Does Servant Leadership Stimulate Work Engagement in the Workplace? The Mediating Role of Trust in Leader
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
It has been interesting to read your work. The topic addressed is relevant and the approach pertinent. Possibly a larger sample would be desirable, but with the justification provided I think it is solved. It is worth mentioning the good structure and easy comprehension of the introductory section.
However, I think it would be important to address some issues in the method and results section:
In the method section, more information needs to be provided. For example, a section on data analysis is missing, which would facilitate the understanding of the analyses performed. Some of this information is included in the results section, which is not adequate.
The results section could be more detailed.
- For example, the total effect on the SL - WE relationship is not shown, only the direct effect. With the total effect we would have the opportunity to analyze the percentage of variability for which TIL is responsible as a mediator. In any case it is significant, but it can be assumed that there are more variables involved in the effect of SL on WE, and the relevance of these can be provided by the total effect. I think this publication could be of help in this regard: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34896871/
Hoping that these comments, which are intended to be constructive, will be useful.
Best regards.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point: It has been interesting to read your work. The topic addressed is relevant and the approach pertinent. Possibly a larger sample would be desirable, but with the justification provided I think it is solved. It is worth mentioning the good structure and easy comprehension of the introductory section.
However, I think it would be important to address some issues in the method and results section:
In the method section, more information needs to be provided. For example, a section on data analysis is missing, which would facilitate the understanding of the analyses performed. Some of this information is included in the results section, which is not adequate.
The results section could be more detailed.
- For example, the total effect on the SL - WE relationship is not shown, only the direct effect. With the total effect we would have the opportunity to analyze the percentage of variability for which TIL is responsible as a mediator. In any case it is significant, but it can be assumed that there are more variables involved in the effect of SL on WE, and the relevance of these can be provided by the total effect. I think this publication could be of help in this regard:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34896871/
Hoping that these comments, which are intended to be constructive, will be useful.
Response : Dear reviewer 1, we highly appreciate your time and concern and positive feedback on our manuscript. We have modified various sections in accord with your suggestions. All edits are highlighted in yellow.
Kindly find the attached file being the modified article according to the comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Statements as “servant leadership is a topic of interest ... with increasing numbers” should be strongly documented.
2. In order to avoid possible confusions, and for the sake of research clarity, the paper should be revised as far as the use of concepts as: “sustainable psychology” (as claimed by the title), “organizational psychology”, “work engagement” (per research model), “well-being”.
3. It is suggested to specify upfront that research is focused (and possibly valid) in case of academic/educational staff).
4. Please reformulate the phrase including “... trust which can further establish an environment ...” (Abstract) in more specific terms – related to the paper focus.
5. The author/s state that “In this study, wellbeing is emphasized as an important element within the context of sustainable psychology” (rows 41-42). Please document and elaborate.
6. The research model (as Figure 1 depicts) deals with three variables: servant leadership, trust in leader, and work engagement. Therefore, the following relationships should be analyzed and well-described – in order to avoid any confusion: (i) “servant leadership” versus “willingness to serve” (rows 61-62); (ii) “trust in leader” versus “environment of trust” (row 63); (iii) “work engagement” versus “work outcomes” (row 63). The same strong recommendation across the paper.
7. The author/s announce “the subjects to be addressed by their research” (rows 65-67) but they fail to provide the corresponding answers by the end:
- Organizational psychology;
- Leadership;
- Organizational behavior;
- Leading high performance organizations after COVID-19.
Revision is strongly recommended in this respect.
8. The research method is declared as quantitative (questionnaire-based survey); and questionnaire is “designed from valid and reliable measurements in the extant literature” (rows 203-204). However, not too many details are provided about the questionnaire structure and respective questions. It should be.
9. G*power software was used for “sample size calculation with statistical power ... [...] ... that shows a sample size between 113 and 214 is sufficient for satisfactory statistical analysis” (rows 230-232). However, there is no information about total population: (i) as number; (ii) as main features – other that “two educational organizations” (row 223).
10. “Educational organization” is not equal to “Academic” population. It is strongly recommended to address this issue across the whole paper.
11. In addition, the complete research circumstances are not revealed – neither space (China? United States? Bangladesh?) nor timing (“after COVID-19” is rather vague and far to be satisfactory).
