How Servant Leadership Influences Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Work Engagement: The Mediating Roles of Motivating Language and Perceived Organizational Support

Abstract

The present study seeks to expand our understanding of leadership in the public sector by examining the link between servant leadership and work engagement of street-level bureaucrats through the mediating roles of leader motivating language and perceived organizational support. Drawing on theories of social exchange, social learning, motivating language, and job demands-resources, the research proposed that servant leaders can enhance employee work engagement by utilizing motivating language and boosting perceptions of organizational support. Using a survey of 553 police officers and first-line supervisors in Turkey, the results of structural equation modeling reveal that officers’ perceptions of their supervisors’ servant leadership are related to work engagement both directly and indirectly through motivating language and perceived organizational support. This study is the first to investigate the role of leader motivating language as a mediator between servant leadership and work engagement in public sector organizations.

Keywords

servant leadership organizational communication motivating language perceived organizational support

Introduction

Work engagement (WE) has been studied with growing interest within the fields of human resource management and organizational communication as it has been associated with employee well-being and performance (Fletcher et al., 2020; Vogelgesang et al., 2013). WE is defined as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Engaged employees are more likely to be enthusiastically committed to achieving organizational goals and strive to provide better services to citizens; further, they are better able to sustain motivation and energy in their work while preserving their psychological well-being. Given these factors, work engagement has become a priority for many organizations (Schaufeli et al., 2002, 2006). A systematic review suggests that work engagement is associated with desirable employee and organizational outcomes (Fletcher et al., 2020).

WE is particularly crucial for street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) (e.g., police officers), because they deliver public services by interacting with citizens daily (Lipsky, 2010). Street-level bureaucrats exercise a great deal of discretion and autonomy in their day-to-day operations; however, they often lack the time, information, and other resources required to respond appropriately to specific instances (Lipsky, 2010). Furthermore, the nature of policing is different from the work of other street-level bureaucrats (e.g., teachers, physicians, nurses, and social workers); police officers are in a unique position as their jobs involves high stress, challenging work, high risk, and often unpredictable events (T. Lan et al., 2020). Because policing demands a higher level of commitment to assigned tasks and responsibilities, pride in service, and ethical workplace behavior, police departments need engaged employees to provide effective and efficient policing services to the communities they serve (Ahmad et al., 2019). Therefore, the level of WE among police officers is a crucial issue for police management that requires for further research.

Leadership has been identified as one of the main predictors of work engagement (Zahari & Kaliannan, 2022). Because of organizational scandals and leadership crises (Brown & Treviño, 2006), the servant leadership style has received increasing scholarly attention in recent years (Eva et al., 2019; van Dierendonck, 2011). Moreover, it is argued that servant leadership (SL) is more appropriate for public organizations because it emphasizes personal integrity, ethics, and service culture (Hunter et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2015; Schwarz et al., 2016). Although a systematic review by Eva et al. (2019) shows that SL is positively associated with favorable work-related outcomes, including WE, more research is needed to investigate the link between SL and WE (Eva et al., 2019), particularly among SLBs (Shim et al., 2021).

In addition to the direct effects of SL on WE, this study aims to discover the mediating mechanisms of motivating language (ML) and perceived organizational support (POS) from the perspective of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. This model has been applied to predict employee WE (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017). According to Bakker and Demerouti (2007), job resources have a positive impact on WE whereas job demands have a negative impact. Furthermore, according to the JD-R model, leaders can indirectly enhance work engagement by influencing job demands and resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Thus, this study proposes that ML is a valuable job resource that leaders use to improve the motivation and positive outcome of their followers (Madlock & Hildebrand Clubbs, 2019; J. Mayfield et al., 2021). In addition to ML, POS is an important job resource that improves favorable work-related outcomes (Aldabbas et al., 2023; T. Lan et al., 2020).

The policing sector offers a rich environment for examining the relationship between leadership and WE in the context of street-level bureaucracy. The objective of the present study is twofold. First, this study attempts to answer calls for more research exploring the possible effects of SL on employee WE. Second, the study aims to contribute to the literature on policing, leadership, public management, and organizational communication by focusing on particular job resources (i.e., ML and POS) that underpin the linkage between SL and WE in the context of the police department in Turkey, a non-Western context.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Servant Leadership and Work Engagement

Leadership has received increasing attention in many disciplines, including public management and organizational communication (Chapman et al., 2016; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Jian et al., 2014; Men, 2014). Leadership is defined by Northouse as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (2016, p. 6). Communication, defined as a relationship (Manning, 2020) is at the heart of management, as it encompassess a large portion of leaders’ behaviors (Mintzberg, 1973). Communication is regarded as an integral component of leadership (de Vries et al., 2010), as leadership includes a relational process between leaders and followers (Barge, 2014; Barge & Fairhurst, 2008; Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). From a communication perspective, Johnson and Hackman defined leadership as “human (symbolic) communication that modifies the attitudes and behaviors of others in order to meet shared group goals and needs” (2018, p. 34). Therefore, communication is a central element that defines and builds leadership (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014). Different leadership styles promote different interpersonal communication styles (de Vries et al., 2010); for example, SL is recommended for fostering long-lasting bonds with followers, prioritizing others’ needs, empowering followers, and collaborating (Yukl, 2013).

Moreover, because public leadership is expected to create value (Getha-Taylor et al., 2011) by prioritizing the needs of the public and providing service with compassion, SL is considered one of the most effective leadership styles for enhancing the values and delivery of public service (Liu et al., 2015). SL is mainly concerned with the interests, needs, and well-being of followers (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Graham, 1991; Liden et al., 2008). According to Liden et al. (2008), servant leaders communicate with their followers one-on-one to motivate them to perform at their best by fully comprehending their abilities, needs, desires, objectives, and potential. Moreover, servant leaders serve as role models for followers, inspire them with excitement and motivation, and encourage them to question the status quo and express differing viewpoints (Graham, 1991). Therefore, SL is considered “a viable leadership theory that helps organizations and the well-being of followers” (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 390).

The servant leadership theory has been further extended and various models have been developed to provide a more explicit descripton of essential values (van Dierendonck, 2011; Yukl, 2013). In this study, we used the conceptualization of SL based on the model developed by Sendjaya et al. (2008, 2019). In this model, SL is conceptualized as having six dimensions: Voluntary subordination, authentic self, covenantal relationship, responsible morality, transcendental spirituality, and transforming influence (Sendjaya et al., 2008, p. 406). According to Sendjaya and colleagues, servant leaders are willing to serve others, are capable of manifesting their authentic selves, interact with and accept others as they are, employ moral reasoning to accomplish ethically justified ends, give importance to spiritual values, and transforming people through visioning, modeling, mentoring, empowerment, and trust.

Engagement is regarded as the positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). According to Maslach and Leiter (1997), burnout occurs as a result of an erosion of work engagement. In this process, a job seen as important, meaningful, and challenging turns unpleasant, unsatisfying, and meaningless over time (Maslach et al., 2001). According to Schaufeli and colleagues (2006), engaged employees present higher levels of vigor, dedication, and absorption in their work. Vigor refers to “high levels of energy and mental resilience while working,” dedication refers to “a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, and pride,” and absorption refers to “being concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, pp. 74–75). As a result, in contrast to those who are burnt out, employees who are engaged at work feel energized and effectively connected to their work activities, and they believe they are capable of handling the demands of their occupations (Schaufeli et al., 2006).

