Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Servant Leadership and Work-Family Enrichment: Moderation Role of Organizational Culture

 

 

Sunil Kumar*

Senior Research Fellow

Department of HRM & OB

School of Business and Management Studies

Central University of Himachal Pradesh

India

 

 

Dr. Gitanjali Upadhaya

Assistant Professor

Department of HRM & OB

School of Business and Management Studies

Central University of Himachal Pradesh

 

 

Abstract

Organizational Leadership and work-family enrichment are getting space in organizational theory. This study is an attempt to explore the mediation role of organizational culture in the relationship between servant leadership and work family enrichment. The information were collected through structured questionnaires from 223 university teachers across North India. The study was cross-sectional in nature. The structure equation modeling was used to validate and measure the model fit. The results of the study showed organizational culture mediates the relationship between servant leadership and work family enrichment. The findings of the study implies that the Servant leadership is building a work role expectations culture in the university system. The teachers are observing these work role expectations in the continuously developing culture. The future research can be on the changing cultural expectations in dysfunctional organizations. The stereotypes of race, religion, ethnicity and their moderating impact on perceived schema during servant leadership and work family enrichment is a matter of future investigation.

 

Keywords: Work family enrichment, organizational culture, servant leadership

 

Introduction

The psycho-logic, affective and instrumental gains out of life roles are significant to handle the paradoxical shifts in workplaces and dilemmas in personal lives’ of organizational members. The historical inquiry about the concept of work-life roles mainly focused on negative philosophy. But, now the organizational literature talked evidently about the roles facilitation or roles enrichment. The traces of this emerging concept is evident in literature and one can find the positive talk about roles enrichment in the work of Chen and Powell (2012); Greenhaus and Powell (2006); Wayne, Randel and Stevens (2006); and Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson and Kacmar (2007).

While, the role of leader and follower are significant in the social spaces. The terminological elaboration in leadership theory emphasized on the implications of modern concepts in organizations and seems to be evident from the studies on servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002; Hale & Fields, 2007; Kumar, 2018; Spears, 2004; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010).

According to Schaubroeck, Lam, andPeng (2011) servant leader creates a psychologically safe environment for the followers to share and express their concern about others. The positive bent of mind and followers' positive emotional state toward work are the consequence of servant leadership (Page & Wong, 2000). The innovative organization needs such strong leadership that regularly communicate about the common goals and priorities the organization`s members' needs (Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin & Veiga, 2008).

The servant leadership is directly impacting the work family roles of organization members by prioritizing their needs. While, on the other hand organizational culture act as a strong force, which includes inbuilt values and defines the roles of organization members. The focus of study is whether servant leader has to be directly involved in the roles enrichment of organization members or leader has to push the servant leadership philosophy through organizational culture.

Review of Literature

The theory of work-family enrichment is built on ‘resources accumulation’ and ‘conservation theory' (Hobfoll, 1989). While in organizational context ‘ecological system theory'emphasizes on people desires and natural capability for growth and development(Bronfenbrenner, 1992). Kumar (2018) signify the perceived and transference of behavioral character in term of judgments and values from one life role to another life role in classroom settings. The transfer of these resources between life roles takes place in instrumental and psychological gains (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Dewe and Cooper (2012) argued that these resources are designed in an organizational work context and lead to better functioning and well-being of people. Sohere, it is important to understand the organization processes as sources of work-life roles gains.

The transference of servant leadership behavior through behavior implication was examined in multiple interpersonal relationships. In servant leadership theory the deep behavioral covert and overt aspects associated with servant leadership defined it as a psycho-social process. Sousa & Van Dierendonck(2017) emphasize on servant leader’s psychological empowerment through self-awareness about follower’s limitations. The servant leader focuses and prioritizes the followers' needs and interests to generate a psychological contract (Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne & Cao, 2015).

