Acta Psychopathologica Open Access

Participative leadership VS Servant Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior: Role of Psychological Empowerment as Mediator

Khoirul Hikmah¹, Arief Subyantoro¹, Dwi Aulia Puspitaningrum² and Rifqi Syarif Nasrulloh^{2* 1}Department of Management, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Yogyakarta, Indonesia
²Department of Management, Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Yogyakarta, Indonesia
^*Correspondence: Rifqi Syarif Nasrulloh, Department of Management, Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Email:

Received: 06-Aug-2024, Manuscript No. IPAP-24-21068 ; Editor assigned: 08-Aug-2024, Pre QC No. IPAP-24-21068 (PQ); Reviewed: 22-Aug-2024, QC No. IPAP-24-21068 ; Revised: 27-Aug-2024, Manuscript No. IPAP-24-21068 (R); Published: 03-Sep-2024, DOI: 10.36648/2469-6676-10.08.71

Introduction

Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) can be enhanced by the role of participative leaders. Participative leadership involves the active involvement of organizational members in decision-making and the development of new ideas, thus providing support and space for creativity and innovation [1-6]. Participation is the main supporting factor for achieving group goals and success, such as the contribution of ideas, capital, and involvement in the decision-making process [7]. Adiguzel et al. (2021) found that participative leadership is significantly positively related to IWB [8]. Leaders who apply a participative leadership style tend to facilitate team participation and collaboration, provide space for members to contribute with new ideas, and encourage experimentation and learning from failure [9,10]. Thus, members feel more motivated and courageous to take risks in generating innovative ideas [11]. Wang et al. (2022) suggested that participative leadership will influence members’ decision-making, thus increasing their confidence in generating new ideas and implementing innovations. This high self-confidence will then encourage IWB [12].

In addition to participative leadership, servant leadership also has a role in increasing IWB [13-17]. Leaders act as servants to their members, focusing on their empowerment, growth, and interests [16]. Leaders who implement servant leadership create an environment that supports and empowers organizational members, which in turn improves their performance. This occurs through the mediating mechanism of satisfying the needs for autonomy, competence, and connectedness. Leaders who implement servant leadership, i.e., leaders who serve and support the interests of team members, tend to increase the team’s sense of capability and improve overall team effectiveness [13].

Li et al. (2021) highlights the role of psychological empowerment as a mediator between participative leadership and IWB. In this context, psychological empowerment plays an important role in linking participative leadership styles with IWB. Psychological empowerment encompasses factors such as organizational members’ sense of autonomy, competence, and connectedness [18]. Faraz et al. (2019) examined the mediatory role of psychological engagement in the relationship between servant leadership and IWB [19]. This study’s results show a positive relationship between servant leadership and the psychological engagement of organizational members, which in turn fosters IWB. Servant leadership creates a work environment that supports the development of organizational members, increases the sense of ownership and responsibility, and fosters the spirit of collaboration necessary for innovation.

Leaders facilitate an environment where employees feel trusted, empowered, and inspired to explore new solutions for the betterment of the organization. This will foster more IWB in the long run [19]. However, Jong and Hartog (2010) stated that IWB is not influenced by participative leadership or servant leadership. Participative leadership has weak evidence of its relationship with IWB [5]. In other studies, psychological empowerment is often positioned as a mediating variable [20,21], so this study intends to explore the suggestion of Spreitzer et al. (1999); Almulhim (2020); Liu et al. (2019); Groselj et al. (2020), which states that psychological empowerment serves as a significant moderator in various organizational relationships to answer existing research gaps. It aims to enhance the effects of organizational climate on innovative behavior, strengthen the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation, and positively influence employee engagement and creativity when combined with a supportive leadership style [22-25].

Literature Review

The Influence of Participative Leadership on IWB

Participation is a crucial factor for the sustainability of the organization [7]. Participative leadership is a leadership style that involves members participating in decision-making and problem-solving. Participative leadership has a positive and significant effect on IWB [1-5]. Participative leadership can increase subordinate empowerment (employee empowerment). Participative leadership provides opportunities for employees to be involved and contribute to decisionmaking [26]. Employee empowerment will increase their sense of ownership and motivate them to innovate [27]. Participative leadership encourages the creation of a work climate conducive to innovation. This leadership style creates an atmosphere of mutual trust and support among team members, so they feel comfortable being creative and taking the risk of trying new ideas [28]. This harmonious and supportive work climate plays an important role in encouraging IWB.