A growing body of research indicates that SL promotes desirable work-related attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational commitment (Miao et al., 2014), work engagement (Aboramadan et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2018; Shim et al., 2021), organizational citizenship behavior (Liden et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2017), and job performance (Chiniara & Bentein, 2018; Schwarz et al., 2016). Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Lee et al. (2020) indicates that SL positively affects job performance and organizational citizenship behavior, whereas it negatively affects counterproductive work behavior.

Servant leaders influence their followers’ behavior through the mechanisms of social exchange and social learning (Eva et al., 2019; Hunter et al., 2013). Social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) is generally used as the theoretical foundation for explaining the relationship between SL and employee outcomes (Hunter et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2008, 2015; Miao et al., 2014). The norm of reciprocity lies at the heart of SET, which assumes that when people believe someone has done something beneficial for them, they will feel compelled to return good faith action (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). According to SET, when leaders consider the needs and expectations of followers, a social exchange relationship is established; this relationship promotes productive work behavior and a healthy work environment (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). According to Cropanzano and Mitchell, social exchange leads to the development of a relationship that “evolves over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments” (2005, p. 875).

Servant leaders act ethically, empathize with their followers, provide support for their personal and professional development, and prioritize their needs; this results in trustworthy relationships between leaders and followers (Liden et al., 2008). The behaviors of servant leaders also enhance followers’ trust in the leader (Haq et al., 2022), organizational identification (Chughtai, 2016), self-efficacy (Khatri et al., 2023), psychological safety (Chughtai, 2016; Lv et al., 2022), a sense of fairness (Schwepker, 2016), and psychological ownership (Aboramadan et al., 2020). Following these findings, this study proposes that followers of servant leaders are more likely to engage at work because of social exchange relationships in response to their leaders’ supportive and caring treatment (Hunter et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2015). In addition, by assisting and supporting followers and creating a serving culture in the workplace (Liden et al., 2014), servant leaders may acquire psychological resources (Panaccio et al., 2015) such as self-actualization, pride, and well-being (Eva et al., 2019).

Furthermore, social learning theory (SLT) helps explain the relationship between SL and WE (Eva et al., 2019; Hunter et al., 2013; Ruiz-Palomino & Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2020). According to SLT (Bandura, 1977), individuals learn through observing and imitating the attitudes, values, and behaviors of leaders they regard as role models because of their attractiveness and reliability (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Supervisors are perceived as important sources of learning for followers when they are regarded as credible role models (Schwarz et al., 2016). The social learning perspective on servant leadership suggests that leaders influence the attitudes and behaviors of followers through modeling (Liden et al., 2014). According to Bass (2000), one of the distinct characteristics of servant leadership is helping followers grow and develop as individuals and become servant leaders. Because the behaviors of servant leaders are mainly based on altruism, empathy, and a sense of community stewardship (Chiniara & Bentein, 2018; Greenleaf, 1977; Liden et al., 2008), they are seen as role models (Liden et al., 2008) and thus enhance followers’ servant attitudes (Ruiz-Palomino & Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2020) and public service motivation (Schwarz et al., 2016; Shim et al., 2021). Accordingly, followers are more likely to learn and imitate the behaviors of servant leaders because employees respect and admire them (Hunter et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2014). Therefore, this study proposes that because SL creates a “service climate” (Hunter et al., 2013) or “serving culture” (Liden et al., 2014) within public organizations (Schwarz et al., 2016), followers are inclined to follow in the footsteps of their role models and become more engaged at work in order to serve the community.

Hence, based on the above discussions, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1:

Servant leadership is positively associated with work engagement.

Servant Leadership and Job Resources

The current study integrates social exchange and social learning theories with the JD-R theory by emphasizing that servant leaders may affect work engagement of SLBs by increasing job resources (i.e., ML and POS). The job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) claims that while every organization is different, all work environments may be classified based on job demands and resources. Job demands are those characteristics of a job that involve persistent physical and/or psychological effort or abilities and are thus linked to physical and/or psychological expenses. Job resources are those characteristics of a job that assist employees in dealing with job demands, encouraging personal development, and accomplishing organizational objectives (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). According to JD-R theory, job demands and job resources have distinct effects on employee motivation. More specifically, while job demands may lead to stress, fatigue and health problems, hindering employee motivation and job performance, job resources may improve employee motivation and their commitment to the organization (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

According to Bakker and Demerouti (2007), job resources (physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job) are the primary factors positively influencing work engagement. We propose to examine ML (J. Mayfield et al., 2021) and POS (T. Lan et al., 2020) as social-level resources within the scope of the JD-R theory. Moreover, drawing on the recommendations of a systematic review by Tummers and Bakker (2021), who suggested that positive leadership may indirectly influence employee well-being through the mediating effects of job resources, this study integrates servant leadership theory into the JD-R model to examine the indirect effect of SL on WE. Thus, we propose that servant leaders may indirectly affect work engagement through the mediating roles of ML and POS.

The Mediating Role of Motivational Language

This study applied the Motivating Language Theory (MLT) (J. R. Mayfield & Mayfield, 1995; Sullivan, 1988) as a lens to investigate the communication behaviors of leaders (Madlock & Hildebrand Clubbs, 2019). MLT proposes employing a variety of communication methods to meet employee demands for understanding, confirmation, and meaning. Thus, MLT functions as a framework that guides leaders in deciding the most effective style of communication when communicating with their subordinates to enhance employee motivation and outcomes (Madlock & Hildebrand Clubbs, 2019; J. Mayfield et al., 2021). As a leadership communication theory, MLT suggests that the strategic use of a leader’s oral language improves individual and organizational outcomes (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018).

The original conceptualization of MLT (Sullivan, 1988) as a linguistic framework was subsequently extended by Mayfield and colleagues, who developed a measurement scale to assess three dimensions of leaders’ motivating language: direction-giving, empathetic language, and meaning-making (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2007; J. R. Mayfield & Mayfield, 1995). Leaders’ direction-giving language eliminates ambiguity about tasks, defines responsibilities and objectives, and communicates reward expectancies. Empathetic language refers to leaders’ expressions of concern and humanity toward their subordinates which improves leader-follower relationships. Leaders’ meaning-making language conveys the organizational culture, values, and norms to subordinates and enables them to see their work as meaningful (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018).

Guided by the JD-R model, this study argues that ML acts as a job resource because it is “functional in achieving work-related goals” and “stimulates personal growth and development” (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007, p. 122). A number of studies have reported leader motivating language be a significant and positive predictor of work-related outcomes and well-being, including job satisfaction (J. Mayfield et al., 2021), job performance (Elsner Twesme et al., 2021; Guo & Ling, 2020; J. Mayfield et al., 2021), and work engagement (Rabiul & Yean, 2021; Tao et al., 2022). Police officers daily operate in demanding, stressful, and unpredictable working conditions which requires mental, physical, and emotional resources (Zeng et al., 2020). Available job resources enable employees to cope with job demands such as interacting with demanding citizens and meeting department goals, as well as acting as a buffer in the relationship between job demands and burnout, leading to positive work-related outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Accordingly, we argue that SLBs will experience the use of ML by their supervisors as a valuable job resource that improves their psychological well-being, leading to increased work engagement.

