• No results found

Organizational citizenship behavior : does the type of organizational culture and leadership style affect organizational citizenship behaviors?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Organizational citizenship behavior : does the type of organizational culture and leadership style affect organizational citizenship behaviors?"

Copied!
69
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

Does the type of organizational culture and leadership style

affect organizational citizenship behaviors?

Executive Programme in Management Studies – Leadership University of Amsterdam

Name author: Priscilla Vanessa van der Ploeg Student number: 10499377

Date: June 2015

(2)

2 Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Priscilla Vanessa van der Ploeg who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the extend and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3

Table of contents

Abstract ... 4

Introduction ... 5

Theory and hypotheses ... 11

Organizational Citizenship Behavior ... 11

Culture and Organizational Citizenship Behavior ... 14

Leadership style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior ... 18

Engagement ... 24

Research Design ... 35

Organizational context ... 35

Participants and procedure ... 36

Measures ... 36 Results ... 40 Reliability of Constructs ... 40 Descriptive statistics ... 41 Hypotheses testing ... 42 Discussion ... 46

Limitations and future research ... 53

Conclusion ... 54

References ... 56

Appendix 1 ... 61

(4)

4

Abstract

Organizational citizenship behavior (hereafter: OCB) has been an important factor in determining individual and organization performance outcomes and effectiveness of organizations. Therefore it is of interest to do research on which factors influence OCB. Previous research has mainly been focused on the relationship between personality traits and attitudes of employees and OCB. This study examines the relationship of contextual factors that are imposed by the organization or sector and where an individual has little or no influence on with OCB. The factors that were used in this study are two culture types and two leadership styles. The culture types that were examined are a hierarchical culture and a constructive culture. The leadership styles that were examined are a transformational and transactional style. Also is tested whether engagement of employees mediates between the antecedents and OCB.

This study was conducted at a local bank in the Netherlands. Results, based on 164 completed surveys, indicated that a hierarchical culture did not have a direct relationship with OCB. Also the two types of leadership styles, transformational and transactional, did not affect OCB directly. In addition, engagement does not mediate between the predicted relationship of a hierarchical culture, transformational leadership and transactional leadership with OCB. However, results indicated that a constructive culture was found to be related to OCB and engagement is a mediating mechanism in this relationship.

(5)

5

Introduction

Extra-role behavior of employees has been an important factor in determining the performance of an organization. Therefore extra-role behavior has become of great interest in the research field of organizational behavior. Much researchers refer to the term OCB to describe extra-role behavior (Katz and Kahn, 1966, Organ, Podsakoff, and McKenzie, 2006; Sun, Chow, Chiu, and Pan, 2013). OCB can be described as “voluntary behaviors of employees that transcend an employee’s specified role requirements and are not formally rewarded by the organization” (Organ, Podsakoff and McKenzie, 2006).

OCB has an effect on the performance of organizations (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Chen, Hui and Sego, 1998). The performance outcomes of an organization can be distinguished in individual and organizational performance outcomes. At the individual level OCB had a positive relationship with performance evaluations of employees and manager’s reward allocation decisions (Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting and Podsakoff, 2009). In addition, a negative relationship was found between OCB and employees intentions to leave the organization, the actual turnover rate, and absenteeism of employees (Podsakoff et al., 2009). At the organizational level OCB had a positive relationship with the productivity, profitability, efficiency and customer satisfaction. However a negative relationship was found with costs and turnover (Podsakoff et al., 2009). In addition to the effect that OCB has on the performance outcomes of an organization it also promotes the social and psychological environment of an organization, which improves the effectiveness of an organization (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010).

(6)

6 Based on previous research findings OCB contributes to individual and organizational performance outcomes and effectiveness of organizations. Therefore it is of interest to determine which factors influence the behavior of employees and what makes it that employees choose to show OCB. Previous studies which have examined the factors that influence OCB have mainly been focused on the relationship between attitudinal and personality character traits with OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Farh, Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Konovsky and Organ, 1995). In their meta-analysis Organ and Ryan (1995) found that attitudinal factors such as satisfaction and commitment had a direct positive relationship with OCB. Personality traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness seem to have an indirect positive relationship with OCB. Organ and Ryan (1995) found that personality traits affect the attitude of an employee towards events that occur and relationships with colleagues, in turn attitudes then affect whether an employee will show OCB. The purpose of this study is to examine other factors than attitudinal and personality character traits that affect OCB. This study examines the relationship of contextual factors where an individual has limited influence on such as the organizational culture and type of leadership style with OCB. Therefore as a first step this research will test the direct relationship between two culture types and two leadership styles with OCB.

It is of interest to test the relationship between organizational cultures and OCB because the culture of an organization influence the behavior of employees (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis and Shook, 2009). That is because the values that are shared by employees determine which behavior is appropriated and accepted in the organization. These appropriated and accepted behaviors come from

(7)

7 experiences with how work is done and how problems are solved. The types of culture that have been used to examine the relationship with OCB are a hierarchical and a constructive organizational culture. A hierarchical culture is characterized by a focus on control over employees through rules and standard procedures (Richard, McMillan-Capehart, Bhuian and Taylor, 2009). Where a constructive organizational culture is characterized by cooperation and support (Balthazard, Cooke and Potter, 2006). The reason that these types of cultures are chosen to examine the relationship with OCB is because they differ in terms of the appropriate and accepted behaviors. In a constructive culture employees are allowed to dictate their own behaviors (Van Muijen, Koopman, and De Witte, 1996) whereas in a hierarchical culture behaviors are guided by strict guidelines (Gregory et al., 2009).

Some organizations or sectors such as the organization where this research is conducted have to deal with rules and regulations that are imposed. This framework of rules and regulations determine how work should be done and how problems are solved which ultimately determines the culture of the organization (Schein, 1984). Employees who experience the culture of their organization as hierarchical may have the feeling that they are bounded to do their work and this can affect their willingness to show OCB. In contrast to a hierarchical culture a constructive culture is characterized by allowing employees to dictate their own behavior (Gregory et al., 2009). Employees can decide how to do their work and they experience empowerment which can also affect their willingness to show OCB. It is also of interest to test the relationship between the organization culture and OCB because there is no research found that examined this relationship.

