SERVANT LEADERSHIP PERCEPTION AND PRESENTEEISM: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ON THE MODERATING ROLE OF AGE-GROUP DIFFERENCES

Öz

This study examines the impact of the perception of servant leadership on presenteeism and the moderating role of age group differences in this relationship. Drawing upon the explanatory framework of Generational Differences Theory, the study analyzed data collected via surveys from 480 employees working in businesses operating in the Marmara Region, using SPSS and the PROCESS Macro. The findings reveal a significant negative relationship between the perception of servant leadership and presenteeism, and indicate that this relationship varies according to age groups. The study determined that the empathy-, trust-, and support-based nature of servant leadership enhances employees’ psychological well-being and reduces their tendency to be unproductive while attending work. Moreover, age differences were found to significantly moderate this relationship, indicating that perceptions of leadership vary across generations. Younger employees tend to be more prone to presenteeism due to job security concerns and visibility pressure, whereas more experienced employees perceive leader support as a source of psychological safety. The study emphasizes that explaining the relationship between leadership and presenteeism through generational differences fills an important gap in the literature. In conclusion, servant leadership is presented not only as an ethical and human-centered leadership model but also as a strategic management tool that balances age diversity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Servant Leadership
• Presenteeism
• Generational Differences Theory
• Human Resource Management.
• Age Groups
• Age Diversity

Destekleyen Kurum

This study did not receive any support from public, commercial, or not-for-profit organizations.

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Kırklareli University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee with the decision dated 03/06/2025 and numbered E-35523585-199-162549.

Teşekkür

There is none.

HİZMETKÂR LİDERLİK ALGISI VE PRESENTEİZM: YAŞ GRUPLARI FARKLILIKLARININ DÜZENLEYİCİ ROLÜNE İLİŞKİN AMPİRİK BULGULAR

Öz

Bu araştırma, hizmetkâr liderlik algısının presenteizm üzerindeki etkisini ve yaş grupları farklılıklarının bu ilişkideki düzenleyici rolünü incelemektedir. Kuşak Farklılıkları Teorisi'nin açıklayıcı çerçevesinden yararlanılan çalışmada, Marmara Bölgesi'nde faaliyet gösteren işletmelerde çalışan 480 kişiden anket yöntemiyle elde edilen veriler SPSS ve PROCESS Macro kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, hizmetkâr liderlik algısı ile presenteizm arasında anlamlı ve negatif bir ilişki bulunduğunu ve bu ilişkinin yaş gruplarına göre farklılaştığını göstermektedir. Çalışmada, hizmetkâr liderliğin empati, güven ve destek temelli yapısının çalışanların psikolojik iyi oluşunu artırarak işe gelmelerine rağmen verimsiz olma eğilimini azalttığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, yaş farklılıklarının bu ilişkiyi anlamlı biçimde düzenlediği ve liderlik algısının kuşaklara göre değiştiği ortaya konmuştur. Genç çalışanların iş güvencesi ve görünürlük baskısı nedeniyle presenteizme daha yatkın oldukları, buna karşın deneyimli çalışanların lider desteğini psikolojik güvenlik kaynağı olarak algıladıkları görülmüştür. Çalışma, liderlik ve presenteizm ilişkisinin kuşak temelli farklılıklar üzerinden açıklanmasının literatürdeki önemli bir boşluğu doldurduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Sonuç olarak, hizmetkâr liderliğin yalnızca etik ve insani bir liderlik modeli değil, aynı zamanda yaş çeşitliliğini dengeleyen stratejik bir yönetim aracı olduğu ortaya konmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hizmetkâr Liderlik
• Presenteizm
• Kuşak Farklılıkları Teorisi
• İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi
• Yaş Grupları
• Yaş Çeşitliliği

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma, kamu, ticari veya kâr amacı gütmeyen kuruluşlar gibi herhangi bir organizasyondan destek almamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için Kırklareli Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırmalar ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu'ndan 03/06/2025 tarihli ve E-35523585-199-162549 sıra sayılı kararı ile izin alınmıştır.

