iBusiness, 2012, 4, 208-215
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ib.2012.43026 Published Online September 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ib)
Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty:
The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction
Donghong Ding1, Haiyan Lu1, Yi Song2, Qing Lu3
1School of Management, University of Science and Technology, Hefei, China; 2School of Humannities and Social Science, Univer-
sity of Science and Technology, Hefei, China; 3School of Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Email: qiuwuhaiyan@126.com
Received July 4th, 2012; revised July 23rd, 2012; accepted August 1st, 2012
There is a growing concern about the relationship of servant leadership and employee loyalty recent years, but few are
focusing on the intervening mechanisms between them. Especially in China, research on such mediating variables is
nearly blank. In th is paper, we make our attempt on detecting the role in such r elationship by empirical stud ies through
186 samples using the structural equation model (SEM) method, and reach two conclusions: servant leadership is sig-
nificantly positive correlated with employee loyalty; emplo yee satisfaction is found to play mediating role which occu-
pies 77% of the total effect between servant leadership and employee loyalty. Our result shows that, to improve em-
ployee loyalty, the managers shou ld not only develop their servant leadersh ip style, but also take into consideration the
individual needs to improve psy c h ol o gi cal sat i s fact i on.
Keywords: Servant Leadership; Employee Satisfaction; Employee Loyalty; Mediating Role
1. Introduction
How to improve employee loyalty is one of today’s most
difficult problems that troubles business leaders. Several
ways are proposed to solve this problem, among which
improving style of leadership is a key perspective, for
that to some extent, leadership style determines the rela-
tionship between leaders and employees [1]. Researches
show that employee turnover is closely related with the
quality of the relationship. Mulki et al. [2] suggest in
through studies of sales staff that, employees choose to
leave when they feel their leaders cannot be trusted or
feel unsatisfied with them. On the contrary, Brashear’s [3]
research points out that those leaders who cultivate har-
monious relationships by promoting subordinates’ career
development will efficiently improve their organizational
commitment and loyalty. The traditional style of leader-
ship in China is a top-down paternalistic leadership,
which demonstrates a superior command-style authori-
tarian attitude. But in fact, the staff-oriented style of
leadership can bring higher employee satisfaction, and
thus increase employee loyalty. The cor e ideas of serv ant
leadership, put forward by western scholars, include such
two aspects: first, the main motivation of servant leader-
ship is to serve employees. To these leaders, the individ-
ual employee instead of organization’s goal is of first
importance and employees’ needs take precedence over
organization’s goal or personal purpose [4]. Second, ser-
vant leaders’ behavior is driven by their integrity. Ser-
vant leadership is considered to be consistent with the
development of the times and sustainable, and has a posi-
tive effect on employee loyalty.
Western scholars have already started a lot of research
about the relationship between servant leadership behav-
ior and employee loyalty. Liden et al. [5] find out that,
servant leadership helps to create a positive work envi-
ronment, enhancing employees’ sense of belonging and
loyalty to the organization. Fernando Jaramillo et al. [4]
study 501 full-time sales staff and find that servant lead-
ership behavior helps employees adapt to their com-
pany’s environment, enhance their organizational com-
mitment, and thus reduce their turnover inten tion. On the
other hand, further studies have pointed out that, servant
leadership does not directly encourage employee loyalty.
Instead, mediating variables like employee satisfaction
enlarges the effect. Therefore, we set servant leadership
and employee loyalty as main variables, joined with em-
ployee satisfaction as mediating variable, and we re-
search the relationship of the above three empirically.
One of our purposes is to further verify the relationship
of servant leadership and employee loyalty in the back-
ground of China; the other purpose is to find out how
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. IB
Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty:
The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction 209
staff satisfaction acts as a mediating role in the mecha-
nism of this effect. Our work is meaningful for it not
only deepens people’s understanding and awareness of
relevant theory, but also provides guidance to China’s
management practices.
2. Related Works and Assumptions
2.1. Servant Leadership
Servant leadership was first proposed in 1977 by Gren-
leaf. He believes that to be a leader, one should become a
servant first and foremost is the service consciousness.