(8)

8 Besides the organizational culture the type of leadership style has an influence on the behavior of employees and therefore it is of interest to examine the relationship between different leadership styles and OCB of employees. The leadership styles that have been used to examine the relationship with OCB are transformational and transactional leadership. These leadership styles are used because both leadership styles motivate their employees but require different behaviors of them. Transactional leaders motivate their employees to perform only the task that the leader wishes them to do (Burns, 1978). Therefore the behavior that a transactional leader requires of its employees can be described as in-role behavior. In contrast a transformational leader motivates employees to go beyond the behavior that is expected from them to do the task (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders therefore asks of its employees behavior that goes beyond the in-role behavior. Previous research has indicated that a transformational leadership style has a positive relationship with OCB (Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010; Walumbwa, Hartnell and Oke, 2010). Whereas a transactional leadership style has an indirect effect on OCB through the level of trust in the manager as mediating mechanism (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Rich, 2001).

After examining the impact of the above-mentioned factors with OCB this study will look at the potential mechanism. The mechanism that is used in this study is engagement. Employees are engaged in their work when they are psychologically present when occupying an organizational role (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, 2010). Engagement is used as mediator because employees that are engaged in their work will show increased OCB, which can be explained by how they make choices to allocate their physical, cognitive and emotional

(9)

9 energies into their work (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010). When employees are engagement in their work they show positive attitudes such as investing effort in their work, they are enthusiastic, and challenge themselves (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzales-Roma and Bakker, 2002). The organizational culture affects positive attitudes of employees (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis, and Shook, 2009). Therefore it is of interest to test whether engagement is a mechanism in the possible relationship between a hierarchical and a constructive culture with OCB.

The type of leadership style also has an effect on employees to engage in their work. Transformational leaders energizes employees to lift themselves to extraordinary heights and let employees do more than they are expected to do (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter, 1990). Employees who experience their leader as transformational reported more engagement in their work (Bono and Judge, 2003; Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010). Thus, engagement is viewed as playing a potential mediating role in the relationship between the leadership styles and OCB.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a hierarchical culture, constructive culture, transformational leadership style, and transactional leadership style on OCBs, and to test the potential mediating mechanism of engagement. The research model is summarized below in figure 1. This study makes a contribution from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. This study aims to add knowledge to existing research by examining contextual factors and their relationship with OCB. Finally, this study is practically relevant for organizations because it is important for practicing managers and leaders which organizational culture and leadership styles influence OCB. When

(10)

10 managers and leaders know which culture types and leadership styles have a positive effect on OCB they can stimulate this culture type an leadership style.

FIGURE 1

Model of antecedents and their relationship with organizational citizenship behavior with engagement as mediator

(11)

11

Theory and hypotheses

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The term OCB is first described as supra-role behavior by Katz and Kahn (1966). By this definition they refer to “behavior that cannot be prescribed or required in advance for a given job.” In 1983 the authors Bateman and Organ have changed this term into “citizenship behaviors” because they found this a better term for these kind of behaviors. According to Bateman and Organ (1983) behaviors that were not prescribed or required in advance for a given job were helping co-workers with a job related problem; tolerating temporary impositions without complaining; making timely and constructive statements; promoting a work climate that is tolerable and minimizes the distractions created by interpersonal conflict; protecting and conserving organizational resources and helping to keep the work floor clean.

Later Organ introduced the term OCB and defined this as “performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place” (Organ, 1997 as cited in Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff and Blume, 2009). In more recent work the term OCB is described as “voluntary behaviors that transcend an employee’s specified role requirements and are not formally rewarded by the organization (Organ, Podsakoff and McKenzie, 2006). These different terms that are used to describe OCB all have in common that they describe work behavior that should lead to organizational performance and behaviors that are separate from in-role behaviors also described as extra-role behaviors. Although more recent research has indicated

(12)

12 that OCB is viewed as an aspect of in-role behaviors (Nahum-Shani and Somech, 2011).

The background of OCB can be referred to the “active citizenship syndrome” described by Inkeles (1969 as cited in Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch, 1994). The “active citizenship syndrome” consists of three categories where citizens are responsible for being associated with several beliefs and behaviors. These three categories, associated beliefs and behaviors are Obedience, which involves “respect for orderly structures and processes”. Obedient citizens are responsible citizens that obey the law and respect “rational-legal” authority. The second category of the “active citizenship syndrome” is Loyalty, which means “serving the interest of the community as a whole and values that it embodies”. Behaviors associated with Loyalty are promoting and protecting the community and voluntarily make extra effort for the common good. The third category is Participation, which contains “active and responsible involvement in community self-governance in whatever ways are possible under the law.” Citizens that participate behave responsible and keep themselves well-informed, exchange information and ideas with other citizens and make a contribution to the well-being of the community and encourage other citizens to participate (Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch, 1994).

Thus, the origin of OCB lies in the political philosophy. Graham (1991 as cited in Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch 1994) has translated this political philosophy of the “active citizenship syndrome” to organizational settings. The categories Obedience, Loyalty and Participation are translated to organizational settings whereby obedience reflects to employees that accept the need for rules and regulations. Employees that are loyal can identify themselves with the

(13)

13 organization which reflects in behaviors such as defending the organization against threats and cooperating with others and to serve the interest of the whole. Employees that participate keep themselves informed, take their responsibility and are involved in organizational governance.

OCB is also described as the “good soldier syndrome” (Organ, 1988). Organ (1988) identified five types of behaviors as the dimensions of OCB also known as the five-factor OCB model. This five type of behaviors are altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Altruism can be described as discretionary behavior that leads to helping others with an organizational relevant task or problem; conscientiousness is discretionary behavior that goes beyond the in-role requirements in the areas of attendance and taking breaks and accepting and adhering to the rules, regulations, and procedures of the organization; sportsmanship is the willingness of an employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining and making problems seem bigger than they really are; courtesy is behavior that is aimed at preventing work-related problems with others in the organization; civic virtue is behavior that indicates that an employee participates, takes responsibility, and is involved in the organization as a whole.