In addition to the direct positive impact of ML, ML will likely mediate the effect of SL on WE. Based on the JD-R model, Tummers and Bakker (2021) argue that leadership can directly affect followers’ job demands and resources, which in turn influences employee outcomes. Accordingly, leadership plays a crucial role in fostering a resourceful work environment, which in turn enhances employee work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Previous research indicates that servant leaders can increase job resources, such as psychological safety (Lv et al., 2022), psychological meaningfulness (Y. Lan et al., 2022), psychological empowerment (S. Allen et al., 2018), job autonomy, organizational trust, goal specificity, and public service motivation (Shim et al., 2021), leading to desired outcomes.

Research also indicates that leadership behaviors affect internal communication (Jacobsen & Salomonsen, 2021; Men, 2014), defined as “all formal and informal communication taking place internally at all levels of an organization” (Kalla, 2005, p. 304). Internal communication practices play an important role in shaping and communicating an organization’s values and missions to employees, thereby engaging them in achieving organizational goals (Y. Lee & Dong, 2023; Men & Yue, 2019). Therefore, effective leaders use appropriate communication styles to effectively manage internal communication and to motivate and enhance followers’ engagement in the workplace (de Vries et al., 2010; Men, 2015). The importance of the managerial communication process on individual and organizational outcomes has been acknowledged by researchers (Jacobsen & Salomonsen, 2021; Jian & Dalisay, 2018; Men, 2014). Research reveals that human-oriented leaders¹ are more communicative than task-oriented ones regarding knowledge sharing, perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and employee commitment (de Vries et al., 2010).

Given that servant leaders can successfully communicate both verbally and nonverbally (Hunter et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2008), engage in two-way communication (van Dierendonck, 2011), and foster a supportive communication climate (Abu Bakar & McCann, 2016), this study proposes that servant leaders will likely use ML more successfully, which in turn will increase followers’ work engagement. The behaviors of servant leaders—such as ethical responsibility, trust, integrity, empathy, and interest in others (Graham, 1991; Hunter et al., 2013)—can create an ethical work climate, which in turn leads to better individual and organizational outcomes (Jaramillo et al., 2015) through the use of ML. More specifically, servant leaders provide support and mentoring for the personal and professional growth and development of their followers (Liden et al., 2014). Thus, servant leaders are likely to use direction-giving language to explain work procedures, dispel role ambiguity, and transparently share work expectations (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018). Servant leaders demonstrate conceptual skills such as creating visions, understanding organizational goals, and solving complex problems (Liden et al., 2008). Therefore, servant leaders can employ meaning-making language to encourage followers to adopt the organization’s vision and values and guide their motivation and behavior toward the achievement of organizational goals (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018). In addition, servant leaders develop long-term relationships with followers, prioritize their needs, empower them (Liden et al., 2008), and demonstrate genuine humility and empathy to followers (Graham, 1991). Hence, servant leaders likely employ empathetic language to develop long-term relationships with followers and attend to their emotional needs (Liden et al., 2008).

Drawing on SL and JD-R theories and based on our previous claim that ML acts a a job resource to enhance work engagement and SL influences job resources, we propose that servant leaders can improve WE by exercising ML. Therefore, the following hypothesis is suggested:

Hypothesis 2:

Motivating language mediates the relationship between servant leadership and work engagement.

The Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived organizational support (POS), a concept developed from organizational support theory, refers to “employees’ perceptions about the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their general well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501). POS is a good indicator of the quality of the relationship between the organization and its employees as employees with high POS will believe they have favorable treatment from the organization, including fairness, supervisor support, rewards, and better job conditions (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The relationship between POS and employee outcomes can be explained in terms of social exchange theory because when the organization makes a positive contribution to the exchange relationship, employees are more likely to reciprocate. Furthermore, POS that considers employees’ socio-emotional needs and psychological well-being fosters higher organizational identity and commitment, which in turn motivates them to contribute to the success of the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Moreover, the JD-R model extends SET because POS is perceived as a valuable job resource that helps employees both reduce job demands and improve personal growth and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Employees’ perception of higher levels of support from the organization will help them satisfy their socio-emotional needs and better cope with job demands and stress, thus positively affecting work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). A meta-analysis by Kurtessis and colleagues (2017) confirms the positive impact of POS on favorable work-related outcomes. Research reveals that POS serves as a job resource, and employees show more WE when they perceive higher levels of organizational support (Aldabbas et al., 2023). Moreover, research in policing shows that the existence of POS among officers serves as a valuable job resource, influencing work engagement (T. Lan et al., 2020) and burnout (Zeng et al., 2020).

Leadership behaviors and supervisor support are identified among the key predictors of POS (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Supervisors are regarded as representatives of the organization because they frequently interact with employees and convey the objectives of the organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Eisenberger and colleagues (2020) argue that supportive leaders—i.e., who treat their followers fairly, show concern for them, and coach them—may increase followers’ POS, which in turn enhances WE. Previous research has demonstrated that POS mediates the relationship between positive leadership behaviors (e.g., transformational leadership, authentic leadership, and ethical leadership) and employee outcomes (Kim & Vandenberghe, 2021; Kleynhans et al., 2022; Stinglhamber et al., 2015).

In line with this view, we argue that servant leaders, by empowering followers to solve work-related problems using their own judgment, showing followers that meeting their work needs is important, and providing support and mentorship to followers to increase their professional advancement (Liden et al., 2008), contribute to a sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and, as a result, enhance employees’ POS. Thus, SL is likely to be perceived as a valuable resource that increase followers’ POS through providing support to cope with job demands and stress. Research indicates that SL enhances POS among employees (Lamprinou et al., 2021; Otero-Neira et al., 2016). Accordingly, drawing on JD-R theory, it is proposed that servant leaders, by prioritizing integrity and fairness, as well as caring for the needs and development of followers by fostering a desirable working environment (Yukl, 2013), increase employees’ POS and, in turn, improve WE. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3:

Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between servant leadership and work engagement.

The Serial Mediation of Motivating Language and Perceived Organizational Support

Drawing from MLT and the JD-R model, we hypothesize that motivating language and perceived organizational support serially mediate the relationship between SL and WE. Because high-level managers create policies and goals and supervisors convey these messages to employees, effective managerial communication is especially effective in increasing POS (Neves & Eisenberger, 2012). Therefore, open communication with management demonstrates that the organization is concerned with its employees’ well-being and values their contributions, thereby improving POS (Neves & Eisenberger, 2012). POS also reflects emotional dimension of the employee-organization relationship that is potentially affected by the messages conveyed implicitly and explicitly by supervisors’ actions and statements (M.W.Allen,1992). Research indicates that management communication positively influences POS (M. W. Allen, 1992; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012).

