Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wbbm20
Servant Leadership Effects on Salesperson SelfEfficacy, Performance, Job Satisfaction, and
Turnover Intentions
Kevin W. Westbrook & Robert M. Peterson
To cite this article: Kevin W. Westbrook & Robert M. Peterson (2022) Servant
Leadership Effects on Salesperson Self-Efficacy, Performance, Job Satisfaction, and
Turnover Intentions, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 29:2, 153-175, DOI:
10.1080/1051712X.2022.2068820
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2022.2068820
Published online: 04 May 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1120
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wbbm20
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
2022, VOL. 29, NO. 2, 153–175
https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2022.2068820
Servant Leadership Effects on Salesperson Self-Efficacy, Performance, Job
Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions
Kevin W. Westbrooka and Robert M. Petersonb
a
Professor of Marketing, Jackson, Tennessee, USA; bDepartment of Marketing, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
Purpose: Servant leadership has been tested as having a positive impact on employee self-efficacy
which has been tested in the marketing literature within a service-delivery context. To date, there are no
studies testing the Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy path leading to salesperson job satisfaction, sales
performance, and turnover intentions within a B2B context. The purpose of this study is to assess
whether servant leadership has a direct relationship on salesperson self-efficacy (positive), job satisfac­
tion (positive), performance (positive) and turnover intentions (negative). Second, the intent is to test
whether servant leadership indirectly affects turnover intentions through self-efficacy, job satisfaction
and performance as single and serial mediated paths. Finally, the study tests whether gender, firm size
and job demands as challenge and hindrance stressors serve to moderate these hypothesized paths.
Method: Data was gathered over a 10-day period using an online survey from a survey panel of
U.S. sales professionals who sell products and services to businesses within their sales role. The data
was approximately evenly split between females and males and between smaller firms (less than
250 employees) and larger companies (more than 250 employees). The authors used Hayes Process
Model 4 to test the hypothesized relationships.
Findings: Key results in this study suggest that servant leadership has a direct impact on salesperson
job satisfaction (positive), self-efficacy (positive), and turnover intentions (negative), but fails to influence
salesperson performance directly. Further, salesperson job satisfaction directly decreases turnover
intentions; performance directly increases turnover intentions; but self-efficacy fails to have a direct
impact on turnover intentions. Servant leadership has a direct impact on turnover intentions and
indirect influence through job satisfaction (single mediator) and through self-efficacy, job satisfaction,
and performance as serially mediated paths (Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction and Self-Efficacy →
Performance). One significant finding is that servant leadership fails to directly influence salesperson
performance suggesting that self-efficacy may exhibit suppressing the effects on Servant Leadership →
Salesperson Performance path. Finally, the results indicate that gender (binary) and firm size (< 250
employees and > 250 employees) fail to serve as moderators on the proposed paths. However, servant
leadership behaviors buffer the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors at low and moderate levels,
but fail to have a buffering effect at high levels of challenge and hindrance stressors.
Implications: This study confirms that sales managers should consider adopting servant leadership
to raise salesperson job satisfaction to aid in retaining sales talent (lower turnover intentions).
Furthermore, sales managers who adopt servant leadership behaviors raise salesperson selfefficacy, which is a new finding that has not been tested to date in the marketing literature.
Further, self-efficacy seems to suppress the direct link between servant leadership and salesperson
performance indicating that servant leadership positively influences salesperson self-efficacy lead­
ing to higher salesperson performance as a mediated path. Also, salespeople who are high
performers experience higher turnover intentions, possibly suggesting that high sales producers
may perceive they should leave for better compensation or growth opportunities elsewhere. These
relationships seem to hold regardless of gender and firm size. Finally, servant leadership seems to
buffer the effects of low and moderate levels of challenge and hindrance stressors on job satisfac­
tion, performance and turnover intentions.
Originality: This study provides further clarity as to whether servant leadership has a direct, partially
mediated, or fully mediated influence on salesperson job satisfaction, performance and turnover
intentions. The results support that servant leadership fails to directly influence salesperson perfor­
mance; however, servant leadership increases self-efficacy, which in turn increases salesperson perfor­
mance. This is a new finding within a business-to-business sales context. Another contribution to the
nomological net is that servant leadership indirectly lowers salesperson turnover intentions through
serial mediated paths consisting of self-efficacy, job satisfaction and performance as mediators.
Servant leadership; selfefficacy; job satisfaction;
turnover intentions;
performance; salespeople
CONTACT Kevin W. Westbrook
kwestbrook@uu.edu
McAfee School of Business, Union University, Jackson, Tennessee 38305
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
154
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
Introduction
“People ask the difference between a leader and
a boss. The leader leads, and the boss drives.” –
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United
States of America (Price 2013)
Business-to-Business (B2B) sales units face signif­
icant challenges when asked to achieve sales perfor­
mance indicators. The primary job of the sales leader
is to recruit and hire salespeople, instill a sales and
account management process, motivate the sales
team, and monitor individual performance to reach
organizational sales goals (Zoltners, Sinha, and
Lorimer 2009). Sales leaders assist salespeople
embrace continuous creativity, introduce customer
solutions to create real value, and promote ethical
selling behaviors. To achieve such milestones, sales
leaders collaborate across multi-levels within the
firm to harness resources to support selling efforts.
Clearly, many moving parts exist, and success or
failure is often tied back to sales leadership.
There has been a burgeoning interest related to the
impact of servant leadership on organizational and
individual outcome variables (Van Dierendonck
2011). Servant leaders adopt “an (1) other-oriented
approach to leadership, (2) manifested through oneon-one prioritizing of follower individual needs and
interests, (3) and outward reorienting of their concern
for self towards concern for others within the organi­
zation and the larger community” (Eva et al. 2019,
114). Companies that champion servant leadership
initiatives report six percent higher job performance
ratings, eight percent increase in positive customer
ratings, and 50% higher staff retention (Flood, 2019).
However, while there has been nearly four dec­
ades of theory development regarding servant lea­
dership behaviors and their impact on individual
and organizational outcomes across multiple
industries and contexts (see literature review in
Eva et al. 2019), there has been limited attention
given to servant leadership within the sales and
marketing literature. Our search of EBSCO’s
Business Source Complete (representing 1,300
journals) yielded less than a dozen articles from
recognized sales journals with “servant leadership”
in the title or subject listing. Seven articles were
published in the Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, two in the Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, one in the Journal of
Business-to-Business Marketing, and zero in the
Journal of Selling, Industrial Marketing
Management, or Journal of Business Research. This
observation coincides with Eva et al. (2019) who
show five articles from Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management which were selected as part
of their systematic review of the servant leadership
literature. (See Table 1 in Eva et al. 2019, 112).
Reasonable explanations may exist as to why ser­
vant leadership has not received the same level of
attention within a sales context as other functions
within the firm. First, selling products and services is
unique since salespeople work independently in the
field, often away from direct sales manager oversight.
Sales leaders are expected to enhance selling knowl­
edge, response time, breadth and depth of commu­
nication, customization, and coproduction to placate
customer demands amidst competitive forces, chan­
ging technology, ethical and legal considerations,
and internal organizational changes (Jones et al.
2005). Hence, the effectiveness of sales leadership
behaviors differs by sales context, industry served,
and by types of buyers. Leading a sales team is
unique and, in fact, overwhelming compared to
other leadership roles in the organization. In many
organizations, sales managers may lack servant lea­
dership behaviors as more time is spent on admin­
istration and forecasting than actually coaching
salespeople, or there is a lack of training on how to
actually be a sales servant leader. Less than a third of
organizations report that developing sales leaders is
an organizational strength (Matthews 2020).
Another consideration is that some sales managers
may believe servant leadership is passive, or even
weak, when leading a competitively-oriented sales­
force. Servant leadership behaviors are said to actu­
ally lower subordinate motivation, force the manager
to relinquish traditional and managerial authority to
subordinates, and push the manager to jump into
problem situations with a fix, rather than empower­
ing subordinates to seek individual and team solu­
tions (Quain 2018). Hence, servant leadership
behaviors could be deleterious to building
a productive sales culture and achieving both orga­
nizational and individual sales outcome variables.
These considerations support the need for additional
research specific to both the direct and indirect
impact of servant leadership behaviors on sales out­
come variables.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
155
Table 1. Measurement statistics for continuous scales.
Construct
Cronbach α AVE CR
Servant Leadership
.96
.57 .96
Self-efficacy
.89
.75 .92
Job Satisfaction
.84
.76 .83
Performance
.91
.80 .94
Turnover
Intentions
.91
.78 .93
Challenge Stressors
.87
.60 .90
Hindrance
Stressors
.75
.50 .90
Scale Items
My sales manager gives me information I need to make sales.
My sales manager encourages me to use my talents.
My sales manager helps me to further develop myself.
My sales manager encourages the sales team to come up with new ideas.
a. My sales manager gives me the authority to make decisions which makes my work easier for me.
(5) My sales manager offers me abundant opportunities to learn new skills.
(6) My sales manager learns from criticism.
(7) My sales manager learns from different views and opinions of others.
(8) If the sales team expresses criticism, my sales manager tries to learn from it.
(9) My sales manager keeps himself/herself in the background and gives credit to others.
(10) My sales manager is not chasing recognition for the things he/she does for others.
(11) My sales manager appears to enjoy the success of the reporting sales producers more than his/her own.
(12) My sales manager emphasizes the importance of paying attention to the good of the whole organization.
(13) My sales manager has a long-term vision.
(14) My sales manager emphasizes the societal responsibility of our work.
(15) My sales manager is open about his/her limitations and weaknesses.
(16) My sales manager is often touched by the things he/she sees happening around him/her.
(17) My sales manager shows his/her true feelings to the sales team.
(1) I know the right thing to do in selling situations.
(2) Overall, I am confident of my ability to perform my job well.
(3) I feel I am very capable at the task of selling.
(4) I feel I have the capabilities to successfully perform this job.
(1) All in all, how satisfied are you as a sales producer in your company?
(2) All things considered (i.e., pay, promotion, sales management, coworkers, etc.), how satisfied are you?
(3) I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction in my line of work.
(1) I am a top performer.
(2) My performance is in the top 10%.
(3) I have been rated consistently as a star performer.
(4) I consistently sell more products and services than others.
(1) I will probably be looking for another sales job soon.
(2) I often think about quitting.
(3) I will quit this sales job sometime in the next year.
(4) It would not take too much to make me resign from my sales position.
(1) The number of the different tasks I have to complete to land a sale.
(2) The amount of time I spend at work required to meet my sales goals.
(3) The volume of work that must be accomplished in the allotted time.
(4) Time pressures I experience during normal sales activities.
(5) The amount of responsibility I have to generate new sales for my company.
(6) The scope of responsibility that a sales producer has at my company.
(1) The degree to which politics rather than performance affects organizational decisions.
(2) The inability to clearly understand what is expected of me as a sales producer.
(3) The amount of red tape I need to go through to make a sale with a customer.
(4) The lack of job security I have as a sales producer with my company.
(5) The degree to which my career seems to have stalled.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To date, a few sales studies have tested direct and
indirect relationships between servant leadership,
as a managerial or organizational construct, and
individual salesperson outcomes (e.g. Schwepker
and Schultz 2015; Jaramillo, Bande, and Varela
2015; Jaramillo et al. 2009a, 2009b), and have
demonstrated conflicting, mixed results. As
a direct effect, Schwepker and Schultz (2015) show
a partially-mediated model where servant leader­
ship directly impacts salesperson performance, as
well as indirectly impacting salesperson perfor­
mance through value-enhancing behavior perfor­
mance as a mediator. As an indirect impact, servant
leadership influences person-organization fit and
organizational commitment, which then affects
salesperson turnover intentions (Jaramillo et al.
