multiple theoretical and managerial
implications. On theoretical side, the present research extends and refines the existing
leadership and organizational behaviour literature in several ways. First, to the best of
author’s knowledge, no study has been conducted to examine the direct impact of servant
leadership on employee organizational deviant behaviour in public sector of Pakistan.
Although the findings do not conclude negative association between servant leadership
and organizational deviant behaviour, this research contributes to the existing leadership
literature by highlighting the role of such a positive form of leadership in promoting
employees’ trust and increasing their self-efficacy. Second, findings of current investigation
suggest that building social-based relationship with employees is not the only panacea
for employees’ counterproductive or misbehaviours, particularly in organizations
characterized by hierarchical structure and high-power distance culture. Rather,
engendering a social-moral or ethical climate and promoting perceptions of fairness and
justice is also vital to accentuate the effects of servant leadership on undesirable behaviours
of employees.
On practical side, the present study entails several managerial implications. For instance,
the empirical evidence proffered by this study recommends that public sector organizations
LODJ should train and appreciate their employees at managerial positions to develop servant
42,7 leadership skills and facilitate them to practice subsequent behaviour. Such type of leaders
can enhance employees trust in organization and improve their self-efficacy which may
prompt followers to demonstrate positive behaviours in the longer run thus improving
organizational performance and effectiveness. Moreover, this research suggests that top
management of public sector organizations should also focus on engendering a moral or
ethical environment and demonstrate justice and fairness in organizational policies and
1148 decisions. Such a facilitating organizational climate will make employees to feel obligated to
reduce undesirable workplace behaviours.

Limitations and future research directions

Like other studies, the current study is not free from limitations thus exposing avenues
for future research. First, sample for this study was limited to public sector
organizations which are generally characterized by high power distance. Therefore,
the findings of this research should be generalized to private sector organizations with
caution. Future studies may involve a diverse sample of both public and private sector
organizations and carry out a multigroup analysis for more clear understanding of the
proposed relationships and better generalization of the results. Second, this study does
not conclude mediating role of trust in leader and employee self-efficacy in transmitting
the influence of servant leadership on organizational deviant behaviour. It is therefore
recommended for future researchers to investigate other individual level mediating
mechanism such as affective commitment (Demir, 2011) and organizational based self-
esteem (Kim and Beehr, 2018) which may better surface between servant leadership and
deviant behaviour.
Finally, it is argued that positive organizational behaviours flourish and negative
behaviours are eliminated through positive leadership behaviours more rapidly under
facilitating climate. This study did not consider such boundary conditions in the
proposed research model. Drawing on situational strength theory (Meyer et al., 2010),
future studies may include power distance and organizational climate such as justice
climate (Khattak et al., 2019), social-moral climate (Verdorfer et al., 2015) or ethical
climate (Aryati et al., 2018) as moderating variables which when interact with servant
leadership may prevent employees to engage in counterproductive behaviours
(Eva et al., 2019).