His point of view opens a new page in the history of
leadership theory, and wins more agreements than trans-
formational lea dership and transactional lead ership, which
have been prevalent in the 20th century, 1970s. Authen-
tic leadership and spiritual leadership lately proposed in
21st century, and once considered to be leading a new
trend in a time of change. Presentations of a servant
leadership include orient to service, global vision and
paying attention to spiritual and moral. Compared with
transformational leadership, servant leadership shows the
essence of tendency to serve front-line employees. As
Barbuto and Wheeler [6] said, servant leadership is to
serve staff, but on the contrary, transformational leader-
ship is to motivate staff to achieve organizational goals
ultimately. Compared with authentic leadership, Avolio
and Gardner [7] point that both of them are aware of the
importance of positive moral view, self-perception, self-
restraint and positive image, and both of them concern
for staff career development. But different from authentic
leadership, spirit is an important source of motivation to
servant leaders [8]. The concept of servant leadership is
beyond spiritual leadership. Servant leadership behavior
is on behalf of the highest form of leader’s commitment
to staff.
Researchers put forward their own model framework
to measure servant leadership. Among the latest re-
searches, Sendjaya et al. [9] proposed a six-dimensional
model of servant leadership, they are: voluntary subordi-
nation, authentic self, covenantal relationship, responsi-
ble morality, transcendent spirituality, transforming in-
fluence. Liden [5] proposed a seven-dimensional model
consisting empowering, helping subordinates grow and
succeed, putting subordinates first, emotional healing,
conceptual skills, creating value for the community, and
behaving ethically. Eight-dimensional model by Dirk van
Dierendonck [10] includes empowerment, humility,
standing back, authenticity, forgiveness, courage, ac-
countability, and stewardship. Chunxiao Wang [11] pre-
sents an eleven-dimensional model in the content of
China that has respect for employees, care for employees,
helping subordinates grow and succeed, idea of desire,
being amiable and easy of approach, willing to sacrifice,
being impartial and honest, pioneering spirit, provide
guidance of staff works, social responsibility, and em-
2.2. Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty
Employee loyalty originated from customer loyalty,
which scholars thought to be the foundation and driving
force of a sustainably developing enterprise. But today,
people realize that employee loyalty and customer loy-
alty are of equal importance [11]. The only way that a
company maintains customer loyalty is on the base of
maintaining employee loyalty. Although many scholars
have studied employee loyalty theoretically, there is still
no clear definition of employee loyalty up to now [12].
Popular opinions are the following three: behavioral loy-
alty, attitude loyalty and comprehensive theory. As Bob
points out, employee loyalty is reflected in behavior.
There are other scholars believe that employee loyalty is
actually the attitude of the employees to the community,
and thus it should be studied from the employees’ cogni-
tion, emotion and behavioral tendencies. This paper tends
to accept third comprehensive theory, that is, we consider
employee loyalty as the unity of the behavior and atti-
tudes. So in our research, we will separate it into two
aspects, attitude loyalty and behavior loyalty.
Through a clear picture of the community’s goals,
servant leadership gives employee a clear understanding
of the importance to the entire community, knowing that
they are stakeholders to achieve organizational goals, and
thus motivate themselves to make sustained effort to
achieve goals. Though care, help and respect for em-
ployees, it gives them a good psychological experiences
and satisfaction and from inside spirit form a sense of
belonging to the community. While the leader shows his
quality and personal charm, the employees feel their
leader trustable and increase their willingness to stay.
Numerous studies indicate that servant leadership be-
havior has a positive influence on employee loyalty.
Early in 1986, Dubinsky and Skinner discovered that
care for employees can improve their organizational
commitment and promote loyalty. The research by Liden
[5] shows that another aspect of servant leadership, help-
ing subordinates grow and succeed, has a positive impact
on improving employee loyalty. Fernando Jaramillo [4]
study 501 full-time sales staff empirically and they con-
clude that servant leadership behavior first improves em-
ployees’ organizational adaptation, enhance their organ-
izational commitment, and thereby reducing their turn-
over intention. Based on th e above analysis, we make th e
following assumption:
H1: Servant leadership behavior has a positive im-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. IB
Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty:
The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction
pact on employee loyalty.
