Does servant leadership moderate the link between strategic human resource management on rule breaking and job satisfaction?

(1)

w w w . e l s e v i e r . e s / e r m b e

Does

servant

leadership

moderate

the

link

between

strategic

human

resource

management

on

rule

breaking

and

job

satisfaction?

Zafer

Adiguzel

a,∗

_,

_Mehmet

_Faruk

_Ozcinar

b

_,

_Himmet

_Karadal

c

a_Istanbul_Medipol_University,_Medipol_Business_School,_Turkey

b_Aksaray_University,_Faculty_of_Economics_and_{Administrative}_Sciences,_Turkey

c_Bolu_Abant_Izzet_Baysal_University,_Faculty_of_Tourism,_Turkey

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received7June2019

Receivedinrevisedform1March2020

Accepted27April2020

Availableonline4June2020

JELclassiﬁcation: M100 M510 M530 M540 Keywords:

Strategichumanresourcemanagement

Servantleadership

Rulebreaking

Jobsatisfaction

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Intoday’scompetitiveenvironmentandglobalworld,wheretheboundarieshavedisappearedasaresult ofthecontinuousdevelopmentincommunicationandtechnology,theattitudesandbehavioursofthe employeesintheirorganisationsarebecomingmoreimportantintermsofemployees’performance, strategichumanresourcesmanagement(SHRM),leadershiprolesofseniormanagers.Inthisstudy,the effectsof(SHRM)andservantleadershipon‘rulebreaking’behavioursand‘jobsatisfaction’ofthe employ-eesintheirorganisationhavebeenexamined.Ourﬁndingsandanalysesshowthatprivateorganisations areafraidoflosingcustomersincompetitiveenvironmentsandthereforetheiremployeesgobeyondthe determinedprocedurestosustaintheinterestsoftheirorganisation.Futurestudiesshouldfocusonthe attitudesandbehaviorsofindividualsinordertodevelopnewtheoreticalconceptsandbetterstudies relatedtohumanresourcesandleadershipstyles.Thesamplepopulationofourstudyconsistsof385 white-collaremployeesworkinginthepublicandprivatesectorsintheCentralAnatoliaregion.228 wereemployedintheprivatesectorand157inthepublicsector.Findingsweresubjectedtofactorand reliabilityanalysesusingSPSSAMOS22program,hypothesesweretestedbyregressionanalysisandthe resultswereanalysedandevaluated.

1. Introduction

Changesinthebusinessworldandtheemergenceofnew expec-tationsofstakeholdersintheﬁeldofmanagementareimportant inbringingnewconceptstotheliteratureintheﬁeldofleadership. Inresearch,VanDierendonck’s(2011),servantleadershiptheory emergedanddevelopedinordertorespondtotheincreasing con-cernsofstakeholdersduetochangesinthebusinessworld.Inthe intensivepaceofbusinesslife,thelabour,effortandperformance of employeesareundoubtedly very important fortheir organi-sationsandalsoforthemselves.Intoday’sintenselycompetitive environment,organisationshavebeguntoadopta performance-orientedworkingsystemandexpectemployeestomeettargeted performance criteria. If there is high job satisfaction, employ-eescan exceed targetedperformance and contributepositively

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:zadiguzel@medipol.edu.tr(Z.Adiguzel),

mehmetfaruk@aksaray.edu.tr(M.F.Ozcinar),himmetkaradal@ibu.edu.tr

(H.Karadal).

to their organisations. Strategic human resources management (SHRM) is an important department to ensure job satisfaction of the employees in line withthe performance-enhancing cri-teria.However,it isimportanttonotethattheimplementation stageoftheperformance-basedcriteriaoftheSHRMplaysakey role. Performance-based decisionsshouldnot betaken without signiﬁcant research and studies carried out todetermine their contributiontojobsatisfactionandemployeemotivation.Inthe literature,itissurprisingthatthereisagapintheﬁeldof leadership-humanresourcemanagement-rulebreakingbehaviour.Ingeneral, whenexaminingtheeffectsofservantleadership,itisstatedthat moreresearchneedstobedoneindifferentculturesanddifferent sectors in relation to an employees’ desire to engage in rule-breaking behaviorand otherbehaviorswithintheorganization. Itisbelievedthatthehumancapitaloftheorganizationisavery importantelementforgainingasustainablecompetitiveadvantage

(Barney,1991).Inlightofthelessdevelopedareasabove,ourmain

objectiveistodeﬁnehowstrategichumanresourcemanagement andservantleadershipaffectanemployees’jobsatisfactionand theirtendenciesforrulebreaking.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.04.002

(2)

2. Literaturereview

2.1. Strategichumanresourcesmanagement

Strategichumanresourcesmanagement(SHRM)hasinspired interestinacademicstudiesespeciallyinthelast10yearsdueto problemsofworkinglife.TheeffectofSHRMonemployeesalso createsapositiveimpactonorganizationalperformance(Huselid,

Jackson, & Schuler, 1997). SHRM focuses on how the

employ-eescanbe inﬂuenced positivelyin terms of theirjob attitudes andperformance(Wright&Boswell,2002).Thedecisionsor pro-cedures taken by the SHRM to encourage better performance maynot haveany impactontheemployees inthe case ofthe eventsexperiencedintheorganisationandtheemployeesprefer totakethematterwithindividualresponsibility.However,over thelastthirty years, researchershave tried todemonstratethe importanceofHRMintermsofcreatinganimpacton organiza-tionalperformance,andtherefore,interestinSHRMhasincreased