Teşekkür

Bulunmamaktadır.

Kaynakça

1. Adıgüzel, Z., Salamzadeh, Y. ve Sönmez Çakır, F. (2022). Examining The Effects of Authentic Leadership on Information, Identity, Commitment and Job Performance. Sosyoekonomi, 30(53), 173-194. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2022.03.09
2. Akgemci, T., Kalfaoğlu, S. ve Erkunt, N. (2019). Hizmetkâr Liderlik Sesliliğine Etkisini Davranışlarının Çalışan Belirlemeye Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 9(2), 757-771.
3. Ali M. ve French E. (2019). Age Diversity Management and Organisational Outcomes: The Role of Diversity Perspectives. Human Resource Management Journal. 29(2019), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12225
4. Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K. ve Dallner M. (2000). Sick But Yet At Work. An Empirical Study Of Sickness Presenteeism. Journal of Epidemiology ve Community Health, 54(7), 502-509. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.54.7.502
5. Arslaner, E. ve Boylu, Y. (2015). İş Hayatında Presenteeism: Otel İşletmeleri Açısından Bir Değerlendirme. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(4), 123-136.
6. Başgöze, P. ve N.A. Bayar (2015). Eko Otellerden Hizmet Satın Alımında Kuşaklar Arası Farklılaşmalar Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Sosyoekonomi, 23(24), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.17233/se.40582
7. Baysal, İ. A., Baysal, G., Aksu, G. ve Aksu, N. (2014). Presenteeism (işte varolmama sorunu) ile Örgütsel Bağlılık Arasındaki İlişki: Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Akademik Personeli Üzerinde Bir Uygulama. Ejovoc (Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges), 4(3), 134-152.
8. Beğenirbaş, M., ve Yalçın, R. C. (2012). Hizmetkâr Liderlik Algısının Duygusal Emek Üzerine Etkileri: Hizmet Çalışanları Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(37), 159-194.

