Does servant leadership moderate the link between strategic human resource management on rule breaking and job satisfaction?

Adiguzel, Zafer; Ozcinar, Mehmet Faruk; Karadal, Himmet Article Does servant leadership moderate the link between strategic human resource management on rule breaking and job satisfaction? European Research on Management and Business Economics (ERMBE) Provided in Cooperation with: European Academy of Management and Business Economics (AEDEM), Vigo (Pontevedra) Suggested Citation: Adiguzel, Zafer; Ozcinar, Mehmet Faruk; Karadal, Himmet (2020) : Does servant leadership moderate the link between strategic human resource management on rule breaking and job satisfaction?, European Research on Management and Business Economics (ERMBE), ISSN 2444-8834, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 26, Iss. 2, pp. 103-110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.04.002 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/294040 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-nd/4.0/ European Research on Management and Business Economics 26 (2020) 103–110 www.elsevier.es/ermbe Does servant leadership moderate the link between strategic human resource management on rule breaking and job satisfaction? Zafer Adiguzela,∗, Mehmet Faruk Ozcinarb, Himmet Karadalc aIstanbul Medipol University, Medipol Business School, Turkey bAksaray University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Turkey cBolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Tourism, Turkey a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 7 June 2019 Received in revised form 1 March 2020 Accepted 27 April 2020 Available online 4 June 2020 JEL classification: M100 M510 M530 M540 Keywords: Strategic human resource management Servant leadership Rule breaking Job satisfaction a b s t r a c t In today’s competitive environment and global world, where the boundaries have disappeared as a result of the continuous development in communication and technology, the attitudes and behaviours of the employees in their organisations are becoming more important in terms of employees’ performance, strategic human resources management (SHRM), leadership roles of senior managers. In this study, the effects of (SHRM) and servant leadership on ‘rule breaking’ behaviours and ‘job satisfaction’ of the employees in their organisation have been examined. Our findings and analyses show that private organisations are afraid of losing customers in competitive environments and therefore their employees go beyond the determined procedures to sustain the interests of their organisation. Future studies should focus on the attitudes and behaviors of individuals in order to develop new theoretical concepts and better studies related to human resources and leadership styles. The sample population of our study consists of 385 white-collar employees working in the public and private sectors in the Central Anatolia region. 228 were employed in the private sector and 157 in the public sector. Findings were subjected to factor and reliability analyses using SPSS AMOS 22 program, hypotheses were tested by regression analysis and the results were analysed and evaluated. © 2020 AEDEM. Published by Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1. Introduction Changes in the business world and the emergence of new expectations of stakeholders in the field of management are important in bringing new concepts to the literature in the field of leadership. In research, Van Dierendonck’s (2011), servant leadership theory emerged and developed in order to respond to the increasing concerns of stakeholders due to changes in the business world. In the intensive pace of business life, the labour, effort and performance of employees are undoubtedly very important for their organisations and also for themselves. In today’s intensely competitive environment, organisations have begun to adopt a performanceoriented working system and expect employees to meet targeted performance criteria. If there is high job satisfaction, employees can exceed targeted performance and contribute positively ∗Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z. Adiguzel), [email protected] (M.F. Ozcinar), [email protected] (H. Karadal). to their organisations. Strategic human resources management (SHRM) is an important department to ensure job satisfaction of the employees in line with the performance-enhancing criteria. However, it is important to note that the implementation stage of the performance-based criteria of the SHRM plays a key role. Performance-based decisions should not be taken without significant research and studies carried out to determine their contribution to job satisfaction and employee motivation. In the literature, it is surprising that there is a gap in the field of leadershiphuman resource management-rule breaking behaviour. In general, when examining the effects of servant leadership, it is stated that more research needs to be done in different cultures and different sectors in relation to an employees’ desire to engage in rulebreaking behavior and other behaviors within the organization. It is believed that the human capital of the organization is a very important element for gaining a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). In light of the less developed areas above, our main objective is to define how strategic human resource management and servant leadership affect an employees’ job satisfaction and their tendencies for rule breaking. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.04.002 2444-8834/© 2020 AEDEM. Published by Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/). 104 Z. Adiguzel et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 26 (2020) 103–110 2. Literature review 2.1. Strategic human resources management Strategic human resources management (SHRM) has inspired interest in academic studies especially in the last 10 years due to problems of working life. The effect of SHRM on employees also creates a positive impact on organizational performance (Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997). SHRM focuses on how the employees can be influenced positively in terms of their job attitudes and performance (Wright & Boswell, 2002). The decisions or procedures taken by the SHRM to encourage better performance may not have any impact on the employees in the case of the events experienced in the organisation and the employees prefer to take the matter with individual responsibility. However, over the last thirty years, researchers have tried to demonstrate the importance of HRM in terms of creating an impact on organizational performance, and therefore, interest in SHRM has increased (Cappelli & Crocker-Hefter, 1996). Although there are criticisms of the researches conducted in the field of SHRM, these criticisms contribute, theoretically, to the development of SHRM (Guest, 1997). In a comprehensive review of the literature, Delery and Doty (1996) have largely explored the policies of SHRM because of their interest in identifying ‘best practices’ and ‘universalist’ approaches and adopted perspectives to institutionalise SHRM. It is stated that human resources practices, where the human element comes to the forefront in organizations, are always necessary in order to have a positive effect on the development of employees and the organization (Delery & Doty, 1996). From this perspective, SHRM is concerned with the development of applications for achieving high performance for employees (MacDuffie, 1995). In this context, it is assumed that organizational performance will be positively affected if organizations implement SHRM policies (Kochan & Dyer, 1993). 2.2. Servant leadership Servant leadership has an important role in motivating employees to perform activities to help the firm achieve its goals (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). The focus of servant leadership is not the company, but rather the employees those who follow him/her. Servant leadership is a sense of leadership that protects the interests of his/her followers and considers their well-being (Laub, 1999). Servant leadership is the leadership style which prioritises serving his/her followers in order to cater to their needs and expectations (Ehrhart, 2004). Servant leaders feel a moral obligation to meet the requests of their followers, and therefore, they act in the interests of their followers and their organizations (Greenleaf, 1998). Servant Leadership Theory is related to the level of satisfaction of the employees in the situations they have experienced in their organisation (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008). In the 2000s, managers with servant leadership characteristics are stated to be employed in the best firms in America (Levering, Moskowitz, & Garcia, 2000). The attitudes and behaviours of the servant leaders have characteristics, such as being open and fair, having the principles of friendship and sincerity, providing employees with opportunities for career development, promoting business and company value, and generating a sense of trust in their employees. The importance of servant leadership is that it promotes collaboration and creativity among employees according to other leadership styles (Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, de Windt, & Alkema, 2014). Ehrhart (2004) states that servant leaders are empowering, inclusive, moral, balanced and they focus on progress and success of others and pay attention to the organisation as well as to the society. Servant leaders exhibit selfsacrificing behaviours to create a positive difference in the lives of others and have philanthropic and spiritual goals (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). In this context, the moderator effect of the servant leadership of the research model is examined. 