2009b). Servant leadership also impacts salesperson
performance through unethical peer behaviors,
unethical selling behaviors, ethical responsibility
and trust, person-organization fit, organizational
commitment, customer orientation, and adaptive
selling as mediators (Jaramillo, Bande, and Varela
2015; Jaramillo et al. 2009a, 2009b; Schwepker and
Schultz 2015). The verdict is still out as to whether
servant leadership behaviors at the managerial level
have a direct impact on individual salesperson out­
comes as job satisfaction, performance, and turn­
over intentions, or whether it is suppressed by other
variables.
Lately, there has been an increasing interest in
the effects of servant leadership on self-efficacy
leading to worker performance (Poon 2006). Qiu,
156
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
Dooley, and Xie (2020) posit that much of the past
work has focused on the effects of servant leader­
ship and self-efficacy in “isolation” (p. 2) on indi­
vidual worker outcomes. Self-efficacy can be a
moderator between servant leadership and
employee service quality in a restaurant chain
(Qiu, Dooley, and Xie 2020), and has moderated
the relationship between green servant leadership
and employees’ pro-environmental behavior (Faraz
et al. 2021). Alternatively, as posited in Eva et al.’s
(2019) nomological model for servant leadership ,
self-efficacy serves as a mediator between servant
leadership and worker outcomes. For example, in
a services context, servant leadership leads to
increased self-efficacy as a social identity mediator,
which enhances customer service performance
defined as service quality, customer-focused citi­
zenship behavior, and customer-oriented prosocial
behavior in a services context (Chen, Zhu, and
Zhou 2014).
The question remains as to why a research study
about the servant leadership → self-efficacy →
salesperson outcomes path is needed specifically
in a sales context? Peterson (2020) advances the
issue of the modest average percentage of variance
in the self-efficacy → sales performance path in past
studies, raising an awareness for further research
into the impact of self-efficacy on sales performance
outcomes in consideration of other “organizational
relationships and environmental situations” (p. 66).
The literature has yet to address the relationship
between servant leadership and self-efficacy in
a path model leading to job satisfaction, perfor­
mance, and turnover applied to a sales context.
While Peterson (2020) discusses concerns relating
to the operationalization of self-efficacy, support
exists that self-efficacy directly and positively influ­
ences sales performance (Ahearne, Mathieu, and
Rapp 2005; Krishnan, Netemeyer, and Boles 2002;
Lee and Gillen 1989; Yang, Kim, and McFarland
2011). Already some support shows that selfefficacy serves as a mediator between supportive
leadership and effort which then leads to increased
sales performance (Jaramillo and Mulki 2008).
However, the possibility that servant leadership is
a distal influence on salesperson job satisfaction,
turnover intentions, and performance through selfefficacy as mediator remains unknown. Therefore,
further testing the servant leadership → self-
efficacy → individual sales outcomes (job satisfac­
tion, sales performance, turnover intentions) path
is warranted.
The hypothesized model is presented as Figure 1,
which proposes that servant leadership has a direct
positive impact on salesperson self-efficacy, job
satisfaction, and performance, and a direct negative
impact on salesperson turnover intentions. Second,
we propose that salesperson self-efficacy directly
increases job satisfaction and performance, but
directly decreases turnover intentions. Third, we
propose that job satisfaction directly decreases
salesperson turnover intentions. Fourth, we test
a moderated, serial-mediated model as shown in
Figure 1 with gender, firm size and job stressors,
specifically as challenge stressors and hindrance
stressors, as moderators. Finally, we offer manage­
rial implications based on the results of our study
and provide directions for additional research
opportunities.
Theory and Hypotheses
Servant Leadership
Greenleaf (1977) suggests that servant leadership
entails active listening, empathy, healing, aware­
ness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stew­
ardship, commitment to growing people, and
building community. However, efforts to define
servant leadership as a distinctive construct have
been challenging since many academic writers posit
that “servant leadership [is] rather indeterminate,
somewhat ambiguous, and mostly anecdotal”
(Russell and Stone 2002, 145). Servant leadership’s
defining elements indeed share characteristics with
similar leadership styles, and this commonality has
fueled the call to further operationalize servant
leadership’s content, improve its discriminant
validity, and develop more robust measurement
scales. It is not the intent to criticize past work,
but rather acknowledge that these pioneering
efforts provide solid theoretical footing, suggesting
that servant leadership is distinct and situationallyspecific from other leadership theories (Eva et al.
2019; Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko 2004).
Eva et al. (2019) define servant leadership as
“[an] other-oriented approach to leadership mani­
fested through one-on-one prioritizing of follower
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
157
Figure 1. The Hypothesized Effects of Servant Leadership on Salesperson Self-Efficacy, Performance, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover
Intentions
individual needs and interests, and outward reor­
ienting of their concern for self towards concern for
others within the organization and the larger com­
munity” (p. 114). Servant leadership impacts orga­
nizational and individual sales performance
stemming from an emphasis on sharing a higher
organizational vision or purpose, standardizing and
simplifying procedures, enhancing customer orien­
tation, promoting growth and development, shar­
ing power and information, and increasing
workforce quality (Coetzer, Bussin, and
Geldenhuys 2017). It involves “the care taken by
the servant-first to make sure that other people’s
highest priority needs are being served” (Greenleaf
1977, 27), and centers on “serving first” and “self­
lessly focusing on others’ needs” (Grisaffe,
VanMeter, and Chonko 2016, 43). Servant leaders
transfer authority, build self-confidence, promote
the well-being of others, create a positive work
climate, allow for job crafting, and promote crea­
tivity (Coetzer, Bussin, and Geldenhuys 2017;
Yang, Liu, and Gu 2017; Yang et al. 2017).
Servant leadership centers on wisdom, altruistic
calling, value creation such as volunteer activities,
empowerment, ethical behavior, voluntary subor­
dination, authentic self, covenantal relationship,
relationship morality, transcendental spirituality,
and transforming influence (Liden et al. 2014;
Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008). Coetzer,
Bussin, and Geldenhuys (2017) conducted
a systematic literature review of 87 academic jour­
nals from 21 countries and reputable academic
databases between 2000 and 2015. Their amalgama­
tion of servant leadership’s core characteristics con­
sists of authenticity, humility, compassion,
accountability, courage, altruism, integrity, and lis­
tening. They state that its core characteristics are “a
personality trait that regulates the way a person
think[s], feel[s], and behave[s]” (p. 7). Further,
they advance that their eight characteristics roll
into four competencies encompassing empower­
ment, stewardship, building relationships, and
compelling vision.
Alternatively, some authors have argued that
servant leadership is merely a re-packaging of
the transformational leadership approach with
the addition of a few elements. However, where
transformational leaders concentrate on moving
the organization forward, persuading, and moti­
vating subordinates to embrace the organiza­
tional vision, fostering a creative and innovative
climate to rethink strategies and tactics, and
making subordinates feel valued and integral to
fulfilling the firm’s mission and vision (Bass
1997), the servant leader’s focus is on the indi­
vidual (Jaramillo et al. 2009a; Stone, Russell, and
Patterson 2004). Hence, servant leaders strive to
serve others through acts of service. The servant
sales leader flips the organizational hierarchy so
that she/he can serve and empower the sales­
person to meet customer needs that align with
the company vision (Coetzer, Bussin, and
Geldenhuys 2017). In this case, the leader says
to the salesperson, “Please tell me what I need to
158
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
do personally and organizationally to make you
successful and improve customer service?” The
servant leader is motivated to take on leadership
responsibility, pursue dyadic engagement to inti­
mately understand the salesperson as an indivi­
dual, and deliberately focus on follower
development and community accountability
(Eva et al. 2019). As Grisaffe, VanMeter, and
Chonko (2016) posit within their hierarchical
model, servant leadership behaviors are selective,
intentional, and can be strategically institutiona­
lized within the sales leadership team to aug­
ment transformational and transactional
leadership behaviors, ultimately leading to sales­
person outcome variables.
Servant leadership and job satisfaction
Past studies show a strong positive relationship
between servant leadership and worker job satisfac­
tion (Jones 2012; Kiker, Callahan, and Kiker 2019)
as direct and mediated paths. For example, subor­
dinate trust in the leader (Chan and Mak 2014) and
empowerment (Schneider and George, 2011) serve
as mediators between servant leadership and job
satisfaction. There is solid theoretical footing that
servant leadership has a distal and proximal impact
on job satisfaction across multiple organizational
contexts. However, there is clearly a nomological
gap when considering the impact of servant leader­
ship on salesperson job satisfaction.
Servant leadership and sales performance
Sales leaders set expectations and monitor salesper­
son activities and behaviors to ensure sales perfor­
mance meets firm strategy. When sales outcomes fall
short, sales leaders provide coaching, or perhaps
even reprimand salespeople to redirect their course
of action. Hence, the sales leader’s approach to moti­
vating and leading the salesforce can positively
impact sales effectiveness and efficiency. Sales effec­
tiveness includes salesperson competencies such as
technical knowledge, teamwork among sales team
leaders, coordination with functional departments,
or external competencies such as customer satisfac­
tion, product adoption indicators, customer account
penetration, etc. On the other hand, sales efficiencies
entail time management, use of the CRM system,
sales closing cycles, implementation cycles, etc.
(Zallocco, Pullins, and Mallin 2009).
A consistent theme throughout the literature is
that sales leader behaviors have a distal impact on
organizational and individual performance (e.g.,
Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp 2005; MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, and Rich 2001). Lee et al.’s (2020) metaanalysis indicated that servant leadership positively
relates to individual task performance and team per­
formance, and negatively relates to counterproductive behavior. Servant leadership indirectly
affects organizational performance through mediat­
ing variables such as serving culture (Liden et al.
2014), service motivation (Schwarz et al. 2016), and
job satisfaction (Kim and Kim 2017). Nonetheless,
only a few studies have tested the direct impact of
servant leadership on individual performance in
a sales context, and most of those only considered
servant leadership as an indirect, distal influence on
performance through a mediator variable. Servant
leadership has been shown to increase customer
orientation, which then increases adaptive selling,
leading to sales outcome performance (Jaramillo
et al. 2009a). Salesperson value-enhancing behavior
is a mediator between servant leadership and sales
performance, as moderated by a caring, ethical cli­
mate (Schwepker and Schultz 2015). When
a salesperson has moderate to high customer orien­
tation, servant leadership exhibits a direct, positive
relationship with salesperson proactive behavior,
which then leads to sales manager rating of sales­
person performance; this relationship strengthens as
the salesperson’s political skills increase (Varela et al.
2019). Finally, servant leadership increases salesper­
son perceptions of the sales manager (as a servant
leader), which leads to perceptions of ethical work
climate then, in turn, increases salesperson perfor­
mance (Jaramillo, Bande, and Varela 2015).
However, it would be expected that a sales servant
leader, showing authenticity, humility, compassion,
accountability, courage, altruism, integrity, and lis­
tening (Coetzer, Bussin, and Geldenhuys 2017),
would directly impact a salesperson’s performance,
along with creating a positive work environment
(DeConinck and DeConinck 2017). Further,
Schwepker and Schultz (2015) find that a sales man­
ager’s servant leadership behavior indeed exhibits
a direct positive relationship with salesperson
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
outcome performance. These two studies provide
limited support as to whether servant leadership
behavior has a direct effect on individual salesperson
performance.