(Cappelli&Crocker-Hefter,1996).Althoughtherearecriticismsof

theresearchesconductedintheﬁeldofSHRM,thesecriticisms con-tribute,theoretically,tothedevelopmentofSHRM(Guest,1997).In acomprehensivereviewoftheliterature,DeleryandDoty(1996)

havelargelyexploredthepoliciesofSHRMbecauseoftheir inter-estinidentifying‘bestpractices’and‘universalist’approachesand adoptedperspectives toinstitutionalise SHRM. It is stated that humanresourcespractices,wherethehumanelementcomesto theforefrontin organizations,arealwaysnecessaryin orderto haveapositiveeffectonthedevelopmentofemployeesandthe organization(Delery&Doty,1996).Fromthisperspective,SHRM isconcernedwiththedevelopmentofapplicationsforachieving highperformanceforemployees(MacDufﬁe,1995).Inthiscontext, itisassumedthatorganizational performancewillbepositively affectediforganizationsimplementSHRMpolicies(Kochan&Dyer,

1993).

2.2. Servantleadership

Servantleadershiphasanimportantroleinmotivating employ-eestoperformactivitiestohelptheﬁrmachieveitsgoals(Smith,

Montagno,&Kuzmenko, 2004).Thefocus ofservantleadership

isnotthecompany,butrathertheemployeesthosewhofollow him/her.Servantleadershipisasenseofleadershipthatprotects theinterestsofhis/herfollowersandconsiderstheirwell-being

(Laub,1999).Servantleadershipistheleadershipstylewhich

pri-oritisesservinghis/herfollowersinordertocatertotheirneeds and expectations (Ehrhart, 2004). Servant leaders feel a moral obligationtomeettherequestsoftheirfollowers,andtherefore, theyact in the interests of theirfollowers and their organiza-tions(Greenleaf, 1998).ServantLeadership Theoryis relatedto thelevel ofsatisfaction oftheemployeesinthesituationsthey have experienced in their organisation(Liden, Wayne, Zhao, &

Henderson,2008).In the2000s,managerswithservant

leader-shipcharacteristicsarestatedtobeemployedinthebestﬁrmsin America(Levering,Moskowitz,&Garcia,2000).Theattitudesand behavioursoftheservantleadershavecharacteristics,suchasbeing openand fair, havingtheprinciplesof friendshipandsincerity, providingemployeeswithopportunitiesforcareerdevelopment, promotingbusinessandcompanyvalue,and generatingasense oftrustintheiremployees.Theimportanceofservantleadership isthat it promotescollaborationandcreativity among employ-eesaccordingtootherleadershipstyles(VanDierendonck,Stam,

Boersma,deWindt,&Alkema,2014).Ehrhart(2004)statesthat

ser-vantleadersareempowering,inclusive,moral,balancedandthey focusonprogressandsuccessofothersandpayattentiontothe organisationaswellastothesociety.Servantleadersexhibit self-sacriﬁcingbehaviourstocreatea positivedifferenceinthelives

ofothers andhave philanthropicand spiritualgoals(Barbuto &

Wheeler,2006).Inthiscontext,themoderatoreffectoftheservant

leadershipoftheresearchmodelisexamined. 2.3. Rulebreaking

Therulebreakingbehaviourhasbeenaninterestingandnotable study topic in the last 30 years (Grant, 2008). In the litera-tureresearch,itisexplainedastheconstructive,sociallydesired behaviouroftheemployeesthatdoesnotprovidepersonal inter-estbutgeneratesbenefitsfortheorganisation.Itscharacteristics arealackofself-benefit,thedisciplinaryoffensetheymayfacein caseofnotapplyingspecifiedproceduresorimplementing differ-entprocedures,andactingintheinterestoftheorganisation.Itis aboutanemployeewhoactsbeyondtheprocedureswhichhe/she believesarewrongandtakesindividualresponsibilitytobreakthe rulesforthebenefitsoftheorganization.Employeescanbreakrules andprocedurestohelptheircolleaguestofinishtheirjobsintime ortoshowextraefforttosatisfycustomersoutofboundariesin ordertobetterservetheorganisation(Brief&Motowidlo,1986).

Morrison(2006),inhisstudy,Morrisonprovidesinsightaboutthe

intentionsthatmotivateemployeestobreakrulesandshowsocial behaviours,buthestatesthatthereislackofconceptualand empir-icalworkontheintentiontorulebreakingandmoreworkhastobe carriedouttoconceptualizethesubjecttheoretically.Intheirstudy,

Dahling,Chau,Mayer,andGregory(2012),establishedanegative

relationshipbetweentheintentionofrulebreakingandbeing con-scientious.Whilethesefactorsareconsideredasastartingpoint tounderstandindividualdifferencesforatendencytobreakrules, itisclearthatmanyaspectsoftheintentionofrulebreakingare unknownandmoretheorizingisneeded.Seriousbreachofrules bytheemployeescanhaveanegativeimpactonthedecisionsof theﬁnanciersandpromotionaldecisionsofthecompany manage-ment.Wepredictthatnegativeeffectsofrulebreakingwillcause negativeimpactsontheperformanceofcompanies.

