1 Running Head: Servant Leadership

The impact of servant leadership and subordinates organizational tenure on trust in leader and attitudes

2 Introduction The concept of servant leadership has raised the attention among Western scholars in last decade (Liden et al., 2008; Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002; van Dierendonck, 2011). Empirical studies have begun to discuss the impact of servant leadership on subordinates attitudes and performance (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Neubert et al., 2008). To the explanation implied by previous studies on the mediators between servant leadership and subordinates outcomes, such as promotion focus (Neubert et al., 2008), organizational justice (Mayer et al., 2008), service climate (Walumbwa et al., 2010), have been variously examined. Recently, Walumbwa and colleagues (2010) called for further research that goes beyond examining the impact of servant leadership on subordinates attitudes. However, research work has yet to fully understanding the psychological mechanism of servant leadership (Mayer et al., 2008). According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), the high-quality exchange between a leader and subordinates exhibits high levels of trust with each other (Cohen, 1992). Trust in leader represents the effect on how subordinates react on the encouragement of a leader (Ng and Chu, 2006). Servant leadership is in line with the view of serving others which results on subordinates trust in leader and attitudes. In addition, researchers have discussed that the impact of leadership behavior on subordinates behaviors vary depending on subordinates organizational tenure (e.g. Wright and Bonett, 2002). Existing findings supported the notion that short-tenure subordinates are more likely to influence by their leader, as they desired to extend their career and selfdevelopment to meet their expectations at work (Ashforth and Sakes, 2000; Bauer and Green, 1998). They may feel to be served as in-group members when a servant leader empowers, serves, and protects them. Specifically, short-tenure subordinates favor the top management to adopt modern management practices in the Chinese context (Huang et al., 2006; Liu, 2003; King and Bu, 2005). The honeymoon effect explains the impact of servant leadership on

3 subordinates performances and attitudes, such that short-tenure subordinates are more satisfied with their job if they are allowed to follow their leader than long-tenure subordinates (Huang et al., 2006). To address these issues, this study examines how and why servant leadership and organizational tenure may influence subordinates trust in leader and attitudes. This study makes three main contributions. First, this study enriches to the literature by examining the linkage between servant leadership and subordinates attitudes (Liden et al., 2008; Sun and Wang, 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2010). The impacts of servant leadership behaviors on subordinates attitudes are further developed. Second, this study uses social exchange theory to advance the explanation of psychological mechanism between servant leadership and subordinates attitudes. In the current study, trust in leader as a mediator of the servant leadership and satisfaction relationship generates new insights on its impacts. Third, results advance the leadership research on how organizational tenure may influence the impacts of servant leadership on subordinates attitudes. It is essential to understand the moderating effect on servant leadership behaviors. In the following section, we provide a review on the theoretical background of servant leadership theory, the relationship between servant leadership and subordinates attitudes, the mediating role of trust in leader, and the moderating role of organizational tenure. A research method section outlines the design of the research process, and a findings section reports the key results. The implications of the findings are discussed.

Theoretical background and hypotheses Servant leadership theory Traditionally, servant leadership refers to a leader behavior demonstrates as a leader wants to serve and to serve first. Greenleaf (1970) stated that if one is a servant, either a leader or follower, one is always searching, listening, and expecting that a better wheel for these times

4 is in the making (p.9). Servant leadership defines as the the person who is leader first and who later serves out of the promoting of conscience or in conformity with normative expectations (Greenleaf, 1977, p.14). Servant leadership behavior includes a specific focus on subordinates personal needs, sets goals, and helps to develop and prosper (Grahm, 1991; Stone et al., 2004). It further defines as a strong altruistic and ethical overtones that asks and requires leaders to be attentive to the needs of their followers and empathize with them (Northouse, 2004, p.308-309). In a similar vein, Hale and Fields (2007) explained servant leadership as an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the selfinterest of the leader, emphasizing leader behaviors that focus on follower development, and de-emphasizing glorification of the leader (p.397). Servant leadership places the interest of subordinates before the self-interest for the betterment (Matteson and Irving, 2006; Smith et al., 2004). This type of leadership behavior emphasizes leaders moral behavior, protects subordinates for the self-interested gain, and emphasizes personal development and empowerment of subordinates (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Graham, 1991). A servant leader helps subordinates to fully utilize their potential and enhance subordinates to achieve optimal career success. The construct of development on servant leadership has widely been examined (Akuchie, 1993; Choi and Mai-Dalton, 1998; Parolini et al., 2009; Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002). Graham (1991) identified the characteristics of servant leadership as autonomy, emulation of leaders' service orientation, humility, moral development, and relational power. Servant leaders are capable of managing the decision making (Srivastva and Cooperrider, 1998). Furthermore, Spears (2004) articulates ten characteristics of a servant leader into awareness, commitment to the growth of people, community building, conceptualization, empathy, foresight, healing, listening, persuasion, and stewardship. A servant leader seeks to