2.3. Servant Leadership and Employee
Concerns on employee satisfaction originate in Hop-
pock’s research. He believes that employee satisfaction
reflects the employees’ both physical and psychological
feelings of their working situation. Locke defines em-
ployee satisfaction as a pleasant and positive emotional
state from work experience. Bass considers employee sa-
tisfaction as a happy emotional state produced in the pro-
cess to realize or improve one’s value. Llies and Judge
[13] define employee satisfaction as “a person’s attitude
construction of their job evaluation”. Some other schol-
ars like Robbins, Naiding Yang and Cuixia Huang think
that satisfaction is a relative concept so there is no abso-
lute criterion, but mainly due to the gap between personal
expectations and the actual achievement. This expecta-
tion is composed by various aspects include remunera-
tion and working environment.
In research by Mak [14], Mohamed et al. [15] they
point out that employee satisfaction is an important mo-
tivating factor in employee performance, and on the re-
levant literature review we can see leadership style is an
important antecedent variable to employee satisfaction.
Today, leaders attempt to establish a harmonious rela-
tionship between leadership behavior and employee sat-
isfaction. Researches in the past were analyzed using
transformational leadership behavior as independent
variable, in which transformational leadership is thought
to be the leadership style to improve employee satisfac-
tion. For example, Voon [16], Bekele et al. [17] think
that transformational leadership plays a positive impact
on employee satisfaction. While in the process of prac-
tice compared to transformational leadership, the latest
servant leadership style pays more attention to the em-
ployees’ physical and mental development and passes to
employees more comfortable psychological experience,
which no doubt brings more satisfaction to employees.
Jane [18], Laschinger [19], Chang [20] and many other
scholars’ studies reveal the positive effect of empower-
ment behavior in servant leadership on employee satis-
faction. Jenkins [21] finds in empirical research of the
nursing staff that the higher the leader’s service tendency
is, the more satisfaction it brings to employees. Sunita’s
[22] study also finds a significant positive influence in
employee awareness of servant leadership behavior and
employee satisfaction in the background of India. Based
on the above analysis, we make the following assump-
H2: Servant leadership behavior has a positive im-
pact on employee satisfaction.
2.4. Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction
Many scholars have studied the role of employee satis-
faction on employee loyalty and conclude that employee
satisfaction influence employee loyalty po sitively [23,24].
Tang Yao et al. [25] analyze from two perspectives by
which staff satisfaction promotes employee loyalty: first,
reduce perceived risk. Compared to former unsatisfied
company or unfamiliar company in the future, perceived
risk is relatively low when one choo ses to stay in current
company. Second, maximize positive emotion. Employ-
ees will inevitably bring about a better psychological
feeling in a company with more satisfaction, produce
feelings of pleasure, and thus work better. Under the
above two, employees tend to stay in the company with
higher satisfaction. The empirical result in CC Chang et
al. [20] also confirms the same conclusion. Some schol-
ars, such as of Alfonso [26], Chee [27], Falkenburg [28],
Wagner [29] point out through empirical research that,
when employee satisfaction gets low, the turnover inten-
tion increases. That is, the decreasing of employee satis-
faction has a negativ e impact on employee loyalty. These
works prove the relation between employee satisfaction
and employee loyalty from the reversed view. Based on
the works above, we make the fo llowing assumption:
H3: Employee satisfaction has a positive impact on
employee loyalty.