2.3. Rule breaking The rule breaking behaviour has been an interesting and notable study topic in the last 30 years (Grant, 2008). In the literature research, it is explained as the constructive, socially desired behaviour of the employees that does not provide personal interest but generates benefits for the organisation. Its characteristics are a lack of self-benefit, the disciplinary offense they may face in case of not applying specified procedures or implementing different procedures, and acting in the interest of the organisation. It is about an employee who acts beyond the procedures which he/she believes are wrong and takes individual responsibility to break the rules for the benefits of the organization. Employees can break rules and procedures to help their colleagues to finish their jobs in time or to show extra effort to satisfy customers out of boundaries in order to better serve the organisation (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Morrison (2006), in his study, Morrison provides insight about the intentions that motivate employees to break rules and show social behaviours, but he states that there is lack of conceptual and empirical work on the intention to rule breaking and more work has to be carried out to conceptualize the subject theoretically. In their study, Dahling, Chau, Mayer, and Gregory (2012), established a negative relationship between the intention of rule breaking and being conscientious. While these factors are considered as a starting point to understand individual differences for a tendency to break rules, it is clear that many aspects of the intention of rule breaking are unknown and more theorizing is needed. Serious breach of rules by the employees can have a negative impact on the decisions of the financiers and promotional decisions of the company management. We predict that negative effects of rule breaking will cause negative impacts on the performance of companies. 2.4. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction is defined as the perception of the individuals when the benefits gained from the work corresponds to their needs (Locke, 1976). It is stated that the perception of job satisfaction decreases when employees had to face negative attitudes and behaviours, and in all respects, employees may even think of leaving the organisation according to the severity of the situation (Karatepe, Yorganci, & Haktanir, 2008). As a result of examining the problems faced by employees in the workplace, it was stated that the negative situations experienced by employees may increase the probability of depression, anxiety, and low job satisfaction (Driscoll, Worthington, & Hurrell, 1995). In our study, we examined the importance of SHRM and leadership style on the job satisfaction of the employees, and it was determined that both the SHRM and servant leadership had a positive effect on job satisfaction. The studies on job satisfaction started in the 1930s and has been the most focused subject of organizational behaviour until now (Kim, Tavitiyaman, & Kim, 2009). As a result of the research carried out in the literature, we can see that job satisfaction is defined in different ways. In general terms, job satisfaction is considered as a reflection of the positive or negative emotional reactions of the employees due to the work they perform, including their powers and responsibilities (Spector, 1997). In this sense, job satisfaction is an individual-specific assessment at an important level. This attitude, developed by employees, can be the result of positive or negative perceptions of various internal and external factors, such as salary, working conditions, and workplace environment. In general, employees with a high level of job satisfaction show a positive and constructive attitude towards their organizations, but the indi- Z. Adiguzel et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 26 (2020) 103–110 105 Fig. 1. Research model source: data processed. viduals with low levels of job satisfaction have negative feelings towards business and organisations (Greenberg & Baron, 2000). 2.5. Research framework Based on the literature review, in the study, data was analysed in order to determine the impact of between statistical concepts, and therefore, a quantitative approach was adopted. In a quantitative research test, we use dependent variable(s) to examine the effects on the independent variables (Thomas, Nelson, & Silverman, 2015) (Fig. 1). H1: SHRM has a significant negative effect on rule breaking. H2: SHRM has a significant effect on job satisfaction. H3: Servant leadership has a significant negative effect on rule breaking. H4: Servant leadership has a positive significant effect on job satisfaction. H5: Servant leadership moderates the relationship between SHRM and rule breaking. H6: Servant leadership moderates the relationship between SHRM and job satisfaction. 3. Method 3.1. Analytical approach As a Likert-scale questionnaire was applied, the questionnaire was collected from 385 employees. After the factor and reliability analyses, SPSS AMOS 22 program was used to analyse the data, and structural modelling was used for correlation analysis and testing of the hypotheses. 