5 transform their subordinates to grow for development (Ehrhart, 2004; Fry, 2003; Polleys, 2002). Similarly, awareness, calling, community building, conceptualization, empathy, foresight, growth, healing, listening, persuasion, and stewardship were identified as the dimensions of servant leadership (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006). Van Dierendonck (2011) summarized the measurement and dimensions of servant leadership which provided insights into the future line of servant leadership research.

Servant leadership and subordinates attitudes With the interests of subordinates, a servant leader assists subordinates to achieve their potential abilities and goals (Greenleaf, 1977; Lord et al., 1999). The serving behavior of a servant leader has provided the best interest of subordinates. Building on this, servant leadership may affect subordinates attitudes, such as job satisfaction which is crucial to represent work attitudes (Illies and Judge, 2002; 2004; van Dierendonck, 2011). In this study, we focus on job satisfaction which defines as an affective reaction to a positive attitude by individuals toward to their job in workplace (Dewettnck et al., 2011; Rogers et al., 1994; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). There are two main reasons. First, empirically, job satisfaction has shown to be related to leadership behaviors (Bartolo and Furlonger, 2000; Lok and Crawford, 2004). It refers to the extent to which subordinates cognitive evaluation of its job characteristics and emotional experiences at work (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). Second, we focus on job satisfaction rather than other subordinates attitudes as previous work has suggested that job satisfaction has been largely affected by the behaviors of a leader. It is one of the important indicators to measure leadership behavior. Subordinates feel more satisfy with their job when they believe their leader is trustworthy (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). Servant leadership actively participates into the activities which beneficial to the wellbeing of broader organizational constituencies (Graham, 1991; Smith et al., 2004). A servant

6 leader emphasizes the high-quality relationship with subordinates and as a result to satisfy their needs and fosters their beliefs (Page and Wong, 2000). He/she provides an opportunity for subordinates to share their concerns, which builds strong trust in leader (Whitener et al., 1998). When subordinates feel that they are willing to perform and develop career success, a servant leader is likely to entertain and encourage them. This encouragement of leadership effect can foster subordinates job satisfaction. Neubert et al. (2008) indicated the positive relationship between servant leadership and subordinates behavior. Mayer et al. (2008) stated that servant leadership tented to enhance subordinates satisfaction at work. Building on these findings, it is expected that servant leadership would have a positive effect on subordinates trust in leader and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1: Servant leadership is positively associated with (a) subordinates trust in leader and (b) job satisfaction.

Social exchange theory: Trust in leader as mediator Using the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), the process of servant leadership on subordinates attitudes can be explained in which trust in leader acts as the mediator (Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister and Bigley, 2002; Rousseau et al., 1998). Social exchange perspective provides an explanation on the basis of how servant leadership influences the relationship of subordinates to build on trust with their leader (Greenleaf, 1977). Servant leadership focuses on self-interest for the betterment of their subordinates. In return, subordinates reciprocate by trusting their leaders as return. A servant leader encourages subordinates to plan for future opportunities, which generously shared and build trust with subordinates. When subordinates feel that they are receiving benefits from the servant leader, they are motivated to trust their leader (Whitener et al., 1998).

7 Farling et al.s (1999) servant leadership transformational model found that vision, influence, credibility, trust, and service were the consequences of servant leadership. Subordinates are motivated to increase their job satisfaction when the relationship is based upon trust in their leader (Spreitzer and Mishra, 1999). Joseph and Winston (2005) found that servant leadership is highly correlated with trust in leader. Trust in leader defined as an intention to accept vulnerability based upon expectations of positive intentions or behavior by the leader (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Rousseau et al., 1998). More recently, Sendjaya and Pekerti (2010), using a sample of 555 employees, found that servant leadership was associated with trust in their leaders. Especially, the high level of servant leadership behaviors had a greater effect on trust in their leaders. Taken together, we argue that servant leadership is associated with the high-quality social exchange relationship (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Joseph and Winston, 2005; Sendjaya and Pekerti, 2010), which in turn influences subordinates trust in leader and increases job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: Trust in leader mediates the positive relationship between servant leadership and subordinates job satisfaction.