Previous research suggests that leaders’ use of motivating language improves feedback quality (Guo & Ling, 2020), feedback orientation (Elsner Twesme et al., 2021), organizational identification (Men et al., 2021), communication competence (Madlock & Hildebrand Clubbs, 2019), meaningfulness at work (Binyamin & Brender-Ilan, 2018), psychological safety (M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2021), and trust in leadership and organization (Men et al., 2022). Drawing on MLT, this study claims that each of the ML dimensions can positively influence POS. For example, leaders can use ML to eliminate role ambiguity and transparently share information (direction-giving language), convey a vision and values to provide guidance to intersect followers’ unique abilities with organizational objectives (meaning-making language), and convey words of support, compassion, and concern for followers (empathetic language) (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018). Therefore, because supervisors are seen as representatives of the organization (Miao et al., 2014; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), followers may see their leaders’ use of ML as a sign of organizational support.

Motivating Language Theory also assumes that “leaders must walk the talk” (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018, p. 16), meaning that leaders must demonstrate integrity by acting in a way consistent with their words. Therefore, ML shares similarities with SL, including the use of persuasion to lead others and serving as a role model for subordinates (walking the talk) (Gutierrez-Wirsching et al., 2015). Accordingly, when followers feel their supervisors displaying servant leadership behaviors and using motivating language, they are more likely to perceive these behaviors as a sign of organizational support. As discussed earlier, servant leaders are more likely to use motivating language, as they serve as role models for followers and consider the needs and interests of followers (Eva et al., 2019; Hunter et al., 2013), which in turn may increase followers’ POS and ultimately work engagement. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4:

The relationship between servant leadership and work engagement is serially mediated by leader motivating language and perceived organizational support.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A convenience sampling method was used to administer questionnaires to 750 police officers and first-line supervisors (i.e., sergeants) in the city of Mersin in May of 2022. The researcher visited the Mersin Police Department (MPD) and met with officials of different ranks to explain the purpose and scope of the study. The MPD is one of the largest municipal police departments in Turkey, with approximately 5300 sworn officers. The MPD is responsible for providing police services to about a million people living in the city of Mersin. Upon receiving permission, a pen-and-paper survey was distributed to officers in all (thirteen) police precincts of the MPD during working hours, with the assistance of officers of the training division and an officer in each precinct. Along with the questionnaire, participants were given an informed consent form emphasizing the anonymity and confidentaility of the survey and noting that the research results would be used for scientific purposes and that their participation was voluntary. Participants submitted their completed surveys in a secure box in each precinct; these were then were gathered by the researcher. Although a total of 575 surveys were returned, 22 incomplete or improper responses were excluded using listwise deletion (Hair et al., 2014), leaving 553 valid surveys (73.7%) for data analysis. Table 1 provides information on participants’ demographic characteristics.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Category	Frequency	Percent
Age	18–24	5	0.9
Age	25–29	61	11
	30–34	110	19.9
	35–39	140	25.3
	40–44	75	13.6
	45–49	103	18.6
	50–55	59	10.7
Gender	Female	93	16.8
Gender	Male	460	83.2
Supervisory position	Supervisors	29	5.2
Supervisory position	Non-supervisors	524	94.8
Job tenure	<12 months	3	0.5
	1–5 years	99	17.9
	6–10 years	65	11.8
	11–15 years	121	21.9
	16–20 years	102	18.4
	21–25 years	91	16.5
	26+ years	72	13
	<12 months	70	12.7
Organizational tenure	1–5 years	279	50.5
	6–10 years	103	18.6
	11–15 years	55	9.9
	16–20 years	46	8.3
Education level	High school	44	8
	2-Year college	124	22.4
	Bachelor’s degree	361	65.3
	Graduate	24	4.3

Testing Common Method Bias

Because data were collected from the same source for both the dependent and independent variables, common method bias could be a problem. Following the recommendation of Podsakoff et al. (2003), procedural remedies were adopted to minimize common method bias (CMB). First, the survey included a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study, stating the voluntary basis, and assuring the anonymity and confidentiality of the responses. Second, the proximal separation method was applied by placing questions measuring independent, dependent and mediating variables in various sections of the survey, along with various response formats. Third, previously validated instruments were used to eliminate ambiguity. Finally, the Harman’s single factor test indicated that common method bias was not a serious issue in this study as one component only accounted for 43% of the variance, less than 50% threshold (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Measures

The survey was conducted in Turkish. Prior to the distribution of the questionnaire, a back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1970) was applied to ensure that the questionnaire was properly translated from English to Turkish.

Servant leadership was measured using a five-item scale developed by Sendjaya et al. (2008, 2019) and recommended by Eva and colleagues (2019) following a systematic review of servant leadership measures. Although the original scale included six items, one of the items (“gives me the right to question his or her actions and decisions”) was excluded by the ethical committee. Participants rated their immediate supervisor’s servant leadership orientation on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item included “My supervisor uses power in service to others, not for his or her ambition.” It is important to emphasize that this study examined the supervisor’s servant leadership orientation as perceived by the officers rather than the actual behaviors of supervisors. The Cronbach’s alpha for SL measure was .93.

Motivating language was measured with a nine-item short version of the ML scale developed by Mayfield and Mayfield (2007). The scale included the three dimensions of motivating language: direction-giving, empathetic language, and meaning-making language. Participants rated their immediate supervisor’s use of motivating language on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (a whole lot). Sample items included “My supervisor gives me useful explanations of what needs to be done in my work” (direction-giving), “Shows me encouragement for my work efforts” (empathetic language), “Offers me advice about how to behave at the organization’s social gatherings” (meaning-making). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for ML measure was .92.

Perceived Organizational Support was measured with four items from the scale of Eisenberger et al. (1986). Respondents were asked to express their agreement or disagreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item is “My organization realy cares about my well-being.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the POS measure was .93.

Work Engagement was measured using the 9-item Ultrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). The shortened version of this scale assesses the three dimensions of work engagement with three items each. Sample items include “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” (vigor), “I am enthusiastic about my job” (dedication), and “I feel happy when I am working intensely” (absorption). Participants were asked to rate their responses on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always) as in the study of Gutermann et al. (2017). Consistent with recent research (Luu et al., 2019; Rabiul & Yean, 2021), the instrument was used as a unidimensional construct and indicated excellent reliability (alpha = .95).

Control Variables. In line with prior research (Rabiul & Yean, 2021; Tao et al., 2022), socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, job tenure, department tenure, and supervisory position, were controlled in this research.

Data Analysis

The SPSS and AMOS software packages were used to analyze the data. As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this study used a two-step approach to explore the relationship within the proposed model. First, the measurement model was validated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and then the hypothesized structural model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). In addition to testing first order factor models, second-order factor analyses were performed to determine whether the motivating language sub-dimensions were good indicators of their respective latent variables. The measurement model included four latent variables and nine manifest variables consisting of three dimensions of ML.

This study also used the bias-corrected (BC) bootstrapping procedures with 5000 iterations recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to test multiple-mediator model (Preacher & Kelley, 2011). Furthermore, this study used a user-defined estimand to examine the specific indirect effects of servant leadership through each mediating variable in AMOS (Crowson, 2021).

