Servant leadership and nurses’ upward voice behavior in an Egyptian hospital: Does prosocial motivation matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Servant leadership can be viewed as a leadership theory that stresses personal integrity and focuses on protecting and promoting the interests of others. OBJECTIVE: This article investigates whether the relationship between servant leadership and nurses’ upward voice behavior in an Egyptian hospital is contingent on prosocial motivation. Invoking substitutes for leadership theory, we propose that the relationship between servant leadership and nurses’ upward voice will be attenuated when nurses have a strong desire to protect and promote the well-being of others. METHODS: Using a sample of 341 nurses working in a large governmental hospital in Egypt, this proposition was tested using PROCESS Macro for SPSS. RESULTS: The results revealed that the relationship between servant leadership and nurses’ upward voice was stronger for those lower in prosocial motivation than for those higher in prosocial motivation. CONCLUSION: These results were explained through communal impulsion which adds a new insight into Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership. Overall, the results of the study shed new light on the conditions through which servant leadership enhances upward voice behavior in an Egyptian hospital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".