9. Bieling, G., Stock, R. M. ve Dorozalla, F. (2015). Coping With Demographic Change İn Job Markets: How Age Diversity Management Contributes To Organizational Performance. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 29(1), 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221502900102
10. Blanchard, K., Blanchard, S. ve Zigarmi, D. (2007). Hizmetkâr Liderlik. K. Blanchard (Ed.) Liderlikte Çıtayı Yükseltmek içinde, (293-324), İstanbul: Kaizen-Resital Yayıncılık.
11. Blau, P. M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons
12. Boehm, S. A., Kunze, F. ve Bruch, H. (2013). Spotlight on Age‐Diversity Climate: The Impact of Age‐Inclusive HR Practices on Firm‐level Outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 1-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12047
13. Burak, E. (2025). Hizmetkâr Liderlik Algısının Çalışan Performansı ve Algılanan Örgüt Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisine Yönelik Bir Araştırma: Demografik Değişkenlere Göre Karşılaştırmalı Analiz. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17 (2), 991-1015. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2025.2015
14. Canavesi, A. ve Minelli, E. (2021). Servant Leadership: a Systematic Literature Review and Network Analysis. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 34, 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-021-09381-3
15. Chen, Z., Zhu, J. ve Zhou, M. (2015). How Does a Servant Leader Fuel The Service Fire? A Multilevel Model of Servant Leadership, Individual Self Identity, Group Competition Climate, and Customer Service Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038036
16. Choi, W., Kang, S. ve Choi, S. B. (2024). The Dark Side of Mobile Work During Non-Work Hours: Moderated Mediation Model of Presenteeism Through Conservation of Resources Lens. Frontiers in Public Health, 12(2024), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1186327
17. Cinnioğlu, H. (2019). Hizmetkâr Liderlik Davranışının Örgütsel Özdeşleşme ve İşgören Performansı Üzerine Etkisi: Restoran Çalışanları Üzerinde Bir İnceleme. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(4), 2902-2911. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2019.783
18. Cohen, W. A. (2010), Drucker ve Liderlik (Çev. Ümit Şensoy). İstanbul: Optimist Yayınları.
19. Collins, A. M., Cartwright, S. ve Cowlishaw, S. (2018). Sickness Presenteeism and Sickness Absence Over Time: A UK Employee Perspective. Work ve Stress, 32(1), 68-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1356396
20. Cooper, C.L. ve Lu, L. (2016). Presenteeism As a Global Phenomenon: Unraveling The Psychosocial Mechanisms From The Perspective of Social Cognitive Theory. Cross Cultural ve Strategic Management, 23 (2), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-09-2015-0106
21. Costanza, D.P., Badger, J.M., Fraser, R.L., Severt, J. B. ve Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational Differences in Work-Related Attitudes: A Meta-analysis. J Bus Psychol, 27, 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
22. Coun, M. J. H., Ruiter, M. D. ve Peters, P. (2023). At Your Service: Supportiveness of Servant Leadership, Communication Frequency and Communication Channel Fostering Job Satisfaction Across Generations. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(1183203),1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1183203
23. Çetin, S. ve Çeven, S. (2021). Gerçekten İşte miyim? İşte Var Ol(ama)ma (Presenteizm) ve Yönetimi. F. Üstün ve A. İ. Koca Ballı (Ed.) Örgütsel Davranış: Şimdi Bu Konular Konuşuluyor içinde (277-299), Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
24. Çiçek Korkmaz, A. ve Tok, Y. (2024). X, Y ve Z kuşağı hemşirelerin sağlık sorunları nedeniyle işte var olamama düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(23), 46-64. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1390564
25. Daft, R. L. (2010), New Era of Management (9th Edition), Australia: South-Western Cengage.
26. Dalkılıç, E. ve Harmancı-Seren, A. K. (2018). İşte Var Olamama: Nedenleri ve Sonuçları. Journal of Health and Nursing Management, 5(2), 123-131. https://doi.org/10.5222/SHYD.2018.123
27. de Oliveira Barreto, D. M., Barreto, N. M. F., de Souza, S. V., de Andrade, A. C., Silva-Santos, H., Reddy, N., Araújo- Dos-Santos, T., Souza, E. A., Ortega, J. ve Florentino, T. C. (2024). Examining Presenteeism and Productivity Losses Among Nursing Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study. Research Square, 2024, 1-18, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4739078/v1