2.4. Jobsatisfaction

Jobsatisfaction is deﬁnedastheperception ofthe individu-alswhenthebeneﬁtsgainedfromtheworkcorrespondstotheir needs(Locke,1976).Itisstatedthattheperceptionofjob satis-factiondecreaseswhenemployeeshadtofacenegativeattitudes andbehaviours,andinallrespects,employeesmayeventhinkof leavingtheorganisationaccordingtotheseverityofthesituation

(Karatepe,Yorganci,&Haktanir,2008).Asaresultofexaminingthe

problemsfacedbyemployeesintheworkplace,itwasstatedthat thenegativesituationsexperiencedbyemployeesmayincrease theprobability of depression, anxiety,and low job satisfaction

(Driscoll,Worthington,&Hurrell,1995).Inourstudy,weexamined

theimportanceofSHRMandleadershipstyleonthejob satisfac-tionoftheemployees,anditwasdeterminedthatboththeSHRM andservantleadershiphadapositiveeffectonjobsatisfaction.The studiesonjobsatisfactionstartedinthe1930sandhasbeenthe mostfocusedsubjectoforganizationalbehaviouruntilnow(Kim,

Tavitiyaman,&Kim,2009).Asaresultoftheresearchcarriedout

intheliterature,wecanseethatjobsatisfactionisdefinedin dif-ferentways.Ingeneralterms,jobsatisfactionisconsideredasa reflectionofthepositiveornegativeemotional reactionsofthe employeesduetotheworktheyperform,includingtheirpowers andresponsibilities(Spector,1997).Inthissense,jobsatisfactionis anindividual-specificassessmentatanimportantlevel.This atti-tude,developed by employees,can bethe resultof positive or negativeperceptionsofvariousinternalandexternalfactors,such assalary,workingconditions,andworkplaceenvironment.In gen-eral,employeeswithahighlevelofjobsatisfactionshowapositive andconstructiveattitudetowardstheirorganizations,butthe

(3)

indi-Fig.1.Researchmodelsource:dataprocessed.

vidualswithlowlevelsofjobsatisfactionhavenegativefeelings towardsbusinessandorganisations(Greenberg&Baron,2000). 2.5. Researchframework

Basedontheliteraturereview,inthestudy,datawasanalysedin ordertodeterminetheimpactofbetweenstatisticalconcepts,and therefore,aquantitativeapproachwasadopted.Inaquantitative researchtest,weusedependentvariable(s)toexaminetheeffects ontheindependentvariables(Thomas,Nelson,&Silverman,2015) (Fig.1).

H1:SHRMhasasigniﬁcantnegativeeffectonrulebreaking. H2:SHRMhasasigniﬁcanteffectonjobsatisfaction.

H3:Servantleadershiphasasigniﬁcantnegativeeffectonrule breaking.

H4:Servantleadershiphasapositivesigniﬁcanteffectonjob satisfaction.

H5: Servantleadership moderates therelationship between SHRMandrulebreaking.

H6: Servantleadership moderates therelationship between SHRMandjobsatisfaction.

3. Method

3.1. Analyticalapproach

AsaLikert-scalequestionnairewasapplied,thequestionnaire wascollectedfrom385employees.Afterthefactorandreliability analyses,SPSSAMOS22programwasusedtoanalysethedata,and structuralmodellingwasusedforcorrelationanalysisandtesting ofthehypotheses.

3.2. Instruments

Thequestionnaireconsistsofscalesrelatedtostrategichuman resourcemanagement,servantleadership,rulebreakingandjob satisfaction.Strategichumanresourcesmanagementscale;The questionsweredevelopedbyGreen,Medlin,&Medlin(2001).In thestudyconductedbyGreenetal.(2001)thereliabilityvalueof 9scaleswasalpha=.91.Inthestudy,14scaleswereused,and5 questionswereremovedfromthescaleasaresultoffactoranalysis. 6-pointLikertscalewasusedinthestudy.Servantleadershipscale;

Itwasmeasuredby14scales(alpha=.98)developedbyEhrhartin 2004.Allscaleswereacceptedasaresultoffactoranalysis.Rule BreakingScale;ThescalesimplementedinthestudiesofDahling

etal.(2012);alpha=.89)used21scalesinstudy.JobSatisfaction

Scale;ThescaledevelopedbyBrayﬁeldandRothe(1951);alpha= .87)wasused.18scaleswereusedinthestudy.Itwasevaluated

accordingto18scale-5likertscaledevelopedaboutjobsatisfaction andacceptedasaresultoffactoranalysis.Thestudyitemswere anchoredonapoint5-Likertscaleswhere1=Stronglydisagree,2 =Disagree,3=Undecided,4=Agree,5=Stronglyagree.

4. Dataanalysisandﬁndings

4.1. Demographicbreakdown

Thesampleconstitutedof385whitecollaremployeesworking indifferentdepartmentsofprivateandpublicorganisations:out ofwhich132arefemalesand253aremales.Theageofthe sur-veyparticipantsweredistributedas;16.8%werebetween18–25 yearsofage(65participants),24.6%werebetween26–30(95 par-ticipants),27%werebetween31–35(104participants),and18.7% werebetween36–40(72participants),8.5%werebetween41–45 (33participants)and4.1%were46andover(16Participants).40.7% oftheemployeesworkinthepublicsector(157employees),59.2% areintheprivatesector(228employees).Thelevelofachievement oftheemployees’individualgoals;24participantsstatedas‘very low level’,47participantsstatedas‘lowlevel’,157participants statedas‘mediumlevel’,126participantsstatedas“highlevel’,31 participantsstatedas‘veryhighlevel’.