It has been pointed out that the servant leadership be-
havior is the antecedent of employee satisfaction, and
employee satisfaction can reduce employee turnover in-
tention and job-hopping [30]. According to previous stu-
dies, servant leadership behavior probably doesn’t have a
direct impact on employee loyalty, for the reason that
created in the process of servant leadership behavior is
the attachment and commitment to their immediate supe-
rior, rather than their community. According to Becker’s
argument, there is difference between employees’ loyalty
to their superior and to the community. Riketta and Van
Dick [31] point out that the focuses of employee com-
mitment to the community and employee loyalty are po-
tential outcome variables of the same level. Therefore,
some of the mediating variables, such as employee satis-
faction, will expand the influence of servant leadership
behavior on employee loyalty, while servant leadership
behavior itself is not of enough direct impact on em-
ployee loyalty. Under the effect of servant leadership
behavior, in a community lack of employee satisfaction,
the employee loyalty to their superior will beyond the
loyalty to the community. On the contrary, if the em-
ployee satisfaction is high, they will show their loyalty to
the community directly. Chang’s empirical study of em-
ployees in a servant leadership community [20] has
shown that leadersh ip styles like empowering, rewarding
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. IB
Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty:
The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction 211
and teamwork have a positive impact on employee satis-
faction, and employee satisfaction in turn promotes em-
ployee loyalty. Millissa [32] in his latest work poin ts out
that, if there is a high-qualified exchange relationships
between employees and supervisors, their satisfaction
will increase, which will strengthen employee commit-
ment and willingness to stay in the community. Coupled
with high conversion and opportunity cost of changing
job, for those employees with high satisfaction, they are
more willing to stay in the organization in order to obtain
their best state. Between subordinate exchange and em-
ployee’s intention to leave, employee satisfaction plays a
mediating role. Thus we propose the following assump-
H4: Employee satisfaction plays a mediating role
between servant leadership and employee loyalty.
3. Research Framework
According to the above literature review about servant
leadership, employee satisfaction and employee loyalty,
we suggest a research framework shown in Figure 1.
This framework not only describes the direct relationship
between these three variables, and also can be used to
examine the intermediary role of employee satisfaction.
4. Research Method
4.1. Samples
The research objects of this study are MBA students of
the Chinese University of Science and Technology and
part of staff in iFLYTEK. This survey distributed 250
paper questionnaires and 212 of them returned. After re-
moving 26 questionnaires with incomplete answers or
not replied seriously, we obtain 186 questionnaires with
valid response rate o f 74.4%. Basic situations of samples
are shown in Table 1.
4.2. Measuring Tool
According to the Churchill’s scale design principles, our
questionnaire mainly concerns servant leadership behav-
ior, employee satisfaction and employee loyalty, and has
55 measuring items in total, including: 1) servant leader-
ship. Using the measuring scale made by Chinese school-
ars such as Wang Chunxiao in 2009. The original scale
includes 11 dimensions (namely respect for employees,
care for employees, helping subordinates grow and suc-
ceed, idea of desire, being amiable and easy of approach,
willing to sacrifice, being impartial and honest, pioneer-
ing spirit, pr ovide guidan ce of staff works, so cial respon-
sibility, and empowering) and 44 measuring items. We
will be using structural equatio n model in the rest of this
paper, and the problem is that too many latent variables
Figure 1. The mediating role of employee satisfaction.
Table 1. Sample information.
Variables Component of samples
Male 126 67.7%
Gender Female 60 32.3%
21 - 25 62 33.3%
26 - 30 104 55.9% Age
31 - 40 20 10.8%
Following college 2 1.1%
Junior college 26 14.0%
Undergraduate course 124 66.7%
Bachelor degree and above 34 18.3%
Basic level worker 156 83.9%
Basic management 26 14.0%
Middle management 4 2.2%
Below 2000 RMB 20 10.8%
2001 - 3000 RMB 62 33.3%
3001 - 5000 RMB 78 41.9%
Monthly income
Above 5000 RMB 26 14.0%
will reduce the fitness of the model, which is of no help
to determine the relationship between servant leadership
and employee loyalty. In view of this, we pack those
correlated dimensions into the following three dimen-
sions: community goals (idea of desire, social responsi-
bility), employee guide (respect for employees, care for
employees, helping subordinates grow and succeed, pro-
vide guidance of staff works), charm (being amiable and
easy of approach, willing to sacrifice, being impartial and
honest, pioneering spirit, empowering). The data analysis
also shows that this scale is in line with our expectation;
2) employee satisfaction. Mainly based on MSQ scale
proposed by Smith, Kendall and Hullin, referred to the
questionnaire by Shi Kan et al., and it has 3 measuring
items; 3) employee loyalty. Divided into the 2 dimen-
sions of attitude loyalty and behav ior loyalty in th is stud y,
with reference to the questionnaire designed by Yao
Tang [25], and it has 7 measuring items in total. All the
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. IB
Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty:
The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction
scales are evaluated by Likert scale of level 1 - 5, where
1 to 5 stand for strongly disagree to strongly agree, re-
4.3. Statistical Method
In this study, we use SPSS17.0 to perform basic statisti-
cal analysis and regression analysis; use AMOS18.0 to
perform scale construct validity testing, and structural
equation modeling and analysis.