LePine and VanDyne (1998) have added an extra type of extra-role behavior knowing voice behavior. LePine and Van Dyne (1998) defined voice behavior as behavior that is not specified in normal job description and emphasizes on “speaking out and challenging the status quo” with the intent to improve rather than to criticize the situation. Employees with voice behavior initiate communication with superiors. Examples of voice behavior are giving cost-saving suggestions or telling that there are problems (Withey and Cooper,

(14)

14 1989). According to Organ (1988) voice is considered the most risky and costly type of OCB. This is because when employees speak out they risk being seen as troublemakers who criticize the organization and disrupt the status quo.

Most research on OCB has focussed primarily on individual factors such as attitudinal and personality characteristics of an employee that predict an effect on OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Farh, Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Konovsky and Organ, 1995). There has been less attention to contextual factors of the organization and what their effects are on OCB. This study aims to test the relationship between contextual factors with OCB. One of these contextual factors is the organizational culture.

Culture and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational culture is a complex phenomenon. Schein’s (1984) defines organizational culture as “the patterns of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to problems”.

There are three fundamental levels to analyse an organizational culture. These different levels are visible artifacts, values and assumptions (Schein, 1990). Visible artifacts refers to that which you can observe in an organization such as how the organization is constructed, office layout, and the way employees dress. Visible artifacts can be described as behaviors that are observable but does not explain the underlying logic why a group behaves like it does. The level of why employees behave like they do are the values that direct

(15)

15 these behaviors. Values are difficult to observe and represent the espoused values of an organizational culture. These values determine the decisions and behaviors of employees (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis and Shook, 2009). The third level, assumptions, gives an explanation of these values and behaviors. These underlying assumptions are the unconscious of employees and define how employees perceive, think, and feel. Assumptions arise by experiences of employees on how problems are solved and which behavior is appropriate to solve these problems. These assumptions manifest themselves in values (Schein, 1984, 1991).

There are different types of organizational cultures. Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) developed a multidimensional framework to assess organizational cultures. This competing values framework provides an overview of different types of organizational cultures by focusing on two dimensions. These dimensions describe how an organization is structured in terms of flexibility and control and if the organizational has an internal or external focus. This research focuses on how an organization is structured to appoint organizational culture. The dimension structure conceptualizes the differences in organizational cultures in terms of employee behaviors ranging from striving for consistent patterns of behaviors to allowing employees to dictate their own behaviors (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983).

Organizational cultures with consistent patterns of behaviors can be defined as a rules oriented or hierarchical culture (Van Muijen, Koopman and De Witte, 1996; Gregory et al., 2009). A hierarchical culture focus on internal control and its characteristics are uniformity and coordination of internal efficiency. Employee behaviors are guided by strict guidelines (Gregory et al.,

(16)

16 2009). The characteristics of a rules oriented culture are respect for authority, rationality of procedures, and division of work. Organizations with a rules oriented culture have a hierarchical structure and communication is often formal and written. Decisions are made top-down and power is based on formal authority (Van Muijen et al., 1999). A hierarchical or rules oriented culture can be compared to a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracy can be defined as an organizational structure that is characterized by regulated procedures and policies, hierarchy, divisions of responsibility and impersonal relationships. Employees in a bureaucratic organization are exposed to high levels of rules and regulations. Stamper and Dyne (2001) found in their research that employees in a less bureaucratic organization showed stronger OCB than employees in a more bureaucratic organization. Their explanation for this effect is that organizations in a more bureaucratic organization do not support or reward OCB in contrast with less bureaucratic organizations.

To build further on this relationship between bureaucratic organizations and OCB employees who perceive their culture as hierarchical or rules oriented will show less OCB because their behavior should fit within a culture with consistent patterns of behavior so there will be little room for discretionary behavior (Gregory et al., 2009). Employees who perceive their culture as hierarchical or rules oriented do their work according to the rules, regulations, and procedures that are written down. Elements of a hierarchical or rules oriented culture can lead to dysfunctional outcomes (Balthazard, Cooke and Potter, 2006). Employees who do their work within a framework of rules and procedures will not do their work differently which can be necessary in a certain situation. The consequence of not adjusting to the situation can have

(17)

17 dysfunctional outcomes for the organization. A hierarchical or rules oriented culture could limit employees to show behavior that is not included in their formal job description such as OCB.

The culture of an organization that allows its employees to dictate their own behavior can be defined as a supportive oriented or a constructive culture (Van Muijen et al., 1996; Balthazard, Cooke and Potter, 2006). The characteristics of a supportive oriented culture are participation, cooperation, people-based, mutual trust, team spirit, and individual growth. Communication is often verbal and informal. The style of leadership is people oriented and employees are encouraged to express ideas about their work and feelings about each other. The commitment of the individual towards work and the organization are emphasized (Van Muijen et al., 1999). A constructive culture can be characterized by strong norms that promote cooperative behaviors and is achievement oriented which affects satisfaction and commitment of employees (Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. and Potter, R.E. (2006). It can be stated that a constructive culture promotes positive behaviors such as OCB.

As stated above organizational cultures that promote positive behaviors can be defined as a constructive or supportive oriented culture. Balthazard, Cooke and Potter (2006) found in their research that when an organization holds constructive norms employees show achievement-oriented and cooperative behaviors because they are more satisfied and motivated. This is related to OCB because Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff and Blume (2009) argued that satisfaction and motivation are indicators of OCB which means that satisfied and motivated people are more likely to show OCB than people that are not. Employees develop more positive behaviors in an organization where the culture

(18)

18 provides positive expectancies about how employees should behave (Gregory et al., 2009) and thus are more willing to go beyond the formal job description. Supportive oriented cultures allow their employees to dictate their own behaviors (Gregory et al., 2009) and employees are encouraged to express ideas about their work (Van Muijen et al., 1999). Employees that experience their organizational culture as supportive oriented or constructive will have the feeling that their organization supports and rewards them to show extra-role behavior

Employees behaviors are influenced by how they perceive the organizational culture (Schein, 1984). Based on the perceived organizational culture, hierarchical or constructive, employees behave in ways that are consistent with the type of organizational culture. Thus, the perceived type of organizational culture has an influence on the willingness of an employee to show OCB. Therefore the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between a hierarchical

culture and organizational citizenship behavior.

Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive relationship between a constructive

culture and organizational citizenship behavior.

The expectation is that the organizational culture perceived by an employee has a relationship with OCB. Another important antecedent of OCB is the type of leadership style evaluated by subordinates.