4.2. Measurementmodel

Inthestudy,thequestionnaireconsistedofa49-questionscale. Variables;Strategichumanresourcesmanagement,servant lead-ership, job satisfaction, rule breaking were subjected to factor analysis.Conﬁrmatoryfactoranalysis;Itwasappliedtotestthe validityofthesinglefactorstructure(Fig.2).Compatibilityofthe dataof thestudytothe4 differentmeasurementmodels were tested withindices of␹2_/DF,_RMSEA,_GFI, _TLI,_CFI_and _NFI._The

resultsobtainedaresigniﬁcantfor_␹2 _value_of_four-factor_model

displayedinTable1andthe␹2_/DF._value_(2.14)_is_below_5,_therefore

themodelmeetsthecompliancecriterioninthisrespect.In addi-tion,indicatorsofGFI=0.83,NFI=0.87,CFI=0.93,TLI=0.92and RMSEA=0.057showcompliancewiththedataofthestudy.Inorder todeterminewhetherthereisasigniﬁcantdifferencebetweenthe single-factormodelandthefour-factormodel,␹2_values_were

sub-jectedtoa ‘Chi-SquareDifferenceTest’and itwasdecidedthat thedifferencewassigniﬁcant(Table1).Thus,thecommonmethod showsnodeviation(Karadal,Merdan,&Abubakar,2019).Basedon theseresults,thestudywascontinuedwithafour-factor(related) model.

Afterthefactoranalysis,11questionswereexcludedfromthe scalebecausetheyaffectedthefactordistributionanddecreased reliability.Theremaining38questionsweredistributedto4factors.

Table2showsthefactorloadsaccordingtothevariables.Whether

thetoolsofthisstudymeasurethestructurevaliditywasexamined withthemethodsof(1)convergentvalidityand(2)discriminant validity.AsshowninTable2,thestandardizedfactorloadingsof thescaleitemsrangedfrom0.57to0.94andtheyarehigherthan 0.5,thereforethecriterionwasmet(Hair,Black,Babin,Anderson,&

Tatham,2006).Andalso,thesefactorvalueswerestatistically

sig-niﬁcantaccordingtothet-valuesinparametrictests.Thescale’s AVE valuesare greaterthan0.50 andit istheevidenceof con-vergentvalidity(Fornell&Larcker,1981).AccordingtoAbubakar,

Ilkan,&Sahin,2016,evidenceofdiscriminantvaliditycanbeseen

becausethecorrelationbetweenthevariablesislessthan0.80.We canexplaintheinternalconsistencyofthemeasurementandthe meanrelationshipbetweenthequestionsbyreliability analysis.

Table3showsthatbothalphaandstructurereliabilityarehigher

than0.70(Nunnally,1976).AsseeninTable3,correlationanalysis

(4)

ser-Table1

Model-dataﬁtvalues.

␹2 _␹2 _SD _␹2_/SD _GFI _NFI _CFI _TLI _RMSEA

Singlefactormodel

5506.19 – 665 8.28 .386 .504 .534 .507 .143

Researchmodel

1400.14 4106.05 655 2.14 .826 .874 .928 .923 .057

Servantleadership Rulebreaking

Strategichumanresourcesmanagement

Jobsatisfaction Source:dataprocessed.

Note:␹2_,_Chi-Square;_SD,_Degree_of_Freedom,_GFI₌_Goodness_of_Fit_Index,_NFI₌_Normed_Fit_Index,_CFI₌_Comparative_Fit_Index,_TLI,_Tucker-Lewis_Index;_RMSEA₌_Root_Mean

SquareErrorofApproximation␹2_/SD,_Relative_Chi-Square.

Table2

Scalefactorstructuresfactorloadingst-value.

Statements Factorloadings t-value

Servantleadership(Ehrhart,2004)(scale:1–5)

HL1:Ourmanagerspendstimetocommunicateopenlyandclearlywiththeemployees .72 –

HL2:Ourmanagercreatesasenseofteamamongemployees. .83 15.45

HL3:Thedecisionstakenbyourmanagerdecreasethemotivationoftheemployees. * –

HL4:Thedecisionstakenbyourmanagerincreasethemotivationoftheemployees. .82 15.32

HL5:Ourmanagertakestheopinionoftheemployeeswhenmakingimportantdecisions. .77 14.27

HL6:Ourmanagerhasanunderstandingapproachaboutemployees’responsibilitiesout-of-work. .77 14.31

HL7:Ourmanagerprioritizesthepersonaldevelopmentofemployees .75 13.99

HL8:Ourmanagerattachesimportancetoemployeestohavehighmoralworkingstandards .76 14.07

HL9:Ourmanagergivespromisestoemployees. * –

HL10:Ourmanagerfollowstheday-to-daytasksindetailtoachievethefuturegoals. .76 14.06

HL11:Ourmanagerworksextensivelytoﬁndsolutionstoproblems. .77 14.31

HL12:Workingwithourmanagermakesthingseasier. .83 15.42

HL13:Ourmanagermakestheexistingdutiesmoredifﬁcultwhentryingtohelpemployees. * –

HL14:Ourmanagerencouragesemployeestoparticipateinvoluntaryactivities. .69 12.89

HL15:Ourmanageremphasizeshowimportantthethoughtsofsocietyare. .72 13.41

Strategichumanresourcesmanagement(Greenetal.,2001)(scale:1–5)

Verticalalignmentofhumanresourcefunction

SIKY1:Inourorganisation,longtermmanagerialplansaremade. .71 –

SIKY2:Inourorganisation,ourmanagersencourageemployeestoachievelong-termstrategicgoals. .80 17.85

SIKY6:Behaviouraldevelopmenttrainingsofpersonnelwerecarriedoutinourorganisation. .77 13.93

Impactofhumanresourcefunctiononperformance

SIKY3:Selectionofpersonnelinourorganisationisimportantintermsofachievingstrategicgoals. .80 14.41

SIKY4:Employeeperformanceevaluationsarecarriedoutregularlytoachievetheobjectives .82 14.81