Results

Measurement Model and Descriptive Statistics

First, a first-order CFA was performed separately on the three measures of ML using a maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS. The results of the measurement model for ML showed a good fit to the data, χ2 (24) = 48.072, χ2/df = 2.003, GFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, TLI = .99, CFI = .99, with the factor loadings ranging from .70 to .89. Subsequently, the hypothesized four-factor measurement model (i.e., SL, ML, POS, and WE) was assessed. The four-factor model indicated an acceptable fit to the data with χ2 (307) = 680.422, χ2/df = 2.216, GFI = .92, RMSEA = .05, TLI = .97, CFI = .97. All indicators significantly loaded onto their respective latent variables (p < .001). The factor loading range for SL was .75–.90, .70 to .89 for ML, .81 to .89 for POS, and .73 to .92 for WE. To improve the fit of the measurement model, modification indices were used to allow for error correlations. Because some items of SL and WE overlapped with each other, post-hoc optimization was applied, as in previous research (Schaufeli, 2015).

To evaluate the reliability and validity of measurements, Cronbach’a alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability values were assessed; all were found to be above the recommended threshold (see Table 2 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). Table 2 also shows the descriptive statistics and correlations among variables. As expected from theoretical considerations, SL was significantly and positively correlated to ML (r = .58, p < .01), POS (r = .54, p < .01), and WE (r = .48, p < .01). Moreover, correlation analyses demonstrated that the four study variables were inter-correlated (.45 ≤ r ≤ .57).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics, Correlations, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted.

Variables	Mean	S.D.	α	AVE	CR	1	2	3	4
1. Servant leadership	3.39	1.19	0.93	0.72	0.93	—
2. Motivating language	3.32	0.92	0.92	0.73	0.96	.577**	—
3. POS	3.03	1.14	0.93	0.76	0.93	.544**	.454**	—
4. Work engagement	4.16	1.36	0.95	0.68	0.95	.479**	.495**	.492**	—

Note. SD = Standard Deviation, CR = Composite reliability (>0.70), AVE = Average variance extracted (>.50), α=Cronbach's alpha (>.70), **p < .01.

As recommended by Becker (2005), demographic variables were examined to understand whether they were related to SL (independent variable), ML, POS (mediators), and WE (outcome). Gender and supervisory position were not correlated with any of the variables. Age, education, and tenure were found to correlate with some study variables. Therefore, SEM analyses were conducted with and without controlling age, education, and tenure. None of the control variables were found to have significant effects on WE, and the significance of the coefficients did not change when the analyses were performed without control variables. Therefore the results of the SEM analysis are reported below without control variables (see Table 3) (Becker, 2005).

Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

Four structural models were examined to compare no mediation (Model D), full mediation (Model C), and partial mediation models, including parallel (Model B) and serial mediation (Model A) models (see Table 3) (Baron & Kenney, 1986). All models fit the data well but the serial mediation model (Model A), illustrated in Figure 1, indicated a better fit to the data than alternative models (χ2 (307) = 680.422, χ2/df = 2.216, GFI = .918, RMSEA = .047, TLI = .972, CFI = .972. As a result of these findings, the hypothesized model predicting that ML and POS serially mediate the association between SL and WE was used to test the study hypotheses. The model explained 38.2% of the variance in WE.

Table 3.

Goodness-of-fit indices of the examined models.

Model	x²	df	x²/df	GFI	CFI	NFI	TLI	RMSEA	∆x²	∆df
Serial mediation (ModelA)	680.422***	307	2.216	0.918	0.972	0.951	0.972	0.047	—	—
Parallel mediation (Model B)	696.209***	308	2.260	0.916	0.971	0.950	0.971	0.048	15.787***	1
Full mediation (Model C)	700.748***	309	2.268	0.916	0.971	0.950	0.966	0.048	20.326***	2
No mediation (Model D)	1214.760***	312	3.893	0.863	0.933	0.913	0.966	0.072	534.337***	5

Notes. x² = Chi-square; df = degress of freedom; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; ***p < .001. The ∆x² is in relation to the baseline (hypothesized) model.

Figure 1.

Results of structural equation modeling.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that SL would be positively related to WE. Supporting H1, SL significantly and positively influenced WE (β = .14, p < .05). Moreover, as shown in Figure 1, all the coefficients of the paths between variables were significant.

Because the study includes multiple mediations, specific indirect effects of SL on WE were examined by utilizing the user-defined estimand option in AMOS (Crowson, 2021). Regarding to the three mediation hypotheses H2, H3, and H4, the size and significance of indirect effects are presented in Table 4. Hypotheses 2 and 3 predicted that ML and POS would mediate the relationship between SL and WE. The indirect relationships of SL with WE via ML (B = .27, p < .001) and POS (B = .16, p < .001) were significant according to bootstrap estimates, supporting H2 and H3. Hypothesis 4 stated that ML and POS would serially mediate the relationship between SL and WE. The indirect effect of SL on WE through the mediation of ML and POS was significant (B = .06, p < .001), providing support for H4.

Table 4.

Structural equation modeling results of unstandardized indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a bias-corrected (BC) bootstrapping procedure.

Indirect effect	Hypothesis	Estimate	S.E.	95% CI
SL → ML → WE	H2	.27***	.06	[.16, .40]
SL → POS → WE	H3	.16***	.04	[.09, .25]
SL → ML →POS → WE	H4	.06***	.02	[.02, .10]

Notes. Unstandardized results are reported as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Also, the user-defined estimand technique provides only unstandardized results for indirect effects. SL = Servant leadership; ML = Motivating language; POS= Perceived organizational support; WE= Work engagement; bootstrapping sample size = 5000; S.E.= standard error; CI = 95% bias-corrected confidence interval; p*** < .001, p* < .05.

Discussion

The current study aimed to respond to calls to examine the role of leadership in understanding employee work engagement in public organizations (Van Wart, 2013). More specifically, the current study investigated the contribution of ML and POS as mediators in order to shed light on the relationship between SL and SLBs’ WE. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by indicating that, consistent with previous studies, SL is a significant predictor of WE among SLBs (Aboramadan et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2018; Shim et al., 2021). Moreover, the findings demonstrated that ML and POS serially mediate the relationship between SL and WE. The findings of the current study have significant theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical Implications

Overall, the results of this research provide support for the proposed research model. Drawing from SET, SLT, MLT, and the JD-R model, this study provides valuable interdisciplinary insights into how SL influences SLBs’ WE through ML and POS. First, the findings show that servant leaders can stimulate work engagement through the social exchange process. That is, consistent with SET (Blau, 1964), when followers are encouraged, supported, treated fairly, and appreciated by their leaders, they feel obligated to reciprocate with favorable work-related attitudes (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Eva et al., 2019) and feel more engaged at work. This result is consistent with prior research (Bao et al., 2018; Miao et al., 2014) showing that servant leaders, who demonstrate positive attitudes and treat their followers transparently and fairly are likely to have followers who respond in the form of desirable work attitudes.