28. Demirgil, Z. ve Mücevher, M. H. (2017). Meslek Yüksekokullarında Presenteeism: İdari Ve Akademik Personel Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(21), 237-253. https://doi.org/10.20875/makusobed.307519
29. Dew, K., Keefe, V. ve Small, K. (2005). Choosing To Work When Sick: Workplace Presenteeism. Social Science ve Medicine, 60 (10), 2273–2282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.10.022
30. Esen, D. (2023). Hizmetkâr Liderliğin İş Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisinde Öğretmen Özerkliğinin Aracılık Rolü. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 14(27), 55-86. https://doi.org/10.58689/eibd.1245874
31. Eti, H.S. (2024). Cultural and Generational Differences in Predicting Green Consumption: A Mediated Moderation Model. Sosyoekonomi, 32(59), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.01.01
32. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., ve Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
33. Gerlach, M., Hahn, S., Rossier, C., Geese, F., Hamers, J., ve Backhaus, R. (2024),. Presenteeism Among Nurses: An Integrative Review. International journal of nursing studies advances, 7(100261), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100261
34. Giæver, F., Lohmann-Lafrenz, S. ve Løvseth, L.T. (2016). Why Hospital Physicians Attend Work While Ill? The Spiralling Effect of Positive and Negative Factors. BMC Health Serv Res 16 (548), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1802-y
35. Gilbreath, B. ve Karimi, L. (2012). Supervisor Behavior and Employee Presenteeism. International Journal of Leadership Studies,7(1), 114–131.
36. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970), The Servant as Leader, Erişim: 15 Ağustos 2025, https://www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/
37. Greenleaf, R. K. (1995), Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers, New York: John Wiley ve Sons, Inc.
38. Gürbüz, S. ve Şahin, F. (2014), Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. Halbesleben, J.R.B., Whitman M. V. ve Crawford W. S. (2014). A Dialectical Theory of The Decision To Go To Work: Bringing Together Absenteeism and Presenteeism. Human Resource Management Review, 24(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.09.001
39. Harwardt, M. (2019). Servant Leadership and Its Effects on IT Project Success. Journal of Project Management, 5(2020), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2019.7.001
40. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications.
41. Hemp, P. (2004). Presenteeism: At Work-But Out of It. Harvard Business Review, 82 (10), 49-58. Hu, J. ve Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of Team Potency and Team Effectiveness: An Examination of Goal and Process Clarity and Servant Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851-862. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022465
42. Hummer, J., Sherman, B. ve Quinn, N. (2002). Present and Unaccounted For. Occupational Health & Safety, 71(4), 40-42.
43. Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L., Penney, L. M. ve Weinberger, E. (2013), ‘Servant Leaders Inspire Servant Followers: Antecedents and Outcomes For Employees and The Organization’, The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
44. Isetti, D. ve Meyer, T. (2014). Workplace productivity and voice disorders: a cognitive ınterviewing study on presenteeism in ındividu-als with spasmodic dysphonia. Journal of Voice, 28(6), 700-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.03.017
45. İŞKUR, (2024), İşgücü Piyasası Araştırma Sonuçları Erişim: 9 Nisan 2025, https://www.iskur.gov.tr/kurumsal/raporlar/isgucupiyasasi-raporlari/isgucu-piyasasi-arastirmasi-raporlari/2024/il-raporlari/
46. Jiang, W., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Song, D., Pu, C. ve Shan, C. (2023). The Impact of The Workload and Traumatic Stress on The Presenteeism of Midwives: The Mediating Effect of Psychological Detachment. Journal of Nursing Management, 2023 (1686151), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1686151
47. Johns, G. (2010). Presenteeism in Theworkplace: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 519-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.630
48. Junça-Silva, A., Silva, S. ve Caetano, A. (2022). Job Crafting, Meaningful Work And Performance: A Moderated Mediation Approach of Presenteeism. SN Bus Econ, 2(31), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-022-00203-8
49. Karanika-Murray, M., Pontes, H. M., Griffiths, M. D. ve Biron, C. (2015). Sickness Presenteeism Determines Job Satisfaction Via Affective-Motivational States. Social Science ve Medicine, 139, 100-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.06.035