3.2. Instruments The questionnaire consists of scales related to strategic human resource management, servant leadership, rule breaking and job satisfaction. Strategic human resources management scale; The questions were developed by Green, Medlin, & Medlin (2001). In the study conducted by Green et al. (2001) the reliability value of 9 scales was alpha = .91. In the study, 14 scales were used, and 5 questions were removed from the scale as a result of factor analysis. 6-point Likert scale was used in the study. Servant leadership scale; It was measured by 14 scales (alpha = .98) developed by Ehrhart in 2004. All scales were accepted as a result of factor analysis. Rule Breaking Scale; The scales implemented in the studies of Dahling et al. (2012); alpha = .89) used 21 scales in study. Job Satisfaction Scale; The scale developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951); alpha = .87) was used. 18 scales were used in the study. It was evaluated according to 18 scale - 5 likert scale developed about job satisfaction and accepted as a result of factor analysis. The study items were anchored on a point 5-Likert scales where 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree. 4. Data analysis and findings 4.1. Demographic breakdown The sample constituted of 385 white collar employees working in different departments of private and public organisations: out of which 132 are females and 253 are males. The age of the survey participants were distributed as; 16.8% were between 18–25 years of age (65 participants), 24.6% were between 26–30 (95 participants), 27% were between 31–35 (104 participants), and 18.7% were between 36–40 (72 participants), 8.5% were between 41–45 (33 participants) and 4.1% were 46 and over (16 Participants). 40.7% of the employees work in the public sector (157 employees), 59.2% are in the private sector (228 employees). The level of achievement of the employees’ individual goals; 24 participants stated as ‘very low level’, 47 participants stated as ‘low level’, 157 participants stated as ‘medium level’, 126 participants stated as “high level’, 31 participants stated as ‘very high level’. 4.2. Measurement model In the study, the questionnaire consisted of a 49-question scale. Variables; Strategic human resources management, servant leadership, job satisfaction, rule breaking were subjected to factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis; It was applied to test the validity of the single factor structure (Fig. 2). Compatibility of the data of the study to the 4 different measurement models were tested with indices of ␹2/DF, RMSEA, GFI, TLI, CFI and NFI. The results obtained are significant for ␹2value of four-factor model displayed in Table 1 and the ␹2/DF. value (2.14) is below 5, therefore the model meets the compliance criterion in this respect. In addition, indicators of GFI = 0.83, NFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92 and RMSEA = 0.057 show compliance with the data of the study. In order to determine whether there is a significant difference between the single-factor model and the four-factor model, ␹2values were subjected to a ‘Chi-Square Difference Test’ and it was decided that the difference was significant (Table 1). Thus, the common method shows no deviation (Karadal, Merdan, & Abubakar, 2019). Based on these results, the study was continued with a four-factor (related) model. After the factor analysis, 11 questions were excluded from the scale because they affected the factor distribution and decreased reliability. The remaining 38 questions were distributed to 4 factors. Table 2 shows the factor loads according to the variables. Whether the tools of this study measure the structure validity was examined with the methods of (1) convergent validity and (2) discriminant validity. As shown in Table 2, the standardized factor loadings of the scale items ranged from 0.57 to 0.94 and they are higher than 0.5, therefore the criterion was met (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). And also, these factor values were statistically significant according to the t-values in parametric tests. The scale’s AVE values are greater than 0.50 and it is the evidence of convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). According to Abubakar, Ilkan, & Sahin, 2016, evidence of discriminant validity can be seen because the correlation between the variables is less than 0.80. We can explain the internal consistency of the measurement and the mean relationship between the questions by reliability analysis. Table 3 shows that both alpha and structure reliability are higher than 0.70 (Nunnally, 1976). As seen in Table 3, correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between SHRM, ser- 106 Z. Adiguzel et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 26 (2020) 103–110 Table 1 Model-data fit values. ␹2␹2SD ␹2/SD GFI NFI CFI TLI RMSEA Single factor model 5506.19 – 665 8.28 .386 .504 .534 .507 .143 Research model 1400.14 4106.05 655 2.14 .826 .874 .928 .923 .057 Servant leadership Rule breaking