Second, the relationship between servant leadership and work engagement can also be explained from the perspective of SLT. In line with SLT (Bandura, 1977), this study suggests that followers are more likely to emulate the behaviors of servant leaders and show higher work engagement as servant leaders exhibit integrity, express humility, and act as credible role models (Liden et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011). This result is in line with previous research (Liden et al., 2014; Schwarz et al., 2016) which has shown that followers of servant leaders are more likely to learn and emulate positive behaviors from their leaders through role modeling.

Third, consistent with the JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017), the findings indicate that ML and POS are valuable job resources that not only predict WE but also partially mediate the relationship between SL and WE. Therefore, this study extends the literature by responding to the call to integrate leadership into the JD-R model and examining the impact of leadership behaviors on employee well-being through job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). This finding also contributes to the servant leadership literature by shedding light on the mechanisms underlying the relationship between SL and WE (Eva et al., 2019).

Finally, this study expands the literature on leadership communication by integrating servant leadership theory with motivating language theory. Specifically, this study highlights the notions of transparent leadership communication (Y. Lee & Dong, 2023; Rawlins, 2008), relational leadership (Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011), and empathic leadership (Jian, 2022) by demonstrating that SL, a holistic approach to leadership including relational, empathy, transparency, and emotional dimensions (Eva et al., 2019; van Dierendonck, 2011), enables leaders to effectively use ML. This study also extends MLT (J. R. Mayfield & Mayfield, 1995) by showing that leaders’ use of ML creates a positive working environment where followers feel higher organizational support, which in turn leads to increased work engagement. These results highlight the importance of leadership communication for creating productive work environments and promoting employee well-being.

Practical Implications

This study has a number of practical implications for public-sector organizations, particularly police departments. First, the findings emphasize the effectiveness of SL in boosting SLBs’ WE. In the early 2000s, Turkey initiated public and political reforms to create a transparent, accountable, efficient, and service-oriented government on its way to becoming a member of the European Union (Demir, 2020). This study suggests that public organizations in Turkey should encourage their leaders to adopt a servant leadership style for the successful implementation of these reforms. Moreover, servant leadership, a human-oriented leadership style (Liden et al., 2008; Sendjaya et al., 2020), is in line Turkish cultural values and therefore could be readily adopted by organizations.

Culture can significantly influence individuals’ perceptions of leaders and communication practices within organizations (Dickson et al., 2012). Considering the cultural dimensions of Hofstede et al. (2010), the results of this study can help us understand how culture influences leadership and communication practices in a highly collectivist, strong uncertainty avoidance, and high-power distance country like Turkey (Hofstede et al., 2010). In such a society, because employees need clarity and formalization (strong uncertainty avoidance), they are more likely to express stress in ambiguous situations (Hofstede et al., 2010). Therefore, servant leaders using ML can clarify work ambiguity, understand individual needs, motivate, and provide support, resulting in reduced uncertainty and anxiety among followers (Liden et al., 2008, 2014). Moreover, in a collectivistic and high-power distance country, employees respect leaders’ authority, trust their communication, and view the employee-employer relationship as moral, resembling a family link (Hofstede et al., 2010). Therefore, supervisors using servant leader behaviors and ML can foster emotional ties and trusting relationships with followers by acting as credible role models, which may result in followers feeling secure and emotionally satisfied (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018).

Motivating police supervisors and managers at all levels to exercise servant leadership behaviors is particularly important for police departments in Turkey. According to the findings of Vito and colleagues (2011), police managers from various U.S. states believe they should follow servant leadership principles rather than an autocratic or command-and-control style of leadership. In Turkey, policing has been heavily influenced by cultural and socio-political environments. The army has had a strong militarizing effect on the police, as the army has taken over the duties of the police during protracted military interventions in Turkey’s internal security (Yilmaz, 2020). The pro-democracy movements in the 2000s led to the normalization of civil-military relations and police autonomy (Esen & Gumuscu, 2021; Yilmaz, 2020), while the adoption of community-oriented policing (COP) in 2006 led to democratic policing practices. Research has indicated that most police officers strongly support the implementation of COP in Turkey (Demirkol & Nalla, 2019). Nevertheless, the declaration of a state of emergency after the coup attempt in 2016 reversed the democratic transformation process in Turkey and deeply affected the police department (Yilmaz, 2020). Esen and Gumuscu (2021) argue that national institutions that play a critical role in creating checks and balances, essential for the sustainability of democracy, have been gradually eroded. Therefore, servant leadership behaviors in police departments may be a mechanism that not only enhances employee work engagement but also curbs the negative effects of police culture and improves democratic policing.

In order to increase police officers’ work engagement, police departments need to train their current first-line supervisors and managers to be servant leaders and place a strong emphasis on promoting servant leadership in the department. Accordingly, police departments should recognize the crucial role of servant leadership and develop training programs and policies to develop servant leaders.

The findings also demonstrated that ML plays a critical role in the relationship between SL and WE, highlighting the importance of communication behaviors in boosting WE. Moreover, the results suggest that servant leaders can increase the level of POS and, consequently, WE through the use of ML. Therefore, given the substantial role of ML in fostering WE, the selection, training, and promotion of police managers with strong leadership communication skills would be advantageous for police departments.

Finally, it would be advantageous to create a positive work environment in which officers feel more organizational support. SL has an impact on teams as well as individuals by creating a serving culture (Liden et al., 2014). Thus, a serving culture may assist officers in feeling support from their coworkers, facilitating the development of relationships, improving self-efficacy, and consequently delivering effective public services.

As a result, through these training programs and policies, police departments can develop servant leaders who effectively use ML, creating an engaged working environment. These results emphasize the critical role of HR management and leadership communication in developing job resources to foster a productive workplace.

Limitations and Future Studies

Despite its contributions, this study has a number of limitations that need to be addressed. First, because of the study’s cross-sectional design, causal relationships cannot be established. Therefore, an experimental or longitudinal design should be used to establish causal links between the study variables. Second, the data were collected from police officers in one large police department in Turkey, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. Research should be conducted in the future to replicate this study in other law enforcement agencies. Moreover, a replication of this study should be conducted with other street-level bureaucrats, including public school teachers and healthcare workers. Third, although several remedies were applied to alleviate the problem, the study was based on data gathered from same source using self-report questionnaires which can result in common method bias. However, according to Spector (2006), common method bias problem is rarely strong enough to jeopardize the validity of findings. Future research, therefore, should gather data from multiple sources and at different time points. Furthermore, more research should examine how servant leadership influences work engagement through various mediating mechanisms such as leader-member exchange, social support, and organizational culture.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the MCQ Editor-in-Chief, Matthew Koschmann, and the associate editor, Guowei Jian, for their guidance, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions 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.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Bulent Uluturk

Data Availability Statement

Data available from the author(s) upon reasonable request.

Note

Author Biography

Bulent Uluturk (D.P.A., University of Baltimore) is a lecturer at the Turkish National Police Academy. His main research interests include leadership, leadership communication, street-level bureaucracy, performance, and organizational behavior.