Leadership style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The leadership styles used in this study as antecedents of OCB are transformational and transactional leadership. The reason that these two

(19)

19 leadership styles are tested is because these types desire different behaviors of their subordinates. Where a transactional leader asks in-role behaviors to perform a task, a transformational leader stimulates extra-role behaviors (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985). Burns (1978) defined transforming leadership as “a leader that engages others in a way that the leader and follower raise one another to a higher level of motivation and morality.” Burns (1978) distinguishes transactional leaders from transforming leaders because according to him a transactional leader initiates contact with subordinates in an effort to exchange valued outcomes which can be economic, psychological or political also known as the cost-benefit exchange.

Transactional leaders engage in a transaction with their subordinates. An effective transactional leader rewards subordinates for good performance and punishes them for poor performance (Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders can be characterized as leaders who have a preference for avoiding risks and operate within the existing culture. For transactional leaders, efficiency and time constraints are important and they are focused on the process when maintaining control (Bass, 1985 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Transactional leadership has three dimensions: contingent reward, management by exception-active and management by exception-passive (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Contingent reward is when the leader sets up the exchange with subordinates. The leader communicates the expectations and establishes the rewards for meeting these expectations or consequences if they are not met. The dimension management by exception can be described as letting subordinates do their jobs as always as long as the transaction is met (Bass, Avolio and Goodheim, 1987) and the degree to which the leader takes corrective action when the

(20)

20 transaction is not met (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). A distinction can be made between active and passive management by exception. According to Howell and Avolio (1993) active transactional leaders take corrective actions in order to prevent undesirable behaviors by monitoring the behavior of subordinates and anticipate problems. As opposed to active management by exception passive transactional leaders wait with taking actions until behavior of subordinates have caused problems. Passive management by exception is not included in this study because this dimension has some resemblance to laissez-faire leadership which represents the absence of any leadership (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

In contrast, transformational leaders go beyond the cost-benefit exchange by motivating and inspiring followers to perform better and to give more of themselves than only what the leader asks of them (Bass, 1985). A transformational leader is a leader with whom followers want to identify with, want to share a vision with and where one is willing to commit themselves not only for self-interest (Hater and Bass, 1988). The characteristics of transformational leaders are that they take risks in seeking opportunities, approach work in a new way, have a preference for effective rather than efficient solutions and do not support the status quo (Lowe, Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Another characteristic of a transformational leader is that this type of leader does not solely respond to environmental circumstances. Instead they shape and create the environment (Avolio and Bass, 1988 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Transformational leadership has four dimensions, which are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1999). Idealized influence (also known as

(21)

21 charisma) is the degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways such as instilling pride to its subordinates, behaving respectfully and keeping faith. By this behavior subordinates want to identify with the leader. Transformational leaders articulate a vision and with this vision they inspire and motivate their subordinates also known as inspirational motivation. Leaders with inspirational motivation are optimistic about future goals and challenge subordinates to have higher standards to achieve these goals. The dimension intellectual stimulation is the degree to which the leader stimulates and encourages their subordinates to think in new ways of doing their job by taking risks, challenging assumptions and encourage subordinates to come with ideas. Individualized consideration is when the leader behaves in a way that each subordinates needs and concerns are respected. The leader acts as a mentor or coach and stimulates learning experiences (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Transformational and transactional leaders have different characteristics and relationships with their subordinates. Whereas a transformational leader wants empowerment of subordinates and provides a new strategy or vision to do the job the transactional leader wants dependence of subordinates and jobs are done in “the right way” like they always are done (Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Even though the leadership styles differ from each other both leadership styles have goals and objectives which must be achieved. Therefore transformational and transactional leadership are complementary, that is transformational leadership is ineffective in the absence of transactional leadership. (Bass, Avolio and Goodheim, 1987).

The type of leadership style affects the behavior of employees in a certain direction. Transformational leaders affect positive behaviors by transforming

(22)

22 basic values, beliefs, and attitudes (Jung and Avolio, 1999). Employees who experience their leader as transformational are more willing to go beyond what is expected of them and therefore are more likely to show OCB (Jung and Avolio, 1999). Whereas a transactional leaders affect the behavior primarily through conditional reward-based exchange (Nahum-Shani and Somech, 2011). Transactional leaders are focused on setting goals and clarifying the link between performance and rewards. Behaviors need to be quantitatively measured so they can be accurately rewarded and therefore transactional leaders are less likely to have influence on OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001).

As suggested there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. Babcock and Strickland, 2010 found a direct link between transformational leadership and OCB where others found an indirect link with trust as a mediating mechanism (Podsakoff et al., 1990). An explanation given by Walumbwa et al. 2010 about the positive relationship is that leaders with transformational behaviors act in the best interest of their employees by developing their skills, knowledge and abilities and they express genuine care and concern. With this behavior they create a social context were employees reciprocate in extra-role behavior. Den Hartog, De Hoogh and Keegan (2007) confirm these findings as the results of their research shown that employees shown more OCB when they perceive there leader as charismatic.

As opposed to transformational leader as antecedent of OCB, research has found different results regarding the relationship between transactional leadership and OCB. Walumbwa, Wu, and Orwa (2008) found in their research that the dimension contingent reward had a positive effect on the behavior of employees. Their explanation of this positive relationship between transactional

(23)

23 leadership and OCB is that transactional leaders contingent rewards both on task performance and OCB. Also when employees experience that they are been rewarded fairly, they will be more willing to show OCB. Other research has found no significant relationship between the dimensions of transactional leadership and OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001). Because of the contradicting research findings it is of interest to examine whether this study finds a relationship with the antecedent transactional leadership and OCB.

The type of leadership style affects the behavior of employees in a certain direction. OCB is more likely to be promoted by transformational leaders who can motivate employees to show behavior that goes beyond their formal job description. Because OCB is not directly recognized and rewarded by the formal appraisal system, OCB is less likely to be promoted by transactional leaders. Employees that see their leaders as transactional think they are only rewarded for accomplishing the task and in-role behaviors. Therefore it is possible that employees do not see the need to show extra-role behaviors because they are not rewarded and motivated to show these behaviors.

Thus, the type of leadership style has influence on the willingness of an employee to show OCB. Therefore the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive relationship between transformational

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.

