Servant leadership and psychological well-being: A philosophical perspective and the role of religiosity and power distance orientation

Qureshi, Muhammad Azeem; Ummi Naiemah Saraih; Ramish, Muhammad Sufyan Article Servant leadership and psychological well-being: A philosophical perspective and the role of religiosity and power distance orientation Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) Provided in Cooperation with: Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK) Suggested Citation: Qureshi, Muhammad Azeem; Ummi Naiemah Saraih; Ramish, Muhammad Sufyan (2023) : Servant leadership and psychological well-being: A philosophical perspective and the role of religiosity and power distance orientation, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 17, Iss. 2, pp. 313-347 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/278054 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 2023, Vol. 17 (2), 313-347 Pak J Commer Soc Sci Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being: A Philosophical Perspective and the Role of Religiosity and Power Distance Orientation Muhammad Azeem Qureshi (Corresponding author) Postdoctoral Fellow at the Faculty of Business & Communication, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, 01000, Kangar, Perlis, Malaysia Email: [email protected] & Assistant Professor at Institute of Business Management, Karachi, 75190, Sindh, Pakistan Email: azeem.quresh[email protected] Ummi Naiemah Saraih Faculty of Business & Communication, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, 01000, Kangar, Perlis, Malaysia Email: [email protected] & Visiting Professor, Department of Business Administration, Daffodil International University, 1216, Dhaka, Bangladesh Muhammad Sufyan Ramish Assistant Professor at KIET, College of Management Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan Email: sufyan.ram[email protected] Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a vital challenge to traditional leadership practices. The virtual workplace is changing the way people are accustomed to working. Despite flexibility regarding time and space with the advent of digital technologies, employees face several psychological problems while working remotely. Servant leadership is one of the possible solutions to address this issue, but there is a question mark on servant leadership effectiveness in high power distance cultures. However, the closeness of servant leadership to religious beliefs can make it effective in such cultures. This research addresses the philosophy of servant leadership theory and employs Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test a theoretical model to determine how servant leaders can positively impact employees working distantly. This research reveals that servant leadership helps employees cope with occupational and perceived stress and maintains their work-life balance by ensuring their psychological wellbeing. This research also finds that the Article History Received: 18 Apr 2023 Revised: 19 June 2023 Accepted: 24 June 2023 Published: 30 June 2023 Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 314 compatibility of servant leadership with religiosity makes it more effective irrespective of cultural differences. Keywords: Servant Leadership, Power Distance, Religiosity, Psychological Well-being, Occupational Stress, Perceived Stress, Work-life Balance, Pakistan. 1. Introduction 1.1 Background of the Study COVID-19 pandemic has posed a vital challenge to leadership (Dirani et al., 2020). The leadership crisis due to COVID-19 is widespread in leadership theory and practice (Tourish, 2020). It is projected that 70% of the workforce will work remotely by 2025 (Castrillon, 2020). A recent survey reveals that 74% of managers will be working remotely on a permanent basis even after covid-19 (Staff, 2020). During the lockdown, a number of physical activities have been shifted online. Virtual work is now a norm, and the traditional workplace has become digital (Potter, 2020). The digital workplace is changing how individuals and companies work (Winterfeldt & Roestel, 2019). Although there has been ease or flexibility concerning time and space with digital technologies, several problems are arising, such as loneliness, increased miscommunication, distractions at home, and difficulty working in a team (Lusinski, 2019). In addition, there is increased pressure to continuously be online and remain connected with the office while working from home (Cijan et al., 2019). This situation confronts employees with several psychological challenges, such as generalized stress, perceived job insecurity, isolation or quarantine, job-related stress, and work-life imbalance (Ganson et al., 2021; Hjálmsdóttir & Bjarnadóttir, 2021; Said & El-Shafei, 2021). Although servant leadership has emerged as a mainstream character-driven leadership approach (Qureshi et al., 2019), it is not clear to what extent servant leadership (SL) remains effective in remote-working conditions and helps employees healing the psychological issues arising due to the pandemic. This research attempts to address this burning issue. 1.2 Motivation for the Study Addressing the question of the effectiveness of servant leadership practices during the COVID-19 crisis, the issue that requires scholars' attention is the best culture fit for this leadership approach. Despite the fact that servant leadership has many great outcomes for people and organizations (Lu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2017), The results of various studies exhibit a lack of consistency within cultures characterized by a high power distance (PD) orientation. (Donia et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2013; Miao et al., 2021). Most of the research addressing servant leadership has been conducted in the united states (Bavik, 2020), where power distance orientation is low (“Country Comparison,” 2021; Harun et al., 2021). It is claimed that servant leadership is more suited to cultures with low power distance orientation (Eva et al., 2019). Furthermore, several studies have called for future research considering power distance as a moderator (Bavik, 2020; Elche et al., 2020). This research aims to address this call for future research. Qureshi et al. 315 1.3 Research Gap Some recent studies by Wang et al. (2022) and Qureshi et al. (2019) addressing servant leadership have yielded findings that do not provide support for the notion of power distance playing a moderating role, while the latter suggested that high religiosity could be the probable cause. The study of Qureshi et al. (2019) also suggested that religiosity seems to be more compatible with servant leadership as they both share some common characteristics. Still, there is little empirical evidence available to support this claim. In line with this argument, the notion that the idea of servant leadership is rooted in religion and that servant leadership shares several characteristics with what most divine religions teach has gained little attention from the research community (Brownell, 2010; Davis & Winn, 2017). Therefore, it is more likely that high religiosity mitigates the effect of high power distance and servant leaders work in harmony with religion. Since power distance and religiosity are moderately high in Pakistan (Hassan, 1987; Khilji, 2002; Qureshi, 2018), this research attempts to address the issue in question and fills this gap. Furthermore, the effectiveness of servant leadership during a crisis and the extent to which servant leadership is capable of addressing psychological issues arising because of pandemics like COVID- 19 are yet to be validated through empirical evidence. This research attempts to fill this gape in existing literature. 