According to Chow (2018), participative leadership complements subordinates’ creative thinking abilities with the support of organizational resources required to develop ideas into innovations [29]. Build trust between leaders and subordinates through open communication and appreciation for subordinates’ creative suggestions and ideas. Participative leadership is able to maximize human and non-human resources to support the creation of new ideas until they are realized into new products or services [30]. Thus, participative leadership has a positive and significant effect on encouraging the formation of IWB because it is able to empower, create a climate, and fully support the process of innovating.

H1: The stronger a leader’s participative leadership style, the more it will significantly increase IWB.

The Influence of Servant Leadership on IWB

Servant leadership can increase the empowerment and independence of organizational members. Servant leadership has a positive and significant effect on IWB [13-16]. Zeng et al. (2020) suggest that this leadership style that places the interests of subordinates or organizational members above personal interests makes organizational members feel valued and trusted so that they are able to take the initiative [31]. Yoshida et al. (2014) and Wang et al. (2022) stated that servant leadership creates a mutually supportive work atmosphere [32,33]. The leader’s concern for the welfare of subordinates builds a sense of security and comfort when working collectively to create innovation. A harmonious work climate and mutual confidence foster the spirit of sharing ideas. In addition, Khan et al. (2022) revealed that servant leadership is also able to maximize the potential of individuals and teams through an example and service approach. The direct involvement of leaders in mentoring and providing support motivates employees to explore and create continuously [34].

Servant leadership provides autonomy and support to develop personal potential [18]. Wang et al. (2020) suggested that servant leadership creates a climate of mutual trust and support between members [33]. Leaders who care about the welfare of members build a sense of security to contribute collectively; this kind of organizational climate supports the process of co-innovation. In addition, according to Singh et al. (2021), servant leadership is able to maximize individual and group potential through providing examples and services. The direct involvement of leaders in providing guidance and resources encourages members to continue to innovate [35]. The empowerment strategy used in servant leadership provides opportunities for individuals to develop their best potential for the group and organization’s progress.

H2: The stronger a leader’s servant leadership style, the more it significantly increases IWB.

The Influence of Psychological Empowerment on IWB

Psychological empowerment is a feeling of ownership and control over work that encourages internal motivation to explore and create [36]. Psychological empowerment makes MSME actors confident enough to continue to innovate for the progress of their businesses. Organizational members have the ability to influence the process and results of work and business direction as needed. Singh and Sarkar (2018) suggested that psychological empowerment can increase a sense of ownership so as to encourage creative independence. This sense of ownership encourages the ability to think creatively to create new ideas [35]. Zhang and Bartol (2010) said psychological empowerment creates a feeling of competence, which has an impact on self-confidence to take risks in innovating, where self-competence is the basic capital to explore new ideas [1]. Psychological empowerment provides the freedom to contribute optimally according to their respective talents [22]. This autonomy plays a major role in empowering each member to produce innovative solutions according to their competence.

In research conducted by Spreitzer et al. (1999); Almulhim et al. (2020); Liu et al. (2019); Grošelj et al. (2020), a leader with psychological empowerment can ignite and increase feelings of wanting to empower and innovate due to increased support and guidance from leaders, so that psychologically, it can encourage the spirit of creative contribution [22-25]. Wang et al. (2022) stated that leaders who serve instill a sense of belonging and confidence to work [33]. Not many different leaders can provide a sense of meaningfulness in the workplace. Leaders can achieve this by demonstrating affection, which instills in employees a sense of value and significance in their work [37]. Researchers predict that psychological empowerment will strengthen the influence between participative and service leadership styles on IWB, as it can enhance subordinates’ sense of empowerment and confidence [22-25].

H3: The stronger the psychological empowerment, the more it significantly increases IWB.

H4: Psychological empowerment strengthens the influence of participative leadership on IWB.

H5: Psychological empowerment strengthens the influence of servant leadership on IWB.

