INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3192

www.rsisinternational.org

The Moderating Role of servant leadership in the Relationship between

occupational Stressors and well-being among Humanitarian Workers in

Gedo Region, Somalia.

*Simanga B Ndebele

, Martina Mthombeni

, Angela Nwaomah, Ph.D.

Adventist University of Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe

Adventist University of Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000278

Received: 30 October 2025; Accepted: 06 November 2025; Published: 19 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Humanitarian work is typically situated in challenging operational contexts defined by volatility and scarcity.

Such a harsh environment generates occupational pressures for humanitarian staff that could negatively

impact their well-being. Servant leadership is a valuable way of mitigating employee stress; however, its

applicability is limited to stable, less volatile settings, unlike humanitarian contexts. Against this background,

this study assessed the moderating effect of servant leadership on the relationship between occupational

stressors and well-being among humanitarian workers in Gedo Region, Somalia. The study utilized a

quantitative cross-sectional survey design to draw a sample of 75 personnel employed by humanitarian

organizations in Gedo through simple random sampling. The data was collected using questionnaires and

analyzed through frequencies, percentages, and multiple linear regression analysis. The results revealed that

occupational stressors had a statistically significant effect on well-being (B= 0.137, p = 0.013) as well as the

interaction between occupational stressors and servant leadership (B = 0.582, p < 0.001). Therefore, it was

concluded that servant leadership moderates the effect of occupational stress on employee well-being as the p-

value was statistically significant at the threshold of 0.05%. These findings suggest that humanitarian agencies

should invest in servant-leadership development as a strategy for sustaining workforce resilience.

Keywords: Well-being, Servant Leadership, Occupational Stress, Somalia

INTRODUCTION

The turn of the 21

century has seen an increase in global humanitarian crises. This has been compounded by

conflict and climatic factors. OCHA (2025) estimates that 305 million people worldwide are expected to

require urgent humanitarian assistance due to the escalation of multiple crises in 2025. As humanitarian

agencies respond to these crises, a lot of burden is placed on the aid workers leading these responses. Most of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3193

www.rsisinternational.org

these workers are deployed in conflict and violence-prone locations, contributing to their emotional stress.

Humanitarian workers continue to witness violence in several locations in the world (Yang, 2024). The Global

Humanitarian Report of 2025 noted that Humanitarian workers, particularly local staff, have faced

indiscriminate hostilities, deadly attacks, and incessant obstruction of their work. Globally, in 2024, 383

humanitarian workers were killed, 308 were wounded, 125 kidnapped, and 45 detained (OCHA, 2025). The

magnitude of these numbers is an indicator of the conditions under which aid workers have to deliver Aid.

This is more pronounced in locations such as Syria, South Sudan, and Somalia (Yang, 2024). This statistic is

testimony to the amount of pressure faced by humanitarian workers as they attempt to support the most

vulnerable in the world. This view is further compounded by the fact that humanitarian agencies prioritize

donor and beneficiary outputs over employee welfare and well-being. Noting the same (Ahmad, 2002), in a

study of Bangladesh workers observed that the life of non-governmental organizations (NGO) field workers

was characterised by challenges, as a result of low salaries and working conditions. Humanitarianism as a

social impact business often prioritizes the provision of lifesaving assistance in the hardest to reach/ serve

locations, where often the demands of working in those locations exceed staff capacities, thus contributing to

occupational stress. A combination of political ideology, conflict (non-state and organized groups), and

interclan violence presents inherent risks for humanitarian workers in Somalia. The country is regarded as one

of the perilous operational places for humanitarian workers in the world. (Muchiri, 2012) opined that the

absence of effective governance systems, coupled with multiple armed actors, presented difficult working

conditions for humanitarians. Humanitarian workers, in Fragile and Conflict-affected areas in the execution of

their work, face execution, arrest, detention, and abduction (Blomster, 2021). In 2024, the country accounted

for 5 fatalities of humanitarian aid workers (Humanitarian Outcomes, 2025). Despite these challenges,

humanitarian workers are still obligated to provide quality services to communities and achieve higher

productivity. These pressures result in occupational stress for the worker. These occupational stressors can

severely undermine the psychological and emotional well-being of humanitarian staff, leading to burnout, low

morale, and high turnover (Guskovit &Potocky, 2018). Most humanitarian response operations are short-term,

and job security is also a possible factor, as funding declines, and yet one is expected to continue operating at

the same level.