Organizational tenure as moderator A review of the literature reports the impact of servant leadership on subordinates attitudes (Illies and Judge, 2004; Mayer et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011). Researchers have raised the call to explain the potential moderator of servant leadership (e.g. Liden et al., 2008), which alter the effect on subordinates behaviors. Studies have proposed that organizational tenure provided an explanation on the differences of perception among subordinates (Wright and Bonett, 2002). For example, job complexity differentiated that short-tenure subordinates place more value than long-tenure subordinates (Gould, 1979). In Lius (2003) study, a significant difference of work values and attitudes among subordinates,

8 such as organizational tenure, was reported. Short-tenure subordinates are more likely to accept modern management into organizational practices (King and Bu, 2005; Lewis, 2003; Wright and Bonett, 2002), who would eager to develop their careers. When short-tenure subordinates encountered difficulties to meet their expectations, they have greater reaction towards the management practices (Ashforth and Saks, 2000; Helmreich et al., 1986; Wright and Bonett, 2002). In addition, Huang et al. (2006) examined that short-tenure subordinates have attached more value to intrinsic motivation as they emphasized on career development. On the other hand, long-tenure subordinates spend more effort to the fulfillment of administrative work, as well as their social and family goals (Hui and Tan, 1996). Cropanzano et al. (1993) have explained that short-tenure subordinates have a higher level of motivation to work as they would create a good impression to leader. Short-tenure subordinates are expected to contribute to the organization which in turn with higher job satisfaction. In other words, they are more willing to trust in leader and enhance job satisfaction by servant leaders who provide concern and satisfy the needs of their subordinates. This study contends that subordinates organizational tenure influences the impact of servant leadership on trust in leader and job satisfaction. Thus, Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between servant leadership and (a) subordinates trust in leader and (b) job satisfaction is stronger for short-tenure subordinates than for long-tenure subordinates. As mentioned above, organizational tenure plays as a potential moderator on the relationship between servant leadership and trust in leader and job satisfaction. Based on the rationale of Hypothesis 2, trust in leader mediates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. Servant leadership is likely to increase subordinates trust in leader and job satisfaction when employees with shorter organizational tenure. We expected that the

9 joint effect of servant leadership and organizational tenure on subordinates job satisfaction was mediated by trust in leader. Hypothesis 4: Trust in leader mediates the joint effects of servant leadership and organizational tenure on subordinates job satisfaction. A model depicting the key theoretical relationship among servant leadership, subordinates trust in leader, and job satisfaction is presented in Figure 1. -----------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here ------------------------------

Methods Sample and procedures We conducted a survey with employees in a service-oriented private firm in the Peoples Republic of China. The participants were all full-time administrative staff. The researchers explained the purposes of the study and delivered a questionnaire and a return envelope to the participants. They were requested to return the completed questionnaires in sealed envelopes to the researchers. Of the 250 questionnaires, 218 usable questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 89.2%. There were 64% female and 64.4% of the participants had received a primary education. Measures The questionnaire items of servant leadership, trust in leader, and job satisfaction were originally in English. An academician was translated the items from English to Chinese. Another academician conducted a back-translation on the items back into English (Brislin et al., 1973). This procedure can ensure the meaning and accuracy of the items (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). Servant leadership. We measured servant leadership using 28-item scale from Liden et al. (2008) (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree), because evidence have demonstrated that this