Servant leadership and salesforce turnover
Salesforce turnover can have a significant negative
impact on lost sales, higher recruiting and onboard­
ing costs, lower internal morale among the ranks
(DeConinck and Johnson 2009; Sunder et al. 2017),
severed relationships with customers, diminished
service delivery, and negative branding (Subramony
and Holtom 2012). Servant leadership has been
shown to reduce turnover intentions in several stu­
dies across various organizations (Coetzer, Bussin,
and Geldenhuys 2017) through direct and indirect
paths. Further, servant leadership positively impacts
employee commitment to the supervisor, which then
leads to lower turnover (Sokoll 2014). Previous mar­
keting studies indicate that servant leadership
decreases service worker burnout, which then lowers
turnover intentions and employee brand perceptions
serving as a mediator between servant leadership and
employee turnover intentions (Babakus, Yavas, and
Ashill 2011). In a sales context, servant leadership
increases person-organization fit and perceived ethi­
cal level, which then leads to organizational commit­
ment, ultimately lowering turnover intentions
within the sales unit (Jaramillo et al. 2009b).
DeConinck and DeConinck (2017) found that ser­
vant leadership increases performance, which leads
to decreased turnover intentions among business-tobusiness sales representatives. Derived from the
above discussion, the following hypotheses are
offered:
H1:Servant leadership has a (a) direct, positive
effect on job satisfaction, (b) direct, positive influ­
ence on salesperson performance, and (c) direct,
negative effect on turnover intentions.
Salesperson self-efficacy
The social identity model (Van Knippenberg and
Hogg 2003) suggests that sales leader behaviors posi­
tively impact motivation mechanisms, such as selfconsistency, self-esteem, self-worth, and self-efficacy
159
(Poon 2006; Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993).
Efficacy expectations are personal beliefs that an
individual can behave in a way to accomplish desired
outcomes (Bandura 1977). Self-efficacy represents “a
salesperson’s belief that he or she is capable of suc­
cessfully performing sales-related tasks” (Krishnan,
Netemeyer, and Boles 2002, 287). Higher levels of
self-efficacy reduce the negative effects of failures or
challenging events that impact success (Chen, Gully,
and Eden 2001). Salespeople who have higher selfefficacy often blame personal failures on external
factors and not necessarily on personal attributes
(Gist and Mitchell 1992). For example, the highefficacious salesperson might reason that closing
ratios are down due to conducting virtual sales calls
because of a “stay-at-home” order during
a pandemic, or may blame failure on not having
accessible resources such as the company maintain­
ing a poor website or sales brochures as the root
cause of lower sales volume (Gist and Mitchell
1992). In the end, high efficacious salespersons
blame unstable causes for unsuccessful performance
(Dixon and Schertzer 2005) and take actions to
improve performance when they have control
(Krishnan, Netemeyer, and Boles 2002; Lee and
Gillen 1989; Wang and Netemeyer 2002).
Self-efficacy directly increases performance, work
engagement, and job satisfaction, directly and indir­
ectly decreases turnover intentions (Lai and Chen
2012) and serves as a mediator between leadership
behaviors and organizational and individual out­
come goals. For example, transformational leader­
ship increases self-efficacy resulting in internal
commitment and perceptions of unit performance
(Pillai and Williams 2004), employee creative selfefficacy (Gong, Huang, and Farh 2009), and job
satisfaction (partial mediation) (Liu, Siu, and Shi
2010). In a sales context, empowering leadership
behaviors lead to higher self-efficacy, which then
positively affects adaptability and the attainment of
sales quotas among salespeople (Ahearne, Mathieu,
and Rapp 2005). Poon (2006) proposes a model that
servant leadership enhances mentee self-efficacy,
which then enhances the effectiveness of the mentor­
ing relationship and a mentee’s professional devel­
opment. Further, servant leadership is proposed to
have an effect on self-efficacy through direct nonverbal behaviors and through verbal motivating lan­
guage as a mediator (Gutierrez-Wirsching, Mayfield,
160
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
and Mayfield 2015). In Bande et al. (2016), servant
leadership positively influences self-efficacy and
intrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation posi­
tively impacts salesperson adaptivity and proactivity
(DVs). However, Bande et al. (2016) did not test
whether self-efficacy influenced salesperson adaptiv­
ity and proactivity. Finally, self-efficacy mediates the
relationship between servant leadership and service
performance, such as service quality, customerfocused citizenship behavior, and consumeroriented prosocial behavior in a consumer services
context (Chen, Zhu, and Zhou 2014; Liden et al.
2014), and creative self-efficacy mediates the path
between servant leadership and employee creativity
among bank employees (Yang, Liu, and Gu 2017).
We examine the effects of servant leadership on
salesperson self-efficacy which serves as a mediator
to salesperson job satisfaction, performance, and
turnover intentions in a sales organization. Based
on this discussion, the following hypotheses are
offered:
H2:Servant leadership (IV) has an indirect effect on
salesperson (a) job satisfaction (DV) and (b) per­
formance (DV) through self-efficacy (M).
H3:Servant leadership (IV) has an indirect impact
on turnover intentions (DV) through serial media­
tion involving self-efficacy (M1) and job satisfac­
tion (M2) (Servant Leadership → Self-efficacy →
Job Satisfaction → Turnover Intentions).
H4:Servant leadership (IV) has an indirect impact
on turnover intentions (DV) through serial media­
tion involving self-efficacy (M1) and performance
(M2) (Servant Leadership → Self-efficacy →
Performance → Turnover Intentions).
Note: IV = Independent Variable; DV = Dependent
Variable; M1 = First Mediator; M2 = Second Mediator
Moderating influences
Gender. There is a call to assess the multilevel impact
of moderating contingencies on servant leadership
and organizational, team, and individual variables
(Eva et al. 2019). One possible moderator is the
gender of the sales representative. While sales leaders
may not adjust managerial guidelines in managing
men and women in the sales unit (Moncrief et al.
2000), men and women likely differ on preferred
leadership styles (Comer et al. 1995). Past research
shows women prefer democratic or participative
leadership styles, while men favor autocratic or
directive leadership styles (Eagly and Johnson
1990). Reynolds (2011) posits that “the relationshiporiented, other-centered, and supportive aspects of
servant-leadership, such as empathizing, healing, lis­
tening, and commitment to others’ growth, fall into
the gender categories considered to be predomi­
nantly “feminine” (p. 162). Rodgriquez-Rubio and
Kiser (2010) found that women are more likely to
value the traits of servant leaders compared to men.
However, Kiker, Callahan, and Kiker (2019) found
that servant leadership is more likely to result in
higher performance (task and organizational citizen­
ship behaviors) among men compared to females,
although servant leadership is more likely to influ­
ence higher job satisfaction among women than
men. Hence, the following hypotheses are offered:
H5a:Compared to male sales representatives,
female sales representatives are more likely to per­
ceive that servant leadership (IV) has an indirect
impact on turnover intentions (DV) through serial
mediation involving self-efficacy (M1) and job
satisfaction (M2) (Servant Leadership → Selfefficacy → Job Satisfaction → Turnover
Intentions).
H5b:Compared to male sales representatives,
female sales representatives are more likely to per­
ceive that servant leadership (SL) has an indirect
impact on turnover intentions (DV) through serial
mediation involving self-efficacy (M1) and perfor­
mance (M2) (Servant Leadership → Self-efficacy →
Performance → Turnover Intentions).
Firm Size. There have been numerous non-sales
studies addressing the servant leadership link to
performance outcomes based on firmographics
specific to industry type (SIC classification), non­
profit versus for-profit (Kiker, Callahan, and Kiker
2019), and firm size. For example, Marx (2017)
found that company size is inversely related to
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
participatory and employee-oriented leadership
styles. This finding suggests that larger firms are
less likely to exhibit employee engagement and
leader-follower interactions than smaller firms.
Moreover, larger organizations place more empha­
sis on hierarchical reporting structures; formal
policies, procedures, and standards of practice;
risk mitigation; and achievement of financial out­
comes. Finally, Marx (2017) provided that directive
leadership is more prevalent in larger firms com­
pared to smaller organizations. Based on this
understanding, we offer the following hypotheses:
H6a:Compared to larger companies, sales people
working for smaller firms are more likely to perceive
that servant leadership (IV) has an indirect impact
on turnover intentions (DV) through serial media­
tion involving self-efficacy (M1) and job satisfaction
(M2) (Servant Leadership → Self-efficacy → Job
Satisfaction → Turnover Intentions).
H6b:Compared to larger firms, sales people work­
ing for smaller firms are more likely to perceive that
servant leadership (IV) has an indirect impact on
turnover intentions (DV) through serial mediation
involving self-efficacy (M1) and performance (M2)
(Servant Leadership → Self-efficacy →
Performance → Turnover Intentions).
Job Stressors. The Job-Demand Resources (JDR)
Model (Demerouti et al., 2001) provides a theoretical
base for the effects of job demands as challenge
stressors or hindrance stressors on job satisfaction,
job commitment, and turnover (Cavanaugh et al.,
20002000; Podsakoff, Lepine, and Lepine, 2007).
Challenge stressors often entail the use of time pres­
sures such as quarterly sales quotas, competitive
movements, and added workloads and responsibil­
ities that inspire a sales representative to work
harder, master selling skills, seek out professional
development to enhance selling aptitude, productiv­
ity, and overall sales performance. Concomitant,
hindrances stressors stem from internal politics,
organizational policies and procedures, organiza­
tional culture, role conflict and ambiguity, and cus­
tomer demands and complaints that demotivate (see
Crawford, LePine, and Rich 2010) and impede
a salesperson’s abilities and performance. The sales
161
leader’s role is to “focus on developing the people
around them” by “motivating them [sales people] to
learn” and “creat[ing] a ‘demand pull’ system” (Jones
et al. 2005, 186) and work to reduce the potential
negative impact of job demands. Thus, engaging
leadership style, like servant leadership behaviors,
can have significant negative influence on job
demands (Schaufeli, 2015). For example, in
a military context, charismatic leadership is asso­
ciated with challenge stressors having a positive
impact on performance, while charismatic leader­
ship lessens the effects of hindrance stressors on
performance (Lepine et al., 2016). Hence, leadership
styles are a component of job resources that buffer
the effects of job demands such as challenge and
hindrance stressors (Kwon and Kim, 2020).
To date, a prevailing gap exists in the leadership
literature as to whether leadership behaviors directly
impact challenge stressors and hindrance stressors as
mediators leading to employee outcome variables or
whether leadership behaviors moderate the effects of
challenge and hindrance stressors on employee out­
come variables. For example, transformational lea­
dership (IV) has a direct, positive impact on
challenge stressors (M), which have a direct, positive
influence on thriving at work (DV). However, trans­
formational leadership (IV) has a direct, negative
effect on hindrance stressors (M), which have
a direct, negative influence on thriving at work
(DV) (Lin et al., 2022). In this case, challenge and
hindrance stressors exhibit mediation effects in the
Leadership → Worker Outcome path. Alternatively,
hindrance and challenge stressors have been inde­
pendent variables. For example, a higher level of
transactional leadership serves as a moderator and
lowers the negative effects of hindrance stressors
(IV) on perceived organizational justice (DV).