Strategic human resources management Job satisfaction Source: data processed. Note: ␹2, Chi-Square; SD, Degree of Freedom, GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, NFI = Normed Fit Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ␹2/SD, Relative Chi-Square. Table 2 Scale factor structures factor loadings t-value. Statements Factor loadings t-value Servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004) (scale: 1–5) HL1: Our manager spends time to communicate openly and clearly with the employees .72 – HL2: Our manager creates a sense of team among employees. .83 15.45 HL3: The decisions taken by our manager decrease the motivation of the employees. * – HL4: The decisions taken by our manager increase the motivation of the employees. .82 15.32 HL5: Our manager takes the opinion of the employees when making important decisions. .77 14.27 HL6: Our manager has an understanding approach about employees’ responsibilities out-of-work. .77 14.31 HL7: Our manager prioritizes the personal development of employees .75 13.99 HL8: Our manager attaches importance to employees to have high moral working standards .76 14.07 HL9: Our manager gives promises to employees. * – HL10: Our manager follows the day-to-day tasks in detail to achieve the future goals. .76 14.06 HL11: Our manager works extensively to find solutions to problems. .77 14.31 HL12: Working with our manager makes things easier. .83 15.42 HL13: Our manager makes the existing duties more difficult when trying to help employees. *– HL14: Our manager encourages employees to participate in voluntary activities. .69 12.89 HL15: Our manager emphasizes how important the thoughts of society are. .72 13.41 Strategic human resources management (Green et al., 2001) (scale: 1–5) Vertical alignment of human resource function SIKY1: In our organisation, long term managerial plans are made. .71 – SIKY2: In our organisation, our managers encourage employees to achieve long-term strategic goals. .80 17.85 SIKY6: Behavioural development trainings of personnel were carried out in our organisation. .77 13.93 Impact of human resource function on performance SIKY3: Selection of personnel in our organisation is important in terms of achieving strategic goals. .80 14.41 SIKY4: Employee performance evaluations are carried out regularly to achieve the objectives .82 14.81 SIKY5: Behavioural work analyses are carried out according to the needs of personnel in our institution. .82 14.77 Horizontal integration of the human resource function SIKY7: HR department regularly keeps track of staff information to make decisions. .78 14.12 SIKY8: Human resources planning is carried out as a formal and open procedure. .70 12.69 SIKY9: In our organisation, a formal and well-known human resources strategy have been implemented. .66 11.94 Rule breaking (Dahling et al., 2012) (scale: 1–5) KK1: I ignore the organizational rules if my colleagues need help (co-worker aid) .60 11.63 KK2: I ignore corporate policies to help a colleagu (co-worker Aid) .57 10.92 KK3: If someone needs my help, I ignore the rules of the institution (co-worker aid) .67 12.98 KK4: I help employees by ignoring the rules of the institution (co-worker Aid) .73 14.27 KK5: I help other employees, even if it means violating corporate policies (efficiency) .62 11.96 KK6: When I want to help my colleague, I do not refrain from breaking the rules of the institution (efficiency) .80 16.07 KK7: I ignore these rules of the organization when they prevent me completing my duties (efficiency) .89 18.34 KK11: I violate organizational policies so that the company saves time and money (efficiency) .76 – KK8: I ignore company regulations that will lead the organization to inefficiency (artifact) .89 18.36 KK9: I prefer to violate the organization’s policies in order to work more efficiently (artifact) .86 17.51 KK10: I disregard organizational rules to reduce bureaucracy (artifact) .86 17.48 Job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) (scale: 1–5) ISM1: I find real pleasure in my work. .77 15.30 ISM2: I love my job more when there are not too many employees. * – ISM3: I am pleased with my job for the time being. .87 17.68 ISM4: I absolutely love my job. .85 17.03 ISM5: I feel very happy about my job compared to my colleagues. .83 16.57 ISM6: I am very happy with my current job or tasks. .94 19.26 ISM7: In general, I am not very enthusiastic about my work. * – ISM8: I have good thoughts about my work. .76 – ISM9: So far, I have been disappointed in working in this organisation. * – Source: data processed. Note: * Eliminated statement. Z. Adiguzel et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 26 (2020) 103–110 107 Fig. 2. Confirmatory factor analysis model source: data processed. (PSK = Rule Breaking, SIKY = Strategic Human Resource Management, HZL = Servant Leadership, IST = Job Satisfaction). Table 3 Mean, standard deviation, reliability and correlation values of variables. Variables Mean S.D. ␣ CR AVE 1 2 3 4 1. SHRM 3.31 1.07 .929 .927 .587 – 2. Servant