SIKY5:Behaviouralworkanalysesarecarriedoutaccordingtotheneedsofpersonnelinourinstitution. .82 14.77

Horizontalintegrationofthehumanresourcefunction

SIKY7:HRdepartmentregularlykeepstrackofstaffinformationtomakedecisions. .78 14.12

SIKY8:Humanresourcesplanningiscarriedoutasaformalandopenprocedure. .70 12.69

SIKY9:Inourorganisation,aformalandwell-knownhumanresourcesstrategyhavebeenimplemented. .66 11.94

Rulebreaking(Dahlingetal.,2012)(scale:1–5)

KK1:Iignoretheorganizationalrulesifmycolleaguesneedhelp(co-workeraid) .60 11.63

KK2:Iignorecorporatepoliciestohelpacolleagu(co-workerAid) .57 10.92

KK3:Ifsomeoneneedsmyhelp,Iignoretherulesoftheinstitution(co-workeraid) .67 12.98

KK4:Ihelpemployeesbyignoringtherulesoftheinstitution(co-workerAid) .73 14.27

KK5:Ihelpotheremployees,evenifitmeansviolatingcorporatepolicies(efﬁciency) .62 11.96

KK6:WhenIwanttohelpmycolleague,Idonotrefrainfrombreakingtherulesoftheinstitution(efﬁciency) .80 16.07

KK7:Iignoretheserulesoftheorganizationwhentheypreventmecompletingmyduties(efﬁciency) .89 18.34

KK11:Iviolateorganizationalpoliciessothatthecompanysavestimeandmoney(efﬁciency) .76 –

KK8:Iignorecompanyregulationsthatwillleadtheorganizationtoinefﬁciency(artifact) .89 18.36

KK9:Iprefertoviolatetheorganization’spoliciesinordertoworkmoreefﬁciently(artifact) .86 17.51

KK10:Idisregardorganizationalrulestoreducebureaucracy(artifact) .86 17.48

Jobsatisfaction(Brayﬁeld&Rothe,1951)(scale:1–5)

ISM1:Iﬁndrealpleasureinmywork. .77 15.30

ISM2:Ilovemyjobmorewhentherearenottoomanyemployees. * –

ISM3:Iampleasedwithmyjobforthetimebeing. .87 17.68

ISM4:Iabsolutelylovemyjob. .85 17.03

ISM5:Ifeelveryhappyaboutmyjobcomparedtomycolleagues. .83 16.57

ISM6:Iamveryhappywithmycurrentjobortasks. .94 19.26

ISM7:Ingeneral,Iamnotveryenthusiasticaboutmywork. * –

ISM8:Ihavegoodthoughtsaboutmywork. .76 –

ISM9:Sofar,Ihavebeendisappointedinworkinginthisorganisation. * –

Source:dataprocessed.

(5)

Fig.2. Conﬁrmatoryfactoranalysismodelsource:dataprocessed.(PSK=RuleBreaking,SIKY=StrategicHumanResourceManagement,HZL=ServantLeadership,IST=Job Satisfaction).

Table3

Mean,standarddeviation,reliabilityandcorrelationvaluesofvariables.

Variables Mean S.D. ␣ CR AVE 1 2 3 4

1.SHRM 3.31 1.07 .929 .927 .587 –

2.Servantleadership 3.53 1.06 .944 .944 .586 .710** –

3.Rulebreaking 2.49 1.11 .939 .936 .577 −.078 −.109* –

4.Jobsatisfaction 3.74 1.07 .932 .933 .701 .643** .668** −.124* –

Note:S.D.,StandardDeviation;␣,AlphaReliability;CR,StructuralReliability;AVE,AverageVarianceExtracted.

*_Correlation_values_are_signiﬁcant_at_0.05_level_{(bi-directional).}

**_Correlation_values_are_signiﬁcant_at_0.01_level_{(bi-directional).}

vantleadership,jobsatisfactionandrulebreaking.Therelationship betweenSHRMandrulebreakingisnotstatisticallysignificant(r= −.078,p>.10).TherelationshipbetweenSHRMandjobsatisfaction issignificantandpositive(r=.643,p<.001).Whilethe relation-shipbetweenservantleadershipandrulebreakingisnegative(r= −.109,p<.05),therelationshipbetweenservantleadershipandjob satisfactionispositive(r=.668,p<.001).Therulebreaking vari-ablehasaninverserelationshipwithallvariables(strategichuman resourcesmanagement,servantleadershipandjobsatisfaction). Asa resultofcorrelationanalysis,itisseenthatthesevariables donothaveadirectpositiveeffectontherulebreakingbehaviour ofemployees.Whenweexaminethecorrelationcoefficients,itis understoodthattherelationshipbetweenservantleadershipand jobsatisfaction(.668)isrelativelystronger.

4.3. Directeffectsofthestructuralmodel

Astructuralequationmodelwasusedtotestresearch hypothe-ses.AccordingtoTable4andFig.3,SHRMdoesnothaveasigniﬁcant effectonrulebreaking(ˇ=.031,p>.10).Thus,hypothesis1was rejected.SHRMhasasigniﬁcantpositiveeffectonjobsatisfaction (ˇ=.375,p<.001).Inotherwords,ifthelevelofSHRMincreases, jobsatisfactionalsoincreases.Thus,hypothesis2gainedsupport.

Servantleadershiphasasigniﬁcantnegativeeffectonrulebreaking (ˇ=−.103,p<.10).Inotherwords,asthelevelofservant lead-ershipincreases,therulebreakingdecreases.Thus,hypothesis3 gainedsupport.Servantleadershiphasapositivesigniﬁcanteffect onjobsatisfaction(ˇ=.471,p<.001).Thus,hypothesis4gained support.