Hypothesis 4: There will be a negative relationship between transactional

(24)

24

Engagement

Given that the above mentioned antecedents have a positive or negative relationship with OCB it is being proposed that engagement will be a mediating mechanism between these relationships. That is, engagement has an important role in explaining the relationship between a hierarchical-, a constructive culture and transformational-, and transactional leadership with OCB.

Employees are engaged when they are psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizational role (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010). Personal engagement is originally defined by Kahn (1990), who has developed a theoretical framework that illustrates how psychological experiences of work and work contexts shape the processes of people presenting and absenting themselves during task performances in an organizational role. Kahn (1990) defined personal engagement as the “simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performances”. Personal engagement refers to the degree that people are themselves, psychically, cognitively, and emotionally, when performing their work.

According to Kahn (1990) there are three psychological conditions that affect employees to personally engage in their work. These three psychological conditions are psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability. Employees experience psychological meaningfulness when they feel worthwhile, useful, and valuable as though they make a difference and are not been taken for granted. Psychological safety is when employees feel that they can be themselves without the fear of negative

(25)

25 consequences to their self-image, career or status. And the third psychological availability is the individual’s readiness to personally engage at a particular moment. Employees that have psychological availability have the physical, emotional or psychological resource to put their physical, cognitive and emotional energies into their work and therefore they tend to exhibit higher engagement in their work role. The three psychological conditions stated by Kahn (1990) that affect employees to engage in their work have an influence on OCB. This study argues that the psychological conditions meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability affect the six dimensions of OCB (altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue, and voice).

For example when employees experience that they are meaningful to the organization they more likely will tolerate less than ideal circumstance (sportsmanship). Also, employees that have the feeling that they are worthwhile and useful will participate and take their responsibilities because they have the feeling that their participation and involvement is valuable to the organization and can make a difference (civic virtue behavior). Another dimension of OCB that will be affected by psychological meaningfulness is voice behavior. When employees experience that they are not been taken for granted they probably will speak out and challenge the status quo because they feel that their voice matters and can make a difference. Employees that experience psychological safety are also more likely to initiate communication with superiors themselves and do suggestions to improve the organization. In safe environments employees may feel that they can be themselves and can speak out without the fear of negative consequence for their self-image, career or status.

(26)

26 Psychological meaningfulness has an influence on the OCB of employees because when employees put their psychical, cognitive, and emotional energies into their work they get a sense of energetic and effective connection with their work and will show organizationally valued behaviors which contributes to accomplishing organizational goals (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and Bakker, 2002). When employees experience this energetic and effective connection to their work they see themselves able to deal completely with the demands of their job and will accept and adhere to the rules, regulations, and procedures of the organization (conscientiousness). Employees that invest in their psychical, cognitive, and emotional energy will prevent work related problems with co-workers (courtesy) and are more focused on discretionary behaviors that leads to helping others with an organizational relevant task or problem (altruism).

As summarized employees that are engaged in their work put their psychical, cognitive, and emotional energies into their work to pursuit organizational goals. Employees that invest in their psychical, cognitive and emotional energy are more likely to show behaviors that go beyond the in-role behaviors such as working harder, taking no extra breaks or helping others. This is confirmed by Babcock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) that found in their research that job engagement was significantly positively related to OCB. Other research also found a positive relationship between job engagement and OCB (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010) and their explanation for this positive relation is that employees that are engaged in their work invest in themselves and are more willing to go the extra mile and engage in acts that constitute OCB.

(27)

27 Thus, employees that are engaged in their work have physical, emotional, and cognitive energies to invest in themselves and others while performing their work and this has an effect on their extra-role behaviors. Therefore the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 5: There will be a positive relationship between engagement and

organizational citizenship behavior.

One of the antecedents in this study that predicts a relationship with OCB is the organizational culture where a distinction is made between a hierarchical and constructive culture. Engagement is a mediating mechanism in the predicted negative relationship between a hierarchical culture and OCB because employees that experience the organizational culture as hierarchical will be less engaged with the consequence that they will show less OCB.

Engagement is about being your preferred self in task behaviors, which promotes connections to others, personal presence, and active, full role performance (Kahn, 1990). In an organization where the culture is hierarchical it is expected of employees that they behave in consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines (Gregory et al., 2009). Communication is formal and written down and decisions are made top-down (Van Muijen et al., 1999). When employees need to behave in consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines they can have the feeling that they are bounded by these imposed behaviors and they may experience that they cannot be their preferred self in task behaviors because they fear that this has consequences for their career, self-image, or status. When employees cannot be their self in task behaviors this will have a negative effect on the psychological safety of employees which is a condition for employees to engage in their work (Kahn, 1990).

(28)

28 When employees experience the organizational culture as hierarchical they can have the feeling that they cannot make a difference because tasks are done uniformly according to rules, regulations and procedures that are written down. When employees do not have the feeling they can make a difference this will have a negative effect on their psychological meaningfulness which is also a condition that affect employees to engage in their work (Kahn, 1990).

Job enrichment also affects the psychological meaningfulness of employees (May, Gilson, and Harter, 2004; Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, and Fuller, 2001; Saks, 2006). An enriched job has variety, identity, autonomy, and feedback (Niehoff et al., 2001). In a hierarchical culture employees can experience that their work has no variety and autonomy because tasks are done according to rules, regulations, and procedures that are written down so there is no opportunity to make important contributions on how things are getting done. Employees that experience their organizational culture as hierarchical may have the feeling that their jobs are not enriched and this has a negative effect on their psychological meaningfulness which ultimately affects their engagement in their work.

Another reason why a hierarchical culture has a negative relationship with engagement of employees is the way how decisions are made. In a hierarchical culture decisions are made top down (Van Muijen et al., 1999). Employees do not participate in decisions that are made within the organization and this can give employees the feeling that their voice is not useful or worth it. When employees have the feeling that they are not useful or worth it they will experience less or no psychological meaningfulness and therefore are less likely to engage in their work (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Saks, 2006).

(29)

29 Thus, the characteristics of a hierarchical culture do not stimulate the psychological meaningfulness and psychological safety of employees which are conditions for employees to engage in their work. Therefore the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 6a: Engagement mediates the relationship between a hierarchical

culture and organizational citizenship behavior.