References

Aboramadan

Dahleez

Hamad

(2020). Servant leadership and academics’ engagement in higher education: Mediation analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(6), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1774036

Abu Bakar

McCann

R. M.

(2016). The mediating effect of leader–member dyadic communication style agreement on the relationship between servant leadership and group-level organizational citizenship behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915601162

Ahmad

Islam

Saleem

(2019). How commitment and satisfaction explain leave intention in police force? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 42(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2017-0154

Aldabbas

Pinnington

Lahrech

(2023). The influence of perceived organizational support on employee creativity: The mediating role of work engagement. Current Psychology, 42(8), 6501–6515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01992-1

Allen

M. W.

(1992). Communication and organizational commitment: Perceived organizational support as a mediating factor. Communication Quarterly, 40(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369852

Allen

Winston

B. E.

Tatone

G. R.

Crowson

H. M.

(2018). Exploring a model of servant leadership, empowerment, and commitment in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21311

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

10.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.

11.

Bao

Zhao

(2018). Servant leadership and engagement: A dual mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(6), 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2017-0435

12.

Barbuto

J. E.

Wheeler

D. W.

(2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106287091

13.

Barge

J. K.

(2014). Pivotal leadership and the art of conversation. Leadership, 10(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013511739

14.

Barge

J. K.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(2008). Living leadership: A systemic constructionist approach. Leadership, 4(3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715008092360

15.

Baron

R. M.

Kenney

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173

16.

Bass

B. M.

(2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190000700302

17.

Becker

T. E.

(2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021

18.

Binyamin

Brender-Ilan

(2018). Leaders’s language and employee proactivity: Enhancing psychological meaningfulness and vitality. European Management Journal, 36(4), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.09.004

19.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

20.

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

21.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

(2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

22.

Chapman

Getha-Taylor

Holmes

M. H.

Jacobson

W. S.

Morse

R. S.

Sowa

J. E.

(2016). How public service leadership is studied: An examination of a quarter century of scholarship. Public Administration, 94(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12199

23.

Chiniara

Bentein

(2018). The servant leadership advantage: When perceiving low differentiation in leader-member relationship quality influences team cohesion, team task performance and service OCB. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.002

24.

Chughtai

A. A.

(2016). Servant leadership and follower outcomes: Mediating effects of organizational identification and psychological safety. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 150(7), 866–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1170657

25.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An Interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

26.

Crowson

(2021). Testing specific indirect effects in AMOS via User defined Estimands. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYE4yIjfFIA

27.

Cunliffe

A. L.

Eriksen

(2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711418388

28.

Daft

R. L.

(2008). The leadership experience (4th ed.). Thomson Souhwestern.

29.

Demir

(2020). Public management reform in Turkey: The impact of europeanization and beyond. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5

30.

Demirkol

I. C.

Nalla

M. K.

(2019). How does police culture shape officers’ support for community policing? Policing and Society, 29(6), 692–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2017.1410149

31.

de Vries

R. E.

Bakker-Pieper

Oostenveld

(2010). Leadership = communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2

32.

Dickson

M. W.

Castaño

Magomaeva

Den Hartog

D. N.

(2012). Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.002

33.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

34.

Eisenberger

Rhoades Shanock

Wen

(2020). Perceived organizational support: Why caring about employees counts. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044917

35.

Elsner Twesme

Werner

J. M.

Simha

(2021). Can we talk? Improving employee contextual performance using Motivating Language and feedback orientation. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211038745

36.

Esen

Gumuscu

(2021). Why did Turkish democracy collapse? A political economy account of AKP’s authoritarianism. Party Politics, 27(6), 1075–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068820923722

37.

Eva

Robin

Sendjaya

van Dierendonck

Liden

R. C.

(2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

38.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Connaughton

S. L.

(2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013509396

39.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Uhl-Bien

(2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.005

40.

Fletcher

Bailey

Alfes

Madden

(2020). Mind the context gap: A critical review of engagement within the public sector and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(1), 6–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1674358

41.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

42.

Getha-Taylor

Holmes

M. H.

Jacobson

W. S.

Morse

R. S.

Sowa

J. E.

(2011). Focusing the public leadership lens: Research propositions and questions in the minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(SUPPL 1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq069

43.

Graham

J. W.

(1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91)90025-W

44.

Greenleaf

R. K.

(1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

45.

Guo

Ling

(2020). Effects of leader Motivating Language on employee task and contextual performance: The mediating role of feedback quality. Psychological Reports, 123(6), 2501–2518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119862989

46.

Gutermann

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Boer

Born

Voelpel

S. C.

(2017). How leaders affect followers’ work engagement and performance: Integrating Leader−Member exchange and crossover theory. British Journal of Management, 28(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12214

47.

Gutierrez-Wirsching

Mayfield

Wei

(2015). Motivating language as a mediator between servant leadership and employee outcomes. Management Research Review, 38(12), 1234–1250. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2014-0009

48.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

49.

Haq

I. U.

Raja

Alam

De Clercq

Saleem

(2022). Servant leadership and mistreatment at the workplace: Mediation of trust and moderation of ethical climate. Personnel Review, 51(3), 1061–1084. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2019-0172

50.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

51.

Hunter

E. M.

Neubert

M. J.

Perry

S. J.

Witt

L. A.

Penney

L. M.

Weinberger

(2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001

52.

Jacobsen

C. B.

Salomonsen

H. H.

(2021). Leadership strategies and internal communication in public organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2020-0086

53.

Jaramillo

Bande

Varela

(2015). Servant leadership and ethics: A dyadic examination of supervisor behaviors and salesperson perceptions. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 35(2), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2015.1010539

54.

Jian

(2022). From empathic leader to empathic leadership practice: An extension to relational leadership theory. Human Relations, 75(5), 931–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726721998450

55.

Jian

Dalisay

(2018). Talk matters at work: The effects of leader-member conversational quality and communication frequency on work role stressors. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(4), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415594157

56.

Jian

Shi

Dalisay

(2014). Leader–member conversational quality: Scale development and validation through three studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 375–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914533201

57.

Johnson

C. E.

Hackman

M. Z.

(2018). Leadership: A communication perspective (7th ed.). Waweland Press.

58.

Kalla

H. K.

(2005). Integrated internal communications: A multidisciplinary perspective. Corporate Communications, 10(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280510630106

59.

Khatri

Dutta

Kumari

Duggal

H. K.

Thomas

Cristillo

Nobis

(2023). Modeling intellectual capital-based intrapreneurial ability of working professionals through servant leadership and self-efficacy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24(6), 1485–1505. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2022-0208

60.

Kim

Vandenberghe

(2021). Ethical leadership and organizational commitment: The dual perspective of social exchange and empowerment. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(6), 976–987. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2020-0479

61.

Kleynhans

D. J.

Heyns

M. M.

Stander

M. W.

(2022). Authentic leadership and flourishing: Do trust in the organization and organizational support matter during times of uncertainty? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955300

62.

Kurtessis

J. N.

Eisenberger

Ford

M. T.

Buffardi

L. C.

Stewart

K. A.

Adis

C. S.

(2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554

63.

Lamprinou

V. D. I.

Tasoulis

Kravariti

(2021). The impact of servant leadership and perceived organisational and supervisor support on job burnout and work – life balance in the era of teleworking and COVID-19. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(7), 1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2020-0526

64.

