Despite abundant research on servant leadership, the existing focus predominantly adopted a between-person approach, without considering the within-person dynamism of servant leadership behavior across time. The present research aims to refine this status quo by taking a more nuanced perspective on the dynamic feature of servant leadership behavior. Specifically, we introduce the notion of servant leadership behavior variability to capture the instability of servant leadership behaviors over time. Drawing on adaptation level theory and attachment theory, we propose that the impact of servant leadership behavior on follower outcomes depends on servant leadership behavior variability. Four studies were conducted to identify this nuanced phenomenon and examine our hypotheses. In Study 1, we preliminarily explored the prevalence of servant leadership behavior variability in working contexts. Across two diary studies (Study 2–3), we consistently found that the positive effect of daily servant leadership behavior on follower’s outcomes was weakened by servant leadership behavior variability. In Study 4, we conducted a vignette-based experiment to establish the causality. Our research sheds lights on the dynamic nature of servant leadership behavior and reveal its temporal impact on followers.
AguinisH.VillamorI.RamaniR. S. (2021). MTurk research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 47(4), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320969787
2.
AinsworthM. D. S.BleharM. C.WatersE.WallS. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum.
3.
BanksG. C.WoznyjH. M.MansfieldC. A. (2023). Where is “behavior” in organizational behavior? A call for a revolution in leadership research and beyond. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), Article 101581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101581
4.
BernerthJ. B.ArmenakisA. A.FeildH. S.GilesW. F.WalkerH. J. (2007). Leader–member social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 979–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.443
5.
BormannK. C. (2017). Linking daily ethical leadership to followers’ daily behaviour: The roles of daily work engagement and previous abusive supervision. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 590–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1331217
6.
BowlbyJ. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. Basic Books.
BowlingN. A.BeehrT. A.WagnerS. H.LibkumanT. M. (2005). Adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory, and dispositions: An integrated approach to the stability of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1044–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1044
9.
BreevaartK.BakkerA. B. (2018). Daily job demands and employee work engagement: The role of daily transformational leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(3), 338–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000082
10.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
11.
CarlessS. A.WearingA. J.MannL. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022991115523
ChenG.SharmaP. N.EdingerS. K.ShapiroD. L.FarhJ.-L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021886
14.
ChiniaraM.BenteinK. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004
DayD. V.FleenorJ. W.AtwaterL. E.SturmR. E.McKeeR. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004
17.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
18.
EvaN.HowardJ. L.LidenR. C.MorinA. J.SchwarzG. (2024). An inconvenient truth: A comprehensive examination of the added value (or lack thereof) of leadership measures. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13156
19.
EvaN.RobinM.SendjayaS.Van DierendonckD.LidenR. 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
20.
FeeneyB. C.ThrushR. L. (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016961
21.
FisherC. D.ToM. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 865–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1803
22.
FleesonW.LeichtC. (2006). On delineating and integrating the study of variability and stability in personality psychology: Interpersonal trust as illustration. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.004
23.
FoulkT. A.LanajK.KrishnanS. (2019). The virtuous cycle of daily motivation: Effects of daily strivings on work behaviors, need satisfaction, and next-day strivings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(6), 755–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000385
24.
GabrielA. S.KoopmanJ.RosenC. C.JohnsonR. E. (2018). Helping others or helping oneself? An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12229
25.
GabrielA. S.PodsakoffN. P.BealD. J.ScottB. A.SonnentagS.TrougakosJ. P.ButtsM. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626
26.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
27.
GreenleafR. K. (1970). The servant as leader. The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
28.
GreenleafR. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
29.
GuaranaC. L.BarnesC. M.RyuJ. W.CrawleyR. (2021). A chronotype circadian model of charismatic leadership expressions and perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), Article 101509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101509
30.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
31.
HeggestadE. D.ScheafD. J.BanksG. C.Monroe HausfeldM.TonidandelS.WilliamsE. B. (2019). Scale adaptation in organizational science research: A review and best-practice recommendations. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2596–2627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319850280
32.
HelsonH. (1964a). Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. Harper and Row.
33.
HelsonH. (1964b). Current trends and issues in adaptation-level theory. American Psychologist, 19(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040013
34.