leadership 3.53 1.06 .944 .944 .586 .710** – 3. Rule breaking 2.49 1.11 .939 .936 .577 −.078 −.109* – 4. Job satisfaction 3.74 1.07 .932 .933 .701 .643** .668** −.124* – Source: data processed. Note: S.D., Standard Deviation; ␣, Alpha Reliability; CR, Structural Reliability; AVE, Average Variance Extracted. *Correlation values are significant at 0.05 level (bi-directional). ** Correlation values are significant at 0.01 level (bi-directional). vant leadership, job satisfaction and rule breaking. The relationship between SHRM and rule breaking is not statistically significant (r = −.078, p > .10). The relationship between SHRM and job satisfaction is significant and positive (r = .643, p < .001). While the relationship between servant leadership and rule breaking is negative (r = −.109, p < .05), the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction is positive (r = .668, p < .001). The rule breaking variable has an inverse relationship with all variables (strategic human resources management, servant leadership and job satisfaction). As a result of correlation analysis, it is seen that these variables do not have a direct positive effect on the rule breaking behaviour of employees. When we examine the correlation coefficients, it is understood that the relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction (.668) is relatively stronger. 4.3. Direct effects of the structural model A structural equation model was used to test research hypotheses. According to Table 4 and Fig. 3, SHRM does not have a significant effect on rule breaking (ˇ = .031, p > .10). Thus, hypothesis 1 was rejected. SHRM has a significant positive effect on job satisfaction (ˇ = .375, p < .001). In other words, if the level of SHRM increases, job satisfaction also increases. Thus, hypothesis 2 gained support. Servant leadership has a significant negative effect on rule breaking (ˇ = −.103, p < .10). In other words, as the level of servant leadership increases, the rule breaking decreases. Thus, hypothesis 3 gained support. Servant leadership has a positive significant effect on job satisfaction (ˇ = .471, p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 4 gained support. 4.4. Moderating role of servant leadership In a research model, the moderator variable role of servant leadership on the relationship between SHRM and rule breaking, and job satisfaction was tested. Analyses were carried out to test the hypotheses to determine the effect. We examined the moderator effect of servant leadership following the procedures issued in prior work (i.e., Kaya, Behravesh, Abubakar, Kaya, & Orús, 2019), and as a result of the analyses, it was seen that it had no moderator effect. It supports the fact that if the employees think the rules are unnecessary, they do not obey/adopt the rules in the related situation, but they act in the interests of the organisation (ˇ = −.076, p > .10). H5 hypothesis is not supported. However, in terms of the moderator effect of servant leadership, it was found that it has an effect on the relationship between SHRM and job satisfaction (ˇ = −.076, p < .10). H6 hypothesis is supported (Fig. 4). This situation indicates how managers’ style should be to ensure the job satisfaction of the employees. One of the most important characteristics of servant leadership is his/her servant attitude and behaviour towards his/her employees. This situation naturally increases the job satisfaction of employees. 5. Discussion When the researches in the field of servant leadership were examined, the cultural and climatic factors were examined in the areas where the positive aspects were investigated (Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser, 2014), and also the factors such as psychological identity, trust and motivation were examined (Chiniara & Bentein, 108 Z. Adiguzel et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 26 (2020) 103–110 Table 4 Direct Effects of the Structural Model. Independent variables Dependent variables Beta ˇ S.E. t-value p Decision SHRM Rule breaking .003 .003 .055 0.051 .959 H1-rejected SHRM Job satisfaction .333 .375 .037 8.881 *** H2-supported Servant leadership Rule breaking −107 −.103 .055 −1.942 .052* H3-supported Servant leadership Job satisfaction .422 .471 .038 11.140 *** H4-supported Moderator (interaction effects) (SHRM* servant leadership) rule breaking .030 .031 .051 .587 .557 H5rejected (SHRM* servant leadership) job satisfaction −.062 −.076 .035 −1.793 .073* H6-supported Source: data processed. Note: ˇ, Standard Beta; S.E., Standard Error. **Significant at 0.05 level (bi-directional). *Significant at the level of 0.1 (bidirectional). *** Significant at 0.01 level (bi-direction). Fig. 3. Structural equation model source: data processed. Fig. 4. Moderator effect source: data processed. 