5. Experimental Results
5.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis
Before data analyzing, we first test the reliability and
validity of the questionnaire samples.
Table 2 shows that the Cronbach’s α coefficients of
servant leadership scale, employee satisfaction scale and
employee loyalty scale are 0.92, 0.87 and 0.90, all above
the generally accepted level of 0.80. It proves that sam-
ples are of good reliability to achieve the basic require-
ments for surveying and research.
Model evaluation indices are shown in Table 3.
According to the data in the table, among those indi-
cators of influencing factors model, CMIN/DF < 3,
RMSEA < 0.08, GFI, AGFI, IFI, CFI are greater than 0.9.
In accordance with the usual standards of management
research, CMIN/DF should be between 1 and 3, RMSEA
is preferred to be less than 0.08, but less than 0.1 is ac-
ceptable, GFI, AGFI, IFI, CFI should be over 0.9. From
the above, the overall fitness of our model is high and it
works well, which indicates that the assumption of our
theoretical model structure is reasonable. Meanwhile, if
we take a look at coefficients in the paths of the model,
load of each item in its factor is between 0.78 and 0.97,
all above 0.5 and pass the significance test, which indi-
cates that questionnaire items can fully reflect the fac-
tors’ contents. To sum up, our questionnaire has good
construct validity.
Table 2. Reliability statistics.
Variables Cronbach’s α
Servant leadership 0.92
Employee satis fa c ti o n 0.87
Employee loy alty 0.90
Table 3. The fitting effect of the model.
Value 2.231 0.082 0.954 0.903 0.9860.986
Standard 1 ~ 3 <0.10 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9>0.9
5.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
Analysis of Variables
Table 4 shows the means, the standard deviations and
the correlation coefficients of servant leadership, em-
ployee satisfaction and employee loyalty.
Accordingly we can see, servant leadership and em-
ployee satisfaction are significantly positively correlated
(r = 0.75, p < 0.01); servant leadership and employee
loyalty are significantly positively correlated (r = 0.76, p <
0.01); employee satisfaction and employee loyalty are
significantly positively correlated (r = 0.85, p < 0.01).
5.3. Hypothesis Test in Structural Equation
Figure 2 shows the relationship between the variables of
the structural equation model and the path coefficients.
Our assumptions of this research are fully supported by
data analysis results in this figure. 1) Servant leadership
has a significant positive effect on employee satisfaction
(β = 0.85, p < 0.001), that is, the leader behavior is more
inclined to servant, the higher employee satisfaction
would be, and vice versa, it would reduce; 2) Servant
leadership has a significant positive effect on employee
loyalty (β = 0.20, p < 0.05), that is, the leader behavior is
more inclined to servant, the higher employee loyalty,
the lower turnover intention and turnover rate would be,
and vice versa, turnover intention and turnover rate
would grow; 3) Employee satisfaction has a significant
positive effect on employee loyalty (β = 0.79, p < 0.001),
that is, the higher employee satisfaction is, the higher
employee loyalty, the lower turnover intention and turn-
over rate would be, and vice versa, turnover intention and
turnover rate would grow; 4) Employee satisfaction plays
a mediating role between servant leadership and em-
ployee loyalty, and as is shown in Table 4, the direct
effect is 0.199, the mediating effect is 0.665, while the
total effect is 0.864, thus the mediating effect co vers 77%
of the total effect (0.665/0.864).