4.4. Moderatingroleofservantleadership

Inaresearchmodel,themoderatorvariableroleofservant lead-ershipontherelationshipbetweenSHRMandrulebreaking,and jobsatisfactionwastested.Analyseswerecarriedouttotestthe hypothesestodeterminetheeffect.Weexaminedthemoderator effectofservantleadershipfollowingtheproceduresissuedinprior

work(i.e.,Kaya,Behravesh,Abubakar,Kaya,&Orús,2019),andas

aresultoftheanalyses,itwasseenthatithadnomoderatoreffect. Itsupportsthefactthatiftheemployeesthinktherulesare unnec-essary,theydonotobey/adopttherulesintherelatedsituation, buttheyactintheinterestsoftheorganisation(ˇ=−.076,p > .10).H5hypothesisisnotsupported.However,intermsofthe moderatoreffectofservantleadership,itwasfoundthatithasan effectontherelationshipbetweenSHRMandjobsatisfaction(ˇ =−.076,p<.10).H6hypothesisissupported(Fig.4).This sit-uationindicateshowmanagers’styleshouldbetoensurethejob satisfactionoftheemployees.Oneofthemostimportant character-isticsofservantleadershipishis/herservantattitudeandbehaviour towardshis/heremployees.Thissituationnaturallyincreasesthe jobsatisfactionofemployees.

5. Discussion

Whentheresearchesintheﬁeld of servantleadership were examined,theculturalandclimaticfactorswereexaminedinthe areaswherethepositiveaspectswereinvestigated(Liden,Wayne,

Liao,&Meuser,2014),andalsothefactorssuchaspsychological

(6)

Table4

DirectEffectsoftheStructuralModel.

Independentvariables Dependentvariables Beta ˇ S.E. t-value p Decision

SHRM Rulebreaking .003 .003 .055 0.051 .959 H1-rejected

SHRM Jobsatisfaction .333 .375 .037 8.881 *** H2-supported

Servantleadership Rulebreaking −107 −.103 .055 −1.942 .052* H3-supported

Servantleadership Jobsatisfaction .422 .471 .038 11.140 *** H4-supported

Moderator(interactioneffects)

(SHRM*servantleadership)rulebreaking .030 .031 .051 .587 .557 H5-rejected

(SHRM*servantleadership)jobsatisfaction −.062 −.076 .035 −1.793 .073* H6-supported

Note:ˇ,StandardBeta;S.E.,StandardError.

**Signiﬁcantat0.05level(bi-directional).

* _Signiﬁcant_at_the_level_of_0.1_{(bidirectional).}

***_Signiﬁcant_at_0.01_level_{(bi-direction).}

Fig.3.Structuralequationmodelsource:dataprocessed.

Fig.4. Moderatoreffectsource:dataprocessed.

2016).Looking at theresultsof theother studiesand analyses in this field, we can seethat the studies onthe rule breaking behavioursoftheemployeesandhumanresourcesmanagement areverylimited.Trainingandperformanceevaluationwithinthe organization,ensuringconsistencyandstrengtheningthe organi-zationdependonSHRM practices.Ourstudywasconductedon white-collaremployeesinthepublicandprivatesectorincentral anatolia,TurkeytodeterminetheSHRMeffecton‘rulebreaking’ and‘jobsatisfaction’variables.ItisdeterminedthatSHRMhasno significanteffectonrulebreaking(H1andH5hypothesesrejected). Wecanexplainthisastheemployeesoftheorganisationsinthe productionsectororservicesectoroperatinginthecentral anato-liaregionbelievethattheorganisationalproceduresarenotforthe benefitoftheirorganisationsandthereforetheserulescannotbe

implemented.However,havingmanagerswithaservant leader-shiprolehasapositiveimpactontheemployeesandreducesthe rulebreakingbehaviour.Inthisregard,theeffectsofother lead-ershiprolesshouldbeexaminedtocontributetotheliterature. Oneofthemostimportantresultsofthefindingsofourstudyis thatstrategichumanresourcemanagementproceduresincrease jobsatisfactionbutdo nothaveanyeffectonreducing therule breakingbehaviour,andwebelievethatthisfindingshouldbe dis-cussedfurther.Anexplanationforthiscasemightbethat;although theemployeesaresatisfiedwiththeirjob,theyhaveatendencyto violatetherulesbecausetheycannotacceptthewrongpractices intheirorganisationsandprefertoimplementmorecorrect ver-sionstopreventtheirorganisationsfrombeingharmedbythese wrongpractices.Ofcourse,furtheranddetailedstudiesareneeded

(7)

inthisﬁeld.Ourstudyexaminestheservantleadershipmoderator variableeffectontherelationshipbetweenSHRMandrule break-ing,anditwasunderstoodthatbothservantleadershipandthe leadershiproleshavenoimpactontheemployeesforthe proce-dures.

