CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Team Dynamics and PerformanceNursing education and managementJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

Servant Leadership as a Driver of Team Cohesion and Conflict Mitigation: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety

Open access
Mahar, Abdul Majid, Shah, Syed Muneer Ahmed, Mahar, Naveed Ahmed, Pirzada, Zubair Ahmed·2025·Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences
DOI 10.55737/qjss.vi-i.25352
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Team-based nursing care depends on cohesive relationships and minimal interpersonal conflict, yet the leadership practices that nurture these conditions in resource-constrained hospitals remain underexplored. Guided by servant-leadership theory and the concept of psychological safety, this study examined whether servant leadership (SL) enhances team cohesion (TC) and mitigates conflict (CM) among nurses in Sukkur, Pakistan and whether psychological safety (PS) mediates these effects. Proportionate stratified random sampling yielded 221 usable surveys from four public and private nursing institutions. Standardized scales for SL, PS, TC, and CM were analyzed with SmartPLS 4. The measurement model met reliability and validity criteria (α ≥ .85; AVE ≥ .60). Structural-model bootstrapping (5,000 resamples) showed SL exerted significant positive effects on TC (β = 0.45, p < .001) and CM (β = 0.34, p < .001) and strongly predicted PS (β = 0.52, p < .001). Psychological safety, in turn, related positively to TC (β = 0.30) and CM (β = 0.28), partially mediating the SL→TC (indirect β = 0.16) and SL→CM (indirect β = 0.15) paths. The model accounted for 50 % of the variance in cohesion and 43 % in conflict mitigation. Findings highlight servant leadership as a potent lever for fostering psychologically safe, harmonious nursing teams in low-resource settings. Leadership development initiatives that emphasize humility, empowerment, and follower well-being, coupled with practices that reinforce interpersonal safety, are recommended to improve teamwork and care quality.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This cross-sectional survey of 221 registered nurses in four nursing institutions in Sukkur, Pakistan, tested whether servant leadership strengthens team cohesion and mitigates conflict, and whether psychological safety mediates those effects. Servant leadership showed significant direct effects on both outcomes and partially operated through psychological safety, explaining 50% of the variance in cohesion and 43% in conflict mitigation.

Key findings

  • Servant leadership positively predicted team cohesion (β = 0.45, p < .001) and conflict mitigation (β = 0.34, p < .001), and strongly predicted psychological safety (β = 0.52, p < .001).
  • Psychological safety related positively to team cohesion (β = 0.30) and conflict mitigation (β = 0.28), and partially mediated both paths (indirect β = 0.16 for SL→TC and β = 0.15 for SL→CM, both p < .001); variance-accounted-for was 26% (TC) and 31% (CM), indicating partial rather than full mediation.
  • The model explained R² = .50 of the variance in team cohesion and R² = .43 in conflict mitigation; servant leadership explained 27% of the variance in psychological safety, and all Q² values were > 0.
  • Measurement model met reliability and validity criteria: Cronbach's α ranged .85–.89, CR .88–.91, AVE .60–.66 across the four constructs.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional quantitative design; population of staff nurses (N ≈ 480) across Sukkur's four largest public and private nursing institutions, sampled via proportionate stratified random sampling with simple random draws within each stratum.
  • Sample size determined by Krejcie and Morgan's (1970) formula (214 required for 95% confidence, ±5% margin); 260 questionnaires distributed, 228 returned (87.7% response rate), 221 usable after screening. Respondents were 75.6% female, 43.9% aged 30–39, and 41.2% with 5–9 years of experience.
  • Standardized instruments: Servant Leadership Behavior Scale (SLBS-6), Edmondson's (1999) seven-item Psychological Safety scale, the Group Cohesion Scale (team subscale), and the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (reverse-scored for conflict mitigation), all on five-point Likert scales. Analysis used SmartPLS 4 with Hair et al.'s (2017) two-stage approach: measurement model assessment (reliability, convergent and discriminant validity) followed by structural model evaluation with 5,000-sample bootstrapping for path coefficients, R², and indirect effects.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: the cross-sectional design limits causal inference, and the authors call for longitudinal or experimental studies tracing how servant leadership and psychological safety evolve over time and affect clinical outcomes such as error rates or patient satisfaction.
  • Stated by the paper: evidence is drawn from a single regional context (Sukkur), and the authors call for comparative work across provinces or countries to test cultural boundary conditions in collectivist versus individualist settings.
  • Evident from the text: all measures were self-reported by nurses in the same survey, so common-method bias is not addressed; the HTMT discriminant validity table is presented without values, so the discriminant validity evidence cannot be inspected; and the study measures conflict mitigation via a reverse-scored conflict scale rather than observed conflict behavior.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.55737/qjss.vi-i.25352