6. Discussions and Suggestions
Through the way of questionnaire, this article stud ies the
Table 4. Mean value, Standard deviation, Correlation coef-
ficient (N = 186).
Variables MeanStandard
deviation 1 2 3
Servant leadership 3.840.56
Employee satis fa c ti o n3.900.72 0.75**
Employee loy alty 3.730.74 0.76** 0.85**
p < 0.01.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. IB
Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty:
The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. IB
Figure 2. Complete standard solution of the structure model.
relationship of service-oriented leadership, employee sa-
tisfaction and employee loyalty, and we get the following
First of all, just as Jaramillo and other western schol-
ars’ research results, this paper’s results show that there
was significant positive correlation between the service-
oriented leadership behavior and employee loyalty. If the
enterprise leader put servicing employees in the first
place, achieving their development and success during
the process of pursuing the goal of enterprise, bringing
personal charm into full play in the management, draw-
ing the outline of business blueprint for the employees,
sincerely concerning about the staff of life needs, work
demands, so that employees will form trust in team
leader psychologically and improve their loyalty.
Secondly, just as Riketta and other western scholars’
research ideas, this paper’s results show that Employee
satisfaction plays an intermediary role between service-
oriented leadership and employee loyalty, and data dis-
plays that its intermediary utility ratio reached 80%. That
is to say, the influence of service-oriented leadership on
employee loyalty largely depends on this intermediary
variable of employee satisfaction. Generally, people’s
attitude and behavior is mainly affected by the psycho-
logical experience and perceptual effects. Studying em-
ployee satisfaction as an intermediary variable also re-
flects the force of psychological motivation on their ac-
Scholars and practitioners have paid much attention to
in identifying facto rs which cause employees to leave. A
large number of studies have shown that when the em-
ployees engender dissatisfaction with the organization,
there will be the intentio n to quit. Meanwhile, the stud ies
show that the style of leadership plays a fundamental role
in the assessment of the employees. The results of this
study for management practice have certain significance,
that the leader can improve the employee loyalty to their
organization and reduce the brain drain according to the
following two points.
First of all, the leaders should change the traditional
idea. Instead of the top-down authoritarian style, the
leaders must train a new service-oriented leadership style
of their own, achieving organizational goals during the
pursuit of the interests of employees. Leader can describe
the feature vision of the organization to stimulate the
employees’ common fighting spirit, and through leader-
ship charisma, using skills like respecting their personal-
ity, concerning about the life, word and future develop-
ment of the employees, thus obtaining employees’ rec-
ognition and trust, giving them autonomy, motivating
them to achieve personal goals while fighting for the
common goal of their organization.
Secondly, the leader of the enterprise should be good
at creating a positive, harmonious atmosphere, giving
employees a good satisfactory psychological experience.
Bono [33] and other scholars pointed out that it would of
great advantages to be fully aware of the importance of
leadership style on the development of enterprises, be-
cause in such way leaders will create much less mental
pressure, higher satisfaction with the positive work envi-
ronment, and improve employee loyalty. According to
Maslow’s hierarchy needs theory, the demand of human
being is a process from physiology, safety, social com-
munication, to respect, and self-realization. Leaders should
take these aspects into con sideration and pay attention to
the needs of employees step by step to raise their satis-
faction to current job and organization. When the satis-
faction of employee is improved, the psychological cost
rises when it comes to departure, thus improving their
dependence to the organization.
7. Limitations and Future Research
Although the analysis of service-oriented leadership and
Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty:
The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction
employee satisfaction and the loyalty relationship has
certain theoretical and practical significance, but also has
the following limitations: firstly, the samples of this pa-
per are mainly chosen from the MBA students of USTC
(University of Science and Technology of China) and the
employees of iFLYTEK, which may cause the limitation
of both diversity and amount of the samples; secondly,
since all three variables, the service-oriented leadership,
employee satisfaction and employee loyalty, are from the
same questionnaire answered by one person, common
method variance may exist in the dataset we collected
which can cause an expansion effect. Thirdly, we only
use cross-sectional data in this paper so it doesn’t men-
tion anythi ng about long itudin al analysis like wh ether th e
employee satisfaction and loyalty will reduce as the ser-
vice-oriented leadership drops.