10 scale makes a unique contribution beyond transformational leadership and LMX in explaining subordinates performance and attitudes at the individual level. Although Liden et al.s (2008) instrument was developed as a multi-dimensional construct by seven-dimension, we combined the servant leadership behaviors into a composite one. In the Results section, we tested the unidimensionality of the 28 items, which included the seven dimensions of servant leadership: emotional healing; creating value for the community; conceptual skills; empowering; helping subordinates grow and succeed; putting subordinates first; and behaving ethically. Conceptually, the interest in the study is on the overall pattern of servant leadership behaviors on subordinates attitudes. We therefore average the subordinates evaluation of their leaders behavior a whole. Sample items include I would seek help from my leader if I had a personal problem, and I am encouraged by my leader to volunteer in the community. The coefficient alpha for the scale was .92. The Cronbachs alpha coefficient of transformational leadership was .86. Trust in leader. We measured trust in leader using 7-item scale developed by Robinson and Rousseau (1994) (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree). Sample items from this measure include My leader is open and upfront with me, and In general, I believe my employers motives and intentions are good. The coefficient alpha for the scale was .91. Job satisfaction. We measured job satisfaction using 3-item scale developed by Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis and Cammann (1983) (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree). Sample items from this measure include In overall, I like to work in this organization. and I satisfy with my job. The coefficient alpha for the scale was .82. Subordinates organizational tenure. We measured subordinates organizational tenure by an open-ended question How many years you have worked in their organizations? The mean tenure was 9.15 years. Control variables. We controlled for gender, education level, age, organizational tenure, and the length of leader-subordinate relationship (Liden et al., 2008). Measures of the

11 demographic variables were obtained from subordinates. Gender was dummy coded (0=female; 1=male). Age was reported into nine categories which ranged from less than 20 to more than 55 (1=<20;2=20-25;3=26-30;4=31-35;5=36-40;6=41-45;7= 46-50; 8=50-55;9=>55). The education levels of the respondents (0=below college level of education; 1=college level of education or above) were measured by a dummy variable. Subordinates reported the length of leader-subordinate relationship in exact years.

Results Preliminary analyses Before testing the hypotheses, the single composite index of all the 28-item of servant leadership was examined. We conducted a confirmatory factors analysis (CFA) for a higher-order one-factor measurement model. In other words, the 11). seven servant leadership dimensions contributed to an overall servant leadership index. The observed variables were specified to load on latent variables and each of the seven dimensions loaded onto the same higher order latent variable in the servant leadership index. Results indicated that the higher-order factor model fitted the data satisfactorily (2 = 203.54, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, GFI=.93, RMSEA = .07). All seven dimensions significantly loaded on one common construct of servant leadership. In sum, a composite measure of servant leadership was therefore used for analyses. We also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to check the discriminant validity of the three constructs: servant leadership, trust in leader, and job satisfaction. Results indicated that the hypothesized three-factor model: servant leadership, trust in leader, and job satisfaction (CFI=.91, TLI=.89, GFI=.90, RMSEA=.09) yielded a better fit than a singlefactor model which combined the three constructs together (CFI=.78, TLI=.72, GFI=.73, RMSEA=.18). Therefore, servant leadership, trust in leader, and job satisfaction were distinct with each other.

12 Descriptive statistics Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations of the variables. -----------------------------Insert Table 1 about here -----------------------------Tests of hypotheses The three-step procedure of testing the mediation and interactive mediating model (Baron and Kenny, 1986) were used. Hypothesis 1 predicts that servant leadership is positively associated with (a) subordinates trust in leader, and (b) job satisfaction. As shown Table 2, after entering the control variables, gender, age, education level, organization tenure, dyad, and job nature, servant leadership was positively related to subordinates trust in leader (=.72, p<.001), and job satisfaction (=.64, p<.001). Hypothesis 1a and 1b were supported. Hypothesis 2 predicts that trust in leader mediates the positive relationship between servant leadership and subordinates job satisfaction. As the results of Hypothesis 1 met the first two requirements for mediation test, we then entered trust in leader to test its possible mediating effect on the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. Trust in leader was found to be significantly related to job satisfaction (=.20, p<.001), while the coefficient of servant leadership was reduced in size but still significant (from =.64, p<.001 to =.45, p< .001), suggesting partial mediation. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. In order to examine the moderating effect of organizational tenure on servant leadership and subordinates trust in leader and job satisfaction, the use of hierarchical linear regression1 does help to explain the moderation relationships by plotting in figures. Hypotheses 3a and 3b predict that the positive relationship between servant leadership and
1

We further perform a supplementary analysis by structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the hypothesized model. The results were similar to the approach of hierarchical linear regression as indicated, which come to the same conclusion.