Cites

2 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Servant leadership has a significant positive effect on conflict mitigation among nurses in Sukkur's nursing institutions (β = 0.34, p < .001).

    “H2 is supported: Servant leadership positively influences conflict mitigation (β = 0.34, p < .001).”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “and CM (β = 0.34, p < .001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Servant leadership has a significant positive effect on team cohesion among nurses in Sukkur's nursing institutions (β = 0.45, p < .001).

    “H1 is supported: servant leadership shows a strong, positive effect on team cohesion (β = 0.45, p < .001).”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “SL exerted significant positive effects on TC (β = 0.45, p < .001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Psychological safety significantly mediates the servant leadership to conflict mitigation path (indirect β = 0.15, p < .001).

    “and the SL → CM path (indirect β = 0.15, p < .001).”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “and SL→CM (indirect β = 0.15) paths.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Servant leadership explains 27% of the variance in psychological safety.

    “Servant leadership explains 27 % of the variance in psychological safety”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Variance-accounted-for values of 26% for team cohesion and 31% for conflict mitigation indicate partial (not full) mediation.

    “Variance-accounted-for (VAF) values of 26 % (TC) and 31 % (CM) indicate partial mediation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 8
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 3

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A survey of Malaysian hospitals found that nurses rating their supervisors high in servant leadership reported fewer disruptive conflicts and a greater willingness to escalate errors.

    “A survey of Malaysian hospitals found nurses rating their supervisors high in SL reported fewer disruptive conflicts and a greater willingness to escalate errors (Supian & Ibrahim, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Supian & Ibrahim, 2024 source

      The Discussion (Long-term consequences; page unavailable) examines medication errors in relation to poor sleep, not supervisor leadership or disruptive conflict. The Conclusion (page unavailable) recommends open communication to encourage reporting, but does not report nurses’ willingness to escalate errors. Searches for servant leadership, conflict, and error reporting found no passage supporting the attributed survey finding. (LLM, conf=0.77)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Empirical work across industries shows that servant leadership elevates psychological safety, which in turn predicts stronger collaboration and fewer destructive conflicts.

    “Empirical work across industries shows that servant leadership elevates psychological safety, which in turn predicts stronger collaboration and fewer destructive conflicts (Roh et al., 2023;Newman et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Roh et al., 2023 source

      The Discussion (section 5; page unavailable) reports that servant leadership positively influences psychological safety and that psychological safety mediates its relationship with counterproductive work behavior. Section 2.3 discusses collaboration and constructive conflict resolution as theoretical implications, but the paper does not report stronger collaboration or fewer destructive conflicts as measured outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Newman et al., 2018 source

      The “Leadership and innovative behavior” section says servant leadership may promote a climate of safety and security and foster team members’ collective effort. It does not establish that psychological safety mediates collaboration, report fewer destructive conflicts, or demonstrate those outcomes across industries. The paper’s own study concerns employees in social enterprises; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model accounted for 50% of the variance in team cohesion and 43% of the variance in conflict mitigation.

    “The model accounted for 50 % of the variance in cohesion and 43 % in conflict mitigation.”
    • Also stated in: § Findings · plain
      “SL and PS together account for half of the variance in team cohesion (R² = .50)and 43 % in conflict mitigation (R² = .43)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Servant leadership is a critical relational resource for Pakistan's resource-constrained nursing sector, where harmonious collaboration is essential for patient safety and staff retention.

