Servant leadership and innovative behavior: a moderated mediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the cross-level effect of servant leadership on employee innovative behavior by studying the mediating role of thriving at work and the moderating role of team reflexivity. Design/methodology/approach This research collected data from 199 dyads of employees and their direct supervisors in 55 work units, and tested a cross-level moderated mediation model using multilevel path analysis. Findings The findings suggest that thriving at work mediates the relationship between servant leadership and innovative behavior. The results also show that team reflexivity positively moderates the relationship between servant leadership and thriving at work and the mediating effect of thriving at work. Practical implications The empirical findings suggest that organizations should make efforts to promote servant leadership and encourage team reflexivity. Moreover, managers should make efforts to stimulate employees’ thriving at work, thereby facilitating employee and organizational development. Originality/value This research identifies thriving at work as a key mediator that links servant leadership to innovative behavior and reveals the role of team reflexivity in strengthening the effect of servant leadership on employee innovative behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".