1.4 Research Objective This research aims to evaluate how servant leadership addresses different psychological issues employees faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this study assesses how servant leadership affects workers' psychological well-being, occupational stress, perceived stress, and work-life balance. Furthermore, this research measures the moderating influence of power distance orientation and religiosity. Moreover, this research also ascertains whether religiosity mitigates the effect of power distance orientation. 1.5 Theoretical Linkage among Main Concepts This study is the first to examine the philosophical foundations of servant leadership theory, hence contributing to the ontology of servant leadership. Under the boundary conditions of COVID-19, this research is the first of its kind to test the influence of servant leadership on different psychological outcomes that employees face during the pandemic. Addressing the call for future research from prominent scholars, such as (Bavik, 2020; Eva et al., 2019), this study evaluates servant leadership in high-power, high-religiosity cultures using conservation of resource theory and self-determination theory. Furthermore, this research incorporates social information-processing theory to support the moderating role of PD and religiosity. In doing so, this research makes a novel endeavor and examines if high religiosity mitigates the influence of high power and adds new knowledge to the existing literature. Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 316 1.6 Significance The findings of this research will be helpful for practitioners to understand the leadership approach that can minimize or eliminate the adverse psychological effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic on employees working remotely or under stressful conditions. In addition, this research can help leaders understand the role of religiosity in ensuring employees' psychological well-being. Furthermore, this research will also help elaborate on whether servant leadership is a universal approach irrespective of the cultural context or works better in cultures with high or low power distance. Furthermore, the literature addressing the philosophical underpinning of servant leadership theory will help open a new horizon for theoreticians to continue induction and add new facets to the theory. 2. Literature Review Throughout history, the concept of leadership has been associated with individuals who possess dynamic character and have the ability to significantly influence the trajectory of historical events (Yukl, 2013). The notion of leadership has undergone changes and developments throughout its history (Zhu et al., 2019). In the past century, leadership has received significant attention from academicians worldwide, resulting in its widespread use in the intellectual community, particularly in business (Northouse, 2016). Leadership is widely recognized as a crucial element for individuals and nations and a fundamental requirement for achieving organizational success (McCaffery, 2018). Leadership can be conceptualized as a dynamic process in which an individual, known as the leader, exerts influence over others with the aim of attaining a shared objective. (Yukl, 1989). It is expected from a leader to serve others to achieve the common goal rather than being served (Williams, 2015). Notwithstanding the expectations, business leaders started demonstrating self-serving behaviors in some cases. Specifically, this reality was unleashed during the introspection of the global financial crisis when it was revealed that most of the decisions and judgments made by leaders from the well-known organization were either self-serving or serving the interests of the elite minority (Liu et al., 2017; Sendjaya et al., 2008). The leadership with compromised morality raised questions and drew back the attention of the intellectual community to the philosophy of Peter F. Drucker, who had emphasized the moral code of conduct for business leaders (Kurzynski, 2012). During the global financial crisis, the high-profile scandals identified the devastating consequences of leaders' unethical decision-making on employees and organizations (Ahmad & Gao, 2018). Organizational integrity is now believed to be associated with leader’s integrity (van Eeden Jones & Lasthuizen, 2018). Consequently, people-centric, ethical leadership approaches are what organizations are looking for after the global financial crisis. (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Qureshi et al. 317 2.1 Servant Leadership Servant leadership (SL) is one of the character-driven leadership approaches that emerged to address ethical dilemmas that leaders face during their professional life (Dinh et al., 2014). It is a people-orientated approach (Atiq, 2020) that accompanies proactive actiondriven leadership (Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2017). Based on the seminal work and definition of Robert K. Greenleaf (Greenleaf, 2007), the most recent servant leadership definition states that a servant leader is an individual who places a high emphasis on addressing the needs and interests of their followers on an individual level. , encourages them to look beyond themselves and serve the greater good of the organization and the community at large (Eva et al., 2019). This definition covers the motives and mindset of a servant leader who is determined to serve individuals, organizations, and communities. Servant leadership is widely recognized for its positive associations with outcomes related to people and organizations (Neubert et al., 2022). 2.2 Servant Leadership Philosophy In ancient Greek philosophy, Aristotle is one of the prominent figures emphasizing human character. His viewpoint on leaders’ character is based on virtue ethics. In medieval philosophy, Thomas Aquinas emphasizes the significance of ethics in human life. His ethical doctrine was founded on Christianity (Geisler, 1999). In the era of Renaissance and Revolution, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant are prominent figures, and their work on human character is of great value. Rousseau stresses compassion and empathy and opposes selfishness in society (Buckingham et al., 2015). Kant believes in the dignity and respect of a person and shares several commonalities with the idea of servant leadership. He argues against the instrumental view of leadership. Kant treats all human beings equally sovereign in society or organization, calling it the ‘kingdom of ends’ (Immanuel, 1785). Bowie (2000) argues that servant leadership theory is egalitarian and fulfills Kant’s categorical imperative, and thus Kant will endorse it on ethical grounds. In his categorical imperative of universal law, Kant stresses that any action to be ethical must become a universal law (Kant & Ellington, 1994). This maxim is much relevant to servant leaders who prioritize their own and their followers' development in terms of becoming wiser, more autonomous, and servant leaders (Greenleaf, 1970). In modern contemporary philosophy, Peter F. Drucker’s views on management remind us of Aristotelian virtue ethics. Aristotle’s virtue ethics were proposed around 2500 years ago without considering modern