References
Ahmad, M.S., Iqbal, F., Siddique, R., Abbas, S. and Fakhr, Z. (2020), “Responsible leadership and
workplace deviant behaviour: modelling trust and turnover intention as mediator”, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 939-952.
Aryati, A.S., Sudiro, A., Hadiwidjaja, D. and Noermijati, N. (2018), “The influence of ethical leadership
to deviant workplace behavior mediated by ethical climate and organizational commitment”,
International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 233-249.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2000), “Development of a measure of workplace deviance”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 349-360.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bodla, A.A., Tang, N., Van Dick, R. and Mir, U.R. (2019), “Authoritarian leadership, organizational Public sector of
citizenship behavior, and organizational deviance”, Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 583-599. Pakistan
Brower, H.H., Schoorman, F.D. and Tan, H.H. (2000), “A model of relational leadership: the integration
of trust and leader–member exchange”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 227-250.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M. and Eden, D. (2001), “Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-83.
1149
Chen, Z., Zhu, J. and Zhou, M. (2015), “How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel
model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group competition climate, and customer
service performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 511-521.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, Handbook of Partial Least Squares,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
Chughtai, A.A. (2016), “Servant leadership and follower outcomes: mediating effects of
organizational identification and psychological safety”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 150
No. 7, pp. 866-880.
Demir, M. (2011), “Effects of organizational justice, trust and commitment on employees’ deviant
behavior”, Anatolia, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 204-221.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T.E., Gonzalez-Morales, M.G. and
Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010), “Leader–member exchange and affective organizational
commitment: the contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1085-1103.
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.
Gao, L., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2011), “Leader trust and employee voice: the moderating role of
empowering leader behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 787-798.
Gatling, A., Shum, C., Book, L. and Bai, B. (2017), “The influence of hospitality leaders’ relational
transparency on followers’ trust and deviance behaviors: mediating role of behavioral
integrity”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 62, pp. 11-20.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1970), The Servant as Leader, The Robert K Greenleaf Center, Indianapolis.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25, pp. 161-178.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hale, J.R. and Fields, D.L. (2007), “Exploring servant leadership across cultures: a study of followers in
Ghana and the USA”, Leadership, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 397-417.
Haldorai, K., Kim, W.G., Chang, H.S. and Li, J.J. (2019), “Workplace spirituality as a mediator between
ethical climate and workplace deviant behavior”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 86, p. 102372.
Huang, X., Xu, E., Chiu, W., Lam, C. and Farh, J.-L. (2015), “When authoritarian leaders outperform
transformational leaders: firm performance in a harsh economic environment”, Journal of
Management Discoveries, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 180-200.
Huck, J.L., Spraitz, J.D., Bowers, J.H. Jr and Morris, C.S. (2017), “Connecting opportunity and strain to
understand deviant behavior: a test of general strain theory”, Deviant Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 9,
pp. 1009-1026.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of
four recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
LODJ Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U.F. and Hussain, S. (2019), “From knowledge
management to organizational performance”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
42,7 Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 36-59.
Iqbal, A., Latif, K.F. and Ahmad, M.S. (2020), “Servant leadership and employee innovative behaviour:
exploring psychological pathways”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 41
No. 6, pp. 813-827.
Jaiswal, N.K. and Dhar, R.L. (2017), “The influence of servant leadership, trust in leader and thriving
1150 on employee creativity”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 2-21.
Javed, B., Fatima, T., Yasin, R.M., Jahanzeb, S. and Rawwas, M.Y. (2019), “Impact of abusive
supervision on deviant work behavior: the role of Islamic work ethic”, Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 221-233.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997), “The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core
evaluations approach”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 151-188.
Karatepe, O.M., Ozturk, A. and Kim, T.T. (2019), “Servant leadership, organisational trust, and bank
employee outcomes”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 86-108.
Khattak, M.N., Khan, M.B., Fatima, T. and Shah, S.Z.A. (2019), “The underlying mechanism between
perceived organizational injustice and deviant workplace behaviors: moderating role of
personality traits”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 201-211.
Kim, M. and Beehr, T.A. (2017), “Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the effects of
empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors”, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 466-478.
Kim, M. and Beehr, T.A. (2018), “Organization-based self-esteem and meaningful work mediate effects
of empowering leadership on employee behaviors and well-being”, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 385-398.
Kim, Y.H. and Kim, H.K. (2016), “The moderating roles of employees’ self-efficacy and trust in leader
on the relationship between ethical leadership and employees’ behaviors”, Journal of Digital