Method

This type of research is quantitative. In this study, the population consisted of natural dye Batik craftsmen who were members of a Paguyuban in Central Java, Indonesia. The sampling technique used is probability sampling with cluster sampling, where sampling is based on the number of regions available. This technique is used because batik craftsmen consist of several small groups divided by geographic area [38]. Central Java is home to numerous batik center villages, where individuals engage in activities related to batik making. The number of respondents in this study was 155 craftsmen; this number has met the requirements [39]. The data collection methods used in this study are as follows: 1) Questionnaire, by distributing a list of structured and closed questions, where respondents are limited in providing answers only to one of the available alternative answers. The questionnaire uses a Likert scale of 1-5. 2) Documentation involves examining written sources that provide information on MSME profiles, organizational structures, and other essential general descriptions. The analysis technique used is Structural Equation Modeling with Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) with SmartPLS software to test the relationship between variables.

The variable measurements used in this study can be seen in the following (Table 1).

Table 1: Operational definition

Result

Respondent Characteristics

The table below represents the results related to Respondent Characteristics (Table 2).

Table 2: Respondent characteristics

Quality Criteria

Outer model: The table below represents the results related to Outer model in Quality criteria (Table 3).

The results of the outer model test analysis are shown in Table 3, which reveals that the outer loading significance test demonstrates that all items have a significant value less than 0.05, implying that all questionnaire items in this study have a good outer model.

Table 3: Outer model test analysis results

Discriminant Validity

Table 4 demonstrates that all research variables have a greater √AVE value than the correlation between them. This demonstrates that all research variables can be considered valid.

Table 4: Discriminant validity on research variables

Convergent composite reliability on outer model: With the results that have been obtained, it can be concluded that the outer model in this study is declared reliable (Table 5).

Table 5: Composite Reliability (CR)

Structural Model

Endogenous variable determination coefficient (R square): Endogenous variables in the structural equation’s inner model demonstrate that Participative Leadership, Servant Leadership, and Psychological Empowerment all have an impact on the IWB variable. The amount of the influence of these variables is given below:

The total coefficient of determination (R2) in this study is 0.365, indicating that it can predict the model to 36.5%, with the remaining 63.5% driven by variables outside the model (Table 6).

Table 6: Adjusted R2 values of endogenous latent in the inner model

Q² predictive relevance: Model evaluation can also be understood in terms of Q² predictive relevance, often known as predictive sample reuse. Table 7 shows the size of the Q² value.

Based on Table 7, for all research variables is greater than zero. This demonstrates that the model has strong predictive relevance.

Table 7: Q² predictive relevance

Interpretation of Structural Equation Model

The table below represents the results related to Inner Model Test Results (Figure 1) (Table 8).

Table 8: Inner model test results

Figure 1: Hypothesis test coefficient

Discussion

Participative leadership is proven to have an influence on IWB; this finding supports the results of research by Zhang and Bartol, Shin and Zhou, Wang and Howell, Carmeli et al. and De Jong and Den Hartog, organizational members are always involved in making important decisions [1-5]. This is a form of support from a leader to involve the participation of organizational members in order to advance and achieve the vision and mission of the organization. Organizational members feel that they get a division of power and tasks in the work according to what they want so that they can empower existing resources according to their respective needs. Leaders who apply a participative leadership style tend to build trust and provide greater support to members. A work environment full of trust and support allows employees to take risks and explore new ideas without fear [40,41]. Participative leadership can increase employees’ sense of belonging to the organization, which then encourages them to engage in innovative behavior for the betterment of the organization. When members feel involved and their voices are heard, they will be more committed to making maximum contributions. Participative leadership is proven to have an influence on IWB; this finding supports the results of research by Zhang and Bartol, Shin and Zhou, Wang and Howell, Carmeli et al., and De Jong and Den Hartog, organizational members are always involved in making important decisions. This is a form of support from a leader to involve the participation of organizational members in order to advance and achieve the vision and mission of the organization. Organizational members feel that they get a division of power and tasks in the work according to what they want so that they can empower existing resources according to their respective needs. Leaders who apply a participative leadership style tend to build trust and provide greater support to members. A work environment full of trust and support allows employees to take risks and explore new ideas without fear [40,41]. Participative leadership can increase employees’ sense of belonging to the organization, which then encourages them to engage in innovative behavior for the betterment of the organization. When members feel involved and their voices are heard, they will be more committed to making maximum contributions [26,30,42,43].