While, technically at output level servant leadership has multifaceted application from individual psychological identification with their leader to their observance of organizational identification (Carter & Baghurst, 2014). This perceived identification transfers the experiences of life roles mutually to promote work-family balance (Wang, Kwan & Zhou, 2017). Kwan, Mao and Zhang (2010) discussed the role of mentoring in organizational setup to increase the WFE though personal and relational skills. ‘Mentor as a servant on one side and a leader on another’.

Theorganizational members’ roles are diverse in culturally diverse organizations. The role expectations are continuously increasing. While, role adaptability depends on individuals differences. Modern organizations’ survival instinct results in dynamic cultural changes and transformations at input and output level.

Deem (1998) highlight the role of an insider in cultural elaboration and expression in any university system. Leadership in the organization is a form of cultural expression. Leadership and culture areinterwoven processes in the organizations, culture transfer from leader to followers in the forms of assumptions (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Sabir, Sohail,andKhan (2011) proposed a model which gave a link between leadership and organizational culture. Muhtasom, Mus, Bijang,andLatief (2017) described servant leadership as a major tool for the implementation of a culture of service in the organization where service is the main motto.

Servant leadership is gaining acceptance in modern organizations and among leadership scholars. Similarly, the positive construct work-family enrichment is emerging as an opportunity to use human potential fully in every role of life. This study has been focused on servant leadership and work-family enrichment in Indian universities. The prime objective of the study is to identify the mediation role of organizational culture between servant leadership and work family enrichment relationship.

Objectives of the Study

• To investigate the relationship of servant leadership and organizational culture with work-family enrichment among university teachers in North India.
• To explore the mediating role of organizational culture in the relationship between servant leadership and work-family enrichment.

Hypothesis Formulation

H₀1: There is a significant positive relationship between servant leadership and work-family enrichment.

H₀2: There is a significant positive relationship between servant leadership and organizational culture

H₀3: There is a significant positive relationship between organizational culture and work-family enrichment

H₀4: Organizational culture will significantly mediate the relationship between servant leadership and work-family enrichment

Method

Study design

The cross-sectional study was conducted during 2018-2019.The respondents were personally visited and briefed about research. In the sample of 223 teachers 121 were male and 102 were female respondents. The majority of respondents were held a PhD (94.2%), assistant professors (80.7%) and married (77.1 percent).In the final stage, the valid data was collected from 6 Central University situated in North India.

Measurement/instrument

Servant leadership: The servant leadership scale developed by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) with Guttmann’s split half values of 0.923 (Servant leadership scale) was used.

Organizational culture: In case of Organizational culture initially, 45 statements were selected from literature. The research works of Tierney (1988); Kezar and Eckel (2002) were used as base to develop organizational cultural scale in higher educational institutions. Initially, pilot study was conducted on 46 respondents to check the validity and reliability of scales. The contributing items were rated on 5-point scale (1- strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree).Scale was validated through test retest method.

Work to family enrichment: Work to family enrichment scale developed by Carlson et al., (2006) were used. To measure internal consistency the Guttmann’s split half values for scales were reported from 0.811 (Work to Family Enrichment scale)

The Partial least squares structure equation modeling (PLS-SEM) a non-parametric analysis technique was used for assessment of model. The formative constructs was assessed as suggested by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2013). The collinearity diagnosis, convergent validity and statistical significance of formative constructs were determined through smartPLS-SEM.

Data Analysis

Results

The collinearity among factors affects the estimation of weights and statistical significance (Bollen & Bauldry, 2011). The VIF values for second order constructs are given in Table 1. None of the value exceeds the limit value. Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins,andKuppelwieser (2014) have given a threshold value of five to measure the VIF value of formative constructs.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1

Assessment of constructs through VIF values AVE Composite Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha

Source: Primary Data collected through structured questionnaires

In ‘servant leadership measurement scale’ all the constructs showed composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha value ≥ 0.70. In ‘work family enrichment scale’ the composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha values are higher than threshold limit. In organizational culture measurement scale all latent variable except negotiating culture showed composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha value higher than 0.70. The model is not presenting any serious issues regarding the reliability of constructs (see Table 1).