Convergence, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 71-81.
Kline, R.B. (2010), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-669.
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.
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.
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.
Lugosi, P. (2019), “Deviance, deviant behaviour and hospitality management: sources, forms and
drivers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 74, pp. 81-98.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Meyer, R.D., Dalal, R.S. and Hermida, R. (2010), “A review and synthesis of situational strength in the
organizational sciences”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 121-140.
Mo, S. and Shi, J. (2017), “Linking ethical leadership to employee burnout, workplace deviance and
performance: testing the mediating roles of trust in leader and surface acting”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 144 No. 2, pp. 293-303.
Narayanan, K. and Murphy, S.E. (2017), “Conceptual framework on workplace deviance behaviour: a Public sector of
review”, Journal of Human Values, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 218-233.
Pakistan
Nasir, M. and Bashir, A. (2012), “Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of
Pakistan”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 240-253.
Nitzl, C., Roldan, J.L. and Cepeda, G. (2016), “Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling:
helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models”, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp. 1849-1864.
1151
Paesen, H., Wouters, K. and Maesschalck, J. (2019), “Servant leaders, ethical followers? The effect of
servant leadership on employee deviance”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 624-646.
Peng, A.C. and Kim, D. (2020), “A meta-analytic test of the differential pathways linking ethical
leadership to normative conduct”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 348-368.
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,
pp. 539-569.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Qiuyun, G., Liu, W., Zhou, K. and Mao, J. (2020), “Leader humility and employee organizational
deviance: the role of sense of power and organizational identification”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 463-479.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015), “Smart PLS 3. Hamburg: smart PLS”, available at:
http://www.smartpls.com (accessed 25 March 2020).
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R. and Gudergan, S.P. (2020), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling in HRM research”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 1617-1643.
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a
multidimensional scaling study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 555-572.
Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but
the norm”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 245-259.
Sendjaya, S., Pekerti, A.A., Cooper, B.K. and Zhu, C.J. (2019a), “Fostering organisational citizenship
behaviour in Asia: the mediating roles of trust and job satisfaction”, Leading for High
Performance in Asia, Springer, Singapore, pp. 1-18.
Sendjaya, S., Eva, N., Butar, I.B., Robin, M. and Castles, S. (2019b), “SLBS-6: validation of a short form
of the servant leadership behavior scale”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 156 No. 4, pp. 941-956.
Shkoler, O. and Tziner, A. (2017), “The mediating and moderating role of burnout and emotional
intelligence in the relationship between organizational justice and work misbehavior”, Revista
de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 157-164.
Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2010), “Theorizing about the deviant citizen: an attributional explanation of
the interplay of organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behavior”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 132-143.
Thau, S., Crossley, C., Bennett, R.J. and Sczesny, S. (2007), “The relationship between trust,
attachment, and antisocial work behaviors”, Human Relations, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 1155-1179.
Uddin, M.A., Rahman, M.S. and Howladar, M.H.R. (2017), “Empirical study on transformational
leadership, deviant behaviour, job performance, and gender: evidence from a study in
Bangladesh”, European Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 77-97.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011), “Servant leadership: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1228-1261.
LODJ Verdorfer, A.P., Steinheider, B. and Burkus, D. (2015), “Exploring the socio-moral climate in
organizations: an empirical examination of determinants, consequences, and mediating
42,7 mechanisms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 233-248.
Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnell, C.A. and Oke, A. (2010), “Servant leadership, procedural justice climate,
service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-level
investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 517-529.
Yasir, M. and Khan, N. (2020), “Mediating role of employees’ trust in the relationship between ethical
1152 leadership and workplace deviance in the public sector hospitals of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa”,
Leadership, Education, Personality: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 113-123.
Yasir, M. and Rasli, A. (2018), “Direct and indirect effects of ethical leadership on workplace deviance
in public healthcare sector of Pakistan”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 558-574.

Further reading
Gok, K., Sumanth, J.J., Bommer, W.H., Demirtas, O., Arslan, A., Eberhard, J., . . . and Yigit, A. (2017),
“You may not reap what you sow: how employees’ moral awareness minimizes ethical
leadership’s positive impact on workplace deviance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 146 No. 2,
pp. 257-277.
Vardi, Y. and Weitz, E. (2004), Misbehaviour in Organizations: Theory, Research and Management,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and
complex decision making”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 407-415.

Corresponding author
Amjad Iqbal can be contacted at: amjadiqbal76536@gmail.com

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