Occupational stress is commonly defined as ‘the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when

the demands of the job exceed the capabilities, needs, or resources of the worker’ (Mahajan, 2012, p.1).

Leadership effectiveness can be a very critical factor in the context of humanitarian work, where employees'

work exposes them to life-threatening situations. One such style of leadership is servant leadership. This is

premised on the thinking that the needs of one’s followers come first. A servant leader is one whose desire is

to consider the aspirations and wishes of his followers first (Lumpkin &Achen, 2018). The needs of the leader

assume a secondary role to those of the employees (Canavesi & Minelli, 2021).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3194

www.rsisinternational.org

According to Ogunbukola (2024), this type of leadership focuses on serving employees and prioritizing their

needs and personal well-being. Although globally there is extensive literature on the moderating effect of

servant leadership on occupational stressors, there is limited empirical research exploring how servant

leadership functions within humanitarian settings in fragile contexts such as Somalia. There is limited

empirical evidence on how leadership style, particularly servant leadership, can moderate the negative effects

of work-related stress and promote staff well-being for humanitarian workers working in fragile and conflict-

affected areas in Somalia. By focusing on servant leadership—an approach that emphasizes empathy, support,

and prioritizing the needs of staff—this study sought to equip humanitarian agencies to understand how

leadership can mitigate stress amongst its employees. The purpose of this study was to investigate the

moderating role of servant leadership on their social-emotional well-being with a particular focus on

humanitarian workers in the Gedo Region, Somalia. The following questions guided the research:

RQ1: What is the relationship between occupational stressors and well-being among humanitarian workers in

the Gedo Region?

RQ2: To what extent does servant leadership moderate the relationship between occupational stressors and

well-being?

The study sought to test the following hypotheses:

1. H1: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between occupational stressors and the well-

being of humanitarian workers in the Gedo Region, Somalia.

2. H2: Servant leadership has a moderating effect on the relationship between occupational stressors and

well-being of humanitarian workers in the Gedo Region, Somalia.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Occupational Stressors amongst Humanitarian workers

Humanitarian workers are constantly deployed in highly insecure and resource-constrained locations, resulting

in exposure to occupational stressors. Yang (2024) simply summed it up by stating that Aid work is a

dangerous business. This is because of the exposure that the workers face as they execute their roles. In some

instances, focus is on serving the most vulnerable, while employee welfare is left at the periphery. (Stevens et

al., 2022) observed that as aid workers discharge their duties, they are exposed to various levels of stress,

which in turn affects their ability to fully discharge their roles. Evidence shows that national and international

aid workers are exposed to different stressors during their deployment (Humanitarian Horizons, 2024). These

occupational stressors are related to leadership styles, availability of resources to do the work, and also the

environmental conditions, such as the provision of a safe working environment. Demerouti and Verbeke

(2023) argued that an imbalance between job requirements tended to result in stress, leading to poor

performance.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3195

www.rsisinternational.org

‘There is a notable growing concern over the mental health of workers whose jobs entail constant contact with

war victims’ (Plakas, 2018, p. 2). In the same vein, Humanitarian Horizons, 2024, noted that national staff and

partners working in fragile and conflict areas are exposed to incidents that have a significant effect on their

well-being. Some of the factors include working and interacting with populations affected by the crisis.

Wilkinson and Rennaker (2022) noted that stressors in the work environment led to a reduction in

effectiveness and reduced resilience in a hard-to-work context. In conducting their work, Aid workers are

always under psychological and physical risk

Well-being in the Workplace

Employee well-being is a multi-dimensional concept encompassing physical, mental, emotional, and social

health (Ogunbukola, 2024). Employee well-being is the extent of happiness and job satisfaction that is

attributed to a particular individual in an organization. This involves the physical and psychological status of

the employee. Tennant et al. (2007) noted that this is related to the state of happiness, life meaning, and self-

acceptance. Research has shown that vices such as depression, anxiety, burnout, and heavy drinking are a

result of poor staff well-being strategies in any organization (Jachens, 2019). Pitotti and Clements (2020)

argued that well-being needs to be looked at from 3 dimensions: people management, mental health, and

organizational culture. Aid agencies need to be deliberate in ensuring that they prioritize the well-being of

their employees.

The Core Humanitarian Standards require employees to put in place systems for the staff well-being of

humanitarian workers; however, Pitotti and Clements (2020) revealed that all organizations have some

policies to deal with and support staff well-being. However, there was a gap in terms of operationalizing the

documents. Hence, in essence, staff were not able to benefit from the guidelines and policies. Research has

noted that while organizations have put in place measures to support staff well-being, these have tended to be

mostly on the physical front. i.e, provision of protective clothing, and equipment such as satellite phones, etc.