Assessment of Coefficient of Determination (R²)

Coefficient of determination is the mostly used measure to check the predictability of structural models. The value of R² ranges from 0 to 1 and indicates predictive accuracy in the model (Hair et al., 2014). The work family enrichment as dependent construct and servant leadership as predictor construct presenting lower predictability (R² = 0.178, t- 3.166, p < .002).

Table 2

Assessment of Coefficient of Determination (R²) of Dependent Constructs with T-statistics, p-Value and CI Bias Corrected

Source: Primary Data collected through structured questionnaires

Note. (SL = Servant Leadership, WFE = Work Family Enrichment, OC = Organizational Culture)

In case of servant leadership as predictor and organizational culture as dependent construct the value of coefficient of determination is significant with low predictability accuracy in the relationship (R² = 0.209, t-value = 2.944, p < = .003). For the organizational culture as predictor construct and work family enrichment as dependent construct the model is presenting moderate predictability accuracy in the relationship (R² = 0.501, t- value = 8.522, p < .001). While servant leadership and organizational culture as predictor constructs for work family enrichment is presenting moderate predictability accuracy in the relationship (R² = 0.513, t- value = 9.289, p < .001).

Assessment of Effect Size (f²)

The call for effect size is inconsistent in the literature. Cohen (1988) categorized effect size into three categories: small (0.0 to 0.2), medium (0.3 to 0.7) and large (0.8 to 2.0). The Table 3 is presenting small effect size for servant leadership as a predictor construct of WFE (f² = 0.025, t-value = 1.172). In case of servant leadership as predictor construct for organizational culture the effect size is small (f² = 0.265, t-value = 2.247). For organizational culture as predictor of work family enrichment the effect size is medium (f² = 0.687, t-value = 3.109).

 

Table 3

Assessment of Effect Size (f²) of Dependent Constructs with T-Statistics, p-Value and CI Bias Corrected

Predictor Construct	Dependent Construct	f2	t-Statistics	p-Value	CI [95% Bias Corrected]	Effect Size
Servant Leadership	Work Family Enrichment	0.025	1.172	0.242	[0.002, 0.081]	Small effect
Servant Leadership	Organizational Culture	0.265	2.247	0.025	[0.104, 0.562]	Medium effect
Organizational Culture	Work Family Enrichment	0.687	3.109	0.002	[0.333, 1.185]	Medium effect

Source: Primary Data collected through structured questionnaires

Note. CI = Confidence Interval

Assessment of Predictive Relevance (Q²)

The coefficient of determination (R²) values provides predictive accuracy in the model. Despite these values the predictive relevance (Q²) is important in PLS-SEM models. To calculate the Q² values a procedure named as blindfolding is used. The Table 4 is presenting the Q² values for dependent constructs. The values are higher than zero. Thus are exhibiting predictive relevance in the models.

Table 4

Assessment of Predictive Relevance (Q²) in Explanation of Formative Constructs

Source: Primary Data collected through structured questionnaires

Path Analysis 

Path analysis allows analysis of complicated models; it is used to determine the consistency of data as per model (Streiner, 2005).  Path analysis specifies the relative change in dependent variable due to independent variable(s) in an adequate manner (see Table 5). The empirical evidence (β = 0.422**, t- statistics = 2.367, p < .001) clearly showing positive impact of servant leadership on work to family enrichment. Thus, if the servant leadership is showing increase of one unit the relative change in work to family enrichment is of 0.442 units.