HeppnerW. L.KernisM. H.NezlekJ. B.FosterJ.LakeyC. E.GoldmanB. M. (2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1140–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02215.x
35.
HochJ. E.BommerW. H.DulebohnJ. H.WuD. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461
36.
HofmannD. A.GavinM. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504
37.
HuJ.LidenR. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022465
38.
JohnsonR. E.LanajK.BarnesC. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035647
39.
JohnsonR. E.VenusM.LanajK.MaoC.ChangC. H. (2012). Leader identity as an antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1262–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029043
40.
JudgeT. A.BonoJ. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
41.
JudgeT. A.SimonL. S.HurstC.KelleyK. (2014). What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034485
42.
KoopmanJ.LanajK.ScottB. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 414–435. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0262
43.
KühnelJ.BledowR.KieferM. (2022). There is a time to be creative: The alignment between chronotype and time of day. Academy of Management Journal, 65(1), 218–247. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0020
44.
KuonathA.NossekJ.NieberleK. W.KreitmeirD.FreyD. (2021). Servant leadership: How daily and general behaviors interact. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 20(4), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000282
45.
La GuardiaJ. G.RyanR. M.CouchmanC. E.DeciE. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3.367
46.
LanajK.JohnsonR. E.WangM. (2016). When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1097–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000118
47.
LeeA.CarpenterN. C. (2018). Seeing eye to eye: A meta-analysis of self-other agreement of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.06.002
48.
LeeA.LyubovnikovaJ.TianA. W.KnightC. (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
49.
LeeH. W.BradburnJ.JohnsonR. E.LinS.-H. J.ChangC.-H. D. (2019). The benefits of receiving gratitude for helpers: A daily investigation of proactive and reactive helping at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000346
50.
LemoineG. J.HartnellC. A.LeroyH. (2019). Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. The Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148–187. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0121
51.
LiaoC.LeeH. W.JohnsonR. E.LinS. H. (2021). Serving you depletes me? A leader-centric examination of servant leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1185–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320906883
52.
LiaoC.WuJ.WayneS. J.LidenR. C.SongL. J. (2024). It’s unexpected but good: Leader traditionality fuels greater follower reciprocation to servant leadership. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231221979
53.
LidenR. C.PanaccioA.MeuserJ. D.HuJ.WayneS. J. (2014). Servant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In DayD. V. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 357–379): Oxford University Press.
54.
LidenR. C.SparroweR. T.WayneS. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In FerrisG. R. (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resources management (15, pp. 47–119). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
55.
LidenR. C.WayneS. J.LiaoC.MeuserJ. 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
56.
LidenR. C.WayneS. J.MeuserJ. D.HuJ.WuJ.LiaoC. (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
57.
LinS. H.ScottB. A.MattaF. K. (2019). The dark side of transformational leader behaviors for leaders themselves: A conservation of resources perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1556–1582. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1255
58.
LinS.-H. J.MaJ.JohnsonR. E. (2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 815–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000098
59.
LordR. G.DayD. V.ZaccaroS. J.AvolioB. J.EaglyA. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 434–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089
60.
MacamoA. I.KlasmeierK. N. (2024). Authentic leadership–for better and for worse? Leader well-being and inconsistency as moderating factors in the relation between daily authentic leadership and follower well-being. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 33(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2024.2361511
61.
MacDonaldS. W.NybergL.BäckmanL. (2006). Intra-individual variability in behavior: Links to brain structure, neurotransmission and neuronal activity. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(8), 474–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2006.06.011
62.
MattaF. K.ScottB. A.ColquittJ. A.KoopmanJ.PassantinoL. G. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 743–770. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0455
63.
MattaF. K.ScottB. A.GuoZ. A.MatusikJ. G. (2020). Exchanging one uncertainty for another: Justice variability negates the benefits of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000425
McCleanS. T.BarnesC. M.CourtrightS. H.JohnsonR. E. (2019). Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integration and agenda for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 479–508. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0081
66.
MelisA. P. (2018). The evolutionary roots of prosociality: The case of instrumental helping. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.019
NeiderL. L.SchriesheimC. A. (2011). The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1146–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008
71.