    “By explaining half the variance in cohesion and nearly half in conflict mitigation, servant leadership emerges as a critical relational resource for Pakistan's resource-constrained nursing sector, where harmonious collaboration is essential for patient safety and staff retention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Of 260 distributed questionnaires, 228 were returned (87.7% response rate) and 221 remained after data screening, exceeding the minimum sample requirement.

    “260 questionnaires were distributed; 228 were returned (87.7 % response rate), and 221 remained after data screening, exceeding the minimum requirement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Psychological safety mediates the link between servant leadership and voice behavior in Indian hospitals.

    “Jaaffer and Samy (2023) showed PS mediates the link between SL and voice behavior in Indian hospitals, implying a similar pathway may underlie cohesion and conflict outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaaffer and Samy (2023)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In nursing settings, relationally oriented leadership has been associated with stronger team cohesion, higher morale, and reduced workplace aggression.

    “In nursing settings, such relationally oriented leadership has been associated with stronger team cohesion, higher morale, and reduced workplace aggression (Kaiser, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kaiser, 2017 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The required sample size was calculated with Krejcie and Morgan's (1970) formula for finite populations, indicating 214 respondents were needed for a 95% confidence level and ±5% margin of error.

    “The required sample size was calculated with Krejcie and Morgan's (1970) formula for finite populations, indicating 214 respondents were needed to achieve a 95 % confidence level and ±5 % margin of error.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Krejcie and Morgan's (1970) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Servant leadership enhances team cohesion and mitigates conflict both directly and indirectly by fostering a safer interpersonal climate (psychological safety) in Sukkur's nursing institutions.

    “Variance-accounted-for (VAF) values of 26 % (TC) and 31 % (CM) indicate partial mediation, implying servant leadership enhances cohesion and decreases conflict both directly and by fostering a safer interpersonal climate.”
    • Also stated in: § Findings · boosted
      “The SmartPLS results corroborate the theorized model: servant leadership in Sukkur's nursing institutions bolsters team cohesion and mitigates conflict, with psychological safety serving as a meaningful conduit for these effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Proportionate stratified random sampling was used, dividing the population of staff nurses (N ≈ 480) by hospital and drawing simple random samples within each stratum.

    “Using proportionate stratified random sampling, the overall population of staff nurses (N ≈ 480, as reported by institutional HR records) was divided by hospital, and simple random draws were taken within each stratum to preserve organizational representation.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “Proportionate stratified random sampling yielded 221 usable surveys from four public and private nursing institutions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All Q2 values are greater than 0, confirming the model's predictive relevance.

    “All Q² values are > 0, confirming predictive relevance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
11 of 11

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior study has systematically examined how servant leadership operates within Sukkur's nursing institutions, nor whether psychological safety mediates its effects on team cohesion and conflict there.

    “To date, no study has systematically examined how servant leadership operates within these institutions, nor whether psychological safety mediates its effects on team cohesion and”
1 of 1

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Blake, M. E. (2024). Unpredicted but Not Unexpected: Developing Prepared Health and Human Services Crisis Leaders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).
  2. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Center. Harness, K. (2025). Servant Leadership in Healthcare Settings: An Examination of Its Effects on Employee Engagement, Satisfaction, and Retention (Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology).
  3. Helm, D. (2017). Burn out: the endgame for fossil fuels. Yale University Press.
  4. Mitterer, D. M. (2017). Servant leadership and its effect on employee job satisfaction and turnover intent (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mahar, A. M., Shah, S. M. A., Mahar, N. A., & Pirzada, Z. A.
Affiliations
Shah Abdul Latif University (PK)
Corresponding author
Mahar, Abdul Majid
ORCID
Venue
Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences
Publisher
Qlantic e Publications
Published
2025-03-30
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
496-503
ISSN
  • 2791-0202 (ISSN-L)
  • 2791-0237
DOI
10.55737/qjss.vi-i.25352
OpenAlex
W4412964231
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Qlantic journal of social sciences. (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
servant leadership, psychological safety, team cohesion, conflict mitigation, nursing team, nursing leadership, mediation, resource-limited settings

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review