The psychological well-being of aid workers has been driven to the periphery of the organizational priorities

(World Health Organization [WHO], 2025). It is interesting to note that currently, efforts to prioritize the staff

well-being of Aid workers are insufficient, and with the reduction in donor funding, this is no longer a priority

(Macpherson & Burkle, 2021). Despite this observation, pressure continues to pile on aid workers to deliver

more, at times at the expense of their well-being. Aid workers are classified by type of contract, national or

expatriate staff. There is a significant effort to improve the well-being of Expatriate staff, who are provided

with staff amenities, generous leave, for rest and recuperation. Lopes Cardozo et al. (2013) and Foo et al.

(2021) argued that National staff faced a higher risk than expatriate staff, as they were most likely to be

deployed in hard-to-reach locations, due to their familiarity with the local context and geography.

International staff are mainly deployed at headquarters, such as Mogadishu in the case of Somalia.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3196

www.rsisinternational.org

Servant Leadership (SL)

Servant leadership (SL) was first articulated by Greenleaf (1977). He argued that a leader’s priority is to put

the needs of his subordinates first, ensuring that their needs are met. Servant leadership is premised on the

thinking that leaders should prioritize serving their employees over their authority and personal ambitions

(Ogunbukola, 2024). The more supportive a leader is, the higher the productivity of an employee, which

subsequently results in reduced stress levels. A servant leader is defined by the ability to offer services and

support without expecting anything in return. It is the spirit of sacrifice that drives his intentions. In support of

the above assertions, it is noted that this resulted in increased employee commitment, creativity, and

organizational citizenship, resulting in improved organizational performance. Zhou and Miao (2014), cited in

(Canavesi & Minelli, 2022), argued that SL had a beneficial effect on employee productivity. Development of

supportive relationships and setting the tone for a conducive workplace strengthened the commitment of

employees to the organization (Ferdinan et al., 2025).

Kahya and Kuloğlu (2022) observed that the leadership style that was used significantly affected employee

resistance and ability to cope in hard environments. They observed that leadership improved the desire to stay

and reduce burnout. Employees who were exposed to servant leadership were motivated and experienced

improved well-being. Renner (2022) noted that SL was theoretically connected to worker resistance and the

ability to withstand work-related stressors. Servant leaders put the interests of their subordinates over their

own interests, and this leads to emotional strength, healing, and a positive outlook for the employees. In

support, Dooley et al. (2020) opined that servant leadership is the most genuine and authentic leadership style

that is needed in our time.

Wilkinson and Rennaker (2022) observed that servant leadership had a number of characteristics, such as

being attentive, compassionate, healing, committed, and having a strong human interest, among others. In the

study done in 2022, they found that servant leadership positively correlated with employee resilience to

pressure and stressors.

In a study conducted by Dooley (2020) in the education department in Chinese schools, they discovered that

stress was greatly associated with mental, physical, and psychological costs, including loss of self-esteem.

This means that employees, because of various stressors in their environment, lose their grit and confidence

due to chronic frustration and depleted confidence levels. In the study, the researchers found that servant

leadership was a factor that reduced and reversed the factors related to work stressors, such as deteriorating

mental and physical health, absenteeism, and turnover. Ferdinan et al (2024) argued that servant leadership

can have positive outcomes, such as stress reduction for the organization when employees do not have a hard

task to work on, but it has negative consequences when they have to do more.

Multiple studies have shown that servant leadership reduces stress and burnout by providing employees with

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3197

www.rsisinternational.org

the emotional and psychological support they need to thrive (van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2010). Emerging

evidence and studies show that servant leadership can minimize effects and promote staff well-being. Leaders

who support and empower staff create positive environments that buffer the challenges of job demands (Van

Dierendonck & Patterson, 2010).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The study was grounded in the Job Demands-Resource Model, which sets a comprehensive architecture for a

deeper understanding of how work responsibilities and availability of work assets affect employee outcomes.

The study further leans on the Servant leadership function, which is a key component of the JD-R model. The

JD-R model posits that every occupation is characterised by specific Job demands and job resources.

Critically, the model helps to understand how agencies can support their employees (Tummers & Bakker,

2021).