Further, a higher level of transformational leadership
moderates the positive impact of challenge stressors
on perceived organizational justice (Zhang et al.,
20142014). In another example, servant leadership
has been shown to serve as a moderator on the Job
Stressor → Emotional Exhaustion path. Highlyperceived servant leadership behaviors buffer the
effects that challenge stressors have on emotional
exhaustion. However, highly-perceived servant lea­
dership behaviors only marginally buffer the effects
of hindrance stressors (Wu et al., 20202020). An
162
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
alternative position yet to be tested is whether chal­
lenge and hindrance stressors serve as moderators on
the direct and indirect effects of servant leadership
on salesperson self-efficacy, job satisfaction, perfor­
mance, and turnover intentions. For this reason, the
following hypotheses are offered:
H7a:As challenge stressors (W) increase, the indir­
ect effects of servant leadership (IV) on salesperson
turnover intentions (DV) through serial mediation
involving self-efficacy (M1) and job satisfaction
(M2) will decrease.
H7b:As challenge stressors (W) increase, the indir­
ect effects of servant leadership (IV) on salesperson
turnover intentions (DV) through serial mediation
involving self-efficacy (M1) and performance (M2)
will decrease.
H8a:As hindrance stressors (W) increase, the indir­
ect effects of servant leadership (IV) on salesperson
turnover intentions (DV) through serial mediation
involving self-efficacy (M1) and job satisfaction
(M2) will decrease.
H8b:As hindrance stressors (W) increase, the indir­
ect effects of servant leadership on salesperson
turnover (DV) intentions through serial mediation
involving self-efficacy (M1) and performance (M2)
will decrease.
Note: W = Moderator
Methods
Procedures
The authors used a commercial survey panel
that directly targeted respondents that sold pro­
ducts and services to business-to-business custo­
mers within their book of customer accounts.
Survey panels representing cross-sections of
industries have been used to gather data and
test models in other published academic studies
(Matthews and Schenk 2018; Matthews et al.
2016). The panel provider maintained quality
scores on each respondent, based on behavioral
patterns such as time spent on surveys,
inconsistent profile data reporting, and humanreviewed responses flagged as low quality. Any
panel participant scoring below the acceptable
quality score threshold was eliminated from the
platform. To reduce measurement error, the
panel provider deployed proprietary interven­
tions to screen for bots and virtual fingerprint­
ing, to prevent fraud scoring based on historical
completions, to eliminate outliers, and to ensure
only unique panelists complete the survey.
Respondents were personally incented or
donated their incentive to a nonprofit organiza­
tion. Data collection for this study met standard
ethical requirements and received formal
approval from the primary investigator’s univer­
sity Institutional Review Board. Data was gath­
ered over a 10-day period using a commercial
online survey tool. All participants provided
initial informed consent to participate in the
study. The final sample resulted in 302 com­
pleted surveys of sales respondents working in
retail-related trade, which sold products and ser­
vices to businesses (25%); services (21%); manu­
facturing (13%); finance, insurance, and real
estate (12%); wholesale trade (7%); transporta­
tion, communications, and utilities (6%); and
non-classified industries or missing values
(16%). The sample was nearly evenly split with
53% identifying as female and 47% as male. The
average age of respondents was 40.3 years, while
the average tenure in a sales role was 10.9 years.
Employer company size varied with 28% work­
ing for firms up to 49 employees; 19% working
for firms with 50–249 employees; 16% working
for firms with 250–1,000 employees; and 37%
working for companies with more than 1,000
employees. Adhering to (Armstrong and
Overton’s 1977) non-response bias suggestions,
early and late respondent means were compared
which revealed no statistically significant differ­
ences between the respondents during the twoweek data collection.
Measures for hypothesized model
As shown in Figure 1, it is hypothesized that
servant leadership maintains direct and indirect
relationships with self-efficacy, job satisfaction,
sales performance, and salesperson turnover
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
intentions. Self-efficacy mediates the path between
servant leadership and salesperson job satisfac­
tion, sales performance, and turnover intentions.
All constructs are multi-item scales that were
modified to align with a business-to-business
sales context and have varied scale formats to
avoid common method variance (see Matthews
et al. 2016; Podsakoff et al. 2003). The scale
items were designed so that higher scores repre­
sented a higher level of respondent perception.
For servant leadership, Van Dierendonck et al.’s
(2017) 18-item Servant Leadership Survey (shortversion) was selected, using a 6-point scale
anchored by “1” representing “fully disagree”
and “6” representing “fully agree.” During its
development, the generalized short version of
the Servant Leadership Survey was tested, vali­
dated, and showed factorial validity, configural
invariance, and measurement equivalence across
5,201 respondents from eight countries in various
positions and professions (Van Dierendonck et al.
2017). The Servant Leadership Scale consists of
18 scale items, composing five sub-factors as
empowerment, humility, standing back, steward­
ship, and authenticity. In this study, to measure
the direct effects of servant leadership (IV) on
salesperson outcomes (DVs), the 18 scale items
were aggregated into a single variable.
In addition, Krishnan, Netemeyer, and Boles’
(2002) 4-item scale for salesperson self-efficacy
was used with a 7-point scale anchored by “1”
representing “strongly disagree” and “7” represent­
ing “strongly agree.” To measure job satisfaction,
Netemeyer, Brashear-Alejandro, and Boles’ (2004)
3-item scale was selected, using a 7-point scale
anchored by “1” representing “very dissatisfied”
and “7” representing “very satisfied.” Sales perfor­
mance was measured using Bakakus, Yavas, and
Ashill’s (2009) 4-item scale based on a 5-point
scale, anchored by “strongly disagree” and
“strongly agree.” Next, Bakakus, Yavas, and
Ashill’s (2009) 4-item turnover intentions scale
was modified to reflect use in a sales organization.
Again, a 5-point scale was employed to measure
turnover intentions anchored by “strongly dis­
agree” to “strongly agree.”
The moderator variables used were gender of the
respondent, size of the firm, and job demands as
two continuous variables for challenge stressors
163
and hindrance stressors. First, each respondent
was asked to select either male or female as a binary
variable. For size of the firm, respondents indicated
their organization’s total number of employees
based upon employee size ranges (e.g., 1 to 4
employees, 5 to 9 employees, . . . 1,000 or more).
Finally, Cavanaugh et al.’s (2000) 6-item scale for
challenge stressors and 5-item scale for hindrance
stressors were modified to fit a sales context. Both
of these 6-point scales were anchored by “produces
no stress” to “produces a great deal of stress.”
Results
Measurement assessment of model variables
Servant Leadership Scale. This study was less inter­
ested in assessing the impact of the five subconstructs in van Dierendonck et al.’s (2017)
Servant Leadership Scale (SL), but rather more
interested in the impact of servant leadership in
aggregate as an exogeneous variable on selfefficacy, job satisfaction, performance, and turn­
over intentions Using SPSS 28 with AMOS 27
(AMOS 2020), a CFA on the aggregated SL scale
indicated strong model fit (χ2 = 252.8, df = 113,
p < .00; CFI = .965; SRMR = .03; RMSEA = .06) The
average variance extracted for the aggregated SL
scale was .57, and composite reliability was .96,
both confirming good convergent validity. In addi­
tion, the scale demonstrated very strong internal
reliability (Cronbach α= .96), where removal of any
scale item would lower the overall reliability statis­
tic. As confirmation, calculated item-to-total corre­
lation analysis revealed that the removal of any item
would not have a substantial impact on the overall
scale’s internal reliability. See Table 1 for scale items
and results.
Endogeneous Variables. The scales used in this
model for self-efficacy, job satisfaction, perfor­
mance, and turnover intentions have been pre­
viously tested and refined in the marketing
literature. Krishnan, Netemeyer, and Boles’ (2002)
4-item self-efficacy scale was found to show strong
internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .89) (cf.
Nunnally 1978; Streiner 2003), good average var­
iance extracted (AVE) as .75, and good composite
reliability as .92. Next, Netemeyer, BrashearAlejandro, and Boles’ (2004) job satisfaction scale
164
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
was used, which displays strong internal reliability
for the measure (Cronbach’s α = .84) (cf. Nunnally
1978; Streiner 2003), good average variance
extracted (AVE) as .76, and composite reliability
(CR) was .83. To assess Bakakus, Yavas, and Ashill’s
(2009) 4-item performance scale, strong internal
reliability (Cronbach’s α = .91) (cf. Nunnally
1978; Streiner 2003) was also found; the calculated
average variance extracted (AVE) for performance
was .80, and composite reliability (CR) was .94.
Next, Bakakus, Yavas, and Ashill’s (2009) 4-item
turnover intentions scale showed high internal
reliability (Cronbach’s α = .91) (cf. Nunnally
1978; Streiner 2003). The calculated average var­
iance extracted (AVE) for turnover intentions was
.78 and composite reliability (CR) was .93. Finally,
Cavanaugh et al.’s (2000) 6-item challenge stressor
scale and 5-item hindrance stressors scale were
assessed, which serve as moderator variables. The
challenge stressor scale was found to exhibit high
internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .87) (cf.
Nunnally 1978; Streiner 2003) with a calculated
average variance extracted (AVE) as .60 and com­
posite reliability (CR) as .90. For the hindrance
stressor scale, sufficient internal reliability
(Cronbach’s α= .75) (cf. Nunnally 1978; Streiner
2003) was found, with .50 as the calculated average
variance extracted (AVE) and a composite reliabil­
ity (CR) of .90. All scales were tested for the impact
on the reliability statistic if an item was deleted and
whether the calculated item-to-total correlation
analysis required the removal of any item that
would provide a substantial impact on the selfefficacy scale’s internal reliability. The results did
not warrant the removal of any scale item from the
measures. Table 1 shows the reliability coefficient,
average variance extracted (AVE), and composite
reliability for each of the variables in this model. All
reliability indices (Cronbach α) exceeded a .7
threshold indicating strong internal consistency
(Nunnally 1978).
To test for common method bias, an exploratory
factor analysis (principal components with oblique
rotation) was conducted with all five of the hypothe­
sized path model’s variables (servant leadership, selfefficacy, job satisfaction, performance, and turnover
intentions) which yielded a five-factor-solution
based on a screen plot and calculated Eigenvalues
in excess of 1. These five variables accounted for
Table 2. Collinearity statistics dependent variable: turnover
intentions.
Independent Variable
Servant Leadership
Self-efficacy
Job Satisfaction
Performance
B
−.035
.035
−.661
.175
t-value
−2.75
.509
−9.73
2.44
p-value
.006
.611
.000
.015
Tolerance
.613
.645
.519
.663
VIF
1.631
1.552
1.926
1.508
68.5% of the total variance in which the first factor
accounted for 38.7% of the total variance. To test for
multicollinearity, regression of servant leadership,
self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and performance on
turnover intentions was performed and calculated
variance inflation factors for each of the independent
variables occurred. As shown in Table 2, the model
meets acceptable thresholds for multicollinearity
(VIF< 3.0) with tolerances (.52-.66) (Hair et al.
2019), suggesting that common method bias is likely
not a significant concern (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Testing of hypothesized model
To test the hypotheses in this study, SPSS 28 with
the supplemental program Hayes PROCESS 4.0
(see Hayes 2022) was used to assess the moderated
mediated model as shown in Figure 1. PROCESS
4.0 applies the bootstrapping method with 5,000
iterations and 95% confidence intervals to test
direct and indirect paths among variables at varied
levels of pre-determined moderator variables. The
impact of servant leadership (IV) on self-efficacy
(M) which leads to job satisfaction (M) and perfor­
mance (M) which leads to turnover intentions
(DV) was examined. Process 4.0 analysis yields
significant effects based on results with an absence
of zero within the confidence interval. This techni­
que tests serial-mediated paths involving direct and
indirect effects for the entire sample and allows
further assessment for moderated mediation to
ascertain conditional indirect effects of gender,
firm size, hindrance stressors, and challenge stres­
sors serving as moderating variables.