12. The issue of representativeness should be discussed. To what extent are the results applicable for those two educational organizations? For all “educational organizations” from that city/country/region/etc.?
13. The original elements and research contributions should be neatly and transparently highlighted. It is not clear how “These findings are in consensus with the extant literature and contribute to development of servant leadership through, self-determination theory, social learning and social identity theory” (rows 321-323). Please elaborate more specifically, in less general terms – by findings and by theories as claimed.
14. It is suggested to present Conclusions and Implications neatly and more systematically (e.g. presentations in distinct paragraphs at least; possibly present them more coherently, in distinct sections).
15. It is strongly suggested to insert recommendations pointed to the main stakeholders (mainly educational/academic stakeholders).
16. The documentary base is large (67 titles); only the most relevant references (directly linked to the author/s’ research) should be selected (e.g. how relevant is “workplace violence” in the context of the proposed paper?)
17. When the word “engagement” is used, please specify “work engagement”.
18. The capture of Figure 1 could be shortened as some text (“This figure presents ...”) is useless.
19. Conversely, the capture of Figure 2 is extremely vague and general. It is recommended to be completed.
20. Figure 2 itself should be completed as well (e.g. fully visible arrows between variables).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Statements as “servant leadership is a topic of interest ... with increasing numbers” should be strongly documented.
Response 1: we would like to first thank you for your review, which has only improved the quality of our paper. We have revised the sentence in the abstract.
Point 2: In order to avoid possible confusions, and for the sake of research clarity, the paper should be revised as far as the use of concepts as: “sustainable psychology” (as claimed by the title), “organizational psychology”, “work engagement” (per research model), “well-being”.
Response 2: we have provided more information on the keywords and have revised the sentence structure of sections to clarify the context and scope of included factors (e.g. Therefore, the current research focuses on this aspect as during times of crisis, servant leaders can trigger employee engagement to maintain a climate of work that benefits overall wellbeing of academic staff while enhancing work environment. Notably, this is regarded as a concept within sustainable psychology in a manner that can positively impact employee outcomes in long-term. In this study, sustainable psychology is contextualized as a domain of organizational psychology that addresses lasting impacts, influences, and results of employees’ behavior in education sector.)
Point 3: It is suggested to specify upfront that research is focused (and possibly valid) in case of academic/educational staff).
Response 3: we have justified the education sector and academic staff in different parts of the literature review and have added content in the introduction section as well. (e.g. This research focuses on the academic staff and their work engagement under the leadership of a servant leader as it is imperative that academic staff are engaged with their work as it influences the environment, in which students are learning. Thus, the importance of tending to academic staff regarding their needs, and wellbeing is vivid in the context of academia as it encompasses future generations and societal outcomes [34]).
Point 4: Please reformulate the phrase including “... trust which can further establish an environment ...” (Abstract) in more specific terms – related to the paper focus.
Response 4: we have revised the sentence “Results suggest a strong role being carried by servant leaders regarding engagement of their staff. Similarly, mediating role of trust in leader is statistically significant, implying its vitality for improving work engagement in an academic setting”
Point 5: The author/s state that “In this study, wellbeing is emphasized as an important element within the context of sustainable psychology” (rows 41-42). Please document and elaborate.
Response 5: we have revised the sentence as it did not properly reflect the intended meaning “In this study, it is conceptualized that by enhancing work environment (i.e. academic setting) through trust-building and focusing on engagement, the overarching effect can be observed as wellbeing within the context of sustainable psychology (i.e. long lasting effects).
Point 6: The research model (as Figure 1 depicts) deals with three variables: servant leadership, trust in leader, and work engagement. Therefore, the following relationships should be analyzed and well-described – in order to avoid any confusion: (i) “servant leadership” versus “willingness to serve” (rows 61-62); (ii) “trust in leader” versus “environment of trust” (row 63); (iii) “work engagement” versus “work outcomes” (row 63). The same strong recommendation across the paper.
Response 6: we have revised the sections according to your suggestions. The wording of several sentences may have implied that the study aims to investigate factors such as environment of trust, work outcomes, and willingness to serve. However, the context and concepts that are used are specifically addressing servant leadership – work engagement, and mediating role of trust in leader. Hence, while we appreciate your constructive comment, we have revised the sentences that could imply otherwise. (e.g. Therefore, this research focuses on servant leadership, who put the interest of their employees before their own, which can yield in positive work outcomes (i.e. work engagement) through emphasizing on building trust).