PetersonS. J.GalvinB. M.LangeD. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 565–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x
72.
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
73.
QinX.HuangM.JohnsonR. E.HuQ.JuD. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1951–1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1325
74.
RhoadesL.EisenbergerR. (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
75.
Rodríguez-CarvajalR.HerreroM.van DierendonckD.de RivasS.Moreno-JiménezB. (2019). Servant leadership and goal attainment through meaningful life and vitality: A diary study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(2), 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9954-y
76.
SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM.González-RomáV.BakkerA. 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
77.
SchillingJ.SchynsB.MayD. (2023). When your leader just does not make any sense: Conceptualizing inconsistent leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(1), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05119-9
78.
SchowalterA. F.VolmerJ. (2023). Are the effects of servant leadership only spurious? The state of research on the causal effects of servant leadership, recommendations, and an illustrative experiment. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), Article 101722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101722
79.
ScottB. A.BarnesC. M.WagnerD. T. (2012). Chameleonic or consistent? A multilevel investigation of emotional labor variability and self-monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 905–926. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.1050
80.
SeligJ. P.PreacherK. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software].
81.
SendjayaS.EvaN.Butar ButarI.RobinM.CastlesS. (2019). SLBS-6: Validation of a short form of the servant leadership behavior scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3594-3
82.
SnijdersT.BoskerR. (1999). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Sage Publications.
83.
SunJ.WayneS. J.LiuY. (2022). The roller coaster of leader affect: An investigation of observed leader affect variability and engagement. Journal of Management, 48(5), 1188–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211008974
84.
TaylorI. M.StebbingsJ. (2012). Disentangling within-person changes and individual differences among fundamental need satisfaction, attainment of acquisitive desires, and psychological health. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(5), 623–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.002
85.
TepperB. J.DimotakisN.LambertL. S.KoopmanJ.MattaF. K.Man ParkH.GooW. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person–environment fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1343–1368. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0163
86.
TewfikB. A.KimD.PatilS. V. (2024). The ebb and flow of job engagement: Engagement variability and emotional stability as interactive predictors of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(2), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001129
87.
TobinR. M.GrazianoW. G.VanmanE. J.TassinaryL. G. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 656–669.
88.
TripathiN.ZhuJ.JacobG. H.FreseM.GielnikM. M. (2020). Intraindividual variability in identity centrality: Examining the dynamics of perceived role progress and state identity centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000465
89.
TrougakosJ. P.BealD. J.ChengB. H.HidegI.ZweigD. (2015). Too drained to help: A resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038082
90.
Van den BroeckA.VansteenkisteM.De WitteH.SoenensB.LensW. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work‐related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981–1002. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909x481382
Van DierendonckD.StamD.BoersmaP.De WindtN.AlkemaJ. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014
93.
VolkS.LoweK. B.BarnesC. M. (2023). Circadian leadership: A review and integration of chronobiology and leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2659
94.
VolkS.WaldmanD. A.BarnesC. M. (2023). A circadian theory of paradoxical leadership. Academy of Management Review, 48(4), 611–638. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0468
95.
WangN.ZhuJ.DormannC.SongZ.BakkerA. B. (2020). The daily motivators: Positive work events, psychological needs satisfaction, and work engagement. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 508–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12182
96.
WassermanE. A.YoungM. E.CookR. G. (2004). Variability discrimination in humans and animals: Implications for adaptive action. American Psychologist, 59(9), 879–890. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.9.879
97.
WuC. H.ParkerS. K. (2017). The role of leader support in facilitating proactive work behavior: A perspective from attachment theory. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1025–1049. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314544745
98.
WuJ.LidenR. C.LiaoC.WayneS. J. (2021). Does manager servant leadership lead to follower serving behaviors? It depends on follower self-interest. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(1), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000500
99.
YipJ.EhrhardtK.BlackH.WalkerD. O. (2018). Attachment theory at work: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2204
100.
ZhengX.NieberleK. W.BraunS.SchynsB. (2023). Is someone looking over my shoulder? An investigation into supervisor monitoring variability, subordinates' daily felt trust, and well‐being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(5), 818–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2699
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