Direct and mediated effects of servant leadership on
job satisfaction
Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4 was used to assess the
Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job
Satisfaction path and showed statistical significance
(F(2, 299) = 125.03, p = .000, R2 = .46) where
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
servant leadership has a direct, positive impact on
job satisfaction (B = .113, t = 12.62, p = .000,
[LLCI = .095, ULCI = .130]), which supports
Hypothesis 1a. In addition, the results indicate
that self-efficacy has a direct, positive impact on
job satisfaction (B = .331, t = 6.68, p = .000,
[LLCI = .234, ULCI = .429]), and the total indirect
effect of servant leadership on job satisfaction
through self-efficacy as mediator is statistically sig­
nificant (effect = .013, [LLCI = .005, ULCI = .022]),
which provides support for Hypothesis 2a. Since
servant leadership has a direct and indirect impact
on job satisfaction, it is concluded that the Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction path
represents partial mediation. See Table 3 for results.
Direct and mediated effects of servant leadership on
salesperson performance
To assess Hypotheses 1b and 2b, Hayes’ PROCESS
Model 4 was used to analyze the Servant Leadership
→ Self-Efficacy → Performance path and indicated
statistical significance (F(2, 299) = 65.45, p = .000,
R2 = .31), although servant leadership fails to have
a direct impact on performance (B = −.001,
t = −.069, p = .95, [LLCI = −.017, ULCI = .016]),
thus showing no support for Hypothesis 1b.
However, the results indicate that self-efficacy has
a direct, positive impact on performance as SelfEfficacy → Performance (B = .526, t = 11.20,
p = .000, [LLCI = .434, ULCI = .619]). The total
indirect effect of servant leadership on performance
through self-efficacy as mediator is statistically sig­
nificant (effect = .020, [LLCI = .009, ULCI = .031])
indicating there is support for Hypothesis 2b in
which the Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy →
Performance path is full mediation. See Table 4 for
results.
Mediated effects of servant leadership on turnover
intentions
Next, PROCESS Model 81 was conducted to assess
Figure 1 based on servant leadership as the indepen­
dent variable (IV), self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and
performance as mediators (M), and turnover inten­
tions as the dependent variable (DV). The model is
statistically significant (F(4, 297) = 56.25, p = .000,
R2 = .43). Servant leadership was found to have
165
Table 3. Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction
Results of PROCESS Model 4.
Variable
Servant Leadership
Self-efficacy
B
.113
.331
t-value
12.62
6.68
p-value
.000
.000
LLCI
.095
.234
ULCI
.130
.429
F(2, 299) = 125.03, p = .000, R2 = .46
Table 4. Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Performance
Results of PROCESS Model 4.
Variable
Servant Leadership
Self-efficacy
B
−.001
.526
t-value
−.069
11.20
p-value
.945
.000
LLCI
−.017
.434
ULCI
.160
.619
F(2, 299) = 65.45, p = .000, R2 = .31
Table 5. Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction &
Performance → Turnover Intentions
Results of PROCESS Model 81.
Variable
Servant Leadership
Self-efficacy
Job Satisfaction
Performance
B
−.035
.035
−.661
.175
t-value
−2.75
.509
−9.73
2.43
p-value
.006
.611
.000
.015
LLCI
−.060
−.101
−.795
.034
ULCI
−.010
.172
−.527
.316
2
F(4, 297) = 56.25, p = .000, R = .43
a direct, negative impact on turnover intentions con­
firming Hypothesis 1c (B = −.035, t = −2.75, p = .006,
[LLCI = −.060, ULCI = −.010]). Furthermore, job
satisfaction has a direct, negative impact on turnover
intentions (B = −.661, t = −9.73, p = .000,
[LLCI = −.795, ULCI = −.527]), and performance
has a direct, positive impact on turnover intentions
(B = .175, t = 2.44, p = .015, [LLCI = .034,
ULCI = .316]). Self-efficacy fails to have a direct sig­
nificant influence on turnover intentions (B = .035,
t = .509, p = .611, [LLCI = −.101, ULCI = .172]). The
total effect of servant leadership on turnover is statis­
tically significant (effect = −.113, t = −9.86, p = .000
[LLCI = −.136, ULCI = −.090]). Further, the total
indirect effect shown in Figure 1 as servant leader­
ship’s indirect influence on turnover intentions
through self-efficacy as mediator and job satisfaction
and performance as parallel mediators is statistically
significant (effect = −.078, [LLCI = −.101,
ULCI = −.056]). In testing Hypothesis 3, the results
show that the Servant Leadership → Job Satisfaction
→ Turnover Intentions path is significant
(effect = −.074, [LLCI = −.098, ULCI = −.052]).
Moreover, the Servant Leadership → Self-efficacy →
Job Satisfaction → Turnover Intentions path is sig­
nificant (effect = −.008, [LLCI = −.015, ULCI = −.003])
and confirms Hypothesis 3. Since servant leadership
166
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
has a direct, negative influence on turnover intentions
(as Hypothesis 1c) and Hypothesis 3 is confirmed, it is
concluded that a partial mediated model exists.
Finally, the Servant Leadership → Self-efficacy →
Performance → Turnover Intentions (effect = .004,
[LLCI = .001, ULCI = .007]) path is statistically sig­
nificant and confirms Hypothesis 4. However, the
Servant Leadership → Self-efficacy → Turnover
Intentions path (effect = .001, [LLCI = −.004,
ULCI = .008]) and the Servant Leadership →
Performance → Turnover Intentions (effect = −.000,
[LLCI = −.003, ULCI = .004]) path are not statistically
significant. See Table 5 and 6 for results of the analysis.
Moderated-mediated effects of servant leadership
on turnover intentions
Effects of Gender. Moderated-mediated analysis
using PROCESS Model 84 (Hayes 2022) was con­
ducted to assess the impact of gender (W) as
a dichotomous moderator on the Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction →
Turnover Intentions path. More specifically, gender
moderates the Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy
and the Servant Leadership → Job Satisfaction
paths in the model shown as Figure 1. The index of
moderated mediation was .007 with a confidence
interval of (LLCI = −.002, ULCI = .017), indicating
a lack of statistical significance and suggesting that
gender is not a moderator in the path Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction →
Turnover Intentions. Hence, no support exists for
Hypothesis 5a. In a similar analysis for the path
Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Performance
→ Turnover Intentions with gender as a moderator
variable, the PROCESS Model 84 results provide
a statistically insignificant index of moderated med­
iation as −.000 with a confidence interval of
(LLCI = −.004, ULCI = .003). Hence, gender is not
a moderator to the path Servant Leadership → SelfEfficacy → Performance → Turnover Intentions,
suggesting Hypothesis 5b is not supported.
Effects of Firm Size. Using PROCESS Model
84 (Hayes 2022), moderated-mediated analysis
was conducted to assess the impact of firm size
(W) as a dichotomous moderator variable
(defined as 0–249 employees and 250+ employ­
ees) on the Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy
→ Job Satisfaction → Turnover Intentions path.
Table 6. Indirect effect of servant leadership on turnover inten­
tions results of process model 81.
Path
Total
SL → SE → TOI
SL → JS → TOI
SL → PERF → TOI
SL → SE → JS → TOI
SL → SE → PERF → TOI
Unstandardized Effect
−.078
.001
−.074
−.000
−.008
.004
BootLLCI
−.101
−.004
−.098
−.003
−.015
.001
BootULCI
−.060
.008
−.052
.004
−.003
.007
Total Effects of Servant Leadership on Turnover Intentions: Effect = −.113,
t = −9.86, p = .00 [LLCI = −.136, ULCI = −.090])
Note: SL – Sales Performance; SE – Self-efficacy; JS – Job Satisfaction; PERF –
Performance; TOI – Turnover Intentions
In this analysis, firm size moderates the paths
Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy and Servant
Leadership → Job Satisfaction. The index of
moderated mediation was .008 which is insignif­
icant (LLCI = −.001, ULCI = .020), indicating
that firm size is not a moderator to the path
Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job
Satisfaction → Turnover Intentions. As such,
there is no support for Hypothesis 6a. Second,
with PROCESS Model 84, the Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Performance →
Turnover Intentions with firm size as
a moderator variable for the Servant Leadership
→ Self-Efficacy and the Servant Leadership →
Performance paths were assessed. The index of
moderated mediation was −.001 which is insig­
nificant (LLCI = −.005, ULCI = .004) indicating
that firm size is not a moderator to the path
Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy →
Performance → Turnover Intentions. Therefore,
Hypothesis 6b is not supported.
Effects of Challenge Stressors. The next analysis
consisted of assessing challenge stressors as
a continuous moderator on the Servant Leadership
→ Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction → Turnover
Intentions path. With PROCESS Model 84 (Hayes
2022), challenge stressors moderate the Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy and Servant Leadership
→ Job Satisfaction paths. The results yield
a statistically significant index of moderated media­
tion was .002 (LLCI = .001, ULCI = .003), indicating
that servant leadership has an indirect effect on turn­
over intentions through the serial mediated path as
Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction for conditions of
lower and moderate levels of challenge stressors,
but not for conditions involving higher levels of
challenge stressors. Thus, Hypothesis 7a is sup­
ported. See Table 7 for results.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
167
To test Hypothesis 7b, the Servant Leadership →
Self-Efficacy → Performance → Turnover
Intentions path as a serial-mediated with challenge
stressors (W) as a continuous moderator was
assessed. Again, the Servant Leadership → SelfEfficacy and Servant Leadership→ Performance
paths are moderated using PROCESS Model 84.
The index of moderated mediation was −.000 and
insignificant (LLCI = −.001, ULCI = .001) indicat­
ing that challenge stressors have no statistically
significant effect as a moderator on Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Performance →
Turnover Intentions. Therefore, Hypothesis 7b is
not supported. See Table 8 for results.
Hindrance Stressors as Moderator. Finally,
whether hindrance stressors serve as moderator on
the Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job
Satisfaction → Turnover Intentions path was
assessed using PROCESS Model 84 (Hayes 2022).
Support for Hypothesis 8a was found since the
index of moderated mediation was .001
(LLCI = .0003, ULCI = .0025), indicating that hin­
drance stressors serve as a significant moderator to
the Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy and Servant
Leadership → Job Satisfaction paths. The results are
presented in Table 7. To test Hypothesis 8b, the
effects of hindrance stressors as a moderator on
Servant Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Performance
→ Turnover Intentions were analyzed, specifically,
as the assessment of Servant Leadership → SelfEfficacy and Servant Leadership → Performance
paths using PROCESS Model 84. The index of mod­
erated mediation was −.000 with a confidence inter­
val of (LLCI = −.001, ULCI = .001) indicating a lack
of statistical significance. Hence Hypothesis 8b is not
supported. See the results presented in Table 8.
Discussion and implications
Table 7. Moderated-mediated effects of servant leadership on
turnover intentions results of process model 84 servant leader­
ship → self-efficacy → job satisfaction → turnover intentions.
Table 8. Moderated-mediated effects of servant leadership on
turnover intentions results of process model 84 servant leader­
ship → self-efficacy → performance → turnover intentions.