Point 7: The author/s announce “the subjects to be addressed by their research” (rows 65-67) but they fail to provide the corresponding answers by the end:
- Organizational psychology;
- Leadership;
- Organizational behavior;
- Leading high performance organizations after COVID-19.
Revision is strongly recommended in this respect.
Response 7: we have provided more information in this regard in the conclusion section (e.g. The importance of a ‘serving’ leader, who focuses on building trust with employees and implement tactics that increase their engagement cannot be neglected in the academic sector. Servant leaders are able to foster trust and engage in positive interactions and overall approach that provides a workplace for staff, where they are encouraged to exhibit positive organizational behaviors (i.e. work engagement). Notably, this implies that through adequate leadership styles, sustainable psychology of academic staff can be improved as they can trust their leaders in enabling professional and personal development while considering their needs and interests).
Point 8: The research method is declared as quantitative (questionnaire-based survey); and questionnaire is “designed from valid and reliable measurements in the extant literature” (rows 203-204). However, not too many details are provided about the questionnaire structure and respective questions. It should be.
Response 8: dear reviewer, the information about questions, and more detail on the survey are provided in the measurement section. We have also added the structure of the survey (The survey consisted of four sections that are namely, demographics, servant leadership questions, work engagement items, and trust in leader indicators.).
Point 9: G*power software was used for “sample size calculation with statistical power ... [...] ... that shows a sample size between 113 and 214 is sufficient for satisfactory statistical analysis” (rows 230-232). However, there is no information about total population: (i) as number; (ii) as main features – other that “two educational organizations” (row 223).
Response 9: dear reviewer, we have used priori analysis in G*power, which does not require sample population and instead, requires alpha, desired statistical power, and effect size. Due to the vast number of employees in all departments and different sections of the university (e.g. cleaning, clerks, administrators, and managers), an accurate population size measurement was not feasible and would increase the error term of sample calculation. Hence, through this method, we have endeavored to maintain a statistical sample size that is satisfactory based on the model, G*power criteria, and recommendations of Hair et al., 2017. We hope that this satisfies your concern in this regard.
Point 10: “Educational organization” is not equal to “Academic” population. It is strongly recommended to address this issue across the whole paper.
Response 10: we have revised the terms used in the manuscript.
Point 11: In addition, the complete research circumstances are not revealed – neither space (China? United States? Bangladesh?) nor timing (“after COVID-19” is rather vague and far to be satisfactory).
Response 11: we have noted that the data was gathered in Turkey. Also added the specification regarding timing: (The data was collected after the pandemic was controlled and lockdowns and other strict restrictions were lifted in Turkey).
Point 12: The issue of representativeness should be discussed. To what extent are the results applicable for those two educational organizations? For all “educational organizations” from that city/country/region/etc.?
Response 12: we have revised the terminology and mentioned that universities are the target. (e.g. The remaining two universities used in data collection procedure have been qualified for having servant leadership in their organizations. To ensure appropriateness of representatives of the academic staff population, only teachers, tutors, researchers, and professors were addressed).
Point 13: The original elements and research contributions should be neatly and transparently highlighted. It is not clear how “These findings are in consensus with the extant literature and contribute to development of servant leadership through, self-determination theory, social learning and social identity theory” (rows 321-323). Please elaborate more specifically, in less general terms – by findings and by theories as claimed.
Response 13: we have revised the section and elaborated on each theory (e.g. Servant leaders are capable of addressing competence, connection, and autonomy genuinely, which enables positive feelings in employees to be more engaged with their jobs [35]. Similarly, through social learning theory, these leaders are able to act as role-models for their staff, which promotes learning and positive behaviors within the organization as well as considering ethics. Academic staff can imitate their leaders’ behavior, further contributing to the overall organizational culture, and aiding the leaders to achieve sustainable psychological outcomes [26, 18].)
Point 14: It is suggested to present Conclusions and Implications neatly and more systematically (e.g. presentations in distinct paragraphs at least; possibly present them more coherently, in distinct sections).
Response 14: in accord with your suggestions we have separated paragraphs considering the aforementioned added information.
