How Servant Leadership Influence Employee Service Quality of Fitness Centers During COVID-19: The Interacting Effects of Self-Efficacy

Figures & data

Table 1 The Reliability and Validity Test Results

Factors	Items	α Coefficient	Sources	Cronbach α Coefficient	Standard Load Factor	CR	AVE
Perceived Servant Leadership (PSL)	A1	0.875	Liden, 2014; Qiu, 2019	0.883	0.630	0.884	0.525
	A2	0.862			0.748
	A3	0.860			0.764
	A4	0.862			0.755
	A5	0.865			0.736
	A6	0.869			0.690
	A7	0.865			0.724
Self-efficacy (SE)	B1	0.801	Riggs, 1994	0.828	0.677	0.831	0.554
	B2	0.809			0.625
	B3	0.789			0.710
	B4	0.784			0.764
	B5	0.812			0.615
	B6	0.809			0.636
Service Quality (SQ)	C1	0.782	Ling, 2016	0.831	0.780	0.832	0.599
	C2	0.800			0.711
	C3	0.797			0.700
	C4	0.825			0.785
	C5	0.780			0.753

Table 2 The Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	GFI	RMSEA	RMR	CFI	NFI	IFI
Three factor model	218.24	132	2.41	0.92	0.08	0.04	0.94	0.87	0.91
Two factor model a	551.31	134	4.11	0.72	0.12	0.12	0.74	0.69	0.74
Two factor model b	489.42	128	3.82	0.77	0.12	0.20	0.78	0.72	0.78
One factor model	659.12	131	5.03	0.69	0.14	0.14	0.67	0.63	0.68

Notes: 90% CI is 90% confidence interval; a indicates that all items of service-oriented leadership perception and self-efficacy are assigned to the same potential factor; b indicates that all items of self-efficacy and service performance are assigned to the same potential factor; c indicates that all items are assigned to the same potential factor.

Table 3 Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation Coefficient of Each Variable

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Education	2.112	0.619	1
2. Department	3.767	1.463	0.09	1
3. Working years	2.272	1.093	0.135	0.009	1
4. PSL	2.621	0.815	0.062	0.107	0.085	1
5. SE	2.912	0.689	0.135	0.085	0.016	0.008	1
6. SQ	3.123	0.806	0.002	0.035	0.019	0.461*	0.315*	1

Note: *p<0. 05.

Table 4 Model Test of Self-Efficacy Mediation Effect

	SE				SQ				SQ
	B	SE	t	p	B	SE	t	p	B	SE	t	p
Constant	1.78**	0.21	8.62	0.000	2.89**	0.19	15.35	0.000	3.15**	0.22	14.47	0.000
PSL	0.47**	0.06	7.46	0.000	0.27**	0.06	4.74	0.000	0.34**	0.06	5.32	0.000
SE									0.15*	0.06	−2.30	0.022
R²	0.21				0.099				0.12
Adjust R²	0.21				0.095				0.11
F	F(1204)=55.59, p=0.000				F(1204)=22.51, p=0.000				F(2203)=14.14, p=0.000

Note: **p<0.01, *p<0. 05.

Table 5 Mediating Effect Analysis Process

Effect	Items	Effect Value	bootSE	p	LLCI	ULCI
Direct effect	PLS→SQ	0.34	0.06	0.000	0.21	0.46
Indirect effect	PLS→SE	0.47	0.06	0.000	0.34	0.59
	SE→SQ	0.15	0.06	0.022	−0.27	−0.02
Total effect	PLS→SQ	0.27	0.05	0.000	0.16	0.38

Notes: LLCI is the lower limit of the 95% interval of the estimated value; ULCI refers to the upper limit of the 95% range of the estimated value.

Table 6 Polynomial Regression Analysis Results

SQ
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Constant	0.309	0.253	0.322
Control variable
Gender	0.127	0.117	0.036
Age	−0.171**	−0.147 *	−0.155**
Education	−0.167*	−0.153*	−0.113
Department	0.040	0.039	0.021
Working years	0.011	0.012	0.036
Independent variable
PSL		0.318 **	0.460**
SE		0.117	0.318**
PSL2			0.165**
PSL*SE			−0.104
SE2			0.271**
R²	0.068	0.177	0.352
Adjusted R²	0.045	0.148	0.319
F	F (5200)=2.927, p=0.014	F (7198)=6.095, p=0.000	F (10,195)=10.587, p=0.000
Consistency line: y=x
Slope (b1+b2)			0.778**
Curvature (b3+b4+b5)			0.332**
Inconsistent line: y=-x
Slope (b1-b2)			0.142**
Curvature (b3-b4+b5)			0.540**

Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01. The significance test of the curvature value of the response surface cross-section along the consistent line or the non-consistent line and the slope value at (0,0) is compared with 0.

Figure 1 The matching between level of servant leadership and self-efficacy in fitness centers.

Figure 2 Three-dimensional response surface of the service quality of employees in commercial fitness centers.

Figure 3 The interaction of PSL and SE on SQ.

Figure 4 An intermediary model.