The finding with the strongest influence is that the better a leader implements servant leadership, the better the increase in IWB of organizational members. This result supports the findings [13-16]. Leaders can be good mentors when organizational members experience difficulties at work. Organizational members strongly feel that leaders have given them the freedom to resolve difficult situations and condition so as to make them feel valued and trusted. Leaders, on the other hand, are considered to have strong work ethics principles for the success of the organization. This principle strengthens a leader to always prioritize members and their organization with an attitude of serving, helping, listening, understanding, and empowering organizational members [33]. Seibert et al. (2011) suggest that servant leadership is characterized by leaders who are good mentors [44]. Members who feel psychologically empowered tend to be more proactive, creative, and engage in IWB. This is similar to the findings of Carmeli et al. and Khan et al., who found that servant leaders who have strong work ethic principles and can be good mentors will build trust and social support from employees so as to encourage them to dare to express new ideas and engage in innovative behavior [34,45].

Psychological empowerment in direct influence has a positive and significant effect on IWB; this supports the findings of Spreitzer et al. [22-25]. Organizational members feel that what they do and their presence in the organization are very important because what they do is in accordance with their abilities. Therefore, the role of each member becomes something that has a great impact on the organization, especially when organizational members have confidence in the abilities and skills needed by the organization. This shows that there is a strong belief that the existing work is in accordance with the abilities and skills possessed. Khelil: Employees who feel psychologically empowered tend to have confidence in their ability to complete tasks successfully, which encourages employees to take risks, take initiative, and engage in innovative behavior [46].

Psychological empowerment, which acts as a mediator, further strengthens the effect of servant leadership on IWB, but it does not have a significant effect on the effect of participative leadership on IWB. Employee involvement in important decision-making will provide autonomy, influence, and meaning in their work. The involvement of members in making important decisions can directly trigger their initiative and creativity, without the need for increased empowerment first. Psychological empowerment, which acts as a mediator, further strengthens the effect of servant leadership on IWB, but it does not have a significant effect on the effect of participative leadership on IWB. Employee involvement in important decision-making will provide autonomy, influence, and meaning in their work. The involvement of members in making important decisions can directly trigger their initiative and creativity, without the need for increased empowerment first [43,47]. The initiative to increase innovation power will emerge along with the presence of participative leaders. From these results, it can be seen that participative leadership can be a variable with a strong direct effect in influencing IWB. In other influences, servant leadership and psychological empowerment complement each other in supporting IWB. Servant leadership creates a work environment that supports empowerment, while psychological empowerment enables employees to realize their innovative potential. The interaction between the two can produce a stronger effect on IWB. Psychological empowerment will easily grow in a work environment that supports member empowerment, the leader acts as a good mentor when members of the organization experience difficulties at work, get the freedom to complete difficult tasks, are valued, trusted and have high confidence in the leader regarding the principles of work ethics for the progress of the company [48,49].

Conclusion and Managerial Implications

This study concludes that the influence of servant leadership is stronger and better than participative leadership in influencing IWB. Psychological empowerment has a positive and significant effect on IWB under direct influence. In the moderation model, psychological empowerment is able to strengthen the influence of servant leadership on IWB, but not with participative leadership. Based on the findings of this study, practical implications can be formulated that can be applied by managerial parties, including:

1. Organizations need to encourage the application of participative and servant leadership styles. Both are beneficial for supporting employees’ IWB. However, according to these findings, servant leadership has a stronger influence on IWB.

2. Leaders need to involve employees in important decisionmaking and encourage their participation. This can directly influence employee initiative.

3. Leaders also need to act as good mentors, trusting and giving autonomy to employees. This will build employee ownership and commitment.

4. Organizations can increase employees’ psychological empowerment through training, assignments, and reward systems that provide influence, meaning, competence, and autonomy.

5. Psychological empowerment can strengthen the influence of servant leadership on innovation through increasing employees’ sense of belonging and security.

6. The combination of participative leadership, servant leadership, and psychological empowerment can be a strategy to maximize employee innovative behavior.

Limitations

The limitations in this study are:

1. It is known that this research was conducted in Central Java, Indonesia with a population of natural dye batik craftsmen so that the scope of research is limited to one industry and region. It is necessary to conduct research in various industries and countries for more general results.