Point 15: It is strongly suggested to insert recommendations pointed to the main stakeholders (mainly educational/academic stakeholders).
Response 15: we have revised the limitation/recommendation section accordingly.
Point 16: The documentary base is large (67 titles); only the most relevant references (directly linked to the author/s’ research) should be selected (e.g. how relevant is “workplace violence” in the context of the proposed paper?)
Response 16: we have referred to this particular study (and other studies in the reference list) for specific points that they included. For instance, the noted paper encompasses sustainable work performance, which gave us a better understanding on different aspects related to the current context. However, if you deem that this or any other citation is inappropriate, we can remove them from our list. Please inform us in this regard.
Point 17: When the word “engagement” is used, please specify “work engagement”.
Response 17: we have revised the manuscript accordingly.
Point 18: The capture of Figure 1 could be shortened as some text (“This figure presents ...”) is useless.
Response 18: we apologize for redundancy. It is renamed to “Hypothesized model.”
Point 19: Conversely, the capture of Figure 2 is extremely vague and general. It is recommended to be completed.
Response 19: The figure is renamed to “. Path Coefficient Analysis of The Model.
Point 20: Figure 2 itself should be completed as well (e.g. fully visible arrows between variables).
Response 20: the figure has been edited.
Kindly find the attached file being the modified article according to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study need citation more new papers of literature review. It included leadership and trust key paper in 2022.
Why the data analysis shows as weakness mediating effect? It is need more expression the weakness mediating effect factors.
The result of abstract is not clarify presentation which need following the finding of research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: This study need citation more new papers of literature review. It included leadership and trust key paper in 2022.
Why the data analysis shows as weakness mediating effect? It is need more expression the weakness mediating effect factors.
The result of abstract is not clarify presentation which need following the finding of research.
Response 1: Dear reviewer, we highly appreciate your comments that only increase the overall quality of our paper. Please note that we have revised the manuscript in its entirety. Please also note that the mediating effect is found statically significant (β = 0.132 | T = 2.778**) which supports the hypothesis of the research. In this regard, the strength of mediating effect was not the concern of our analysis but its influence.
Point 2: Manuscript number: sustainability
Title: Does Servant Leadership Stimulate Sustainable Psychology in the Workplace? The Mediating Role of Trust in Leader
1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?
This paper is exciting and makes a valuable contribution to engagement literature.
Does Servant Leadership Stimulate Sustainable Psychology in the Workplace? The Mediating Role of Trust in Leader is a good issue that contains new and significant information. It justifies publication after taking into consideration the comments of the first draft.
Response 1: we truly appreciate your positive feedback.
2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?
It demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field, and the appropriate range of literature sources is cited.
This study need citation more new papers of literature review. It included leadership and trust related key paper in 2022.
Response 2: dear reviewer, please note that the first reviewer mentioned that the references are excessive. We have endeavored to gather most recent and most relevant references for our article. Please inform us if there is a specific study that we have missed.
3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?
The design on which the paper is founded is appropriate to fulfill the authors' research question and objective. PLS Method is suitable for this research sample size and can measure variables in this paper to answer the research question. The methodology adopted for this paper is appropriate for those hypotheses setting in order to measure variance-based SEM, which is an approach that can be used for variables' prediction and measuring mediation between variables.
Why the data analysis shows as weakness mediating effect? This paper need more expression the weakness mediating effect factors.
Response 3: we appreciate your positive feedback and have added more information about the weakness of mediation effect in the conclusions. (It is also important to mention the relatively weak mediation effect that was noted in the current results. This can be due to the other factors that are influential in this context but are not included in the current model (e.g. organizational support, leader-member exchange, team-member exchange, personal characteristics, and social or cultural elements). These aspects can be addressed by scholars aiming to develop current understanding on sustainable psychology within leadership and organizational behavior domains.
4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?
The results are well presented, clearly established, and thoroughly analyzed. Finally, conclusions tie together the elements of the paper; they are concise and address important aspects followed the implications of the research.
But, the results of abstract is not clarify presentation which need following the finding of research step by step description.
Response 4: we have revised the abstarct in accord with your recommendation.
5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?
The results should be point out what different with at before research and finding it. This finding what contribution for really society and practice of field.
Response 5: we have revised the conclusion section and highlighted various aspects. We hope that the changes satisfy your concern.