In contrast to a hierarchical culture where it is expected of employees that they behave in consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines, in a constructive culture employees are allowed to dictate their own behavior (Van Muijen, Koopmand and De Witte, 1996). When employees are allowed to dictate their own behavior during task performances they can be themselves, psychically, cognitively, and emotionally when performing their work. Therefore in a constructive culture employees will more likely personally engage in their work.

When employees experience the organizational culture as constructive they have the feeling that they have the support of the organization and their co-workers to participate without the fear of negative consequences for their self-image, career, or status. When employees experience that they are allowed to participate and dictate their own behavior they can get the feeling that they are valuable and useful to the organization and can make a difference with their behavior. Therefore a constructive culture has a positive effect on the psychological meaningfulness of employees which affects employees to engage in their work.

Employees feel save in organizations that are characterized by supportiveness (Saks, 2006). A characteristic of a constructive culture is that employees feel that they are supported by the organization and their co-workers. In a culture where employees experience supportiveness, employees have the feeling that they are allowed to experiment and try new things without the fear of negative consequences for their

(30)

self-30 image, career, or status. Also, in a constructive culture relationships with co-workers are based on mutual trust. Supportive and trusting interpersonal relationships promote the psychological safety of employees (Saks, 2006). When employees experience their organizational culture as constructive they are more likely to experience psychological safety and this has a positive effect on their engagement.

Employees that are engaged in their work are motivated to invest in their physical, cognitive, and emotional energy when they believe to have control over what happens to them, when they feel they can trust others in the organization, and when they can decide to how to do their work (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, 2010). In a constructive culture employees can dictate their own behavior when performing a task. Employees have control over their own career because in a constructive culture there is room for individual growth. And interpersonal relationships are based on mutual trust. Therefore employees that experience their organizational culture as constructive will have the physical, emotional, and psychological resources to put their physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into their work and exhibit higher engagement in their work.

The perception of an employee of what the organizational culture is like reflects the cognitive framework (Sparrow and Gaston, 1996). An organizational culture that provides behavioral expectancies related to a positive culture will give employees the support and cognitive framework that is necessary to develop positive attitudes (Gregory et al., 2009). When employees see their organization as constructive they experience psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability and therefore they exhibit higher engagement in their work.

Hypothesis 6b: Engagement mediates the relationship between a constructive culture and organizational citizenship behavior.

(31)

31 Besides the organizational culture the type of leadership style has a relationship with OCB. The types of leadership styles that are examined are transformational and transactional leadership. Expected is that engagement mediates in the relationships between transactional and transformational leadership and OCB. Employees will be engaged in their work when there is a social system where they feel safe. The relationship between the leader and employee supports this social system (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010). The leader should affect their followers by providing the tools and motivate them to accomplish goals (Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010). Therefore, the type of leadership style has an important impact on the social system and engagement of employees.

When employees see their leader as transformational they will be more likely to engage in their work and this will have a positive effect on their OCB. Transforming leaders engages employees to raise to a higher level of motivation (Burns, 1978). They motivate and inspire employees to perform better and to give more of themselves than only what the leader asks them (Bass, 1985). When employees are challenged they invest in themselves and are likely to feel more confident when a task is completed successfully. Transformational leaders challenges employees to higher standards to achieve goals which increases their self-confidence and therefore they will experience higher levels of engagement (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, 2010). When employees are confident they appraise tasks more positively and have greater ability to cope with the demands of a task effectively, and therefore have more resources available to invest in the performance of their work (Judge and Hurst, 2007). Transformational leaders increase the confidence of employees so employees are more likely to perceive a higher level of psychological availability. When employees have psychological availability they have the psychical, emotional,

(32)

32 and psychological resources to put their physical, cognitive, and emotional energy into their work and therefore exhibit higher engagement in their work role.

Transformational leaders also stimulate the psychological meaningfulness of employees which is a condition for employees to engage in their work. They do this by stimulating and encouraging employees to think in new ways of doing their job by taking risks, challenging assumptions, and encourage subordinates to come with new ideas (Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1999). When employees experience their leader as transformational they may have the feeling that their ideas and input of doing their job in new ways are worthwhile, useful, and valuable. They have the feeling that they are respected and they are inspired to make a difference.

The support of supervisors promotes the psychological safety of employees which affect their engagement (May et al., 2004; Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006). When employees experience their leader as transformational they will have the feeling that they are supported in trying new things and will take risks without the fear that this will have consequences for their career, status or self-image. Transformational leaders create supportive environments and they act as a mentor and coach and stimulate learning experiences (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Employees experience psychological safety in supportive environments which are created by transformational leaders.

Thus, transformational leaders have a positive effect on the psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability of employees which are conditions for employees to engage in their work. Therefore the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 6c: Engagement mediates the relationship between transformational

(33)

33 Where a transformational leader has a positive effect on engagement a transactional leader has a negative effect on engagement of employees. Transactional leaders reward subordinates for good performance and punish them for poor performance (Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders are focused on the process when maintaining control (Bass, 1985 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam, 1996). These characteristics of a transactional leader can give employees the feeling that the leader wants to have control over how work is done and that employees have no control over their job and job control is associated with disengagement of employees (Shaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

The relationship between subordinates and a transactional leader is about meeting expectations and establishing rewards for meeting these expectations (Bass, Avolio, and Goodheim, 1987). Employees can experience that when a leader initiates contact with them in an effort to only exchange valued outcomes that they cannot make a difference and that their opinion about how work is done is not valued so employees do not have the feeling that they are worthwhile. The job should be done as always and according to the process. When employees are not allowed to perform their jobs how they want to, they less likely will experience that they can be themselves. Transactional leaders do not stimulate the feeling of psychological meaningfulness because they are focused on meeting the transaction and less on employee’s feelings of being worth it. Work should be done according to their expectations which can give employees the feeling that they cannot make a difference and that they are taken for granted.

Transactional leaders reward subordinates for good performance and punish them for poor performance (Bass, 1990). When employees do not meet the expectations of their leader they are punished. So when employees perform poorly

(34)

34 they are punished which can give them the feeling of not being safe. Transactional leaders can promote a unsafe environment by punishing poor performance which has a negative effect on the psychological safety of employees. Punishing employees for poor performance can have a negative effect on their self-confidence while performing a task. When employees have low confidence they may have difficulty to perform a task because they do not experience that they have the emotional or psychological resources available to invest in their work (Judge and Hurst, 2007). The consequence of not having the emotional or psychological resources to put physical, emotional and cognitive energies into work is that employees tend to be less engaged in their work role.