We will take an even deeper look at the following as-
pects for feature study: trying to make the samples’ dis-
tribution more random, enlarging the amount of samples
and increasing the response rate as possible as we can.
Besides, we may analyze samples separately according to
different regions and different industries in order to find
whether there are differences between them. And we may
also take more variables into consideration for feature
study, such as organizational trust, psychological em-
powerment and so on.
[1] T. N. Ingram, R. W. Laforge, W. B. Locande r, S. B. Mac-
kenzie and P. M. Podsakoff, “New Directions in Sales
Leadership Research,” Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2005, pp. 137-154.
[2] J. P. Mulki, F. Jaramillo and W. B. Locander, “Effects of
Ethical Climate and Supervisory Trust on Salesperson’s
Job Attitudes and Intentions to Quit,” Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006, pp.
[3] T. G. Brashear, D. N. Bellenger and J. S. Boles, “An Ex-
ploratory Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Different
Types of Sale s Force Mentors,” Journal of Personal Sell-
ing & Sales Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006, pp. 7-18.
[4] F. Jaramillo, D. B. Grisaffe, L. B. Chonko and J. A. Rob-
erts, “Examining the Impact of Servant Leadership on
Salesperson’s Turnover Intention,” Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2009, pp.
351-365. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134290404
[5] R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne, H. Zhao and D. Herderson,
“Servant Leadership: Development of a Multidimensional
Measures and Multilevel Assessment,” The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2008, pp. 161-177.
[6] J. E. Barbuto Jr. and D. W. Wheeler, “Scale Development
and Construct Clarification of Servant Leadership,”
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 31, No. 3,
2006, pp. 300-326. doi:10.1177/1059601106287091
[7] B. J. Avolio and W. L. Gardner, “Authentic Leadership
Development: Getting to the Root of Positive Forms of
Leadership,” Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2005,
pp. 315-338. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
[8] A. G. Stone, R. F. Russell and K. Patterson, “Transforma-
tional versus Servant Leadership: A Difference in Leader
Focus,” Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 25, No. 4, 2004, pp. 349-361.
[9] S. Sendjaya, J. C. Sarros and J. C. Sa ntora, “Defining and
Measuring Servant Leadership Behaviour in Organiza-
tions,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2,
2008, pp. 402-424.
[10] D. Van Dierendonck and I. Nuijten, “The Servant Leader-
ship Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidi-
mensional Measure,” Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 26, No. 3, 2011, pp. 249-267.
[11] C. X. Wang, Q. Ling and X. J. Zhang, “The Servant Lead-
ership Scale Design and Inspection in Chinese Enterprise,”
Nankai Business Review, Vol. 3, 2009, pp. 94-103.
[12] D. W. Hart and J. A. Thompson, “Untangling Employee
Loyalty: A Psychological Contract Perspective,” Business
Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2007, pp. 297-323.
[13] R. Ilies and T. A. Judge, “An Experience Sampling Meas-
ure of Job Satisfaction: Its Relationships with Affectivity,
Mood at Work, Job Beliefs, and General Job Satisfac-
tion,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-
chology, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2004, pp. 367-389.
[14] B. Mak and H. Sockel, “A Confirmatory Factor Analysis
of IS Employee Motivation and Retention,” Information
and Management, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2001, pp. 265-276.
[15] M. H. E. Khalifa, “Perceptions of Equity and Job Satis-
faction: A Study of University Employees in Egypt,” In-
ternational Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2011,
pp. 130-144.
[16] M. L. Voon, M. C. Lo, K. S. Ngui and N. B. Ayob, “The
Influence of Leadership Styles on Employee Job Satisfac-
tion in Public Sector Organization Malaysia,” Interna-
tional Journal of Business, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011, pp. 24-32.