management complexities. However, Peter F. Drucker stressed upon a leader's vision, character, integrity, and community orientation with a thorough understanding of these complexities (Kurzynski, 2012). Since ethics and virtues are strongly connected to servant leadership. The servant leadership paradigm, which also encourages leaders to be people-oriented, is consistent with Drucker's insistence that managers prioritize the well-being of their subordinates (Zhang et al., 2012). Drucker does not consider the organization a separate entity but a micro-society (Drucker, 1993), and Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 318 according to him, the moral code of conduct that governs society is no different for business leaders (Drucker, 2013). According to Drucker, individuals demonstrating high-level moral integrity deserve leadership positions as their decisions significantly impact individuals and society (Drucker, 2000). Drucker also accentuates in Nicomachean Ethics that it is the responsibility of an organization to fulfill individuals' social needs, which is in harmony with the servant leadership theory. Therefore, it can be asserted that the attributes of SL have been the subject of interest among prominent philosophers throughout the history. 2.3 Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being The COVID-19 crisis has brought forth several leadership challenges, including its impact on employees' mental health (De Sousa et al., 2020, p. 19). Employees have experienced isolation and remained distant from their colleagues (Wang et al., 2021). This research draws on the Conservation of Resource (CoR) Theory, which posits that people are inclined to keep and safeguard resources essential to their life. This includes physical, social, and psychological resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Servant leaders ensure these resources' availability and protection through their caring behavior and focus on developing their followers (Gregory Stone et al., 2004). In addition, servant leaders provide psychological empowerment to their followers (Khan et al., 2021), which contributes to employees’ psychological well-being. Servant leaders' actions make employees feel safe and secure (Cooper & Thatcher, 2010; Iqbal et al., 2020), thus fulfilling employees' innate needs of safety and security (Aryee et al., 2007). Therefore, this study contends people working with servant leaders are more likely to experience psychological well-being and thus propose the following hypothesis. ➢ H1: SL positively affects the psychological well-being of employees 2.4 Servant Leadership, Perceived Stress and Occupational Stress It is also observed that work-from-home (WFH) increases the imbalance between work and family life, resulting in low levels of employee satisfaction with themselves and their work (Nakrošienė et al., 2019), consequently leading to increased perceived stress. Lack of proper space to work and distraction by family members are common factors affecting employee effectiveness (Wang et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2020), which can result in increased occupational stress. This research draws on the Self-Determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to explain how servant leaders help employees deal with the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic such as perceived stress and occupational stress. Selfdetermination theory (SDT) proposes that individuals get motivated when their innate needs are fulfilled. Servant leaders exhibit empathy towards their subordinates, thereby serving as a catalyst for their emotional healing (Barbuto et al., 2006). This act of empathy demonstrates their concern for their followers' well-being (Ehrhart, 2004) and cultivates a sense of community (Cooper & Thatcher, 2010). Servant leaders also give special attention to employees' needs and make employees' lives more meaningful. Since leadership is considered pivotal in providing conditions within an organization where employees' needs Qureshi et al. 319 can be fulfilled (Brière et al., 2020), servant leadership is an appropriate approach for providing such conditions. Based on these arguments, this study proposes the following hypotheses. ➢ H2a: SL negatively affects occupational stress. ➢ H2b: Psychological well-being mediates the influence of SL on employees’ occupational stress. ➢ H3a: SL negatively influences employees’ perceived stress ➢ H3b: Psychological well-being mediates the influence of SL on employees’ perceived stress. 2.5 Servant Leadership and Work-life Balance Furthermore, there was a significant increase in workload and work-family conflict during the COVID-19 epidemic (Allen et al., 2021) and compromised psychological well-being of employees (Grover et al., 2020). One of the social needs that Self-determination theory (SDT) addresses is the need of relatedness. Servant leaders build a sense of community within an organization where people are in social contact with others (Glenn & Cuerro, 2016), thus fulfilling their followers' social needs. Literature suggests that fulfillment of psychological needs increases individuals' psychological well-being. They experience enhanced psychological health and are less likely to suffer from problems (Cheval et al., 2017; Raabe et al., 2020), such as work-family conflict. CoR theory shows that need fulfillment improves employees' mental health and work-life balance (Xiao et al., 2023). Therefore, it is argued that employees working with servant leaders experience social need fulfillment and are less likely to experience work-life imbalance. ➢ H4a: SL positively affects employees' work-life balance. ➢ H4b: Psychological well-being mediates the influence of SL on employees' worklife balance. 2.6 Servant Leadership and Power Distance Orientation Several studies have indicated that servant leadership best fits low power distance cultures (Eva et al., 2019; Hannay, 2009; Yang et al., 2017). Nonetheless, some studies have claimed that servant leadership is a universal approach irrespective of cultural values (Bavik, 2020; Hannay, 2009; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012). Power distance is a cultural value that is defined as "the degree of inequality among people which the population of a country considers as normal: from relatively equal (that is, low power distance) to extremely unequal (high power distance)” (Hofstede, 1993). The literature in favor of the claim that servant leadership is more appropriate in low power distance culture derives energy from the fact that employees working in high power distance settings are less likely to show sensitivity towards how they are treated by their leaders and are more prone to accept hierarchical differences with submissive obedience. (Farh et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2021). Indeed, in contrast to this view, some studies found servant leadership as effective in high Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 320 power distance cultures as it is in cultures with low power distance orientation (Iqbal et al., 2020; Qureshi et al., 2019). This research further draws on Social Information-processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) to support the moderating role of religiosity and power distance. This theory postulates that individually assess the norms, atmosphere, and social context before making any decision or taking any action (Hsiung & Tsai, 2017). This theory also suggests that social and environmental factors determine the effectiveness of leaders through their interaction with leadership style (Lu et al., 2021). Therefore, this study suggests the presence of high or low power distance as the social context that influences the effectiveness of servant leadership practices. Thus following hypothesis is proposed based on studied literature and theoretical support. ➢ H5: PDO moderates the influence of SL on psychological well-being so that the influence of SL is diluted. 