6. Conclusionandsuggestions

Servantleadersembraceahuman-centeredmanagementstyle, emphasizepersonalintegrityandcareforothers,including inter-nalandexternalstakeholders(Lidenetal.,2008).Previousresearch hasshownextensivelythatServantLeadershipsupportspositive behavioursand promotesoutstandingperformanceof followers

(Chen,Zhu,&Zhou,2015;Peterson,Galvin,&Lange,2012).The

results of the research show that H3 and H4 hypotheses are supported.Whileservantleadershipeliminatesemployees’ rule-breakingbehaviour,itpositivelyaffectstheirjobsatisfaction.In orderforSHRMapplicationstohaveperformance-enhancingeffect, SHRMapplicationsshouldbeaimingnotonlytoensure consis-tencywithintheorganizationbutalsotocontributetothecreation ofanorganizationalculturethatcanprovidecompetitive advan-tages(Miao,Adler,&Xu,2011).Achievingasustainablecompetitive advantagehasbecomeatopicofdiscussioninthetheoryof man-agement,andinthepastyears,researcherslookedforananswer tothequestion,inparticular,onhowtoimplementSHRM appli-cationstoachievesuchanadvantage(Fiol,1991).Asaresultof ourresearchconductedintheCentralAnatoliaregion,wecansee thatjobsatisfactionhassignificantandpositiverelationshipswith bothSHRMandservantleadership,buttheemployeeshavea ten-dencytobreakrulesaccordingtothesituationstheyexperiencein theirorganisations.Itisinterestingthatthissituationisobserved both intheprivatesectorand inthepublicsector.Considering thenecessityoftheinternal statutesand thenecessityforcivil servantstoobeytherules,itisunderstoodthattheexisting proce-duresinpublicinstitutionscanbestretchedinpracticeinfavour ofthepublicandthecitizens.Therefore,weassumethatH1and H5hypothesesarerejected.Themostimportanteffectinachieving competitiveadvantageisawork-forcethatcorrectlywill imple-mentstrategicdecisionsintheorganization.Forthisreason,the correctimplementationoftheSHRMapplicationsisdirectly pro-portionaltotheperformanceoftheemployees.Theacceptanceof theH2andH6hypothesesisinsupportofthisview,sincethe pos-itiveperformanceoftheemployeesalsoemergesasaresultofjob satisfaction.Itappearsthatservantleadershipdecreasestherule breakingbehavioursoftheemployees,butifwelookatthe mod-eratorvariableeffect,ithasnoimpactduetotheproceduresof SHRM.Itisthefactthatemployeespayattentiontoexistingrules andproceduresratherthantheinfluenceofleadership,and dis-playattitudesand behavioursaccordingtotherules onwritten sources.Moreintensiveand academicexaminationofthe prob-lemsexperiencedintheworkinglifecanleadtotheacquisition ofnewconceptsintermsoftheoreticalandanalysisand contri-butiontotheworldliteratureinfuturestudies.Thisstudyutilizes across-sectionaldesignandself-reporteddata.Thus,future stud-iescanembracepredictiveandartificialintelligencetechniquesas suggestedby(Abubakar,2019).

References

Abubakar,A.M.(2019).UsinghybridSEM–Artiﬁcialintelligenceapproachto

exam-inethenexusbetweenboreout,generation,career,lifeandjobsatisfaction.

PersonnelReview,49(1),67–86.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2017-0180

Abubakar,A.M.,Ilkan,M.,&Sahin,P.(2016).eWOM,eReferralandgenderin

thevirtualcommunity.MarketingIntelligenceandPlanning,34(5),692–710.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-05-2015-0090

Barbuto,J.E.,&Wheeler,D.W.(2006).Scaledevelopmentandconstructclariﬁcation

ofservantleadership.Group&OrganizationManagement,31,300–326.

Barney,J.(1991).Firmresourcesandsustainedcompetitiveadvantage.Journalof

Management,17,99–120.

Brayﬁeld,A.H.,&Rothe,H.F.(1951).Anindexofjobsatisfaction.JournalofApplied

Psychology,35,307–311.

Brief,A.P.,&Motowidlo,S.J.(1986).Prosocialorganizationalbehaviors.Academyof

ManagementReview,11,710–725.

Cappelli,P.,&Crocker-Hefter,A.(1996).Distinctivehumanresourcesareﬁrms’core

competencies.OrganizationalDynamics,24(3),7–22.

Chen,Z.,Zhu,J.,&Zhou,M.(2015).Howdoesaservantleaderfueltheserviceﬁre?

Amultilevelmodelofservantleadership,individualselfidentity,group compe-titionclimate,andcustomerserviceperformance.JournalofAppliedPsychology, 100(2),511–521.

Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual

performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, compe-tence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 124–141.

Dahling,J.J.,Chau,L.S.,Mayer,M.D.,&Gregory,B.J.(2012).Breakingrulesforthe

rightreason?Aninvestigationofpro-socialrulebreaking.Journalof

Organiza-tionalBehavior,http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.730

Delery,J.E.,&Doty,D.H.(1996).Modesoftheorizinginstrategichumanresource

management:Testsofuniversalistic,contingency,andconﬁgurational perfor-mancepredictions.AcademyofManagementJournal,39,802–835.

Driscoll,R.J.,Worthington,K.A.,&Hurrell,J.R.(1995).Workplaceassault:An

emergingjobstressor.ConsultingPsychologyJournal:PracticeandResearch,47(4), 205–212.

Ehrhart,M.G.(2004).Leadershipandproceduraljusticeclimateasantecedentsof

unit-levelorganizationalcitizenshipbehavior.PersonnelPsychology,57,61–94.

Fiol, C. M.(1991).Managing culture asa competitiveresource: An

identity-basedviewofsustainablecompetitiveadvantage.JournalofManagement,17(1), 191–211.

Fornell,C.,&Larcker,D.F.(1981).Evaluatingstructuralequationmodelswith

unob-servablevariablesandmeasurementerror:Algebraandstatistics.Journalof MarketingResearch,18(3).

Grant,A.M.(2008).Doesintrinsicmotivationfueltheprosocialﬁre?Motivational

synergyinpredictingpersistence,performance,andproductivity.Journalof AppliedPsychology,93,48–58.