50. Kauppila, O.-P., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., Sumelius, J., ve Vuorenmaa, H. (2021). Serving to Help and Helping to Serve: Using Servant Leadership to Influence Beyond Supervisory Relationships. Journal of Management, 48(3), 764-790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321994173
51. Kevser, M. (2020). Farklılıkların Yönetimi Kavramına Yönelik Kuramsal Bir Değerlendirme. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 1(2), 86-95.
52. Khairy, H. A. ve Mahmoud, R. H. (2022). Damping The Relationship Between Work Pressure and Presenteeism Through Servant Leadership in Hotels. Journal of Tourism, Hotels and Heritage, 5(2), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.21608/sis.2022.165700.1077
53. Kılıç, K.C. ve Aydın, Y. (2016). Hizmetkâr liderlik ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 18 (30), 106-113
54. Kinman, G. ve Wray, G. (2018). Presenteeism in Academic Employees-Occupational and Individual Factors. Occupational Medicine, 68(1), 46-50, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqx191
55. Kişi, N. (2025). Analysis of Presenteeism Using a Science Mapping Approach. Current Psychology, 44, 8648-8663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07857-1
56. Knani, M. (2022). What Motivates Tourism and Hospitality Employees To Practice Presenteeism?. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 58(2022), 198-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.06.017
57. Koopman, C., Pelletier, K. R., Murray, J. F., Sharda, C. E., Berger, M. L., Turpin, R. S. ve Bendel, T. (2002). Stanford Presenteeism Scale: Health Status and Employees Productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44(1), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-200201000-00004
58. Kunze, F., Boehm, S. A., ve Bruch, H. (2011). Age Diversity, Age Discrimination Climate and Performance Consequences-A Cross Organizational Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 1-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.698
59. Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J. ve Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual Versus Perceived Generational Differences at Work: An Empirical Examination. Journal of Leadership ve Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812442747
60. Li, W., Shan, G., Wang, S., Wang, H., Wang, W. ve Li, Y. (2023). A Preliminary Investigation of Presenteeism and Cognitive Preferences Among Head Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Nursing, 22(339), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01498-0
61. Li, Z., Luo, Z., Chen, L., Chen, L., Chang, Y., Ma, X. ve Tao, L. (2025). Present Situation and Influencing Factors of Presenteeism Among Nurses In China: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study. BMC Nursing, 24(448),1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03095-9
62. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J. ve Liao, C. (2015). Servant Leadership: Validation of A Short Form of The SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002
63. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H. ve Henderson, D. (2008). Servant Leadership: Development of A Multidimensional Measure And Multi-Level Assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
64. Lohaus, D. ve Habermann, W. (2021). Understanding The Decision-Making Process Between Presenteeism and Absenteeism. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 (716925), 1-15 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716925
65. Lythreatis, S., Mostafa, A., Pereira, V., Wang, X. ve Giudice, M. D. (2021). Servant Leadership, CSR Perceptions, Moral Meaningfulness and Organizational Identification- Evidence From The Middle East. International Business Review, 30(5), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101772
66. Mannheim, K. (1952). The Sociological Problem of Generations. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, 306, 163-195.
67. Martinez, L. F. ve Ferreira, A. I. (2012). Sick at Work: Presenteeism Among Nurses In A Portuguese Public Hospital. Stress and Health, 28, 297-304. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1432
68. Mathieu, C. ve Gilbreath, B. (2025). The Harmful Side of Absent Leaders: Multifactor Leadership and Employees Job-Stress-Related Presenteeism. Journal of Management & Organization, 31(1), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.56
69. McGregor, A., Magee, C. A., Caputi, P. ve Iverson, D. (2016). A Job Demands Resources Approach to Presenteeism. Career Development International, 21 (4), 402-418. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0002