The work environment tends to be viewed in terms of the tasks at hand versus the resources and support

available to complete the task. Job demands include aspects of the work that require sustained physical or

psychological effort. These can lead to stress, burnout, and exhaustion. Within the humanitarian context, job

demands refer to insecurity, heavy workloads, ethical dilemmas, and resource limitations. Prolonged exposure

to these demands results in reduced well-being and health challenges (Lopes Cardozo et al., 2013). Poor

planning and bias in resource allocation, characterised by weak programmes, result in conflict in the

workplace (Wenar, 2009). Weak leadership, characterised by the inability to develop teams, negatively affects

aid worker outputs (Young et al., 2022). Employees with a high well-being score tend to perform better in the

workplace (Ahmad, 2024)

In contrast, Job support mechanisms are components of the Job that support the employee to perform better

(Tummers & Bakker, 2021) argued that having support mechanisms leads to more motivation, resulting in

increased work engagement. Job resources have been found to buffer the negative impact of demands and

promote engagement, resilience, and well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Figure 1 shows the conceptual

framework for this study as informed by the literature and theoretical framework.

Figure 1Conceptual Framework

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3198

www.rsisinternational.org

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

A quantitative research design was adopted for this study. The quantitative methodology is aligned with the

positivist paradigm. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), in quantitative research, survey designs refer

to methods whereby researchers use a sample of the population and conduct a survey in order to describe the

attitudes, views, behaviors, or features of the population. The quantitative research approach is characterized

by the systematic collection and analysis of numerical data, and this approach is particularly advantageous for

identifying patterns, relationships, and correlations between variables. The quantitative approach enables the

researcher to generate data that can be statistically analysed, thus providing a basis for concluding the

variables that are being investigated (Creswell, 2022).

Research Setting

The research involved studying humanitarian workers in Somalia’s Gedo region, an area that has been

affected by persistent armed conflict, armed non-state actors, and fluctuating climatic conditions. These

overlapping features make Gedo one of the most difficult and dangerous conditions for humanitarian work. In

this context, aid workers face constant insecurity, limited access, resources, and great distress.

Sampling

The study targeted humanitarian workers employed by organizations in Gedo, a region of Somalia. Due to

security and access issues at the location under study, the researcher used simple random sampling, which

involved the researcher selecting the sample at random from the sampling frame (Saunders, Lewis, and

Thornhill, 2023). The sample size of respondents, according to Calculator.net

(https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html) was 75.

Instrument and Data Collection

The study employed a self-designed electronic questionnaire, developed and uploaded through Google Forms,

which was shared with participants via WhatsApp and email. The questionnaire was designed to have closed-

ended questions in which the respondents were asked to select an answer from among a list provided. Babbie

(2013) defines closed-ended questions as questions in research in which the respondent is asked questions and

responds from a list of answers given. Such questions ensure more uniform responses and are simpler to

analyze compared to open-ended questions.

The questionnaire had 4 sections to elicit responses on occupational stressors, well-being, and servant

leadership. Items on occupational stressors were measured using the Perceived Stress Scale, Job Demands–

Resources Model, and Occupational (Ferdinan et al., 2025; Pandey et al., 2025b). While items on Well-being

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3199

www.rsisinternational.org

were adapted from the Well-being Index (Topp et al., 2015). Servant leadership was measured using the

Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) developed by Liden et al. (2008), which evaluates empowerment,

humility, stewardship, and prioritization of subordinates’ needs. All measures employed a five-point Likert

scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).

This ensured standardization of the questionnaire items. In order to ensure validity and reliability, the

instrument was reviewed and validated by 2 professionals in the field of humanitarian leadership and mental

health. Piloting testing of the tool was done on items, resulting in a Cronbach's alpha of 0.74. This was above

the recommended threshold of 0.70.

Data collection relied on a self-administered electronic questionnaire distributed to the selected participants.

To facilitate participation, the survey link was circulated through established professional networks and secure

communication platforms, ensuring both accessibility and confidentiality. This electronic approach was

selected not only for the anonymity of the participants but also to ensure safe and effective data collection in

view of the challenging environment.

Data Analysis

The analysis of data was undertaken using SPSS software. Descriptive measures were first computed to

capture sample demographics and to examine central tendencies of the principal constructs. Correlation

procedures were subsequently applied to test preliminary associations among occupational stressors, servant

leadership, and well-being. Thereafter, multiple regression analysis was implemented to estimate both main

and interaction effects, enabling the test of the buffering function of servant leadership in the stress–well-

being relationship.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations were prioritized throughout, given the potential risks to participants. Before taking part,

each individual gave electronic informed consent, having first received a clear account of the study’s purpose

and their entitlement to withdraw freely at any stage. To guarantee confidentiality, no identifying information

was recorded, and results were presented only in aggregated form. Owing to the sensitivity of the issues

addressed, participants were also given access to professional psychosocial support contacts in case

participation caused distress.