2. This research population is an industry player with a small and medium industry class so that it cannot represent a similar model if applied to a larger industry. However, the findings of this study have great relevance to the results of previous researchers.

3. Quantitative data only measures perceptions due to data collection through questionnaires, not direct behavior consistently over time, so longitudinal research is needed to see changes in the long term.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict Of Interest

The author’s declared that they have no conflict of interest.

References

1. Zhang X, Bartol KM (2010) Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Aca Manag. J 53(1): 107-128.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Shin SJ, Zhou J (2007) When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. J App Psych. 92(6): 1709.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Wang XHF, Howell JM (2010) Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. J App Psych. 95(6): 1134.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

4. Carmeli A, Meitar R, Weisberg J (2006) Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. Int J Manpow. 27(1): 75-90.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

5. De J, Den HD (2010) Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creat Innov Manag. 19(1): 23-36.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

6. Zarei M, Supphellen M, Bagozzi RP (2022) Servant leadership in marketing: A critical review and a model of creativity-effects. J Bus Res. 153: 172-184.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

7. Subyantoro A, Hikmah K, Puspitaningrum DA, Nasrulloh RS (2022) Effects of Green Human Resource Management on Participation of Farmer Group Members in Sleman Yogyakarta: Organizational Commitment as Mediation Variable. Int J Sus Dev Plan. 17(8): 2513-2521.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

8. AdigUzel Z, Bhatti OK, Kucukoglu I, Faisal R (2021) Examining psychological empowerment and participative leadership effects on employees and organizations. Turk Stud Eco Fin Pol. 16(2): 635-653.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

9. Gong Y, Huang JC, Farh JL (2009) Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Aca Manag J. 52(4): 765-778.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

10. Shin SJ, Zhou J (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Aca Manag J. 46(6): 703-714.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

11. Dziallas M (2020) How to evaluate innovative ideas and concepts at the front-end: A front-end perspective of the automotive innovation process. J Bus Res 110:502-518.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

12. Wang Q, Hou H, Li Z (2022) Participative leadership: A literature review and prospects for future research. Front Psychol 13:924357.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

13. Hu J, Liden RC (2011) Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. J Appl Psychol. 96(4):851.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

14. Walumbwa FO, Hartnell CA, Oke A (2010) Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. J Appl Psychol. 95(3):517.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

15.  Chiniara M, Bentein K (2016) Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. Leadersh Q. 27(1):124-141.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

16. Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Zhao H, Henderson D (2008) Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadersh Q. 19(2):161-177.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

17. Van Dierendonck D, Nuijten I (2011) The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. J Bus Psychol. 26:249-267.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

18. Li T, Gupta S, Zhou H (2021) An empirical study on drivers' willingness to use automatic features of intelligent vehicles: A psychological empowerment perspective. Front Psychol. 12:794845.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

19. Faraz NA, Mughal MF, Ahmed F, Raza A, Iqbal MK (2019) The impact of servant leadership on employees' innovative work behaviour-mediating role of psychological empowerment. Inter J Manag Sci Bus Admin. 5(3):10-21.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

20. Dust SB, Resick CJ, Mawritz MB (2014) Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic-organic contexts. J Organ Behav 35(3):413-433.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

21. Choi JN (2007) Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. J Org Behav: Int J Indust Occup Org Psych Behav. 28(4): 467-484.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

22. Spreitzer GM, De Janasz SC, Quinn RE (1999) Empowered to lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. J Org Behav: Int J Indust Occup Org Psych Behav. 20(4): 511-526.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

23. Almulhim AF (2020) Linking knowledge sharing to innovative work behaviour: The role of psychological empowerment. J Asian Fin Eco Bus. 7(9): 549-560.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

24. Liu F, Chow IHS, Zhang JC, Huang M (2019) Organizational innovation climate and individual innovative behavior: Exploring the moderating effects of psychological ownership and psychological empowerment. Rev Manag Sci. 13: 771-789.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

25. Groselj M, Cerne M, Penger S, Grah B (2020) Authentic and transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Eur J Innov Manag. 24(3):677-706.