6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc. Yes, it does. The authors clearly reviewed the manuscript and considerable improvement in expressing clear ideas and using the technical language of the field was presented. This paper is easy to read. In general, the paper is well-structured and clearly written.
Response 6: we sincerely appreciate your motivational and positive feedback which brings us joy and urges us to follow this path.
7. Comments
1) The results of abstract is not clarify presentation which need following the finding of research step by step description.
2) This study need citation more new papers of literature review. It included leadership and trust related key paper in 2022.
3) This research shows out the data analysis was weakness mediating in Table 3. What factor come out the weakness mediating results. This paper need description.
Response 7: we have adjusted the manuscript in its entirety based on the suggestions and recommendations of all respected reviewers. We hope that we have met your expectations and are ready to further adjust the research if needed.
Kindly find the attached file being the modified article according to the comments.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for addressing the issues raised in the review. I think the work is now more solid.
Best regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your positive feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
[former #2] The author/s have operated a number of changes; however, the issue stands still. The author/s declare that “This research focuses on the role of servant leaders and their effects on employees' [work] engagement”. As the title questions if “Servant Leadership Stimulates Sustainable Psychology”, it remains to the author/s to document and demonstrate the relationship between the two {employees’ [work] engagement; sustainable psychology} – which looks difficult (as one is a research variable and the second is a concept defining a scientific domain – psychology of sustainability). To make things more confused, the Abstract states the identity “sustainable psychology (i.e. wellbeing)”. Before going to the research part, these elements should be clarified conceptually (theoretically).
Therefore, it is strongly recommended: that title of the proposed paper, its Abstract, keywords, and content should be all aligned around the research hypotheses and research model (Figures 1 and 2). It is also suggested to mark the hypotheses’ places in the Figure 1.
[former #5] The newly introduced phrase (rows 44-47) does not address the issue; it is neither documented by literature nor in-line with the research model. It might be an issue for the discussions section (?)
[former #6 & #17] The author/s were careful and have switched “engagement” to “work engagement” across the paper; unfortunately, they missed a few (critical) in the Abstract. In the same line, it is suggested to reformulate the hypothesis 2 for precision and clarity: turn “servant leader” to “servant leadership” and “engagement” to “work engagement”.
[former #7] The issue was not addressed; and the phrase was kept as it was (rows 71-74). The author/s make a promise (“this research focuses on …”) which is not supported by their own research – neither by the research model, nor logically – as it refers to “long-term outcomes” and “performance […] after COVID-19”.
[former #9 & #12] The issues of the sample representativeness and the results’ applicability area should be discussed.
[former #11} The author/s mentioned the place (not more than a relatively large country); yet the time-dimension remains imprecise (sometime “after the pandemic was controlled”).
[former #13] The author/s failed to highlight their original contributions (as an advance, as compared to the state-of-the-art literature).
[former #14] It continues to be a single section (5.Conclusions and Implications) which looks mostly like discussions (results in line with existing theory) and it is rather hard to identify the paper conclusion/s and paper implications, distinctly.
[former #15a] It looks like the author/s were quite confused – since it was strongly suggested to add/insert recommendations (e.g. to the main stakeholders, as a result of the research work), and they presented some future research possibilities – which is a notable confusion, obviously.
[former #15b] Abstract announces “results can be beneficial for researchers and practitioners in psychology, leadership, education and other fields” (rows 24-25). These expected results were supposed to be exactly the recommendations expected by the reviewer (and many interested readers and stakeholders).
It is strongly recommended to have the proposed paper revised by a native English speaker, mainly as phrase topic (i.e. place and order of words in the phrase; etc).
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we would like to thank you for your detailed and positive feedback that only led to increased overall quality of our manuscript. We hope that the edits and adjustments meet and satisfy your concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The author/s have completed two rounds of revisions, and their paper has improved little-by-little. However, some issues have remained.
Since the proposed research is called “pilot study”, then why a sample size is calculated (yet without mentioning the total population)?
The original contributions are hard to identify – as they are not neatly emphasized and compared to the state-of-the-art international literature in the matter.
Despite recommendations made, there still are English language errors (“a statistical criteria is”; confusion between “academicians” and “academics”; etc.).
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2, we highly appreciate your time and concern and feedback on our manuscript. We have modified various sections in accord with your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
