The Impact of Servant Leadership on Proactive Behaviors: A Study Based on Cognitive Evaluation Theory
- 1 South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
- 2 South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between servant leadership and proactive behaviors. Apart from this, drawing on the cognitive evaluation theory, we regard that proactive behaviors are driven by intrinsic motivation and further propose three psychological constructs to clarify the underlying mechanisms of servant leadership on employees’ proactive behaviors: Job autonomy, leader-member exchange and role breadth self-efficacy. Using a sample of 227 leader-employee dyads from two companies, the empirical results show that: 1) Servant leadership had positive effects on individual task proactivity and team member proactivity; 2) The relationship between servant leadership and individual task proactivity was mediated by job autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy, while leader-member exchange and role breadth self-efficacy mediated the influence of servant leadership on team member proactivity. All hypotheses were supported. Overall, this study enriches and develops related theories of proactive behaviors’ influencing factors. It uses cognitive evaluation theory to integrate the mechanisms that motivate employees’ proactive behaviors. It species the different psychological processes that servant leadership promotes employees’ proactive behaviors directed to different targets. It provides important references for managers to effectively encourage employees’ individual task proactivity and team member proactivity. Besides, limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed at the end of the article.
- Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Investigating Self-Regulatory Elements of Proactivity at Work. Working Paper, Sheffield: Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield.
- Botero, I. C., & Dyne, L. V. (2009). Employee Voice Behavior Interactive Effects of LMX and Power Distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335415
- Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-Member Exchange and Member Performance: A New Look at Individual-Level Negative Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Team-Level Empowerment Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 202-212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.202
- Day, D. V., & Crain, E. C. (1992). The Role of Affect and Ability in Initial Exchange Quality Perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 17, 380-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601192174005
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
- Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306242
- Graen, G. B., & Uhlbien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
- Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behavior in Uncertain and Interdependent Contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327-347. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
- Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16, 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
- Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal Regulation across Time: The Effects of Feedback and Affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.453
- Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant Leadership and Serving Culture: Influence on Individual and Unit Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1434-1452. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034