2.7 Servant Leadership, Religiosity and Power Distance Religiosity refers to an organized, community-oriented system of beliefs, practices, and rituals that take an individual closer to God (Koenig, 2012). Religious teachings are based on morality, ethics, and virtues (Mannion, 2017), while these characteristics are closely linked to servant leadership theory (Parris & Peachey, 2013). The tenet of servant leadership is based on the inspiration from the story The Journey to the East, which was based on Christian values (Frick, 2004). Scholars in the recent past have turned their attention to the link between servant leadership and religiosity (Abbas et al., 2020; Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2017). The reason why scholars started endeavoring the relationship between servant leadership and religion lies in the character flaw of business leaders that was evident in the case of the meltdown of several organizations during the global financial crisis, where the lack of ethical content in leadership practices is strongly linked to the fall of these businesses (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008). The word "servant" appears 1,300 times in the Bible, and servant leadership undoubtedly shares several characteristics with Christianity. Some scholars believe servant leadership is not a Christian theory (Kimotho, 2019). However, this assertion is based on qualitative data and lacks empirical evidence. Servant leadership practices are closer to and more compatible with what most divine religions teach, such as Christianity and Islam (Wallace, 2007). For example, Quran and Bible both stress to tend to those around us (The Holy Quran, 1987; Matthew 22:39-40), and service to the community is one of the hallmarks of Islamic teachings (Bagheri & Alali, 2018). According to Islam, one should like the same for others what he likes for himself (Bukhari, 1994). These are some examples that shed light on the commonalities between religious teachings and servant leadership practices (Khan et al., 2015). Religiosity significantly affects how leaders behave and practice their leadership (Hage & Posner, 2015). In addition, a recent study has revealed a positive association between Qureshi et al. 327 4.3 Common Method Bias (CMB) This study employs procedural and statistical remedies to address common method bias (CMB). The use of dyadic data, maintaining the anonymity of the respondents and changing the order of the statements in the questionnaire are part of the procedural remedies. Statistically, CBM can result in either inflation or deflation in the correlation among measured or observed variables (Spector et al., 2019). This study employs the common latent factor approach (Podsakoff et al., 2012) to address the issue of CMB using AMOS. This method includes the creation of a common latent factor that measures the shared variance of all the measures. Common shared variance is assessed by comparing the standardized regression weights of all the observed variables with and without latent factor. The difference of less than 20% indicates that common method bias does not affect the data (Gaskin, 2012). The results of comparison reveals that the difference is less than 0.2 for all the observed variables except for the two items (BL1 = 0.44, BL2 = .43) out of six of the ‘belief’, which is a sub-construct of religiosity. Overall, the items affected by CMB account for only 12.5% of all the items of religiosity, which is negligible. Therefore, we can deduce that there is no CMB in the data. 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis This study performs CFA to evaluate the goodness of the postulated model (Huck, 2012), which is a flexible statistical approach, and a type of SEM to test a theory (Brown, 2015). CFA evaluates how well-observed data represents the theoretical model (Gallagher & Brown, 2013). Assessment of the measurement and structural models is part of SEM (Keith, 2014) where latent variables and their corresponding items represent the measurement model while the cause-effect relationship among latent variables represents the structural model (Byrne, 2016). 4.4.1 CFA for Measurement Model Before testing a structure model based on hypotheses, a measurement model based on a theory or set of theories must be specified (model specification) to evaluate if the observed variables (items) reflect their relative latent construct through their corresponding subconstruct (if any) (Byrne, 2016). The specified model contains only two sub-constructs (belief; and commitment and practice) under one latent construct Religiosity. Belief consists of 6-items, while commitment and practice consist of 10-items. The rest of the constructs in the specified model are first-order constructs. For a model to be valid, SEM requires an over-identified model (model identification). When a model is over-identified, it's possible that there are several different solutions to each estimate of a parameter (Hair et al., 2014). Over-identification occurs when a model's degree of freedom is non-zero and positive (Kline, 2011). Model fit summary shows 1153 degree of freedom, which satisfied model identification requirements. Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 328 Model estimation is followed by model identification, which refers to obtaining estimates of each parameter. This is possible by calculating unknown parameters’ values and their related error (Weston & Gore, 2006). This research follows Maximum Likelihood (ML) for estimating the model. Byrne (2016) has described the criteria to estimate a model that incudes i) Feasibility of parameter estimates (determines the consistency of individual parameters with the underlying theory and goodness of the fit of each parameter). ii) Appropriateness of standard error (determines accuracy or precision in parameter estimation). iii) Statistical significance of parameter estimates (analyses unstandardized estimates of path coefficients through Critical Ration, i.e., z-scores that should be less than 1.96 with p < .05). Results show that all the parameter estimates are of proper sign and sizes, showing feasibility and consistency of all the parameter estimates with the underlying theory. None of the standard errors are excessively small or excessively large. Further, the Critical Ratio (z-score) of all the path coefficients is less than 1.96 (p < .05). After obtaining an adequate model estimation, model evaluation is carried out (Weston & Gore, 2006). This study uses model fit measures suggested by Hair et al. (2014) that include RMSEA, SRMR, χ2 and χ2/df (Absolute fit index), CFI and TLI (Incremental fit index) and PNFI and PCFI (Parsimony fit Index). Scholars prefer reporting Relative Chi Square (χ2/df) instead of Chi Square (χ2) due to its sensitivity to the sample size (Iacobucci, 2010). As shown in Table 2, the model fit indices show the adequate model fit for the measurement model having RMSEA = 0.49, χ2/df= 2.14, CFI= 0.92, TLI= 0.91, PNFI= .0.81, and PCFI = 0.86 were all within