2016). Looking at the results of the other studies and analyses in this field, we can see that the studies on the rule breaking behaviours of the employees and human resources management are very limited. Training and performance evaluation within the organization, ensuring consistency and strengthening the organization depend on SHRM practices. Our study was conducted on white-collar employees in the public and private sector in central anatolia, Turkey to determine the SHRM effect on ‘rule breaking’ and ‘job satisfaction’ variables. It is determined that SHRM has no significant effect on rule breaking (H1 and H5 hypotheses rejected). We can explain this as the employees of the organisations in the production sector or service sector operating in the central anatolia region believe that the organisational procedures are not for the benefit of their organisations and therefore these rules cannot be implemented. However, having managers with a servant leadership role has a positive impact on the employees and reduces the rule breaking behaviour. In this regard, the effects of other leadership roles should be examined to contribute to the literature. One of the most important results of the findings of our study is that strategic human resource management procedures increase job satisfaction but do not have any effect on reducing the rule breaking behaviour, and we believe that this finding should be discussed further. An explanation for this case might be that; although the employees are satisfied with their job, they have a tendency to violate the rules because they cannot accept the wrong practices in their organisations and prefer to implement more correct versions to prevent their organisations from being harmed by these wrong practices. Of course, further and detailed studies are needed Z. Adiguzel et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 26 (2020) 103–110 109 in this field. Our study examines the servant leadership moderator variable effect on the relationship between SHRM and rule breaking, and it was understood that both servant leadership and the leadership roles have no impact on the employees for the procedures. 6. Conclusion and suggestions Servant leaders embrace a human-centered management style, emphasize personal integrity and care for others, including internal and external stakeholders (Liden et al., 2008). Previous research has shown extensively that Servant Leadership supports positive behaviours and promotes outstanding performance of followers (Chen, Zhu, & Zhou, 2015; Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012). The results of the research show that H3 and H4 hypotheses are supported. While servant leadership eliminates employees’ rulebreaking behaviour, it positively affects their job satisfaction. In order for SHRM applications to have performance-enhancing effect, SHRM applications should be aiming not only to ensure consistency within the organization but also to contribute to the creation of an organizational culture that can provide competitive advantages (Miao, Adler, & Xu, 2011). Achieving a sustainable competitive advantage has become a topic of discussion in the theory of management, and in the past years, researchers looked for an answer to the question, in particular, on how to implement SHRM applications to achieve such an advantage (Fiol, 1991). As a result of our research conducted in the Central Anatolia region, we can see that job satisfaction has significant and positive relationships with both SHRM and servant leadership, but the employees have a tendency to break rules according to the situations they experience in their organisations. It is interesting that this situation is observed both in the private sector and in the public sector. Considering the necessity of the internal statutes and the necessity for civil servants to obey the rules, it is understood that the existing procedures in public institutions can be stretched in practice in favour of the public and the citizens. Therefore, we assume that H1 and H5 hypotheses are rejected. The most important effect in achieving competitive advantage is a work-force that correctly will implement strategic decisions in the organization. For this reason, the correct implementation of the SHRM applications is directly proportional to the performance of the employees. The acceptance of the H2 and H6 hypotheses is in support of this view, since the positive performance of the employees also emerges as a result of job satisfaction. It appears that servant leadership decreases the rule breaking behaviours of the employees, but if we look at the moderator variable effect, it has no impact due to the procedures of SHRM. It is the fact that employees pay attention to existing rules and procedures rather than the influence of leadership, and display attitudes and behaviours according to the rules on written sources. More intensive and academic examination of the problems experienced in the working life can lead to the acquisition of new concepts in terms of theoretical and analysis and contribution to the world literature in future studies. This study utilizes a cross-sectional design and self-reported data. Thus, future studies can embrace predictive and artificial intelligence techniques as suggested by (Abubakar, 2019). References Abubakar, A. M. (2019). Using hybrid SEM – Artificial intelligence approach to examine the nexus between boreout, generation, career, life and job satisfaction. Personnel Review, 49(1), 67–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2017-0180 Abubakar, A. M., Ilkan, M., & Sahin, P. (2016). eWOM, eReferral and gender in the virtual community. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 34(5), 692–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-05-2015-0090 Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–326. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725. Cappelli, P., & Crocker-Hefter, A. (1996). Distinctive human resources are firms’ core competencies. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 7–22. Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group competition climate, and customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 511–521. Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 124–141. Dahling, J. J., Chau, L. S., Mayer, M. D., & Gregory, B. J. (2012). Breaking rules for the right reason? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.730 Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802–835. Driscoll, R. J., Worthington, K. A., & Hurrell, J. R. (1995). Work place assault: An emerging job stressor. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 47(4), 205–212. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94. Fiol, C. M. (1991). Managing culture as a competitive resource: An identitybased view of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 191–211. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3). Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48–58. Green, K. W., Jr., Medlin, B., & Medlin, R. (2001). Strategic human resource management: Measurement scale development. Academy of Strategic and Organizational Leadership Journal, 5(2), 99–112. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2000). Behavior in organizations. Prentice Hall. Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant leadership. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler. Guest, D. E. (1997). The nature and causes of effective human resource management: A review and research agenda. International journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263–276. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resources management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 171–188. Karadal, H., Merdan, E., & Abubakar, M. (2019). Güvenlik ˙ Iklimi ve Güvenlik Kültürünün ˙ Is¸ yeri Yaralanmaları Üzerine Etkisinde Güvenlik Davranıs¸ larının Aracılık Rolü: Döküm Sanayinde Bir Aras¸ tırma. Anemon Mus¸ Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(6), 329–339. Karatepe, O. M., Yorganci, I., & Haktanir, M. (2008). Outcomes of customer verbal aggression among hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21, 713–733. Kaya, B., Behravesh, E., Abubakar, A. M., Kaya, O. S., & Orús, C. (2019). The moderating role of website familiarity in the relationships between e-service quality, esatisfaction and e-loyalty. Journal of Internet Commerce, 18(4), 369–394. Kim, H. J., Tavitiyaman, P., & Kim, W. G. (2009). The effect of management commitment to service on employee service behaviours: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33(3), 369–390. Kochan, T. A., & Dyer, L. (1993). Managing transformational change: The role of human resource professionals. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(3), 569–590. Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the organizational leadership assessment (OLA) instrument, Ed.D. Dissertation. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University. Levering, R., Moskowitz, M., & Garcia, F. (2000). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune, 141(1), 82–110. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452. 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, 161–177. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (1297–1349). Chicago, IL: RandMcNally. MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial Labor Relations Review, 48, 197–221. Miao, L., Adler, H., & Xu, X. (2011). A stakeholder approach to expatriate management: Perceptions of expatriate managers in China. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 530–541. 110 Z. Adiguzel et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 26 (2020) 103–110 Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32, 5–28. Nunnally, J. C. (1976). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565–596. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80–91. Spector, P. E. (1997). . Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3) Sage publications. Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2015). Research methods in physical activity (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 1228–1261. Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544–562. Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247–276.