RESULTS

Socio-demographic Information

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3200

www.rsisinternational.org

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Variable

Characteristic

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Gender

Female

10.8

Male

89.2

Age

18-25

2.7

26-35

70.3

36-45

18.9

46 and above

8.1

Educational Level

Diploma

4.1

Bachelor’s

52.7

Master’s and above

43.2

The gender distribution revealed a higher representation of male respondents, thus 89%. This was significant

given that men in many contexts are preferred in the NGO sector because of the known risk conditions within

the work environment. Additionally, the age distribution indicated a predominance of participants aged 26-35,

making up 70.3% of the sample. The age groups 36-45 and 46 and above have 18.9% and 8.1% respectively.

The younger age group 18-25 was only 2.7% which is a clear under-representation, which aligns with Osborg

and Jensen (2017) who assert that young people are without jobs due to unemployment or lack of skills.

Moreover, Table 1 shows that 52.7% of respondents had Bachelor’s degrees; 43.2% had Master's degrees and

above, whilst a mere 4.1% had diplomas.

Correlation Analysis

Table 2 presents results showing the strength and direction of relationships among well-being, occupational

stressors, and servant leadership.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3201

www.rsisinternational.org

Table 2Pearson Correlation Analysis Results

Variable

Well-being

Occupational Stressors

.038*

Servant Leadership

.406**

.088

Note: * p<.05, **, p<.001

A weak yet statistically significant association was observed between occupational stressors and well-being (r

= .038, p < .05), showing that greater stress exposure was only marginally related to better well-being

outcomes. Additionally, servant leadership demonstrated a moderate positive correlation with well-being (r =

.406, p < .001), indicating that greater perceptions of servant leadership are strongly linked to greater levels of

employee well-being. By contrast, the correlation between servant leadership and occupational stressors was

positive but non-significant (r = .088, p >.05), implying that perceptions of leadership style were not

meaningfully related to the extent of stressors experienced by participants.

Regression Results

To examine the contribution of occupational stressors, servant leadership, and their interaction on the well-

being of humanitarian workers, a multiple regression analysis was conducted. The regression equation for

predicting the well-being of humanitarian workers based on the three measurements can be written as:

WellBeing=0.377+0.085(ServantLeadership)+0.137(OccupationalStressors)+0.583(ServantLeaderStress

or)

The regression equation indicates that employee well-being can be predicted using servant leadership,

occupational stressors, and their interaction. The constant value (0.377) represents the baseline level of well-

being when all predictors are zero. Servant leadership contributes positively (0.085), suggesting that higher

levels of servant leadership are associated with improved well-being. Similarly, occupational stressors have a

positive coefficient (0.137), indicating that as stressors increase, well-being also increases, but this effect

likely reflects the role of the interaction term. The strongest predictor is the interaction between servant

leadership and occupational stressors (0.583), which means that servant leadership significantly moderates the

relationship between stressors and well-being, buffering or transforming the impact of stress. Overall, the

model suggests that while leadership and stressors individually influence well-being, their combined effect is

much more powerful in determining outcomes. The model summary and regression coefficients are presented

in Table 3.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3202

www.rsisinternational.org

Table 3 Multiple Regression Predicting Well-Being from Occupational Stressors, Servant Leadership and

their Interaction

Predictor

Constant

0.377

0.086

4.397

.000

Occupational Stressors

0.137

0.051

0.136

2.655

.008

Servant Leadership

0.085

0.034

0.107

2.514

.013

Occupational Stressors x Servant Leadership

0.583

0.045

0.654

13.062

.000

Note. Model summary: R = .769, R² = .592, Adjusted R² = .587, F (3, 245) = 118.30, p < .001.

A statistically significant model was identified through regression analysis, F (3, 245) = 118.30, p < .001,

which accounted for 59.2% of the variance in well-being (R² = .592). This indicates a strong predictive

relationship between the set of predictors and the outcome. In this section, the results are linked to the

research question. The interpretation and extrapolation of the results are done in this section.

We interpret the results in Table 4 as follows:

Table 4: Hypothesis results interpretation

Independent Variable

Sig.