13 subordinates trust in leader and job satisfaction is stronger for short-tenure subordinates than for long-tenure subordinates. We found that the interactive effects of servant leadership and organizational tenure on trust in leader (=-.23, p<.01), and job satisfaction (=-.30, p<.01) were significant. The interactive effects are plotted in Figures 2 and 3. Therefore, Hypotheses 3a and 3b were supported. -----------------------------Insert Figures 2 and 3 about here -----------------------------Finally, Hypothesis 4 predicts that trust in leader mediates the interactive effects of servant leadership and organizational tenure on subordinates job satisfaction. We found that the coefficients of the interactive term of servant leadership and organizational tenure on subordinates job satisfaction (from = -.30, p<.001 to = -.25, p<.001) were reduced after entering the mediator (i.e., trust in leader). These results suggest that trust in leader mediated the interaction effects for subordinates job satisfaction ( =.23, p<.001). Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. -----------------------------Insert Tables 2 and 3 about here -----------------------------Discussion This study examined on how and why servant leadership influences subordinates attitudes. Specifically, we argue that the social exchange theory, represented by trust in leader, thus mediating the effect of servant leadership on subordinates attitudes. Results found that servant leadership behavior was positively associated with subordinates trust in leader and job satisfaction (Joseph and Winston, 2005; Mayer et al., 1995; Sendjaya and Pekerti, 2010). Also, results indicated that the positive relationship between servant leadership and subordinates trust in leader and job satisfaction was stronger for short-tenure subordinates than that for long-tenure subordinates. In other words, short-tenure subordinates enjoy the serving

14 behavior of their leader. They favor the positive effect of servant leadership on subordinates trust in leader, and eventually enhance job satisfaction. Theoretical implications First, this study highlights the importance of servant leadership on subordinates attitudes. Results indicated that there is a positive impact of servant leadership on subordinates job satisfaction. A servant leader is expected to serve subordinates first so as to inspire them at work, and subordinates feel satisfactory in workplace. We found that trust in leader mediates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. This suggests that one of the key reasons why servant leadership would enhance subordinates satisfaction by trusting other party, i.e. subordinates leader. Based on social exchange theory, this study provides an explanation on how trust in leader captures the impact of servant leadership. The results showed similar results to support the notion of social exchange theory in servant leadership research. Second, this study contributes to the literature by examining the effect of subordinates organizational tenure on the impact of servant leadership. Results showed that organizational tenure alters the positive effect of servant leadership on subordinates trust in leader and job satisfaction. A servant leader takes an active role to inspire subordinates and them to develop a stronger in-group identity with their leaders. It appears to be effective in building subordinates trust in leader and associated with higher levels of job satisfaction. This suggests that a servant leader should service the new subordinates first, paid more attention and personal care in work domains. Subordinates who experience the attentive and help of career development by their leader, it is more likely to develop trust with their leader. Third, results replicate the findings of leadership literature in the Chinese context, which provide a description on the impact of servant leadership, its mediating mechanism, and the consequences. Van Dierendonck (2011) reviewed the literature and provided a new

15 direction to explore the impact of servant leadership. Although Chinese subordinates may welcome servant leadership, more research is needed to verify the impact of servant leadership in large power distance culture (Bass, 2000; Hofstede, 2001). To a large extent, were consistent with the servant leadership theories in the Western context (Liden et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011). Consistent with Sun and Wangs study (2009), subordinates who trust in leader were assumed their leader to support their needs, which subsequently made them feel satisfied at work. We found that when a leader exhibits high levels of servant mind, subordinates trust in leader is therefore enhanced. Managerial implications Given the serving behavior of a leader, managers should foster this behavior by serving new employees to attain their fullest potential. An ideal servant leadership behavior in workplace appears when a manager can serve first to the new employees. This leadership style can effectively cooperative well with new employees. They could feel a strong sense of trustworthiness to their leader and even share interests towards part of the members. However, to the extent that organizational tenure involved, long-tenure employees may prefer other leadership style, such as transactional-based leadership. This research provides further support on why servant leadership works well with certain subordinates group. As well, subordinates job satisfaction can be explained by identifying the most appropriate leadership style. Managers should use different leadership tactics to work with the new and the existing employees. Limitations and future research This study has several limitations. First, the measures of servant leadership behavior, subordinates trust in leader, and job satisfaction were self-reported. Results are susceptible to the common method variance bias. Although we have provided an analysis of the predictors which has favored the hypothesized measurement model, the common method variance may