Based on the characteristics of a transactional leader a transactional leader does not stimulate the psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability of employees. Therefore employees that experience their leader as transactional tend to be less engaged in their work.

Hypothesis 6d: Engagement mediates the relationship between transactional

(35)

35

Research Design

Organizational context

This study is conducted at a local bank established in Amsterdam. The main reason that this local bank fits this study is of the organizational context. Financial institutions such as banks are required to comply with the legal regulations within the Act of Financial Supervision. The Dutch Central Bank (DNB) and Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) conduct supervision on the financial sector and review how thee banks comply to these external regulations.

Employees need to do their work according to imposed rules and regulations so employees may view the organizational culture as hierarchical. In contrast of the hierarchical culture the antecedent constructive culture will be tested. Recently the organizational culture of this organization is discussed by their supervisor DNB and has obligated this local bank to change its culture. This local bank is in search of which culture will fit the organization. This local bank wants to have a culture that complies with the characteristics of a constructive culture although they have to consider the rules and regulations that are imposed. A culture that should fit the organization is a culture that increases the extra-role behavior of employees but also work has to be done according to imposed rules and regulations.

This organization fits this study because of its organizational culture. Some employees experience the organizational culture as hierarchical where other employees experience that the culture is changed in a more constructive culture. This explanatory research examines the relationship between a hierarchical culture, a constructive culture, transformational and transactional leadership with OCB. This study is cross-sectional.

(36)

36

Participants and procedure

This bank has 631,2 FTE working of which 72% of the workforce work fulltime. The workforce consists of 47% men and 53% women. Data were collected using a survey. A self-completed questionnaire was send to the respondents using the program Questback. Participants received an e-mail which explained the purpose of the study and indicated that the study is voluntary and anonymous. In the e-mail (see appendix 1) a hyperlink lead the participant to the questionnaire.

The survey (see appendix 2) was distributed among all employees (N=717) working in this organization. The survey was distributed among all business units (retail, business advice, private banking, wholesale and business management) because this ruled out the possibility that results might be unique to a particular business unit and this supports generalization to the organization. For the current study 164 complete surveys were obtained and these responses are used to conduct the analyses. The average age of the respondents is 40 years and 43,4% were employed by the organization for less than 5 years. Women made up for 51% of the sample and 51% had at least a higher education degree. From the respondents 87% worked fulltime and 65% worked less than one year for their current supervisor.

Measures

Each variable was measured by using different developed scales. To measure OCB the five-factor, OCB scale developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) was used. These five-factor scale includes the five types of OCB identified by Organ (1988). These five types of behaviors are Altruism,

(37)

37 Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy and Civic Virtue. To make an addition to existing research a sixth type of behavior was added to the five-factor scale which is Voice Behavior. To measure Voice Behavior additional questions were added to the five-factor scale. These questions are based on the 6-item scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). OCB is measured on the individual level by the respondent themselves using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

Transformational leadership behavior is measured using the 6-factor scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990). This model measures six key behaviors that are associated with transformational leadership. These six behaviors are identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, providing individual support and intellectual stimulation. The respondents are asked to evaluate their supervisor/manager on transformational behavior using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

The contingent reward behavior scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1984) is used to measure this factor of transactional leadership behavior. This scale consist of five items that capture the behaviors that are fundamental to a transactional leader which are providing rewards in exchange for an employee’s effort. To measure the dimension management-by-expectation the Multifactor Questionnaire was used (Avolio, Bass, Jung, 1999). The respondents are asked to evaluate their supervisor/manager on transactional behavior using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

Work engagement is measured using the 9-factor version of the Utrecht Work Engagement scale (UWES-9) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). The UWES

(38)

9-38 factor scale is recommend by other researchers because of its validity (Seppällä et al. 2009). The UWES-9 measures the three underlying dimensions of work engagement Vigor, Dedication and Absorption. Work engagement is measured at the individual level of the employee using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from (1) never to (7) always.

To measure constructive and hierarchical culture two scales were used from the FOCUS questionnaire, developed by Van Muijen et al. (1999). The FOCUS questionnaire is developed by researchers from twelve different countries. This questionnaire is based on Quinn’s (1988) competing values model. The FOCUS questionnaire describes four culture orientations namely support, innovation, rules and goal orientation. This study examined two of the four culture orientations. To measure constructive culture the 4-items that measure a support oriented culture were used. The 4-items that measure a rules oriented culture were used to measure a hierarchical culture.

Constructive culture is comparable with the culture orientation support. This is because a constructive culture is characterized by strong norms that promote cooperative behaviors and is achievement oriented which affects satisfaction and commitment of employees (Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. and Potter, R.E. 2006) and the culture orientation support in the FOCUS questionnaire is characterized by participation, cooperation and is based on people, mutual trust (Van Muijen et al. 1999). So the characteristics of constructive culture are comparable with the culture orientation support. The respondents are asked to answer the questions from their own perspective on the organizational culture using a 7-point Likert scale (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

(39)

39 Hierarchical culture is also measured using the FOCUS questionnaire. An organization that is characterized by rules and regulations is comparable with a culture that is focused on rules. The variable hierarchical culture is comparable with the characteristics of the culture orientation rules. In a rules orientated culture there is respect for authority, procedures are based on rationality, there is a hierarchical structure and communication is mostly top-down (Van Muijen et al. 1999). This is comparable with the characteristics of the variable hierarchical culture because procedures are imposed by the internal organization and external supervision and communication about how an employee should do their job is mostly top-down. The respondents are asked to answer the questions from their own perspective on the organizational culture (rules) using a 7-point Likert scale (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

(40)

40

Results

The data is entered in the statistical program SPSS. Items that are phrased such that an agreement with the item represents a low level of construct were recoded to assure there were no counter-indicative items. The items that measured sportsmanship in the construct OCB are counter-indicative items and therefore were recoded such that a high score represents higher OCB. In the construct transformational leadership there are two items that needed to be recoded (LEIDERis1 and LEIDERis2) and in the construct transactional leadership there are 5 items recoded (LEIDERcr5, LEIDERmbe1, LEIDERmbe2, LEIDERmbe3, and LEIDERmbe5).