their range (Collier, 2020). Table 2: Model-fit Indices of the Measurement Model RMSEA χ2/df CFI TLI PNFI PCFI Recommended Values ≤ .08 ≤ 3.0 ≥ .90 ≥ .90 ≥ .50 ≥ .50 Measurement Model 0.49 2.14 .92 .91 .81 .86 Collier (2020) 4.4.2 CFA for Structural Model The structural or path model in the study is specified based on the hypothesized causal relationship between exogenous and endogenous variables (Byrne, 2016). All the constructs in the specified model are first-order constructs except the religiosity, which is a second-order construct comprising Belief (6-items) and Commitment & Practice (10- items). The model is over-identified with non-zero positive degree of freedom (1519), which satisfies the requirements of model identification (Kline, 2011). Using the Maximum Likelihood estimation, this study finds all the parameter estimates with adequate signs and sizes. The standard error associated with all the parameters are adequate (neither too high nor too small) with significant path coefficient (p ≤ .05) and critical ratio (z-score > 1.96) Qureshi et al. 329 (Weston & Gore, 2006). After obtaining acceptable values for model estimation, this study uses model fit measure recommended by Hair et al. (2014). As shown in Table 3, the model fit indices show the adequate model fit for the structural model having RMSEA = 0.05, χ2/df= 2.14, CFI= 0.91, TLI= 0.91, PNFI= .0.80 and PCFI = 0.86 were all within their range (Collier, 2020). Table 3: Model-fit Indices of the Structural Model RMSEA χ2/df CFI TLI PNFI PCFI Recommended Values ≤ .08 ≤ 3.0 ≥ .90 ≥ .90 ≥ .50 ≥ .50 Structural model 0.05 2.14 .91 .91 .80 .86 Figure 2 shows the structural relationship between endogenous and exogenous constructs and R2 values. Moreover, the figure also displays a few correlated error terms. The R2 value of PDO = 0.01, PWB = 0.30, WLB= .020, PS= 0.28 and OS=0.13. The R2 values of PWB and PS are substantial since they are greater than 0.25, whereas the R2 value of WLB and OS are moderate since they are greater than 0.10; finally, the R2 of PDO is weak since it is closed to 0 (Cohen, 1988). To improve the model fit indices, we correlated a few error terms having higher values within constructs, i.e., e13 with e15, e14 with e15, e26 with 27, e26 with 28, and e27 with e 28 as recommended by (collier, 2020). Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 330 Figure 2: Structural Model Qureshi et al. 331 Table 4: Hypotheses Testing and Mediation Analysis SL= Servant leadership, PWB=Psychological wellbeing of employees, OS= Employees’ occupational stress, PS= Employees’ perceived stress, WLB=Employees’ work-life balance, Rel=Religiosity 4.5 Results of Hypotheses Testing The result of the hypotheses testing is given in Table 4. The hypothesis H1 is supported (β = .578, p < .001), suggesting that servant leadership has a positive influence in promoting the psychological well-being of employees. The β value of H1= 0.578 shows that an increase of one unit in servant leadership is associated with a 0.578-unit increase in employees' psychological well-being, keeping other things constant. Therefore, managers should focus on increasing the effect of servant leadership if they want to enhance the psychological well-being of employees. Hypothesis H2a: is supported (β = -0.378, p < .001), depicting that servant leadership reduces employees’ occupational stress. The β value of H2a = -0.378 suggests that with one unit increase in servant leadership employees, occupational stress reduces by 0.378 units keeping other things constant. In contrast, hypothesis H2b: is not supported (β = - 0.378, p =0.147), suggesting that there is no indirect effect between servant leadership and employees’ occupational stress via the psychological well-being of employees. Since the direct path is significant in hypothesis H2a and the indirect path in H2b is not significant, it shows no mediation effect of the psychological well-being of employees between servant leadership and employees’ occupational stress. Therefore, managers should focus on increasing the effect of servant leadership if they want to reduce the employees’ occupational stress. Hypothesis H3a: is supported (β = -0.495, p < .001), depicting that servant leadership reduces employees' perceived stress. The β value of H3a = -0.495 suggests that one unit increase in servant leadership reduces employees' perceived stress reduces by 0.495 units Hypotheses Path β Significance Support H1 SL -> PWB 0.578 < 0.001 Yes H2a (direct effect) SL -> OS -0.378 < 0.001 Yes H2b (indirect effect) SL -> PWB -> OS -0.050 =0.147 No H3a (direct effect) SL -> PS -0.495 < 0.001 Yes H3b (indirect effect) SL -> PWB -> PS -0.162 < 0.001 Yes H4a (direct effect) SL -> WLB 0.940 =0.063 No H4b (indirect effect) SL -> PWB -> WLB -0.500 =0.046 Yes H5 SL*PDO -> PWB 0.381 =0.821 No H6 SL*Rel -> PDO 0.018 =0.014 Yes Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 332 keeping other things constant. In addition, Hypothesis H3b: (β = -0.162, p < .001) is also supported, proposing the presence of a middleman association between servant leadership and employees perceived of stress, which is facilitated by the psychological well-being of employees. Since both direct and indirect paths are significant, it could be said that it’s a partial mediation. However, the β value direct path is higher than the β value of the indirect path; therefore, managers should focus on reducing employees' perceived stress by increasing the effect of servant leadership. Hypotheses H4a is not supported (β = -0.940, p < .063), depicting that servant leadership does not affect the work-life balance of employees. However, hypothesis H4b is supported (β = -0.500, p < .046), suggesting that there is an indirect effect of servant leadership on employees’ work-life balance via the psychological well-being of employees. Since the direct path is not significant and in direct path is significant, therefore, it could be called as full mediation. Therefore, managers should focus on savant leadership because it will have an impact on workers' mental health, which in turn will have an impact on their ability to maintain a healthy work-life balance. The result of moderation analysis suggested that Hypothesis H5 is not supported since the P value of SL x PDO->PWB = 0.381 is greater than P=0.05, suggesting that power distance orientation of employees does not weakens the relationship between servant leadership and their psychological well-being. In contrast, Hypothesis H7 was supported since the p-value, SL x REL ->PDO = 0.018 is less than the cutoff value of 0.05, indicating that religiosity moderates the impact of power distance orientation on servant leadership by diminishing power distance orientation's moderating effect. 