70. Miraglia, M. ve Johns, G. (2016). Going to work ill: A meta-analysis of the correlates of presenteeism and a dual-path model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000015
71. Moç, T. (2018), Örgütsel Adalet Algısının Çalışanların İşte Yabancılaşmaya Etkisinde Tükenmişliğin ve Presenteizmin Rolü (Doktora Tezi), Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi.
72. Mohammadi, M. M., Nayeri, N. D., Varaei, S. ve Rasti, A. (2023). Design and Validation Of The Presenteeism Scale in Nursing. BMC Nursing, 22, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01454-y
73. Nyamboga, T. O. (2025). Strategic Leadership in Multigenerational Workforces: Bridging Generational Divides for Enhanced Engagement. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports, 19(1), 270-285. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2025/v19i1880
74. O’Callaghan, G. (2013). How Awareness of Presenteeism Positively or Negatively Impacts Managerial Attitudes and or Behaviours Erişim: 5 Şubat 2025, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://norma.ncirl.ie/913/1/genivieveocallaghan.pdf
75. Özdemir, N. ve Yılmaz, E. (2019). Algılanan Hizmetkâr Liderliğin Presentizm (Edimsizlik) Üzerindeki Etkisi: Frigya Bölgesi. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 30(3), 198-209. https://doi.org/10.17123/atad.656015
76. Özel, E. T. ve Erbaşı, A. (2023). Psikolojik Sağlamlığın Presenteeism (İşte Var Ol(A)Mama) Davranışı Üzerindeki Etkisi: İlkokul Öğretmenleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management Inquiries, 7(12), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.55775/ijemi.1211762
77. Özer, Ö. (2019). Hemşirelerde Hizmetkâr Liderlik ve Çalışan Performansının İncelenmesi. Sağlık Bilimleri ve Meslekleri Dergisi, 6(1), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.17681/hsp.410569
78. Parry, E. ve Urwin, P. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review of Theory and Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x
79. Patel, C., Budhwar, P. ve Varma, A. (2012). Overall Justice, Work Group Identification and Work Outcomes: Test of Mode-Rated Mediation Process. Journal of World Business, 47 (2), 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.04.008
80. Pei, P., Lin, G., Li, G., Zhu, Y. ve Xi, X. (2020). The Association Between Doctors’ Presenteeism and Job Burnout: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study in China. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05593-9
81. Rabl, T. ve Triana, M.C. (2014). Organizational Value for Age Diversity and Potential Applicants’ Organizational Attraction: Individual Attitudes Matter. J Bus Ethics, 121, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1729-8
82. Riach, K. (2009). Managing ‘Difference’: Understanding Age Diversity in Practice. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 319-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00096.x
83. Robbins, S. P. ve Judge, T. A. (2012), Örgütsel Davranış, (Çev. Editörü: İnci Erdem), İstanbul: Nobel Yayınları.
84. Rosen, R.H. (1998), İnsan Yönetimi, (Çev. Gündüz Bulut), İstanbul: MESS yayınları.
85. Ruhle, S. A., Breitsohl, H., Aboagye, E., Baba, V., Biron, C., Correia Leal, C., Dietz, C., Ferreira, A. I., Gerich, J., Johns, G., Karanika-Murray, M., Lohaus, D., Lokke, A., Lopes, S. L., Martinez, L. F., Miraglia, M., Muschalla, B., Poethke, U., Sarwat, N., Schade, H., Steidelmüller, C., Vinberg, S., Whysall, Z. ve Yang, T. (2020). To Work, or Not to Work, That is The Question-Recent Trends And Avenues for Research on Presenteeism. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(3), 344-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1704734
86. Sanderson, K., Tilse, E., Nicholson, J., Oldenburg, B. ve Graves, N. (2007). Which Presenteeism Measures are More Sensitive to Depression and Anxiety?. Journal of Affective Disorders, 101(1-3), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2006.10.024
87. Sarp, P., Kumral, T. ve Bozkurt, S. (2019). Babacan Liderlik ve İşte Var Olamama İlişkisinde İş Güvencesinin Aracı Rolü. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (41), 161-168.
88. Saygın, M. (2017), Presenteeism: İşte Var Olma(ma) Erişim: 8 Mart 2025, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://acikerisim.nevsehir.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/20.500.11787/3365/B%C4%B0%C3%87KES2018-%28KitapB%C3%B6l%C3%BCm%C3%BC%29%C3%96rg%C3%BCtselDavran%C4%B1%C5%9F.pdf?sequence=1veisAllowed=y
89. Sendjaya, S. ve Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, And Application İn Organizations. Journal of Leadership ve Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900
90. Sharma, R. (2013), Unvansız Lider, (Çev. Filiz Gülerkaya), İstanbul:Pegasus Yayınları.