16 not cause a significant bias in the structural parameters of interest. Future research might mitigate the common method variance by collecting data from different perception of raters. Second, this study collected data in a cross-sectional design. It is difficult to allow conclusions regarding causality between servant leadership and subordinates job satisfaction. There is a possibility of reverse causation among variables. Future study should conduct a longitudinal design and ideally to collect quantitative data over time. Third, we used a Chinese sample and only collected data in a private firm in the service industry. This raises concern about the generalizability of the findings to more domestic work settings in different cultural context. Given the high power distance and collectivism of its cultural background (Hofstede, 2001), Chinese employees are more likely trust their leader. With such cultural background, the characteristics of the respondents may raise interests to the other working settings. Future research should validate the servant leadership model in other cultural environments. Fourth, there are a lot of works still continued to discuss and identify the dimensions of servant leadership behaviors (Sendjaya et al., 2008; van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011). Although there is little consensus regarding the measurements of servant leadership, future research should perform further analysis to verify they are distinct constructs with other leadership behaviors. It is valuable to examine the impact of other types of leadership behaviors were compared with servant leadership on subordinates attitudes. More specifically, it is interesting to enhance the understanding of which dimensions of servant leadership are critical for subordinates outcomes. Fifth, it should be noted that servant leadership was created as a primarily Western construct. The interpretation of parallel meaning for servant leadership items across-cultural context, such as in Mainland China, is not well discussed and verified. Although Han and colleagues (2010) have first to attempt the justification of its meaning of servant leadership, future research should further preclude its entire meaning in Chinese setting.

17 Lastly, this study examines trust in leader mediates the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction. It is possible that there are other mediating mechanisms and subordinates attitudes that may explain its impact of servant leadership. It would be interesting to further examine the diverse psychological mechanisms and consequences of servant leadership (van Dierendonck, 2011). Furthermore, this study aims to examine whether organizational tenure influence the impacts of servant leadership on subordinates attitudes. The impact of organizational tenure on servant leadership may be insignificant or even reverse to trust in leader and satisfaction when the honeymoon effects end. As such, our findings may be inconsistent with the existing literature that organizational tenure had a nonlinear moderating effect on the subordinates commitment-performance relationship (Wright and Bonett, 2002). Researchers should further investigate the impact of tenured subordinates on the relationship between servant leadership and subordinates attitudes over time. Concluding remarks To examine and provide valuable insights to the studies of servant leadership research, we have explained into how and why the impact of servant leadership influences subordinates subsequent work behaviors in the Chinese context. We have tested whether subordinates organizational tenure moderated and trust in leader mediated the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction.

18 References Akuchie. N. D. (1993), The servants and the superstars: An examination of servant leadership in light of Matthew, The Christian Education Journal, Vol.16, pp. 39-43. Ashforth, B. E., and A. M. Saks. (2000), Personal Control in Organizations: A Longitudinal Investigation with Newcomers, Human Relations, Vol.53, pp.311-339. Avolio. B. J. and Locke, E. E. (2002), Philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism versus egoism, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.13, pp. 169-191. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, F.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.6, pp. 1173-1182. Bartolio, K. and Furlonger, B. (2000), Leadership and job satisfaction among aviation fire fighters in Australia, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15, pp.87-93. Bass, B.M. (2000), The future of leadership in learning organizations, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 7 No.3, pp. 18-40. Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications, New York: Free Press. Barbuto, J.E. and Wheeler, D.W. (2006), Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership, Group and Organization Management, Vol.31, pp. 300-326. Bauer, T. N. and S. G. Green. (1998), Testing the Combined Effects of Newcomer Information Seeking and Manager Behavior on Socialization, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.83, pp. 72-83. Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Brislin, R., Lonner, W. J., and Thorndike, R. (1973), Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley.

