Despite the theoretical contributions, this study is not free of limitations. Data were
collected from a single point-of-view, the subordinates’ perspective. This may increase
the common method bias, particularly a consistency motif, where respondents try to
maintain consistency between their cognitions and attitudes. Doty and Glick (1998)
have proven in several studies, however, that it is almost impossible for the effect of
common method bias to be strong enough to invalidate study results. Future research
might assess these variables from both the leaders’ i.e. managers’ in this study and the
members’ i.e. the employees’ perspective.
This study should be replicated with different samples in other parts of Turkey and
sector analysis may result in valuable conclusions so that the results can be
generalized. The sample used in this study was collected from Turkish companies from
26 different industries, but did not include multinational corporations (MNCs).
However, further research is needed in MNCs to test the effects of national versus
organizational cultures.
Although servant leadership is perceived in the East to be similar to paternalistic
leadership due to the caring and humanistic characteristics of both leadership styles,
the results are examined from the employees’ perspective only. According to Laub
(2005), paternalistic leadership has not been studied extensively and it is my hope that
this study is a step toward expanding such research. The critical influence of
leadership on employees to contribute positively to the workplace accentuates the
continued interest on different leadership approaches all over the world. Thus, this
study draws attention to the cultural context of leadership and how the practice and
perception of servant leadership may have similarities to paternalistic leadership in the
Turkish context.