The first step in analysing the data is to look for errors in the scores and missing data. This was done by analysing the frequency of the distribution. There are no errors found in the data. Some respondents have not completed the survey. The missing data range from 1 to 3 items that were not answered by a respondent, therefore the number of missing data is negligible. The missing responses are handled by excluding cases Listwise which means that only cases without any missing data in a variable are analysed.

Reliability of Constructs

To test whether the measures of the scales and items in the scales are reliable a reliability analysis was carried out on all items of the variables OCB, transformational and transactional leadership, constructive and hierarchical culture, and on engagement.

The Cronbach’s alpha of OCB is α=.852. The values of the items OCBcons1, OCBcons2, OCBcons3, and OCBcons4 in the Corrected Item-Total Correlation are < .30 which means that these items do not correlate with the

(41)

41 overall score from the scale OCB. Therefore these items are deleted from the scale. After deleting these items the Cronbach’s alpha is α= .872.

The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale transformational leadership is α= .925. The Corrected Item-Total gives a value < .30 for the items LEIDERpam1 and LEIDERhpe3. Because of the already high Cronbach’s alpha α= .925 and the content of the items these items are not deleted from the scale. The scale of transactional leadership has a Cronbach’s alpha of α= .762. After deleting the items recodeLEIDERmbe1, recodeLEIDERmbe3, and recodeLEIDERmbe4 the Cronbach’s alpha is α= .847 and all items have a Corrected Item-Total of > .30. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale hierarchical culture is α= .589. The item Culturerules4 has a Corrected Item-Total value of .137 therefore this item do not correlate with the overall score from the scale and is removed. The Cronbach’s alpha, after removing the item is α= .719 which supports deleting the item. The scales of constructive culture and engagement are > .80 respectively α= .803 and α= .856. All items in these scales have a Corrected Item-Total value > .30 so the items correlate with the scales and no items are deleted. After deleting some items in the scales all Cronbach’s alpha’s are > .70 and there can be concluded that the measures reflect the construct that it is measuring.

Descriptive statistics

The means, standard deviation, and inter correlations of the study variables are presented in table 1. Results indicate that on average respondents perceived themselves to show quite a lot of OCB (M=5,52) and that they are usually engaged in their work (M=4,74). Employees perceived the leadership style within the organization both transformational (M=4,89) as transactional (M=4,96). The respondents experience the organizational culture more

(42)

42 hierarchical (M=4,54) than constructive (M=3,80). The difference between the means is significant (p < .01).

It is worth nothing that there are weak positive correlations of OCB with the variables transactional leadership (r = .21, p < 0.01), transformational leadership (r = .28, p < 0.01), a hierarchical culture (r = .22, p < 0.01). Results indicate a moderate correlation of OCB with a constructive culture (r = .33, p < 0.01). As expected the independent variables are significant related to engagement with the exception of a hierarchical culture (r = .09). Engagement is also significant related to OCB (r = .41, p < 0.01).

Hypotheses testing

In order to test the hypotheses a multiple regression analyse was conducted. First I tested if the control variables had an influence on OCB. The reason that the control variables are tested is that previous research has indicated that age and years of experience had a significant positive effect on OCB (Murphy, Athanasou, and King, 2002). Because this study is conducted in a single organization there is also the possibility that other variables have an effect on OCB. In order to exclude that other

(43)

43 variables have an effect on OCB the control variables age, gender, years of experience, gender leader and years of having that leader were entered. This model was not significant F (5,158) = 1.77; p > .05. The control variables do not have a significant effect on OCB.

After entering the independent culture and leadership variables, the model as a whole was significant F (9,154) = 3.49; p < .001. Table 2 gives an overview of model 1. The results indicate that the antecedent’s variables explained 17% of the variance in OCB, after controlling for the control variables. Only a constructive culture has a significant effect of OCB (β = .212, p < .05). The other antecedent variables were not significant predictors of OCB. These results provide support for H2 and do not support H1, H3, and H4.

The next step is to test whether the independent variables have an indirect relationship with OCB. In order to test this I first tested if engagement had an effect on OCB. Model 2 was significant F (6,158) = 7.44; p < .01 and 22% of the variance in OCB can be explained by the control variables and engagement. Table 3 reports the

(44)

44 results of model 2. Results showed that engagement had a significant positive effect on OCB (β = .412, p < .01) and therefore H5 is supported.

Secondly, I tested if the independent variables are correlated with engagement. Model 3 was significant F (9,154) = 3.43; p < .01 after controlling for the control variables. The results of model 3 are reported in table 4. Constructive culture showed a significant positive effect on engagement (β = .307, p <.01) which supports H6b. Results indicate that a hierarchical culture, transformational and transactional leadership are not significant predictors of engagement. Based on these results H6a, H6c, and H6d are not supported.

(45)

45 In order to test whether engagement mediates in the relationship between the independent variables and OCB, an additional regression analysis was conducted. The model was significant F (10,153) = 5,491; p < .001. The antecedents and mediator explained 26,4% of the variance in OCB. The regression analyse of model 5 showed that the effect size of the constructive culture in relation to OCB decreased (Δ .103) and became insignificant when engagement was added to the regression equation. Therefore the results showed that engagement forms a mediating mechanism in the relationship between a constructive culture and OCB. The results of model 4 are presented in table 5.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

From the correlations, it can also be argued that transformational leadership is related to the two policy interventions (diverse selection teams, routes for open culture),

The differences in numbers of monocytes and T cells suggest that chronic exposure to night- shift work as well as recent night-shift work may influence the immune status of

Red light districts have become targeted by state-led gentrification through the increasing number of state investments and the strict regulations with regard to the sex

Table 5 above shows the means and medians related to CEO characteristics and CEO’s pre-resignment performances of the sample of the CEOs who provided post-resignment services (99

By formulating the strategies that a mediator can follow in order to assist discussants in their efforts to rationally resolve a deep disagreement, I demonstrated how

My central research question asks: ‘How are the Living Memorial activists trying to negotiate the meaning of the ‘Monument to the Victims of the German Invasion’ in the public

Hypothesis 6 predicted that the indirect relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, as mediated by promotion focus, was moderated by power

The results showed that all change characteristics had a significant influence on psychological uncertainty and that the frequency of change and impact of change