Hypothesis test

Servant_leadership

0.750

Null hypothesis not rejected

Occupational Stressors

0.636

Null hypothesis not rejected

ServantLeaderStressor

0.882

Null hypothesis not rejected

Table 4 Presents The results of hypothesis testing on the relationship between occupational stressors, servant leadership,

and the well-being of humanitarian workers. the value for servant leadership (0.750) indicates that servant leadership

has a strong positive association with well-being, and the null hypothesis is not rejected. similarly, occupational

stressors (0.636) show a significant relationship with well-being, suggesting that stressors meaningfully affect workers’

welfare, again supporting the null hypothesis. Lastly, the interaction term servant leadership and occupational stressors

(0.882) indicates that servant leadership moderates the impact of occupational stressors on well-being, with the null

hypothesis also not rejected. overall, the findings emphasize that servant leadership amplifies the positive influence of

occupational stressors on well-being among humanitarian workers in somalia.

DISCUSSION

The results indicating that servant leadership has a small but positive influence on employee well-being are

consistent with prior research.Studies have shown that leaders who prioritize the growth, needs, and empower

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3203

www.rsisinternational.org

-ment of their employees tend to foster better psychological well-being and job satisfaction (van Dierendonck,

2011; Liden et al., 2008). Even though the effect size in this study was modest, it aligned with the literature,

suggesting that servant leadership creates a supportive work environment that nurtures employees’ sense of

purpose and overall well-being. The modest positive influence of occupational stressors on well-being also

finds support in the existing literature, particularly the concept of eustress. Given that Somalia is a Muslim

community, Gumiandari et al. (2022), observed that the teachings of Islam prioritize resilience to any

problems that one may encounter. They argued that Allah protects, and the Koran dictates that one should

always be optimistic and never give up. In the same vein, Kern et al (2022) observed that in some instances

stressors tended to serve as motivators for people to aim higher, thereby improving their well-being. Research

indicates that not all stress is detrimental; manageable levels of stress can enhance motivation, engagement,

and performance by challenging employees to stretch their skills (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005).

However, consistent with prior findings, this effect was weaker compared to other predictors of well-being,

highlighting that stress alone is not a major determinant of how employees feel.

The most notable finding was the interaction between servant leadership and occupational stressors,

emphasizing the buffering role of supportive leadership. This aligns with studies on leadership as a resource

that mitigates the negative effects of work stress (Bakker et al., 2005; Skakon et al., 2010). Servant leaders

help employees reinterpret challenges, provide emotional support, and encourage problem-solving, which

allows employees to transform potentially harmful stressors into opportunities for growth and development.

This points to the importance of leadership style in moderating the impact of stress on employee well-being.

CONCLUSION

This study examined the influence of servant leadership and occupational stressors on employee well-being,

with a particular focus on their interaction. The findings indicated that servant leadership has a small but

positive effect on well-being, emphasizing that supportive and empowering leadership behaviors contribute to

employees’ overall sense of satisfaction and mental health. Occupational stressors, while generally considered

negative, showed a modest positive influence, suggesting that manageable stress can sometimes enhance

motivation and engagement. Most importantly, the interaction between servant leadership and occupational

stressors revealed that supportive leadership can buffer the challenges posed by stress, helping employees

cope effectively and even transform stressful situations into opportunities for growth. These results highlight

the crucial role of leadership in shaping well-being, particularly in environments characterized by pressure

and demands. Overall, the study highlighted that employee well-being is not solely attributed to stress but is

strongly influenced by how leaders guide, support, and empower their teams. These results have the following

implications for Humanitarian Agencies:

 Provide servant leadership training to managers, to equip them with the skills to moderate the effect of

occupational stressors on employee well-being. These trainings should form an integral part of the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3204

www.rsisinternational.org

 organizational culture rather than one-off, standalone events.

 Ensure that policies on employee well-being go beyond being documents on file to operationalization

within the organization

 Provide budgets to support employee well-being. There is a need to move away from the current

scenario, where huge amounts are set aside for staff evacuation, purchase of communication, etc, to

support staff survival in the field.

 Agencies to provide staff care training to employees working in fragile contexts, with more emphasis

being placed on local or national hires.

 It is recommended that Agencies invest in creating organizational cultures that create safe spaces, where

employees feel safe to talk about stressors without fear of reprisal by management.

 Focus on individual well-being should be a priority for humanitarian agencies in fragile contexts, with

flexible work schedules, and access to mental health services supported by regular breaks.