Lan

Chen

Zeng

Liu

(2020). The influence of job and individual resources on work engagement among Chinese police officers: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00497.

65.

Lan

Xia

Zhang

Deng

Han

(2022). A bittersweet experience: How does engaging in servant leader behaviors influence the actor’s work engagement. Current Psychology, 42(23), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03119-6

66.

Lee

Lyubovnikova

Tian

A. W.

Knight

(2020). Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12265

67.

Lee

Dong

(2023). How transparent internal communication from CEO, supervisors, and peers leads to employee advocacy. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(7), 089331892311538. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231153869

68.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Liao

Meuser

J. D.

(2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034

69.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Meuser

J. D.

Liao

(2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002

70.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Zhao

Henderson

(2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006

71.

Lipsky

(2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniv). Russell Sage Foundation.

72.

Liu

Cheng

Y. C.

(2015). From the west to the east: Validating servant leadership in the Chinese public sector. Public Personnel Management, 44(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014555995

73.

Luu

T. T.

Rowley

T. T.

(2019). Addressing employee diversity to foster their work engagement. Journal of Business Research, 95, 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.017

74.

W. Q.

Shen

L. C.

Tsai

C. H.

Kim

H. J.

Chen

M. H.

(2022). Servant leadership elevates supervisor-subordinate guanxi: An investigation of psychological safety and organizational identification. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 101, 103114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103114

75.

Madlock

P. E.

Hildebrand Clubbs

(2019). The influence of supervisors’ use of Motivating Language in organizations located in India. International Journal of Business Communication, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419835599

76.

Manning

(2020). Communication is ... The relationship. In Tyma

Edwards

(Eds.), Communication is… Perspectives on theory (Issue November 2019, pp. 33–48). Cognella.

77.

Maslach

Leiter

M. P.

(1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. Jossey-Bass.

78.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397045-9.00149-X

79.

Mayfield

(2007). The effects of leader communication on a worker’s intent to stay : An investigation using structural equation modeling. Human Performance, 20(2), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280701332018

80.

Mayfield

(2018). Motivating Language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66930-4

81.

Mayfield

Neck

C. P.

(2021). Speaking to the self: How Motivating Language links with self-leadership. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417731861

82.

Mayfield

J. R.

Mayfield

M. R.

(1995). Learning the language of leadership: A proposed agenda for leader training. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(1), 132–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199500200111

83.

Mayfield

(2021). Sound and safe: The role of leader Motivating Language and follower self-leadership in feelings of psychological safety. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020051

84.

Men

L. R.

(2014). Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership, communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914524536

85.

Men

L. R.

(2015). The internal communication role of the chief executive officer: Communication channels, style, and effectiveness. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.021

86.

Men

L. R.

Chen

Z. F.

Y. G.

(2021). Cultivating relationships with startup employees: The role of entrepreneurs’ leadership communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(4), 518–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189211017918

87.

Men

L. R.

Qin

Y. S.

Jin

(2022). Fostering employee trust via effective supervisory communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: Through the lens of Motivating Language Theory. International Journal of Business Communication, 59(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211020491

88.

Men

L. R.

Yue

C. A.

(2019). Creating a positive emotional culture: Effect of internal communication and impact on employee supportive behaviors. Public Relations Review, 45(3), 101764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.001

89.

Miao

Newman

Schwarz

(2014). Servant leadership, trust, and the organizational commitment of public sector employees in China. Public Administration, 92(3), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12091

90.

Mintzberg

(1973). The nature of managerial work. Harper & Row.

91.

Neves

Eisenberger

(2012). Management communication and employee performance: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Human Performance, 25(5), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.721834

92.

Newman

Schwarz

Cooper

Sendjaya

(2017). How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6

93.

Northouse

P. G.

(2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage.

94.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd.). McGraw-Hill.

95.

Otero-Neira

Varela-Neira

Bande

(2016). Supervisory servant leadership and employee’s work role performance: A multilevel mediation model. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(7), 860–881. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2014-0230

96.

Panaccio

Henderson

D. J.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Cao

(2015). Toward an understanding of when and why servant leadership accounts for employee extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 657–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z

97.

Parris

D. L.

Peachey

J. W.

(2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

98.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

99.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

100.

Preacher

K. J.

Kelley

(2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658

101.

Rabiul

M. K.

Yean

T. F.

(2021). Leadership styles, motivating language, and work engagement: An empirical investigation of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92(2020), 102712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102712

102.

Rawlins

(2008). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627260802153421

103.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002). Perceived organizational support : A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698

104.

Ruiz-Palomino

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

(2020). How and when servant leaders fuel creativity: The role of servant attitude and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89(6), 102537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102537

105.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career Development International, 20(5), 446–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025

106.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

107.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

González-romáVicente Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

108.

Schwarz

Newman

Cooper

Eva

(2016). Servant leadership and follower job performance: The mediating effect of public service motivation. Public Administration, 94(4), 1025–1041. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12266

109.

Schwepker

C. H.

(2016). Servant leadership, distributive justice and commitment to customer value in the salesforce. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 31(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2014-0143

110.

Sendjaya

Eva

Butar Butar

Robin

Castles

(2019). SLBS-6: Validation of a short form of the servant leadership behavior scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3594-3

111.

Sendjaya

Eva

Robin

Sugianto

ButarButar

Hartel

(2020). Leading others to go beyond the call of duty: A dyadic study of servant leadership and psychological ethical climate. Personnel Review, 49(2), 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2018-0285

112.

Sendjaya

Sarros

J. C.

Santora

J. C.

(2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x

113.

Shim

D. C.

Park

H. H.

Keum

Kim

(2021). Street-level bureaucrats’ work engagement: Can public managers’ servant-leader orientation make a difference? Public Personnel Management, 50(3), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020941043

114.

Spector

P. E.

(2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955

115.

Stinglhamber

Geraldine

Caesens

Hanin

De Zanet

(2015). The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment: The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Career Development International, 20(6), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0158

116.

Sullivan

J. J.

(1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306798

117.

Tao

Lee

Sun

J. Y.

(2022). Enhancing employee engagement via leaders’ motivational language in times of crisis: Perspectives from the COVID-19 outbreak. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102133

118.

Tummers

L. G.

Bakker

A. B.

(2021). Leadership and job demands-resources theory: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722080

119.

van Dierendonck

(2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462

120.

Van Wart

(2013). Administrative leadership theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public Administration, 91(3), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12017

121.

Vito

G. F.

Suresh

Richards

G. E.

(2011). Emphasizing the servant in public service: The opinions of police managers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(4), 674–686. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111180270

122.

Vogelgesang

G. R.

Leroy

Avolio

B. J.

(2013). The mediating effects of leader integrity with transparency in communication and work engagement/performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.004

123.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121

124.

Yilmaz

A. G.

(2020). Competing roles of the police and the army? A historical analysis of the Turkish case. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 3(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.44

125.

Yukl

(2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

126.

Zahari

Kaliannan

(2022). Antecedents of work engagement in the public sector: A systematic literature review. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1. –26.https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221106792

127.

Zeng

Zhang

Chen

Liu

(2020). The influence of perceived organizational support on police job burnout: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00948