19 Choi, Y. and Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998), On the leadership function of self-sacrifice, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.9 No.4, pp. 1-20. Cohen, A. (1992), Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: A meta-analysis, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.13, pp. 539-558. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied multiple regression/Correlations analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cropanzano, R., K. James and M. A. Konovsky (1993), Dispositional Affectivity As a Predictor of Work Attitudes and Job Performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.14, pp. 595-606. Dewettinck, K., van Ameijde, M. (2011), Linking leadership empowerment behavior to employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: Testing the mediation role of psychological empowerment, Personnel Review, Vol.40 No.3, pp.284-305. Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2002), Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.87, pp. 611-628. Ehrhart, M.G. (2004), Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 6194. Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G. and Winston, B.E. (1999), Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol.6 No.1/2, pp. 48-71. Fry, L. W. (2003), Toward a theory of spiritual leadership, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.14, pp. 693-727. Gould, S. (1979), Age, Job Complexity, Satisfaction, and Performance, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.14, pp.209-223. Grahm, J. W. (1991), Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.2 No.2, pp. 105-119.

20 Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Greenleaf, Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness, Paulist Press, New York. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970), The servant as a leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center. 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, pp. 397-417. Helmreich, R. L., Sawin, L.L. and Carsrud, A.L. (1986), The Honeymoon Effect in Job Performance: Temporal Increases in the Predictive Power of Achievement Motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.71, pp. 185-188. Hofstede, G. H. (2001), Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A. and Gong, Y. (2010), Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 122-143. Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z. and Cheung, Y.L. (2006), The impact of participative leadershp behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese stated-owned enterprises: The moderating role of organizational tenure, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol.23, pp. 345-367. Hui, C. H. and C. K. Tan. (1996), Employee Motivation and Attitudes in the Chinese Workforce. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Handbook of Chinese Psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, pp. 364-378 Illies, R. and Judge, T.A. (2002), Understanding the dynamic relationship between personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experience-sampling study, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.89, pp. 1119-1139.

21 Illies, R. and Judge, T.A. (2004), An experience-sampling measure of job satisfaction and its relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol.13 No.3, 367-389. Joseph, E.E. and Winston, B.E. (2005), A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol.26, No.1/2, pp.6-22. King, R. C. and Bu, N. (2005), Perceptions of the Mutual Obligations between Employees and Employers: A Comparative Study of New Generation IT Professionals in China and the United States, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.16, pp. 46-64. Lewis, P. (2003), New China Old Ways? A Case Study of the Prospects for Implementing Human Resource Management Practices in a Chinese State-Owned Enterprise, Employee Relations, Vol.25, pp. 42-60. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H. and Henderson, D. (2008), Servant leadership: Development of a multi-dimensional measure and multi-level assessment, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.19, 161-177. Liu, S. (2003), Cultures within Cultures: Unity and Diversity of Two Generations of Employees in State-Owned Enterprises, Human Relations Vol. 56, pp. 387-417. Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2004), The effect of organizational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross-national comparison, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23, 321-338. Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J. and Freiberg, S.J. (1999), Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.78, pp. 167203.

22 Matteson, J.A. and Irving, J.A. (2006), Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: A behavioral comparison of two follow-oriented leadership theories, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol.2, pp. 36-51. Mayer, D.M., Bardes, M. and Piccolo, R.F. (2008), Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perception, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol.17 No.2, pp. 180-197. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-734. McAllister, D.J. and Bigley, G.A. (2002), Work context and the definition of self: How organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 894-904. Neubert, M.J., Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., Chonko, L.B. and Roberts, J.A. (2008), Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.93, pp. 12201233. Ng, K.Y. and Chua, R.Y.J. (2006), Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential effects of cognition- and affect-based trust, Management and Organization Review, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 43-66. Northouse, P.G. (2004), Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Page and Wong, D. (2000), Page and P.T.P. Wong, A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In: S. Adjibolooso, Editor, The human factor in shaping the course of history and development, American University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 69110.

23 Parolini, J., Patterson, K. and Winston, B. (2009), Distinguishing between transformational and servant leadership, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol.30 No. 3, pp. 274-291. Polleys, M. S. (2002), One university's response to the anti-leadership vaccine: Developing servant leaders, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol.8 No.3, pp. 117-130. Robinson, S.K. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), Violating the Psychological Contract: Not the Exception but the Norm, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.15 No.3, pp. 245259. Rogers, J.D., Clow, K.E. and Kash, T.J. (1994), Increasing job satisfaction measurement approach, International Journal of Service Marketing, Vol.8, No.1, pp. 14-26. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B, Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol.23, pp. 393-404. Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P.H. and Cammann, C. (1983), Assessing organizational change. New York: Wiley. Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J.C. (2002), Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, Vol.9 No.2, pp. 57-64. Sendjaya, S. and Sarros. J. C. (2002), Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, Vol.9, pp. 47-64. Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C. (2008), Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.45 No.2, pp. 402-42