91. Sousa, M. ve van Dierendonck, D. (2016). Introducing a Short Measure of Shared Servant Leadership Impacting Team Performance Through Team Behavioral Integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(2002), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02002
92. Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective,Caring Leaders. The Journal of Virtues ve Leadership, 1(1), 25-30.
93. Spellman, R. (2011), Yeni Liderlik (Çev. Levent Göktem, Evin Kantemir), İstanbul: Optimist Yayınları. Strauss, W. ve Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The History of America’s Future, New York: William Morrow ve Company.
94. Tabachnick B.G. ve Fidell, L.S. (2013), Using Multivariate Statistics (Sixth Ed.), Boston: Pearson
95. Trompenaars, F. ve Voerman, E. (2009), Servant-Leadership Across Cultures: Harnessing The Strengths of The World’s Most Powerful Management Philosophy. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
96. Ürek, D. ve Ö. Uğurluoğlu (2015). Sağlık Çalışanlarının Lider-Üye Etkileşim Düzeylerinin Çeşitli Özellikler Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Sosyoekonomi, 23(25), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.17233/se.27289
97. Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462
98. Vural, S. (2024). Presenteeism and Job Performance in the Aviation Industry: A Study on Ground Handling Business Employees. Mevzu – Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2024), 1005-1026. https://doi.org/10.56720/mevzu.1525753.
99. Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A. ve Oke, A. (2010). Servant Leadership, Procedural Justice Climate, Service Climate, Employee Attitudes, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Cross-Level Investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018867
100. Wang, Y., Chen, C. C., Lu, L., Eisenberger, R. ve Fosh, P. (2018). Effects of Leader–Member Exchange and Workload on Presenteeism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(7/8), 511-523. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2017-0414
101. Yan, A. ve Xiao, Y. (2016). Servant Leadership And Employee Voice Behavior: A Crosslevel Investigation in China. SpringerPlus, 5(1595), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3264-4.
102. Yang T., Mingjing Z. ve Xiyao X. (2016). The Determinants Of Presenteeism: A Comprehensive İnvestigation Of Stress-Related Factors At Work, Health, And İndividual Factors Among The Aging Workforce. Journal of Occupational Health, 58(1), 25-35, https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.15-0114-OA
103. Yang, T., Guo, Y. , Ma, M. , Li, Y. , Tian, H. ve Deng, J. (2017). Job Stress And Presenteeism Among Chinese Healthcare Workers: The Mediating Effects of Affective Commitment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(9), 1-14 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14090978
104. Yıkılmaz, I. ve Sürücü, L. (2025). Rising Workplace Threat of Presenteeism in the Hospitality Industry: Antecedents and Consequences. Tourism ve Management Studies, 21(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20250105
105. Yılmaz, B., Kısaçtutan, E. D. ve Karatepe, S. G. (2024). Digital Natives of The Labor Market: Generation Z As Future Leaders and Their Perspectives on Leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(2024), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1378982
106. Yılmaz, S. ve Söyük, S. (2024). Literatürde Tartışmalı Bir Kavram: Presenteeism. Sağlık Akademisi Kastamonu (SAK), 9(1), 196-215. https:/doi.org/ 10.25279/sak.1247542
107. Yukl, G., (2006), Leadership in Organizations. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
108. Yurt, E. (2023), Sosyal Bilimlerde Çok Değişkenli Analizler İçin Pratik Bilgiler: SPSS ve AMOS Uygulamaları. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
109. Zada, M., Khan, J., Saeed, I. ve Zada, S. (2024). Examining The Nexus Between Servant Leadership And Employee Task Performance: The Moderation Mediation Model. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04052-8
110. Zehir, C., Akyuz, B., Eren, M. S. ve Turhan, G. (2013). The Indirect Effects of Servant Leadership Behavior on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Job Performance: Organizational Justice as a Mediator. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 2(3), 01-13. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v2i3.68
111. Zeng, J., Lai, J. ve Liu, X. (2022). How Servant Leadership Motivates Young University Teachers’ Workplace Well-Being: The Role of Occupational Commitment and Risk Perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-11.