5. Discussion and Conclusion The findings of this research are in line with the studies conducted by Clarence et al. (2021) and Swanson et al. (2022) that support the role of servant leadership in predicting the psychological well-being of employees. This finding also supports the role of CoR, SDT, and SIPT theories, asserting that servant leaders’ focus on the need fulfillment of their employees creates the perception of resourcefulness. In contrast, empowering employees ensures their innate need fulfillment. Furthermore, the sense of safety and security created by servant leaders provides a conducive environment for employees to maintain their psychological well-being. Employees with enriched work experience do not come across any occupational stress as a consequence (Cheval et al., 2017; Raabe et al., 2020). This study's findings align with the results of the study conducted by Najam & Mustamil (2022), which uses the conservation of resource theory to investigate the connection between servant leadership and psychological resilience and find strong support for the same, suggesting that servant leadership better help employees in coping with adversities by strengthening their psychological capital. However, servant leadership practice does not necessarily rely on the psychological well-being of employees; rather, their servant behavior itself is sufficient to ensure the absence of occupational stress. The study conducted by Kaltiainen & Hakanen (2022) affirms this assertion and finds empirical Qureshi et al. 333 support in favor of servant leadership's role in improving employees’ well-being and decreasing work-related stress. Further, the absence of perceived stress is related to the presence of psychological well-being of employees, indicating that the need fulfillment, sense of safety and security, and the sense of community within an organization created by servant leaders decreases the possibility of perceived stress (Glenn & Cuerro, 2016). This study’s findings are also compatible with the results of study by Jiménez-Estévez et al. (2023), which reveals that servant leaders, during COVID-19 pandemic, elevate employees’ well-being by fulfilling employees’ needs. Hence affirmed that servant leadership is a more appropriate approach during crises. The research findings suggest a dearth of empirical evidence that substantiates the connection between servant leadership and work-life balance. However, this relationship is supported by the mediation of psychological well-being, indicating that employees do not have an objective measurement of work-life balance from their leaders, possibly because of not in contact with top leadership very often and hence draw the clue of worklife balance from the provision of support that they perceive (Lamprinou et al., 2021, p. 19). This finding confirms that the ethical tone from the top comprising of serving behavior helps employees maintain their psychological well-being (Teimouri et al., 2018), eventually reducing the likelihood of different types of stress. Furthermore, there is no support in this study for the moderation of PDO in decreasing the influence of servant leadership. The findings of the study conducted by Nemati et al. (2022) contrast the results of this study on one side with a significant moderating effect of power distance orientation but support the claim of this study on the other that power distance does not remain effective under different moderating conditions such as religiosity. These results confirm why Wang et al. (2022) could not find any moderating effect of power distance when analyzing collective data from Canada, the US, China, Brazil, and Pakistan. Power distance is a cultural value that does not operate in isolation and is subject to be affected by other variables. As hypothesized, the religious orientation of the society significantly affects how leaders behave and practice their leadership (Hage & Posner, 2015); specifically, the compatibility of servant leadership with religiosity in many respects proves the role of Social Information Processing Theory. The presence of religiosity in society complements servant leadership practices rather than contradicting them. A recent study’s findings affirm servant leadership’s relevance and effectiveness in countries like Pakistan, where it helps bring harmony among people working together (Jan et al., 2022). This finding negates the argument that servant leadership is not a religious theory (Kimotho, 2019). Similarly, it can be argued that the commonality between servant leadership and Islam, such as respecting and being kind to others, treating others equally, being fair in relations, and helping others (Khan, 2012; The Holy Quran, 1987; Greenleaf, 2002; Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012), provide strong evidence to claim that servant leadership works more effectively in cultures with the high religious orientation that does not allow any other cultural value that contradicts religious values to affect leadership practices. Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 334 5.1 Limitations and Future Research Direction However, like every research endeavor, this research is subject to some limitations in making such strong claims. For example, cross-sectional data cannot supersede the findings of a longitudinal study or meta-analysis. This research required pure or extended replications to validate the claims of this study. Moreover, meta-analysis can also be helpful in legitimizing the finding of this study. Future research considering the influence of religiosity on cultural values other than power distance can provide more clarity on the overwhelming influence of religious beliefs. A comparative analysis between religious and non-religious societies can also provide a more precise picture of how contextual factors, along with religiosity, affect the effectiveness of servant leadership across the globe. In this realm, instead of considering each cultural variable separately, future research might incorporate the cumulative effect of all relevant cultural dimensions (Neubert et al., 2022). On the theoretical front, the work on servant leadership theory can be extended based on Social Learning Theory, as considered by Nauman et al. (2022), which can help followers develop themselves as servant leaders. Future research can also delve into experimental research design considering servant leadership intervention. This study focuses on collecting data from private sector organizations. A comparative study between public and private sector organizations can reveal whether servant leadership remains as effective in public sector organizations that work under the strict bureaucratic structure as it is in private sector organizations. This future direction is based on the findings of Setyaningrum et al. (2023), which was undertaken in the healthcare industry and revealed a clear correlation between servant leadership and work-life balance. This suggests that any mediating factor may not influence servant leadership practices and can directly affect different outcomes depending on the context. Finally, a study examining the effect of servant leadership training programs can help understand whether servant leadership is an approach that can be learned and developed in high power distance cultures or is not more than a theoretical concept. Research Funding The authors received no research grant or funds for this research study. REFERENCES Abbas, A., Saud, M., Suhariadi, F., Usman, I., & Ekowati, D. (2022). Positive leadership psychology: Authentic and servant leadership in higher education in Pakistan. Current Psychology, 41(9), 5859–5871. Ahmad, I., & Gao, Y. (2018). Ethical leadership and work engagement: The roles of psychological empowerment and power distance orientation. Management Decision, 56(9), 1991-2005. Qureshi et al. 335 Allen, T. D., Merlo, K., Lawrence, R. C., Slutsky, J., & Gray, C. E. (2021). Boundary management and work‐nonwork balance while working from home. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 60-84. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191-201. Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 116-128. Atiq, S. (2020). Impact of Servant Leadership on Employee Performance with Mediating Role of Trust in Leadership and Moderating Role of Power Distance [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Capital University. Bagheri, A., & Alali, K. (2018). Islamic Bioethics: Current Issues and Challenges (Vol. 2). World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd, Singapore. Barbuto, J. E., Wheeler, D. W., & others. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326. Bavik, A. (2020). A systematic review of the servant leadership literature in management and hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1), 347-382. Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2015). Cronbach’s alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 3–15. Bowie, N. (2000). A Kantian theory of leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(4), 185-193. Brière, M., Le Roy, J., & Meier, O. (2021). Linking servant leadership to positive deviant behavior: The mediating role of self‐determination theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(2), 65-78. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press. NY, USA Brownell, J. (2010). Leadership in the service of hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(3), 363-378. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA. Buckingham, W., Burnham, D., King, P. J., Hill, C., Weeks, M., & Marenbon, J. (2015). The Philosophy Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained. DK Publishing, UK. Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 336 Bukhari, A. A. M. bin I. (1994). Sahih Bukhari translated by M. Muhsin Khan (1st ed., Vol. 2), Publisher: Dar Al-Salam, Saudi Arabia. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, UK. Campo-Arias, A., Pedrozo-Cortés, M. J., & Pedrozo-Pupo, J. C. (2020). Pandemic-Related Perceived Stress Scale of COVID-19: An exploration of online psychometric performance. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatria (English Ed.), 49(4), 229-239. Castrillon, C. (2020). This is the Future of Remote Work in 2021. Forbes (December 27). https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinecastrillon/2021/12/27/this-is-the-future-of-remote- work-in-2021/ Cheah, J. H., Memon, M. A., Richard, J. E., Ting, H., & Cham, T. H. (2020). CB-SEM latent interaction: Unconstrained and orthogonalized approaches. Australasian marketing journal, 28(4), 218-234. Cheah, J. H., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Ramayah, T., & Ting, H. (2018). Convergent validity assessment of formatively measured constructs in PLS-SEM: On using single-item versus multi-item measures in redundancy analyses. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(11), 3192-3210. Cheval, B., Chalabaev, A., Quested, E., Courvoisier, D. S., & Sarrazin, P. (2017). How perceived autonomy support and controlling coach behaviors are related to well- and illbeing in elite soccer players: A within-person changes and between-person differences analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 68-77. Cijan, A., Jenič, L., Lamovšek, A., & Stemberger, J. (2019). How digitalization changes the workplace. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, 8(1), 3–12. Clarence, M., Devassy, V. P., Jena, L. K., & George, T. S. (2021). The effect of servant leadership on ad hoc schoolteachers’ affective commitment and psychological well-being: The mediating role of psychological capital. International Review of Education, 67(3), 305-331. Clark, V. L. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2014). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. Pearson, USA. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edition). Routledge, Taylor Francis Group. Collier, J. E. (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced techniques. Routledge, UK. Cook, R., & Grimshaw, D. (2021). A gendered lens on COVID-19 employment and social policies in Europe. European Societies, 23(sup1), 215–227. Qureshi et al. 343 Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177. Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology, 62(2), 308–329. Liu, H., Cutcher, L., & Grant, D. (2017). Authentic leadership in context: An analysis of banking CEO narratives during the global financial crisis. Human Relations, 70(6), 694– 724. Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2012). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge Academic New York, USA. Lu, J., Zhang, Z., & Jia, M. (2021). Servant leadership effectiveness: Do religious atmosphere and housing price matter? Social information-processing Perspective. Current Psychology, 40, 3944-3957. Lusinski, N. (2019). 9 of the Most Challenging Things about Working Remotely. Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/working-remote-challenges-work-from-home-2019-10 Mannion, G. (2017). Schopenhauer, religion and morality: The humble path to ethics. Routledge. Taylor Francis Group. McCaffery, P. (2018). The higher education manager’s handbook: Effective leadership and management in universities and colleges. Routledge, UK. McCusker, K., & Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), 537–542. Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2021). Emotional intelligence and servant leadership: A meta‐analytic review. Business ethics, the environment & responsibility, 30(2), 231-243. Miller, I. F., Becker, A. D., Grenfell, B. T., & Metcalf, C. J. E. (2020). Disease and healthcare burden of COVID-19 in the United States. Nature Medicine, 26(8), 1212–1217. Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 555–570. Najam, U., & Mustamil, N. B. M. (2022). Does Proactive Personality Moderate the Relationship Between Servant Leadership and Psychological Ownership and Resilience? SAGE Open, 12(2), 958-978. Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., & Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home: characteristics and outcomes of telework. International journal of manpower, 40(1), 87- 101. Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 344 Nauman, S., Bhatti, S. H., Imam, H., & Khan, M. S. (2022). How servant leadership drives project team performance through collaborative culture and knowledge sharing. Project Management Journal, 53(1), 17–32. Nemati, A. R., Nemati, S. A., & Firdous, R. (2022). Impact of Servant Leadership on Employee Performance, with Mediating Effect of Trust and Moderating Effect of Culture: Evidence from the Banking Sector of Pakistan. Market Forces, 17(2), 113–136. Neubert, M. J., de Luque, M. S., Quade, M. J., & Hunter, E. M. (2022). Servant leadership across the globe: Assessing universal and culturally contingent relevance in organizational contexts. Journal of World Business, 57(2), 101268. Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage publications. Mitchell, T. (2019). In US, Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace. Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved February, 21, 2023. Available at: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid- pace/ Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393. Passer, M. (2020). Research methods: Concepts and connections. Macmillan Higher Education, South Melbourne, Australia. Peterson, R. A., & Kim, Y. (2013). On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 194-198. Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2015). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. Routledge, UK. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. Potter, R. (2020). The post-COVID digital workplace—2020—IIASA. International Institute for Applied System Analysis. https://iiasa.ac.at/web/home/resources/publications/options/w20_The_post- Covid_digital_workplace.html Quigley, A. L., Stone, H., Nguyen, P. Y., Chughtai, A. A., & MacIntyre, C. R. (2021). Estimating the burden of COVID-19 on the Australian healthcare workers and health system during the first six months of the pandemic. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 114, 103811. Qureshi, M. A. (2018). Ethical Leadership, Ethical Climate and Employees’ Work Behavior: A Cross-Sectional Investigation in the Healthcare Sector of Pakistan. IRCBM- 2018. Qureshi et al. 345 Qureshi, M. A., Ahmed, K. A., & Hyder, S. I. (2019). Influence of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Behavioral Outcomes in Cultures with High Power Distance Orientation. Pakistan Business Review, 21(3), 39–60. Raabe, J., Zakrajsek, R. A., Orme, J. G., Readdy, T., & Crain, J. A. (2020). Perceived cadre behavior, basic psychological need satisfaction, and motivation of US Army ROTC cadets: A self-determination theory perspective. Military Psychology, 32(5), 398–409. Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 375–385. Said, R. M., & El-Shafei, D. A. (2021). Occupational stress, job satisfaction, and intent to leave: Nurses working on front lines during COVID-19 pandemic in Zagazig City, Egypt. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(7), 8791–8801. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 224–253. Saunders, M. N. (2011). Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education India. Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management studies, 45(2), 402-424. Setyaningrum, R. P., Said, J., & Soelistya, D. (2023). Leadership Role and Employee Intention to Stay: New Evidence from Healthcare Sector in Emerging Economies. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 21(1), 112–127. Shieh, G. (2009). Detecting interaction effects in moderated multiple regression with continuous variables power and sample size considerations. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 510–528. Sousa, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2017). Servant leadership and the effect of the interaction between humility, action, and hierarchical power on follower engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 13-25. Spector, P. E., Rosen, C. C., Richardson, H. A., Williams, L. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). A new perspective on method variance: A measure-centric approach. Journal of Management, 45(3), 855-880. Staff, I. W. (2020, April 15). Like Working at Home? It Could Become Permanent. Industry-Week. Available at: https://www.industryweek.com/talent/article/21128840/likeworking-at-home-it-could-become-permanent Su, C. W., Dai, K., Ullah, S., & Andlib, Z. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic and unemployment dynamics in European economies. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 1752-1764. Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being 346 Swanson, S., Todd, S., Inoue, Y., & Welty Peachey, J. (2022). Leading for multidimensional sport employee well-being: the role of servant leadership and teamwork. Sport Management Review, 25(5), 748-770. Teimouri, H., Hosseini, S. H., & Ardeshiri, A. (2018). The role of ethical leadership in employee psychological well-being (Case study: Golsar Fars Company). Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28(3), 355–369. The Holy Quran. (1987). King Fahd Printing Complex, Madinah, Kindgom of Saudi Arabia. UNIDO (2020). Impact Assessment of Covid-19 on Pakistan’s Manufacturing Firms. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Tourish, D. (2020). Introduction to the special issue: Why the coronavirus crisis is also a crisis of leadership. Leadership, 16(3), 261–272. Tripathi, D., Priyadarshi, P., Kumar, P., & Kumar, S. (2020). Does servant leadership affect work role performance via knowledge sharing and psychological empowerment? VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 51(5), 792-812. Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. van Eeden Jones, I., & Lasthuizen, K. (2018). Building public sector integrity in Indonesia: The role and challenges of ethical leadership. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 40(3), 175–185. Wallace, J. R. (2007). Servant leadership: A worldview perspective. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 114–132. Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59. Wang, Z., Panaccio, A., Raja, U., Donia, M., Landry, G., Pereira, M. M., & Ferreira, M. C. (2022). Servant leadership and employee wellbeing: A crosscultural investigation of the moderated path model in Canada, Pakistan, China, the US, and Brazil. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 22(2), 301–325. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. Williams, P. (2015). 21 Great Leaders: Learn Their Lessons, Improve Your Influence. Shiloh Run Press, Uhrichsville, Ohio, USA. Winterfeldt, L., & Roestel, L. (2019). Employees’ perception of the digital workplace and its impact on companies: Identification of recommended actions for companies on how to overcome challenges within the field of remote working [Dissertation, Jönköping University]. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-43957. Qureshi et al. 347 Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. Wong, A. H. K., Cheung, J. O., & Chen, Z. (2020). Promoting effectiveness of “working from home”: findings from Hong Kong working population under COVID-19. Asian Education and Development Studies, 10(2), 210-228. Xiang, S., Rasool, S., Hang, Y., Javid, K., Javed, T., & Artene, A. E. (2021). The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Service Sector Sustainability and Growth. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-10. Xiao, Q., Liang, X., Liu, L., Klarin, A., & Zhang, C. (2023). How do work–life balance programmes influence nurses’ psychological well-being? The role of servant leadership and learning goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(7), 2720–2731. Yang, J., Liu, H., & Gu, J. (2017). A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: The roles of self-efficacy and power distance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(5), 610-629. Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2007). Procedural justice climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 681-692. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251–289. Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education, India. Zhang, H., Kwong Kwan, H., Everett, A. M., & Jian, Z. (2012). Servant leadership, organizational identification, and work-to-family enrichment: The moderating role of work climate for sharing family concerns. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 747–767. Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhang, L., Xu, S., Liu, X., & Chen, W. (2021). A meta-analytic review of the consequences of servant leadership: The moderating roles of cultural factors. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(1), 371–400. Zhong, L., Sun, S., Law, R., & Li, X. (2021). Tourism crisis management: Evidence from COVID-19. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(19), 2671-2682. Zhu, J., Song, L. J., Zhu, L., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Visualizing the landscape and evolution of leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(2), 215–232. Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods. Cengage Learning, Boston, USA.