Green,K.W.,Jr.,Medlin,B.,&Medlin,R.(2001).Strategichumanresource

manage-ment:Measurementscaledevelopment.AcademyofStrategicandOrganizational LeadershipJournal,5(2),99–112.

Greenberg,J.,&Baron,R.A.(2000).Behaviorinorganizations.PrenticeHall.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1998).Thepowerofservantleadership.SanFrancisco:

Berrett-Koehler.

Guest,D.E.(1997).Thenatureandcausesofeffectivehumanresource

manage-ment:Areviewandresearchagenda.InternationaljournalofHumanResource Management,8,263–276.

Hair,J.F.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,Anderson,R.E.,&Tatham,R.L.(2006).Multivariate

dataanalysis(6thed.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Huselid,M.A.,Jackson,S.E.,&Schuler,R.S.(1997).Technicalandstrategichuman

resourcesmanagementeffectiveness asdeterminantsofﬁrmperformance. AcademyofManagementJournal,40(1),171–188.

Karadal, H., Merdan,E., & Abubakar, M.(2019). Güvenlik ˙IklimiveGüvenlik

Kültürünün ˙Is¸yeriYaralanmalarıÜzerineEtkisindeGüvenlikDavranıs¸larının AracılıkRolü:DökümSanayindeBirAras¸tırma.AnemonMus¸Alparslan Üniver-sitesiSosyalBilimlerDergisi,7(6),329–339.

Karatepe,O.M.,Yorganci,I.,&Haktanir,M.(2008).Outcomesofcustomer

ver-balaggressionamonghotelemployees.InternationalJournalofContemporary HospitalityManagement,21,713–733.

Kaya,B.,Behravesh,E.,Abubakar,A.M.,Kaya,O.S.,&Orús,C.(2019).Themoderating

roleofwebsitefamiliarityintherelationshipsbetweene-servicequality, e-satisfactionande-loyalty.JournalofInternetCommerce,18(4),369–394.

Kim,H.J.,Tavitiyaman,P.,&Kim,W.G.(2009).Theeffectofmanagement

com-mitmenttoserviceonemployeeservicebehaviours:Themediatingroleofjob satisfaction.JournalofHospitalityandTourismResearch,33(3),369–390.

Kochan,T.A.,&Dyer,L.(1993).Managingtransformationalchange:Theroleof

humanresourceprofessionals.InternationalJournalofHumanResource Manage-ment,4(3),569–590.

Laub,J.A.(1999).Assessingtheservantorganization:Developmentoftheorganizational

leadershipassessment(OLA)instrument,Ed.D.Dissertation.BocaRaton:Florida AtlanticUniversity.

Levering,R.,Moskowitz,M.,&Garcia,F.(2000).The100bestcompaniestoworkfor

inAmerica.Fortune,141(1),82–110.

Liden,R.C.,Wayne,S.J.,Liao,C.,&Meuser,J.D.(2014).Servantleadershipandserving

culture:Inﬂuenceonindividualandunitperformance.AcademyofManagement Journal,57(5),1434–1452.

Liden,R.C.,Wayne,S.J.,Zhao,H.,&Henderson,D.(2008).Servantleadership:

Developmentofamultidimensionalmeasureandmulti-levelassessment.The LeadershipQuarterly,19,161–177.

Locke,E.A.(1976).Thenatureandcausesofjobsatisfaction.InM.D.Dunnette(Ed.),

Handbookofindustrialandorganizationalpsychology(1297–1349).Chicago,IL: RandMcNally.

MacDufﬁe,J.P.(1995).Humanresourcebundlesandmanufacturingperformance:

Organizationallogicandﬂexibleproductionsystemsintheworldautoindustry. IndustrialLaborRelationsReview,48,197–221.

Miao,L.,Adler,H.,&Xu,X.(2011).Astakeholderapproachtoexpatriate

man-agement:PerceptionsofexpatriatemanagersinChina.InternationalJournalof HospitalityManagement,30(3),530–541.

(8)

Morrison,E.W.(2006).Doingthejobwell:Aninvestigationofpro-socialrule break-ing.JournalofManagement,32,5–28.

Nunnally,J.C.(1976).Psychometrictheory(2nded.).NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Peterson,S.J.,Galvin,B.M.,&Lange,D.(2012).CEOservantleadership:

Explor-ingexecutivecharacteristicsandﬁrmperformance.PersonnelPsychology,65, 565–596.

Smith,B.N.,Montagno,R.V.,&Kuzmenko,T.N.(2004).Transformationaland

ser-vantleadership:Contentandcontextualcomparisons.JournalofLeadership& OrganizationalStudies,10(4),80–91.

Spector,P.E.(1997)..Jobsatisfaction:Application,assessment,causes,and

conse-quences(Vol.3)Sagepublications.

Thomas,J.R.,Nelson,J.K.,&Silverman,S.J.(2015).Researchmethodsinphysical

activity(5thed.).Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics.

VanDierendonck,D.(2011).Servantleadership:Areviewandsynthesis.Journalof

Management,37,1228–1261.

VanDierendonck,D.,Stam,D.,Boersma,P.,deWindt,N.,&Alkema,J.(2014).Same

difference?Exploringthedifferentialmechanismslinkingservantleadership andtransformationalleadershiptofolloweroutcomes.TheLeadershipQuarterly, 25(3),544–562.

Wright,P.M.,&Boswell,W.R.(2002).DesegregatingHRM:Areviewandsynthesisof

microandmacrohumanresourcemanagementresearch.JournalofManagement, 28(3),247–276.