Challenge Stressors as Moderator
Path
Unstandardized Effect
−5.649
−.020
.000
−.011
5.649
−.002
Hindrance Stressors as Moderator
−4.708
−.016
.000
−.010
4.708
−.004
This study’s results offer additional insight regarding
the impact of servant leadership on salesperson selfefficacy, job satisfaction, performance, and turnover
intentions. Servant leaders possess an “underlying
attitude of egalitarianism” and embrace “a trustee
role, one in which individual growth and develop­
ment are goals in and of themselves” (Smith,
Montagno, and Kuzmenko 2004, 86). Within
a sales unit, servant leadership should enhance sales
team effectiveness, salesperson creativity and helping
behaviors, salesperson well-being, and organiza­
tional commitment, while lowering turnover inten­
tions (Parris and Peachey 2013).
Salesforce turnover is a significant problem for
companies. The Bridge Group (2018) reported that
voluntary turnover rates for salespeople average
11% for companies with $100 million or more in
sales revenues to 22% for companies with less than
$20 million in sales revenues. Voluntary turnover,
representing attrition resulting from a salesperson’s
decision to leave the company, can stem from poor
sales manager-salesperson relationships, a lack of
sales support, uncompetitive compensation, per­
ceived uncertainty, lack of product or market
focus within the company, no career advancement,
burnout, and company culture (Spiro 2019). One
remedy to prevent losing key sales producers is to
train sales managers how to effectively exhibit ser­
vant leader behaviors to instill a work environment
leading to higher job satisfaction (Coetzer, Bussin,
and Geldenhuys 2017; Jaramillo, 2009a).
Based on results from previous studies, it is
unclear whether servant leadership has a direct
(proximal) or indirect relationship (distal) with
Challenge Stressors as Moderator
BootLLCI
−.032
−.018
−.008
BootULCI
−.011
−.005
.003
−.030
−.019
−.010
−.006
−.003
.002
Index of Moderated Mediation (Challenger Stressors)
(BootLLCI = .001, BootULCI = .003)
Index of Moderated Mediation (Hindrance Stressors)
(BootLLCI = .0003, BootULCI = .003
=
.002,
=
.001,
Path
Unstandardized Effect
−5.649
.001
.000
.001
5.649
.000
Hindrance Stressors as Moderator
−4.708
.001
.000
.001
4.708
.000
BootLLCI
−.007
−.004
−.001
BootULCI
.009
.005
.002
−.006
−.004
−.002
.007
.004
.002
Index of Moderated Mediation (= −.000, (BootLLCI = −.001, BootULCI = .001)
Index of Moderated Mediation (Hindrance Stressors) = −.000,
(BootLLCI = −.001, BootULCI = .001
168
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
job satisfaction. The results in this study indeed
show that servant leadership directly reduces turn­
over intentions, while also producing a direct, posi­
tive effect on salesperson job satisfaction, which
then directly reduces turnover intentions repre­
senting a partially-mediated path. Further, the
results expand the nomological net to a sales con­
text and align with earlier findings that servant
leadership has indeed a negative distal influence
on turnover intentions through mediation variables
(see also Babakus, Yavas, and Ashill 2011; Yavas,
Jha, and Babakus 2015). We recommend that sales
managers consider adopting servant leadership to
raise salesperson job satisfaction as a means to
retain excellent sales talent.
Second, based on the underlying tenets of ser­
vant leadership theory, it would be expected that
a sales leader showing authenticity, humility, com­
passion, accountability, courage, altruism, integrity,
and listening (Coetzer, Bussin, and Geldenhuys
2017) would create a working environment that
positively affects performance. Based on earlier
findings in DeConinck and DeConinck (2017)
and Schwepker and Schultz (2015), it was hypothe­
sized that servant leadership has a direct positive
impact on salesperson performance. However, in
a remarkable outcome, the results did not verify
that servant leadership is a proximal (direct) influ­
encer on salesperson performance. The results indi­
cate that self-efficacy is a mediator in the Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Performance path,
and in fact, self-efficacy may serve to suppress the
effects of servant leadership on salesperson perfor­
mance which is a relationship not found in the sales
literature to date.
Furthermore, respondent perceptions of the sell­
ing environment’s stability or turbulence (dynamic)
was not measured, which could serve as a moderator
variable on the Servant Leadership → Performance
path. Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko (2004) posit
that high-performing workers become frustrated
when their managers assume servant leadership
while the company is operating within a dynamic
environment. In such cases, the high-performers
perceive that leadership is passive and lacks
a competitive spirit and tactical aggression required
to offset environmental forces that impact
organizational success. In the end, some high perfor­
mers will, in fact, consider leaving the organization
(Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko 2004).
Alternatively, servant sales leaders may allocate
too much effort to serving the salesforce and show
too much patience and tolerance with poor perfor­
mers. Some salespeople believe that “fear can be
a motivator,” which is not necessarily a draconian
statement. The sales unit is a difficult place for
a sales leader to be perceived as “too nice” with
underperforming salespeople. The sales leader has
to address underperformance with appropriate cor­
rective actions and maintain a willingness to fire
underperformers who continue to fail to meet sales
performance goals. Cannon and Cannon (2003,
127) stated, “Your inability to tell people that they
have to leave [involuntary termination] will be cor­
rectly seen as giving what is good for an individual
priority over what is good for the team.” In dealing
with low performers, servant leadership may be less
appropriate where the sales leader may be appre­
hensive to dismiss a low performing sales producer.
It is very possible that respondents in this study
may perceive servant leadership as passive, nonaggressive, or soft. However, one common finding
across studies is that a servant leadership approach,
which certainly imbues genuine concern for the
sales professional, will eventually be realized in
increased performance. Thus, empowering repre­
sentatives who exhibit humility, are overly authen­
tic, etc., will find its way into the value chain that
customers are buying.
Third, servant leadership was observed to have
a direct, positive influence on self-efficacy, since
servant leadership supports and empowers the
salesperson. This finding is associated with the
influence of servant leadership on building selfconfidence,
self-esteem,
and
self-worth
(Trompenaars and Voerman 2010). Servant leader­
ship was found to build a salesperson’s self-efficacy,
which then results in higher individual sales per­
formance, as the path Servant Leadership →
Salesperson
Self-Efficacy
→
Salesperson
Performance. The aggregate finding shows that
servant leadership has a distal effect on salesperson
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
performance as a fully mediated model through
self-efficacy which adds new theory to the
literature.
Fourth, there is solid support that high work per­
formance is associated with lower turnover inten­
tions in the management literature (Zimmerman
and Darnold 2009). However, high performance
among salespeople can drive a propensity to leave
the organization. Futrell and Parasuraman (1984)
state “that a sales manager should implement
a strategy designed to reduce turnover among high
performers and dismiss the poor performers, rather
than implementing programs to reduce overall sales
personnel turnover” (p. 39). Sales practitioners cer­
tainly recognize that high-performing salespeople
can have intentions to leave the organization for
a variety of reasons. For example, high sales perfor­
mers will voluntarily quit when they are unhappy
with compensation plans (e.g., lack of high outcomebase pay, low commissions), too much complexity
with the sales process, lack of independence, experi­
ence changes in organizational structure, fail to see
career growth through promotion, experience little
recognition, dislike leadership, or feel they lack
administrative support (McFarlane 2016). Highperforming workers opt to stay at their company
when they believe their total pay growth rate and
promotion growth rate is higher, and there are few
opportunities for employment elsewhere in the mar­
ket. Applied to a sales context, high-performing
salespeople will have higher turnover intentions
when they see that their total compensation is
restrained or capped, when there is little possibility
for promotion, and when there are sales jobs posted
in the market with competitors. Under these circum­
stances, salespeople are willing to apply for those
other sales jobs, and hence, companies lose their
top performers. This study’s data was gathered
when the U.S. economy was in a high growth rate
and available sales jobs were plentiful. These con­
siderations likely explain the last key finding which
was somewhat surprising and not originally
hypothesized. We found statistical support for the
serially-mediated path as Servant Leadership → SelfEfficacy → Performance → Turnover Intentions
(effect = .004, LLCI = .001, ULCI = .007) suggesting
that high sales performance can have a positive
impact on salesperson turnover intentions.
169
Fifth, the impact of servant leadership on selfefficacy, job satisfaction, performance and turn­
over intentions was found to be unaffected by
sales representative gender. In light of earlier stu­
dies, this finding is not overly surprising based on
a theoretical foundation that the gap in the gen­
ders has narrowed. There is extant theoretical
support that there are no gender differences
within the sales unit related to job satisfaction
and self-assessed sales performance, and mixed
support regarding the propensity to leave the
organization and organizational commitment
(Moncrief et al. 2000; Schul and Wren 1992;
Siguaw and Honeycutt 1995). Gender differences
have been noted under conditions of highperformance. Ladik et al. (2002) found that high
performing saleswomen are more likely to stay
with the sales unit compared to salesmen who
are also high performers.
Furthermore, prevailing theory suggests that job
satisfaction is inversely proportional to company
size (Beer 1964) possibly due to rigid working
environments (Garcia-Serrano 2011). Certainly,
sales representatives in larger companies could
experience lower levels of self-efficacy due to
bureaucracy associated with red tape, multiple deci­
sion-maker involvement, and standards and poli­
cies that seem prohibitive in the sales role. Yet, the
results of this study fail to show that firm size, based
on total employees, moderates the serial-mediated
paths testing the indirect impact of servant leader­
ship on turnover intentions.
Finally, earlier studies tested the paths of job
demands as challenge stressors and hindrance
stressors as exogenous variables on other endogen­
ous outcome variables moderated by transforma­
tional and servant leadership behaviors (Zhang
et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2020). In another study, Lin
et al. (2020) tested the direct impact of transforma­
tional leadership as an exogeneous variable on
worker outcome (thriving at work) mediated by
challenge stressors and hindrance stressors.
However, this study adds further understanding to
whether challenge stressors and hindrance stressors
within the sales unit moderate the Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction →
Turnover Intentions path. Specifically, sales leader’s
servant leadership behaviors buffer the impact of
low and moderate levels of perceived challenge
170
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
stressors and hindrance stressors on the Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy and Servant
Leadership → Job Satisfaction paths in the overall
serial-mediated model Servant Leadership → SelfEfficacy → Job Satisfaction → Turnover Intentions
path. However, servant leadership behaviors do not
have the same buffering effects under conditions of
high challenge stressors and hindrance stressors as
indicated in our results. In short, a sales manager’s
use of servant leadership behaviors enhance
a salesperson’s ability to overcome up to moderate
levels of challenge and hindrance stressors in the
sales role, however, would fail to have any influence
under conditions of high challenge and hindrances
stressors.
Clearly these results indicate that sales organiza­
tions can indeed reach enhanced outcomes by
using a servant leadership approach. Intervening
variables that servant leadership impacts such as
self-efficacy and job satisfaction are sought in the
sales force. Increasing a salesperson’s job satisfac­
tion, and subsequently reducing their desire to quit,
is not only a laudable human goal, but also lends
significant financial bearing on the person, the sales
team, the sales manager, the firm, and conceivably,
the customer as well. As Greenleaf (1977) posits,
those being served become servants themselves,
and taking on a servant leadership style is by choice,
but can be institutionalized” as a “culturally nor­
mative managerial style” within a sales organiza­
tion. One thing is definite; a sales leadership style
that contains servant leadership qualities (e.g.,
stewardship, standing back) will lead to indispen­
sable improvement in internal outcomes that are
hard to replicate with a simple training program,
a corporate edict, or a compensation control plan.