Table 5

Path Analysis for Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses	Path Coefficients (β)	t-Statistics	P-Value	Results
The servant leadership is significantly related to the work family enrichment	0.422**	2.367	0.001	Not Rejected
The servant leadership is significantly related to organizational culture	0.458**	5.975	0.001	Not Rejected
The organizational culture in higher education is significantly related to work to family enrichment	0.650**	10.797	0.001	Not Rejected

Source: Primary Data collected through structured questionnaires

Note. ** Significant at 95% level

The empirical evidence (β = 0.458**, t- statistics = 5.975, p < .001) clearly showing positive impact of servant leadership on organizational culture. Thus, if the servant leadership is showing increase of one unit the relative change in organizational culture is of 0.458 unit. The above statistical information is signifying the impact of organizational culture on work to family enrichment. (β = 0.650**, t- statistics = 10.797, p < .001) Thus, if the organizational culture is showing increase of one unit the relative change in work to family enrichment is of 0.650 unit.

Direct Effect, Indirect Effects and Assessment of Mediation

The concept of mediation is important to establish the direct and indirect relation between independent and dependent variables. The mediation means relationship between independent and dependent variable is best define in presence of third construct, which is known as mediator. The mediation is of three types full, partial and bifurcated (Kumar, 2015).

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6

Direct, Indirect Effects and Assessment of Mediation for Hypothesis Testing

The organizational culture is significantly mediating the relationship between perceived servant leadership and work to family enrichment.	Direct effect without mediator	Direct effect with mediator	Indirect Effects		Result
	0.422**	0.125	0.298**		Mediation

Note. ** Significant at 95% level

The organizational culture is significantly mediating the relationship between perceived servant leadership and work to family enrichment. The direct effect without mediator (β = 0.422**), direct effect with mediator (β = 0.125) and indirect effect (β = 0.298**) clearly showing organizational culture is mediating the relationship between perceived servant leadership and work family enrichment (see Table 6). The path coefficients (β) and coefficient of determination (R²) are given in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Path Diagram of Structural Model (Mediation effect)

Discussion

The work and family are two domains that include large part of individual’s time and space. The WFE Development, capital affect helping the teachers with their personal fulfillment with job, sense of accomplishment. This sense of success at workplace is helping university teachers to be a better family member. The work mood and happiness through job were reflected in the family life of teacher. The psychological gains are in terms of work to family affects. The servant leadership values in the higher education system can benefit the students, teachers and society at large. Servant leadership is a way to supply human resources with reflection of servant leadership in their behavior.

On the other hand, culture focuses on the managerial efficiency of leadership in term of university management, regarding feedback, vision and development at individual and organizational level. Yukl, (2009) mentioned the role of leadership and top management in organizational culture formation and flow of culture through generations.  The culture in university system is playing a vital role at individual, organizational and external environmental levels. The control of system, growth opportunities, coping to the changes internally as well as externally and struggle for power distribution are facets of culture in higher educational institutions. The research is validating the role of servant leadership in formation of organizational cultural values in the higher educational institutions.

The cultural aspects are presenting different aspects in term of faculty needs, system feedback, visionary leadership, reach to the resources, opportunities, coordination among the departments, college level focus,   visualize outside influence as interference, involvement of faculty in administration, equal application of policies, mediation and power roles. All these cultural aspects define role expectation during phases of entry, encounter, socialization and metamorphosis. The culture is providing resources in term of skills and abilities, psychological and physical resources, social-capital and material resources to increase the performance in work roles which indeed increase the positive affect in other roles. This positive affect is transferred to family domain in the form of high performance (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). The cultural values in higher educational institutions developed through the applications of servant leadership style are working as a source of resources to generate development, affect and capital during work to family enrichment.

Conclusion

The study provided empirical evidence about the relationship of servant leadership and work-family enrichment in these organizations. In case of culture the top management is at center stage, top management of these universities is planning, deciding and implementing the organizational processes. The cultural effectiveness seems to be more significant in these organizations. The organizational culture is fully mediating the relationship between servant leadership and WFE. This shows that when the culture works as context in organization the effectiveness of servant leadership on Work roles get a perceptional shift. The people define and absorb their work role expectations better in the organization’s culture.