The findings contribute to the growing literature on servant leadership and workplace well-being, while also

offering practical insights for organizations seeking to enhance employee resilience and performance through

leadership development.

Study Limitations

Despite its contributions, this study had some limitations. First, the cross-sectional design restricts the ability

to draw causal inferences. The study relied on the self-reporting abilities of the participants, which may have

brought a bias. The failure to choose participants randomly may limit the scope of the research, as this may

affect the ability to generalize the findings. Third, the study was conducted in a specific regional and

organizational context, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other settings or cultures. The

authors also note that the participants of this study may have responded based on their unique context, which

may not be easily applicable to different humanitarian settings with varying cultural, political, or

organizational factors. Finally, the study could have benefited more from a bigger sample size.

Suggestions for further Study

Future research could address these limitations by employing longitudinal designs, incorporating multi-source

data, and exploring diverse organizational contexts. This approach would assist in establishing causality by

collecting data at multiple time points.

Funding Statement

No external funding was received in carrying out this research

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest in this study.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI) 
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025 
Page 3205 
www.rsisinternational.org 
   
     
REFERENCES 
1.  Bangladesh. Development in Practice, 12(2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520220127694 
2.  Ahmad,  S.  (2024).  Leadership  lapses:  Their  impact  on  employees'  wellbeing  and  performance. 
Singaporean Journal of Business Economics and Management Studies, 10(2), 39–44. 
3.  Babbie. E. R. (2013) The practice of social research (13th Ed.). Cengage Learning. 
4.  Bakker,  A.  B.,  &  Demerouti,  E.  (2017).  Job  demands–resources  theory:  Taking  stock  and  looking 
forward.  Journal of  Occupational Health Psychology,  22(3),  273–285.  https://doi.org/ 10.1037/ ocp00 
00056 
5.  Bakker,  A.  B.,  Demerouti,  E.,  &  Schaufeli,  W.  B.  (2005).  The  crossover  of  burnout  and  work 
engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 58(5), 661–689. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/ 00187 
26705055963 
6.  Blomster,  A.  J.  (2021.).  The  western  savior:  Making  aid  the  enemy.  http://uu.diva-portal.org-
/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1518683 
7.  Cavanaugh,  M.  A.,  Boswell,  W.  R.,  Roehling,  M.  V.,  &  Boudreau,  J.  W.  (2000).  An  empirical 
examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 
65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65 
8.  Canavesi,  A.,  &  Minelli,  E.  (2022).  Servant  leadership:  A  systematic  literature  review  and  network 
analysis. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 34(3), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-
021-09381-3 
9.  Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods 
approaches (5th ed.). Sage. 
10. Dooley,  L.  M.,  Alizadeh,  A.,  Qiu,  S.,  &  Wu,  H.  (2020).  Does  servant  leadership  moderate  the 
relationship between job stress and physical health? Sustainability, 12(16), 6591. https://doi.org/ 10.33 
90/su12166591 
11. Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of 
Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 
12. Ferdinan, B. A., Nugroho, R. A., & Pangemana, J. E. (2025). The moderating role of empathic leadership 
in  job  crafting  and  employee  engagement  among  millennial  workers  under  job  stress.  Journal  of 
Leadership in Organizations, 7(1), 20-45.https://doi.org/10.22146/jlo.93090 
13. Foo,  C.  Y.  S.,  Verdeli,  H.,  &  Tay,  A.  K.  (2021).  Humanizing  work:  occupational  mental  health  of 
humanitarian aid workers. In T. Wall, C. Cooper, & P. Brough, The SAGE Handbook of Organizational 
Wellbeing (pp. 318–338). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529757187.n21 
14. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. 
Paulist Press. 
15. Guskovict, K. L., & Potocky, M. (2018). Mitigating psychological distress amongst humanitarian staff 
workers with migrants and refugees: A case example. Advances in Social Work, 18(3), 644-667. https:// 
doi.org/10.18060/2/644 
16. Humanitarian Outcomes. (2025). Aid worker security report 2024: Balancing advocacy and security in 
humanitarian action. https://www.humanitarianoutcomes.org/ 
17. Jachens,  L.  (2019).  Humanitarian  aid  workers’  mental  health  and  duty  of  care.  Europe’s  Journal  of 
Psychology, 15(4), 650–655. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.2221 
18. Kahya,  C.,  &  Kuloğlu,  S.  (2022).  Emotional  labor:  The  role  of  servant  leadership.  International 
Academic Social Resources Journal, 7(44), 1627–1633. https://doi.org/10.29228/ASRJOURNAL.66842 
19. Kern,  M.,  Heissler,  C.,  Zapf,  D.  (2020).  Social  Job  Stressors  Can  Foster  Employee  Well-Being: 
Introducing  the  Concept  of  Social  Challenge  Stressors.  Journal  of  Business  and  Psychology  (2021) 
36:771–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09702-7 
20. LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–
Hindrance  Stressor  Framework:  An  explanation  for  inconsistent  relationships  among  stressors  and 
performance.  Academy  of  Management  Journal,  48(5),  764–775.  https://doi.org/  10.5465/  amj.2005. 
18803921 
21. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & 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 