Finally, this study offers new insights into
whether servant leadership serves as a direct
and indirect effect on turnover intentions within
a moderated, serial-mediated model. Results
indicate both direct effects and indirect effects
of servant leadership behaviors on turnover
intentions as a serial-mediated path of Servant
Leadership → Self-Efficacy → Job Satisfaction →
Turnover Intentions. This coincides with partial
findings in Jaramillo et al. (2009b), that servant
leadership has a serial-mediated relationship
with salesperson turnover intentions through
person-organizational fit and organizational
commitment. One important empirical and the­
oretical contribution is that servant leadership
indirectly lowers salesperson turnover intentions
through self-efficacy and job satisfaction as serial
mediators.
Limitations and future research
This study is not without limitations in the research
approach and outcomes. The results are derived
from a single sample, online panel that captures
a cross-section in time. While the sample was judi­
ciously selected and represents an array of indus­
tries and sales experience, generalizability of the
results is always an issue. While Babakus, Yavas,
and Ashill (2011) studied servant leadership using
some self-reported data, there is always a concern
with this type of measure, as the findings may be
partially driven by bias (Cote and Buckley 1987).
This study was no different in this regard.
As noted by Schwepker and Schultz (2015), man­
agerial styles differ by the culture of the firm. Hence,
one approach of servant leadership may not be best
suited for every sales organization, client, seller, or
situation. Also, while the model is robust, only
a limited number of important variables were tested.
Capturing a comprehensive picture of the antece­
dents and consequences of the servant leadership
approach in a sales context is a limit of this research
study. Lastly, controlling for a host of other variables,
such as the selling environment as stable or dynamic
(Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko 2004) that might
impinge upon the model, is a potential shortcoming
of this research study.
Future research may continue to utilize the “uni­
versal scale” that is borrowed from the organiza­
tional behavior literature and tested in several
countries. Applying it to additional sales settings
might prove very informative, especially if minor
improvements are made along the way.
Forthcoming research should further test the direct
effects that a servant leadership approach has on
performance. To date, research findings show
mixed support as to whether servant leadership
directly impacts salesperson performance. As noted
prior, adding more covariates and moderators, or
controlling for them, would reveal useful informa­
tion regarding the influences of the construct. The
scale used for measuring servant leadership was new
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
to a sales context and was found to be robust; but
further validation is a necessity. While servant lea­
dership has enjoyed numerous research studies in
business, few inquiries exist in the dynamic and
complex relationships of sales; additional scrutiny
would be beneficial to numerous stakeholders.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Ahearne, M., J. Mathieu, and A. Rapp. 2005. To empower or
not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination
of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on
customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology 90 (5):945–55. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945.
AMOS Development Corporation. 2020. User-defined
estimands. http://amosdevelopment.com/features/userd e fi n e d / u s e r - d e fi n e d - s i m p l e / T u t o r i a l 2 / p d f /
SimpleUserDefined2.pdf, accessed September 17, 2020.
Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. Estimating nonre­
sponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research
14 (3):396–402. doi:10.2307/3150783.
Babakus, E., U. Yavas, and N. J. Ashill. 2011. Service worker
burnout and turnover intentions: Roles of person-job fit, ser­
vant leadership, and customer orientation. Services Marketing
Quarterly 32 (1):17–31. doi:10.1080/15332969.2011.533091.
Bakakus, E., U. Yavas, and N. J. Ashill. 2009. The role of
customer orientation as a moderator of the job
demand-burnout-performance
relationship:
A
surface-level trait perspective. Journal of Retailing
85 (4):480–92. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2009.07.001.
Bande, B., P. Fernandez-Ferrin, C. Varela-Neira, and C. OteroNeira. 2016. Exploring the relationship among servant lea­
dership, intrinsic motivation and performance in an indus­
trial sales setting. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
31 (2):219–31. doi:10.1108/JBIM-03-2014-0046.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review 84 (2):191–215.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
Bass, B. M. 1997. Personal selling and transactional/transfor­
mational leadership. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management
17
(3):19–28.
doi:10.1080/
08853134.1997.10754097.
Beer, M. 1964. Organization size and job satisfaction. The
Academy of Management Journal 7 (1):34–44. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/255232.
Boles, J., Madupalli, R., Rutherford, B., and Wood, J.A. 2007.
The relationship of facets of salesperson job satisfaction
with affective organizational commitment. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing 22 (5): 311–321. doi:
10.1108/08858620710773440.
171
The Bridge Group. 2018. Sales development metrics and com­
pensation research report. https://blog.bridgegroupinc.com/
hubfs/resources/SDRMetricsReport_TheBridgeGroup.pdf.
Cannon, J., and J. Cannon. 2003. Leadership lessons of the navy
seals. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Cavanaugh, M.A., W.R. Boswell, M.V. Roehling, M.V., and J.W.
Boudreau. 2000. An empirical examination of self-reported
work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology 85 (1): 65–74. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.85.1.65.
Chan, S. C. H., and W. Mak. 2014. The impact of servant
leadership and subordinates’ organizational tenure on trust
in leader and attitudes. Personnel Review 43 (2):272–87.
doi:10.1108/PR-08-2011-0125.
Chen, G., S. M. Gully, and D. Eden. 2001. Validation of a new
general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods
4 (1):62–83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004.
Chen, Z., J. Zhu, and M. Zhou. 2014. How does a servant leader
fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership,
individual self-identity, group competition climate, and cus­
tomer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology
Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0038036.
Coetzer, M. F., M. Bussin, and M. Geldenhuys. 2017. The
functions of a servant leader. Administrative Sciences
7 (5):1–32. doi:10.3390/admsci7010005.
Comer, L. B., M. A. Jolson, A. J. Dubinsky, and
F. J. Yammarino. 1995. When the sales manager is
a woman: An exploration into the relationship between
salespeople’s gender and their responses to leadership
styles. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
15 (4):17–32. doi:10.1080/08853134.1995.10754034.
Cote, J. A., and R. Buckley. 1987. Estimating trait, method, and
error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation
studies. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (3):315–18.
doi:10.2307/3151642.
Crawford, E.R., J.A. LePine, J.A., and B.L. Rich. 2010. Linking job
demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout:
A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of
Applied Psychology 95 (5): 834–848. doi:10.1037/a0019364.
DeConinck, J. B., and M. B. DeConinck. 2017. The relationship
between servant leadership, perceived organizational support,
performance, and turnover among business-to-business
salespeople. Archives of Business Research. 5 (10):57–71.
DeConinck, J. B., and J. T. Johnson. 2009. The effects of per­
ceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support,
and organizational justice on turnover among salespeople.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management
29 (4):333–50. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134290403.
Demerouti, E., A.B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner, and W.B. Schaufeli.
2001. The job demands-resources model of burnout.
Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 499–512. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.
Dixon, A. I., and S. M. B. Schertzer. 2005. Bouncing back: How
salesperson optimism and self-efficacy influence attribu­
tions and behaviors following failure. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management 25 (4):363–71. doi:10.1080/
08853134.2005.10749070.
172
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
Eagly, A. H., and B. T. Johnson. 1990. Gender and leadership
style:
A
meta-analysis.
Psychological
Bulletin
108 (2):233–56. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233.
Eva, N., M. Robin, S. Sendjaya, D. van Dierendonck, and
R. C. Liden. 2019. Servant leadership: A systematic review
and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly
30 (1):111–32. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004.
Faraz, N. A., F. Ahmed, M. Ying, and S. A. Mehmood. 2021. The
interplay of green servant leadership, self-efficacy, and intrin­
sic motivation in predicting employees’ pro-environmental
behavior. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 28:1171–84. doi:10.1002/csr.2116.
Flood, C. 2019. Servant leadership: How can you invert your
organization pyramid? September 2, 2021, https://www.
invistaperforms.org/servant-leadership-can-invertorganizational-pyramid/.
Futrell, C. M., and A. Parasuraman. 1984. The relationship of
satisfaction and performance to salesforce turnover. Journal of
Marketing 48 (4):33–40. http://www.jstor.com/stable/1251508.
Garcia-Serrano, C. 2011. Does size matter? The influence of
firm size on working conditions, job satisfaction and quit
intentions. Scottish Journal of Political Economy
58 (2):221–47. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9485.2011.00544.x.
Gist, M. E., and T. R. Mitchell. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical
analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of
Management Review 17 (2):183–211. doi:10.5465/
amr.1992.4279530.
Gong, Y., J. C. Huang, and J. L. Farh. 2009. Employee learning
orientation, transformational leadership, and employee
creativity: The mediating role of employee creative
self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal
52 (4):765–78. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890.
Greenleaf, R. K. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the
nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ:
Paulist Press.
Grisaffe, D. B., R. VanMeter, and L. B. Chonko. 2016. Serving
first for the benefit of others: Preliminary evidence for
a hierarchical conceptualization of servant leadership.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
36 (1):40–58. doi:10.1080/08853134.2016.1151303.
Gutierrez-Wirsching, S., J. Mayfield, and M. Mayfield. 2015.
Motivating language as a mediator between servant leader­
ship and employee outcomes. Management Research
Review. 38(12): 1234–1250. .20408269
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2019.
Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Delhi, India: Cengage.
Hayes, A. F. 2022. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis. 3rd ed. New York, New York:
The Guilford Press.
Jaramillo, F., B. Bande, and J. Varela. 2015. Servant leadership
and ethics: A dyadic examination of supervisor behaviors
and salesperson perceptions. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management 35 (20):108–24. doi:10.1080/
08853134.2015.1010539.
Jaramillo, F., D. B. Grisaffe, L. B. Chonko, and J. A. Roberts.
2009a. Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales
force performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 29 (3):257–75. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-31342
90304.
Jaramillo, F., D. B. Grisaffe, L. B. Chonko, and J. A. Roberts.
2009b. Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales­
person’s turnover intentions. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management 29 (4):351–65. doi:10.2753/PSS08853134290404.
Jaramillo, F., and J. P. Mulki. 2008. Sales effort: The inter­
twined roles of the leader, customers, and the salesperson.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 10.275.
VPSSO885-313ʹ42aO103. 28 (1):37–52. doi:10.2753/
PSS0885-3134280103.
Jones, D. 2012. Does servant leadership lead to greater custo­
mer focus and employee satisfaction? Business Studies
Journal 4 (2):21–36.
Jones, E., S. P. Brown, A. A. Zoltners, and B. A. Weitz. 2005. The
changing environment of selling and sales management.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management
25 (2):105–11. doi:10.1080/08853134.2005.10749052.
Kiker, D. S., J. S. Callahan, and M. B. Kiker. 2019. Exploring
the boundaries of servant leadership: A meta-analysis of the
main and moderating effects of servant leadership on beha­
vioral and affective outcomes. Journal of Managerial Issues
31 (2):172–97.
Kim, J. H., and M. K. Kim.2017.The influence of captain's
servant leadership on leader trust, job satisfaction, and job
performance in a marine industry.International Journal of
Economic Perspectives.11(2):490–99.13071637.13071637
Krishnan, B. C., R. G. Netemeyer, and J. S. Boles.2002.Selfefficacy, competitiveness, and effort as antecedents of sales­
person performance.Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management.22(4):285–95.OSS.i.OSS.i3134
Kwon, K., and T. Kim. 2020. An integrative literature review
of employee engagement and innovative behavior:
Revisiting the JD-R model. Human Resource
Management Review 30 (2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hrmr.2019.100704.
Ladik, D. M., G. W. Marshall, F. G. Lassk, and W. C. Moncrief.
2002. Reexamining gender issues in salesperson propensity
to leave. Industrial Marketing Management 31 (7):599–607.
doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(02)00180-3.