24 Sendjaya, S. and Pekerti, A. (2010), Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol.31 No.7, pp. 643-663. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V. and Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004), Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol.10, pp. 80-91. Spears, L.C. (2004), The understanding and practice of servant leadership. In L.C. Spears (Eds), Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness (pp.9-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Spretizer, G.M. and Mishra, A.K. (1999), Giving up control without losting control: Trust and its substitutes effects on managers involving employees in decision making, Group & Organization Management, Vol.24, pp. 155-187. Srivastva, S. and Cooperrider, D. L. (1998), Organizational wisdom and executive courage. San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Sun, J.M. and Wang, B. (2009), Servant leadership in China: Conceptualization and measurement, Advances in Global Leadership, Vol.5, pp. 321-344. Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F. and Patterson, K. (2004), Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol.25, pp. 349-361. van Dierendonck, D. (2011), Servant leadership: A review and synthesis, Journal of Management, Vol.37, pp. 1228-1261. van Dierendonck, D. and Nuijten, I. (2011), The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 249-267.

25 Vigoda-Godot, E. (2007), Leadership style, organizational policies, and employees performance: An empirical examination of two competing models, Personnel Review, Vol., 36 No. 5, pp.661-683. 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. 517529. Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol. 18, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp.1-74. Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M.A., and Werner, J. (1998), Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.23, pp. 513-530. Wright, T. A. and Bonett, D. G. (2002), The Moderating Effects of Employee Tenure on the Relation Between Organizational Commitment and Job Performance: A Metaanalysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.87, pp. 1183-1190.

26

Variables .62 1.32 .83 .96 .92 -.05 .67** .91 .57** .82 .58** .17* .06 -7.53 .87 1.21 -.07 .13 .01 -.08 .00 .02 -.24** .51** .08 .02 -.16* -.20** .02 .13* --.27** ---

Mean

s.d.

1. Gender

1.42

2. Age

4.84

3. Education

4.17

4. Servant Leadership

4.62

5. Organizational Tenure

9.15

6. Trust in Leader

5.68

7. Job Satisfaction

5.40

Notes: a, n = 218 b The correlation coefficients are significant at *p<0.05, **p<0.01. c Reliability coefficients appear along the diagonal.

Table I. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities of measures a, b, c

27

Variables Model 2 -.08 .07 .15** -.07 .06 .15** -.07 .09 .16 -.03 .12 -.01 -.03 .21** .11* .00 .19** .07 -.01 .16* .11* -.01 .20** .12* Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Trust in Leader

Subordinates Job Satisfaction Model 6 .00 .18** .08

Model 1

Control Variables Subordinates Gender Subordinate Age Subordinates Education

-.09 .05 .07

Independent Variable Servant Leadership .72*** .72*** .90*** .64*** .45*** 64***

.88***

.68***

Moderator Variable Organizational Tenure .04 .04

.11

.11

.10

Interactive Effect Servant Leadership x Organizational Tenure -.23**

-.30***

-.25***

Mediator Variable Trust in Leader 218 .49 .48 218 .49 .00 218 .51 .02 218 .02 .02 218 .40 .38

.27*** 218 .04 .44 218 .41 .01 218 .44 .03

.23*** 218 .47 .03

N 218 .01 Overall R2 Change in R2 .01 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001

Table II. Regression summary for the mediating role of trust in leader on the interactive effect of servant leadership and organizational tenure on job satisfaction

28 Figure 1. Research framework

Organizational Tenure

Servant Leadership

Subordinates Trust in Leader

Subordinates Job Satisfaction

29 Figure 2. The moderating effects of subordinates organizational tenure on the relationship between servant leadership and subordinates trust in leader

Trust in Leader

6.5

5.5

4.5 -1 1 Servant Leadership

Short-tenure Long-tenure

30 Figure 3. The moderating effects of subordinates organizational tenure on the relationship between servant leadership and subordinates job satisfaction

6 Job Satisfaction

3 -1 1 Servant Leadership
Short-tenure Long-tenure