    [Google Scholar]

26. Daud A, Ady ADJ, Adianita H, Mado YJ (2024) The influence of participative leadership style on job satisfaction with organizational citizenship behavior as a moderating variable. Reslaj: Religion Education Social Laa Roiba Journal. 6(4):2192-2200.

    [Google Scholar]

27. Khalili A (2016) Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovation-supportive climate. Management Decision. 54(9):2277-2293.

    [Google Scholar]

28. Sagnak M, Kuruoz M, Polat B, Soylu A (2015) Transformational leadership and innovative climate: an examination of the mediating effect of psychological empowerment. Eurasian J Educ Res 15(60):149-162.

    [Google Scholar]

29. Chow IHS (2018) The mechanism underlying the empowering leadership-creativity relationship. Organ Dev J. 39(2):202-217.

    [Google Scholar]

30. Haq AM, Roesminingsih E (2024) Situational leadership skills of foundation heads in human resource development for early childhood education. Munaddhomah: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam. 5(1):26-40.

    [Google Scholar]

31. Zeng J, Xu G (2020) How servant leadership motivates innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(13):4753.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

32. Yoshida DT, Sendjaya S, Hirst G, Cooper B (2014) Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. J Bus Res. 67(7):1395-1404.

    [Google Scholar]

33. Wang W, Kang SW, Choi SB (2022) Servant leadership and creativity: A study of the sequential mediating roles of psychological safety and employee well-being. Front Psychol. 12:807070.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

34. Khan MM, Mubarik MS, Islam T, Rehman A, Ahmed SS, et al. (2022). How servant leadership triggers innovative work behavior: Exploring the sequential mediating role of psychological empowerment and job crafting. Eur J Innov Manag. 25(4):1037-1055.

    [Google Scholar]

35. Singh M, Sarkar A (2018). Role of psychological empowerment in the relationship between structural empowerment and innovative behavior. Manag Res Rev. 42(4):521-538.

    [Google Scholar]

36. Naor M, Linderman K, Schroeder R (2010) The globalization of operations in Eastern and Western countries: Unpacking the relationship between national and organizational culture and its impact on manufacturing performance. J Oper Manag. 28(3): 194-205.

    [Crossref] [Goggle Scholar]

37. Zorlu O, Baytok A, Avan A, Inci, E (2021) How servant leaders psychologically empower their followers: The case of five stars hotels. Tour Int Interdisp J. 69(4): 505-526.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

38. Berndt AE (2020) Sampling methods. J Human Lact. 36(2): 224-226.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

39. Hair Jr JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG (2014) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur Bus Rev. 26 (2): 106-121.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

40. Bammens YP (2016) Employees' innovative behavior in social context: A closer examination of the role of organizational care. J Prod Innov Manag. 33(3): 244-259.

    [Crossref] [Goggle Scholar]

41. Kim SL, Yun S (2015) The effect of coworker knowledge sharing on performance and its boundary conditions: An interactional perspective. J App Psy. 100(2): 575.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

42. Reuvers M, Van Engen ML, Vinkenburg CJ, Wilson E (2008) Transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour: Exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creat Innov Manag. 17(3): 227-244.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

43. Xerri MJ, Brunetto Y (2013) Fostering innovative behaviour: The importance of employee commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. Int J Human Res Manag. 24(16): 3163-3177.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

44. Seibert SE, Wang G, Courtright SH (2011) Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. J App psy. 96(5): 981.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

45. Carmeli A, Gelbard R, Reiter PR (2013) Leadership, creative problem-solving capacity, and creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human Res Manag. 52(1): 95-121.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

46. Khelil I (2023) The effect of external efficacy on the moral courage and self-efficacy of internal auditors. Int J Prof Bus Rev. 8(12): 6.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

47. Karakitapoglu AZ, Gumusluoglu L (2013) The bright and dark sides of leadership: Transformational vs. non-transformational leadership in a non-Western context. Leadership. 9(1): 107-133.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

48. Chi NW, Pan ST (2012) Executive servant leadership: An exploration of supervisory pilferage in retailers. Ser Indust J, 32(8): 1337-1361.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

49. Zhao X, Hu Y, He W, Sun J, Li J, et al. (2019) Improving employee innovative behavior in enterprises: The roles of servant leadership and psychological empowerment. Eng Manag J. 31(2): 89-95.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]