Lai, M. C., and W. C. Chen. 2012. Self-efficacy, effort, job
performance, job satisfaction, and turnover intention: The
effect of personal characteristics on organization
performance. International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology 3 (4):387–91. doi:10.7763/
IJIMT.2012.V3.260.
Lee, C., and D. J. Gillen. 1989. Relationship of type A behavior
pattern, self-efficacy, perceptions on sales performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 10 (1):75–81.
doi:10.1002/job.4030100106.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Lee, A., J. Lyubovnikova, A. W. Tian, and C. Knight. 2020.
Servant leadership: A meta-analytical examination of incre­
mental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 93 (1):1–44.
doi:10.1111/joop.12265.
LePine, M.A., Y. Zhang, E.R. Crawford, E.R., and B.L. Rich.
2016. Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influ­
ence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. The
Academy of Management Journal 59 (3): 1036–1059. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0778.
Liden, R. C., S. J. Wayne, C. Liao, and J. D. Meuser. 2014.
Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on indi­
vidual and unit performance. Academy of Management
Journal 57 (5):1434–52. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0034.
Liu, J., O. Siu, and K. Shi. 2010. Transformational leadership
and employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in the
leader and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology 59 (3):454–79.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x.
MacKenzie, S. B., P. M. Podsakoff, and G. A. Rich. 2001.
Transformational and Transactional Leadership and
Salesperson Performance. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 29 (2):115–34. doi:10.1177/0307945
9994506.
Marx, T. G. 2017. The impacts of company size on leadership.
Management and Organizational Studies 4 (1):82–89.
doi:10.5430/mos.v4n1p82.
Matthews, B. 2020. The hardest job in sales just got harder. Ask
the Experts: Selling Through and Beyond COVID-19, Korn
Ferry Digital, white paper, accessed October 4, 2021.
Matthews, B., and T. Schenk. 2018. Sales enablement: A master
framework to engage, equip, and empower a world-class sales
force. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Matthews, L. M., A. R. Zablah, J. F. Hair, and G. W. Marshall.
2016. Increased engagement or reduced exhaustion:
Which accounts for the effect of job resources on sales­
person job outcomes? Journal of Marketing Theory &
Practice
24
(3):249–64.
doi:10.1080/
10696679.2016.1170532.
McFarlane, J. 2016. The top 25 reasons great salespeople are
leaving your company. The Peak Blog, Peak Sales
Recruiting, April 5, 2016. Retrieved August 18, 2020.
https://www.peaksalesrecruiting.com/blog/top-25-reasonsgreat-salespeople-leave/.
Moncrief, W. C., E. Babakus, D. W. Cravens, and
M. W. Johnston. 2000. Examining gender differences
in field sales organizations. Journal of Business Research
49 (3):245–57. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00019-3.
Netemeyer, R. G., T. Brashear-Alejandro, and J. S. Boles. 2004.
A cross-national model of job-related outcomes of work
role and family role variables: A retail sales context.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (1):49–60.
doi:10.1177/0092070303259128.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York,
NY: MacGraw-Hill.
173
Parris, D. L., and J. W. Peachey. 2013. A systematic literature
review of servant leadership theory in organizational
contexts. Journal of Business Ethics 113 (3):377–93.
doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6.
Peterson, R. A. 2020. Self-efficacy and personal selling: Review
and examination with an emphasis on sales performance.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
40 (1):57–71. doi:10.1080/08853134.2019.1654390.
Pillai, R., and E. A. Williams. 2004. Transformational leadership,
self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and
performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management
17 (2):144–59. doi:10.1108/09534810410530584.
Podsakoff, N.P., J.A. LePine, J.A., and M.A. LePine, M.A. 2007.
Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relation­
ships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and
withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology 92 (2): 438–454. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and
N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in beha­
vioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology
88 (5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Poon, R. 2006. A model for servant leadership, self-efficacy
and mentorship, Proceedings of the 2006 Servant Leadership
Research Roundtable. School of Leadership Studies, Regent
University, Virginia Beach, VA, Retrieved June 19, 2020
from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_
proceedings/2006/poon.pdf.
Price, J. C. 2013. Are you a leader or a boss? Refresh Leadership
Blog, March 13, 2013, http://www.refreshleadership.com/
index.php/2013/03/leader-boss/, accessed June 15, 2020.
Qiu, S., L. M. Dooley, and L. Xie. 2020. How servant leadership
and self-efficacy interact to affect service quality in the
hospitality industry: A polynomial regression with response
surface analysis. Tourism Management 78. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2019.104051.
Quain, S. 2018. Problems with the servant leadership model,
Chron, October 22, 2018, https://smallbusiness.chron.com/
problems-servant-leadership-model-50586.html.
Reynolds, K. 2011. Servant-leadership as gender-integrative
leadership: Paving a path for more gender-integrative orga­
nizations through leadership education. Journal of
Leadership Education. 10 (2):155–71. https://journaloflea
dershiped.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/10_2_
Reynolds.pdf. Retrieved as. 10.12806/V10/I2/RF8.
Rodriguez-rubio, A. and A.I.T. Kiser, A.I.T. 2013 An exam­
ination of servant leadership in the United States and
Mexico: Do age and gender make a difference? The Global
Studies Journal 5(2) ISSN 1835-4432. http://onglobalisa
tion.com/
Russell, R. F., and A. G. Stone. 2002. A review of servant
leadership attributes: Developing a practical model.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal
23 (3):145–57. doi:10.1108/01437730210424.
174
K. W. WESTBROOK AND R. M. PETERSON
Schaufeli, W. 2015. Engaging leadership in the job demandsresources model. Career Development International. 20 (5):
446–463. doi:10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025.
Schneider, S.K. and George, W.M. 2011. Servant leadership
versus transformational leadership in voluntary service
organizations. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 32 (1): 60–77. doi:10.1108/01437731111099283.
Schul, P. L., and B. M. Wren. 1992. The emerging role of women
in industrial selling: A decade of change. Journal of Marketing
56 (3):38–54. doi:10.1177/002224299205600303.
Schwarz, G., A. Newman, B. Cooper, and N. Eva. 2016. Servant
leadership and follower job performance: The mediating
effect of public service motivation. Public Administration
94 (4):1025–41. doi:10.1111/padm.12266.
Schwepker, C. H., Jr., and R. J. Schultz. 2015. Influence of the
ethical servant leader and ethical climate on customer value
enhancing sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management 35 (2):93–107. doi:10.1080/08853134.20
15.1010537.
Sendjaya, S., J. C. Sarros, and J. C. Santora. 2008. Defining and
measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations.
Journal of Management Studies 45 (2):402–24. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x.
Shamir, B., R. J. House, and M. B. Arthur. 1993. The motivational
effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory.
Organization Science 4 (4):577–94. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577.
Siguaw, J. A., and E. D. Honeycutt. 1995. An examination of
gender differences in selling behaviors and job attitudes.
Industrial Marketing Management 24 (1):45–52.
doi:10.1016/0019-8501(94)00030-Z.
Smith, B. N., R. V. Montagno, and T. N. Kuzmenko. 2004.
Transformational and servant leadership: Content and con­
textual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies 10 (4):80–91. doi:10.1177/1071791
90401000406.
Sokoll, S. 2014. Servant leadership and employee commitment
to a supervisor.International Journal of Leadership Studies.8
(2):88–104.15543145.15543145
Spiro, 2019. The 8 biggest reasons why salespeople quit,” Spiro
Blog, July 11, 2019, https://spiro.ai/blog/the-8-biggestreasons-why-salespeople-quit/.
Stone, A. G., R. F. Russell, and K. Patterson. 2004.
Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference
in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 25 (4):349–61. doi:10.1108/01437730410538671.
Streiner, D. L. 2003. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to
coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of
Personality Assessment 80 (1):99–203. doi:10.1207/
S15327752JPA8001_18.
Subramony, M., and B. Holtom. 2012. The long-term influ­
ence of service employee attrition on customer outcomes
and profits. Journal of Service Research 15 (4):460–73.
doi:10.1177/1094670512452792.
Sunder, S., V. Kumar, A. Goreczny, and T. Maurer. 2017. Why
do salespeople quit? An empirical examination of own and
peer effects on salesperson turnover behavior. Journal of
Marketing Research 54 (3):381–97. doi:10.1509/jmr.15.0485.
Trompenaars, F., and E. Voerman. 2010. Servant leadership
across cultures. New York: McGraw Hill.
Van Dierendonck, D. 2011. Servant leadership: A review and
synthesis. Journal of Management 37 (4):1228–61.
doi:10.1177/0149206310380462.
Van Dierendonck, D., M. Sousa, A. Gunnarsdottir, A. Bobbio,
J. Hakanen, A. P. Verdorfer, E. C. Duyan, and
R. Rodriquez-Carvajal. 2017. The cross-cultural invariance
of the servant leadership survey: A comparative study
across eight countries. Administrative Sciences 7 (8):1–11.
doi:10.3390/admsci7020008.
Van Knippenberg, D., and M. A. Hogg. 2003. A social identity
model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research
in Organizational Behavior 25:243–95. doi:10.1016/S01913085(03)25006-1.
Varela, J. A., B. Bande, M. Del Rio, and F. Jaramillo. 2019.
Servant leadership, proactive work behavior, and perfor­
mance overall rating: Testing a multilevel model of moder­
ated mediation. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
26 (2):177–95. doi:10.1080/1051712X.2019.1603417.
Wang, G., and R. G. Netemeyer. 2002. The effects of job
autonomy, customer demandingness, and trait competitive­
ness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance.
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 30 (3):217–28.
doi:10.1177/00970302030003003.
Wu, H., S. Qiu, L.M. Dooley, and C. Ma. 2020. The relationship
between challenge and hindrance stressors and emotional
exhaustion: The moderating role of perceived servant leader­
ship. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 17 (1): 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph17010282
Yang, B., Y. Kim, and R. G. McFarland. 2011. Individual differ­
ences and sales performance: A distal-proximal mediation of
self-efficacy, conscientiousness, and extraversion. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management 12.2753/PSS08853134310401. 31 (4):371–81. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134310401.
Yang, J., H. Liu, and J. Gu. 2017. A multi-level study of servant
leadership on creativity. The roles of self-efficacy and power
distance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal
38 (5):610–29. doi:10.1108/LODJ-10-2015-0229.
Yang, R., Y. Ming, J. Ma, and R. Huo. 2017. How do
servant leaders promote engagement? A bottom-up
perspective of job crafting. Social Behavior and
Personality 45 (11):1815–27. doi:10.2224/sbp.6704.
Yavas, U., S. Jha, and E. Babakus. 2015. Relative effects of
leadership and technology on bank employees’ job out­
comes. Services Marketing Quarterly 36 (2):173–87.
doi:10.1080/15332969.2015.1014241.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Zallocco, R., E. Pullins, and M. L. Mallin. 2009. A re-examination
of B2B sales performance. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 24 (8):598–610. doi:10.1108/08858620910999466.
Zhang, Y., J.A. LePine, B.R. Buckman, and F. Wei. 2014. It’s not
fair. . . or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining
work stressor-job performance relationships. The Academy of
Management Journal 57 (3): 675–697. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/43589278.
175
Zimmerman, R. D., and T. C. Darnold. 2009. The impact
of job performance on employee turnover intentions
and the voluntary turnover process. Personnel Review
38 (2):142–58. doi:10.1108/00483480910931316.
Zoltners, A. A., P. Sinha, and S. E. Lorimer. 2009. Building
a Winning Sales Force. New York, NY: American
Management Association.