[17] B. Shibru and G. M. Darshan, “Effects of Transforma-
tional Leadership on Subordinate Job Satisfaction in Lea-
ther Companies in Ethiopia,” International Journal of Bu-
siness Management & Economic Research, Vol. 2, No. 5,
2011, pp. 284-296.
[18] J. Y. Jiang, L.-Y. Sun and K. S. Law, “Job Satisfaction
and Organization Structure as Moderators of the Effects
of Empowerment on Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
A Self-Consistency and Social Exchange Perspective,”
International Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No. 3,
2011, pp. 675-694.
[19] H. K. S. Laschinger, J. Finegan, J. Shamian and P. Wilk,
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. IB
Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty:
The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. IB
“A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Workplace
Empowerment on Work Satisfaction,” Journal of Organ-
izational Behavior, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2004, pp. 527-545.
[20] C. C. Chang, C. M. Chiu and C. A. Chen, “The Effect of
TQM Practices on Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty in
Government,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 21, No.
12, 2010, pp. 1299-1314.
[21] J. Marjorie and A. C. Stewart, “Enhancing Nurse Job Sa-
tisfaction: The Importance of a Servant Leader Orienta-
tion in Health Care,” Academy of Management Annual
Meeting Proceedings, 2008, pp. 1-6.
[22] S. Mehta and R. Pillay, “Revisiting Servant Leadership:
An Empirical Study in Indian Context,” Contemporary
Management Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2011, pp. 24-41.
[23] M. A. Jones, K. E. Reynolds and M. J. Arnold, “Hedonic
and Utilitarian Shopping Value: Investigating Differential
Effects on Retail Outcomes,” Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59, No. 9, 2006, pp. 974-981.
[24] B. J. Babin, Y. K. Lee, E. J. Kim and M. Griffin, “Mod-
eling Consumer Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth: Restau-
rant Patronage in Korea,” Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 19, No. 3, 2005, pp. 133-139.
[25] T. Yao, W. B. Huang and X. C. Fan, “Research about Em-
ployee Loyalty of the Services Sector Based on the Orga-
nizational Commitment Mechanism,” Management World
Magazine, Vol. 5, 2008, pp. 102-123.
[26] S. Alfonso and S.-P. Andres, “The Effect of Job Satisfac-
tion on Labor Turnover by Gender: An Analysis for
Switzerland,” Journal of Socioeconomics, Vol. 3, No. 6,
2007, pp. 859-913.
[27] C. Chee, K. Haddad and G. Singh, “Human Resources
Management, Job Sati sfaction, Morale, Optimism and Tur-
nover,” International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Administration, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2007, pp. 73-88.
[28] K. Falkenburg and B. Schyns, “Work Satisfaction, Orga-
nizational Commitment and Withdrawal Behaviors,” Ma-
nagement Research News, Vol. 30, No. 10, 2007, pp.
708-723. doi:10.1108/01409170710823430
[29] C. M. Wagner, “Organizational Commitment as a Pre-
dictor Variable in Nursing Turnover Research: Literature
Review,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 60, No. 3,
2007, pp. 235-247.
[30] T. A. Wright and D. G. Bonett, “Job Satisfaction and Psy-
chological Well-Being as Non-Additive Predictors of Work-
place Turnover,” Journal of Management, Vol. 33, No. 2,
2007, pp. 141-160. doi:10.1177/0149206306297582
[31] M. Riketta and R. Van Dick, “Foci of Attachment in Or-
ganizations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of the Strength
and Correlates of Workgroup versus Organizational Iden-
tification and Commitment,” Journal of Vocational Be-
haviour, Vol. 67, No. 3, 2005, pp. 490-510.
[32] M. F. Y. Cheung and W.-P. Wu, “Leader-Member Ex-
change and Employee Work Outcomes in Chinese Firms:
The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction,” Asia Pacific Bu-
siness Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2012, pp. 65-81.
[33] J. E. Bono, H. J. Foldes, G. Vinson and H. P. Muros,
“Workplace Emotions: The Role of Supervision and Lea-
dership,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 5,
2007, pp. 1357-1367. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357