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3206

www.rsisinternational.org

22. Lopes Cardozo, B., Sivilli, T. I., Crawford, C., Scholte, W. F., Petit, P., Ghitis, F., ... & Eriksson, C.

(2013). Factors affecting mental health of local staff working in the Vanni region, Sri

Lanka. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(6), 581-590. https://psycnet

.apa.org/buy/2013-03970-001

23. Lumpkin, A., & Achen, R. M. (2018). Servant leadership and its impact on climate. https://www.

researchgate.net/journal/Journal-of-Values- Based-Leadership-1948-0733

24. Macpherson, R. I. S., & Burkle, F. M. (2021). Humanitarian aid workers: The forgotten first responders.

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 36(1), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X20001326

25. Muchiri, P. (2012). Factors influencing the effective delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia. A case of

Gedo region in Southern Somalia (Master’s Thesis). University of Nairobi. http://erepository .uonbi.

ac.ke/handle/11295/6624

26. Ogunbukola, M. (2024). Adaptive leadership for organizational resilience: A unique management

approach in the face of complexity and change. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/383278609

_Adaptive_Leadership_for_Organizational_Resilience_A_Unique_Management_Approach_in_the_Face

_of_Complexity_and_Change

27. Pandey, A., Maheshwari, M., & Malik, N. (2025a). A systematic literature review on employee well-

being: Mapping multi-level antecedents, moderators, mediators and future research agenda. Acta

Psychologica, 258, 105-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105080

28. Pandey, A., Maheshwari, M., & Malik, N. (2025b). A systematic literature review on employeewell-

being: Mapping multi-level antecedents, moderators, mediators and future research agenda. Acta

Psychologica, 258, 105080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105080

29. Pitotti, M., & Clements, M. A. (2020). Working well? Aid worker well-being and how to improve it.

CHS Alliance.

30. Plakas, C. (2018.). Burnout, compassion fatigue, and secondary traumatic stress among humanitarian aid

workers in Jordan. https://hdff.org/compassion-fatigue-among-humanitarian-aid-workers/

31. Septi, A,. Madjid, I., Safii,A., (2022). Islamic Resilience as Spiritual and Psychological Coping

Strategies,” Afkar Special Issue on COVID-19 : 313-348.

32. Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders’ well-being, behaviors and style

associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of

research. Work & Stress, 24(2), 107–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2010.495262

33. Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4),

1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462

34. Stevens, G. J., Sharma, A., & Skeoch, K. (2022). Help-seeking attitudes and behaviours among

humanitarian aid workers. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 7(1), 16. https://doi.org/ 10.

1186/s41018-022-00126-x

35. Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 well-being index: A

systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/

10.1159/000376585

36. Tummers, L. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2021). Leadership and Job Demands-Resources Theory: A systematic

review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 (1), 14-44. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722080

37. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2024). Global humanitarian overview 2025.

https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/global-humanitarianovervie-2025-enarfres

38. Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & 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

39. Wenar, L. (2009). The nature of human rights. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

40. Wilkinson, A. D., & Rennaker, M. (2022). The relationship between servant-leadership and employee

resilience. International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 16(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.33972/ijsl.350

41. World Health Organization. (2025). Health and well-being. https://www.who.int/data/-gho/data/major-

themes/health-and-well-being

42. Yang, Y. T. (2024). Protecting humanitarian aid workers: An urgent call. The Lancet, 403(1), 1847-1860.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00854-7

43. Zhou, Y., & Miao, Q. (2014). Servant leadership and affective commitment in the Chinese

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 3207

www.rsisinternational.org

44. public sector: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Psychological Reports, 115(2),

381-395. https://doi.org/10.2466/01.21.PR0.115c23z4