Acknowledgement

The Authors acknowledged the University Grant Commission (UGC) for financial assistance to conduct the research work. The authors acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments during review process.

References

Allport, G. W. (1963). Behavioral science, religion, and mental health. Journal of Religion and Health, 2(3), 187-197. doi: 10.1007/BF01533333

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40862298

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Bollen, K. A., & Bauldry, S. (2011). Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 265. doi: 10.1037/a0024448

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 131-164. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002

Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2014). The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453-464. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24033282

Chen, Z., & Powell, G. N. (2012). No pain, no gain? A resource-based model of work-to-family enrichment and conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 89-98. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.05.003

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (1st ed.). Routledge NY.

Deem, R. (1998). 'New managerialism' and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47-70. doi:10.1080/0962021980020014

Dewe, P., & Cooper, C. (2012). Well-being and work: Towards a balanced agenda. Springer.

F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121.doi:10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.19379625

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2013). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 7). New Delhi: Pearson.

Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417. doi.org/10.1177/1742715007082964

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460. doi:10.1080/00221546.2002.11777159

Klerk, M. D., Nel, J. A., & Koekemoer, E. (2015). Work-to-family enrichment: Influences of work resources, work engagement and satisfaction among employees within the South African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 25(6), 537-546. doi:10.1080/14330237.2015.1124606

Kumar, S. (2015). Structure Equation Modeling Basic Assumptions and Concepts: A Novices Guide. Asian journal of management studies, 3(7), 25-28.

Kumar, S. (2018). Servant Leadership: A Review of Literature. Pacific Business Review International, 11(1), 43-50.

Kumar, S. (2018). Individual Personal Values as Mediators During Behavioral Perception and Transference.Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 12(1), 122-132. doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.221

Kwan, H. K., Mao, Y., & Zhang, H. (2010). The impact of role modeling on protégés' personal learning and work-to-family enrichment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 313-322. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.009

Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impact of transformational CEOs on the performance of small-to medium-sized firms: Does organizational context matter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 923. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.923

Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views [1]. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), 623-647. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00466.x

Muhtasom, A., Mus, H. A. R., Bijang, J., & Latief, B. (2017). Influence of servant leadership, organizational citizenship behavior on organizational culture and employee performance at star hotel in Makassar. International Journal of Education and Research, 5(10), 71-88.

Page, D., & Wong, P. T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In S. Adjibolooso (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history and development. American University Press.

Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X. (2015). Toward an understanding of when and why servant leadership accounts for employee extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 657-675. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z

Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Vohra, N. (2013). Organizational behaviour (15th ed.) Pearson India.

Sabir, M. S., Sohail, A., & Khan, M. A. (2011). Impact of leadership style on organization commitment: In a mediating role of employee values. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 3(2), 145-152.

Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life‐span, life‐space theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45(3), 247-259. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb00469.x

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863. doi:10.1037/a0022625

Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 229-240. doi:10.2307/2393715

Siu, O. L., Lu, J. F., Brough, P., Lu, C. Q., Bakker, A. B., Kalliath, T., & Sit, C. (2010). Role resources and work–family enrichment: The role of work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 470-480. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.06.007

Sousa, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2017). Servant leaders as underestimators: theoretical and practical implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(2), 270-283. doi:10.1108/LODJ-10-2015-0236

Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant‐leadership. Leader to leader, 2004(34), 7-11. doi:10.1002/ltl.94

Streiner, D. L. (2005). Finding our way: An introduction to path analysis. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(2), 115-122. doi:10.1177/070674370505000207

Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21. doi:10.1080/00221546.1988.11778301

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261. doi:10.1177/0149206310380462

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517. doi:10.1037/a0018867

Wang, M., Kwan, H. K., & Zhou, A. (2017). Effects of servant leadership on work–family balance in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 55(4), 387-407. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12122

Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work–family support in work–family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 445-461. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.07.002

Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work–family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 63-76.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.01.002

Yukl, G. A. (2009). 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. doi:10.1002/hrm.21498