A Study on Leadership Styles and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
(OCB)
Institute: Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculty: Social Sciences
Program: Corporate Communications Course: Master’s thesis
Supervisor: Dr. Pernill van der Rijt Student: Zakaria Vedaei
Student-ID: 11393572 Date: 29-06-2018
Abstract
The current study investigates the significance of leadership styles for organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In particular, it examines the differences between transformational and transactional leadership with their effects on OCB. Quality of communication, believed to contribute to OCB, was tested as a mediator. The underlying principle for the hypothesized mediation is that leadership styles are highly communicative behaviors and are enacted through communication with subordinates. Therefore, quality of communication was assumed to facilitate the relationship between leadership style and subordinate behaviors. By means of a field study, 51 employees of a multinational pharma corporation in the Netherlands were polled. This paper reveals the empirical findings from the survey and its implications for the current body of literature on leadership styles and performance of organizations. The following findings were revealed. First, in the given environment of the respondents, leadership styles are indeed positively related to OCB, and such correlation is significant. Second, both leadership styles are positively related to quality of communication, and these correlations are the most significant. However, only transformational leadership was significantly related to quality of communication. Moreover, a mediation effect of quality of communication could not be supported for either leadership style. The hypothesized mediation of the effect of leadership styles on OCB through quality of communication is rejected.
Keywords: transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, transactional leadership, organisational citizenship behavior, communication quality, communication competence, organizational communication.
Introduction
Extra-role behavior of employees has been crucial in determining the performance of an organization, and has, in recent years, becoming increasingly more studied within the field of organizational behaviour. The concept of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is often used as a means to depict extra-role behaviour (Organ, Podsakoff, and McKenzie, 2006; Sun, Chow, Chiu, and Pan, 2013). According to Organ, Podsakoff and McKenzie (2006), OCB is characterized by employees actively exceeding the requirements of their roles on a voluntary basis, without being formally being compensated or remunerated by their employer for their behaviour.
The performance of an organization depends not only on the organizational structures and outcomes, but also on the input of individuals members of the organization itself. In the individual context of OCB, positive correlations have been demonstrated between an employees performance and positive outcomes, and the rewards allocated by a manager (Podsakoff, Whiting and Podsakoff, 2009). On the contrary, negative associations have been demonstrated in the context of OCB between an employees intention to resign or quit from their current workplace, the success of the organization in terms of turnover, and the degree of absence of an employee (Podsakoff et al., 2009).
When taking into account OCB on an organizational level, it has been demonstrated that positive correlations exist with factors such as productivity levels, the profits generated, how efficient an organization is and the satisfaction of customers. OCB also has an impact on social and psychological aspects within an organization, which in turn has a direct positive impact on how effectively an organization functions (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010).
Accounting for these relationships, findings out what are the drivers of one’s behaviour as well as motivations is key for the successful and efficient functioning of organizations. In addition, practical relevance of the study lies in revealing what type of
leadership style best motivates employees to engage in extra role behaviors which would ultimately result in the high performance of organizations. This is arguably the ultimate purpose of business research (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009) and it requires the proper understanding of the concept of OCB and its interconnections between job performance.
Literature Review
Previous studies conducted to examine factors influential on OCB have mainly been focusing on the relationship between attitudinal factors and personality factors and OCB (Farh, Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Konovsky and Organ, 1995). In their analysis Organ and Ryan (1995) revealed that attitudinal factors like satisfaction and commitment have an immediate positive relationship with OCB. Personality traits such as conscientiousness and agreeableness have a positive relationship with OCB as well. Organ and Ryan (1995) found evidence that personality traits affect an employee's attitude towards relationships with colleagues, to then affect whether an employee will show OCB in the context of that relationship.
Yet, it is not always possible to affect attitudinal and personality character traits of employees and it could be of wider interest to investigate other contextual factors, which could enhance OCB without the need of directly affecting intrinsic employee traits. Thus, the purpose of this study is to identify factors, other than attitudinal and personality traits that influence OCB. A large part of these ‘other factors’ are the investigation of (internal) communication.
As a matter of fact, the study of leadership as the interactive fundament of an organization directly links to the very phenomenon of communication. It was emphasized from the early beginnings of leadership studies that internal organizational communications are of essential importance in the relationship between leadership and employee behavior (Riggio, Riggio, Salinas, & Cole, 2003). The scrutiny of organizational communication leads - in multifarious ways - back to the central role of the leader. Whitworth (2011) suggests that upward, downward or lateral communication in organisations as the forms of organizational commitment are a major constituent of internal communication system, and leaders at various levels influence the effectiveness of such communications in terms of transmitting
messages to employees and communicating employees’ opinions back to top management. At the same time, supervisory communication entails the definition and coordination of action together with instructional communication that ultimately leads to enhanced quality of communication and employee engagement (Witworth, 2011).
For instance, a study conducted by Kandlousi, Ali and Abdollahi in 2010 revealed that communication satisfaction could enhance OCB. A recent study by Chan and Lai in 2017, which also focused on the link between communication satisfaction and OCB pointed to the need for enhancing communication practices to encourage extra-role behaviors. Those studies already suggest the importance of informed and competent internal communication for enhancement of OCB. Further, a study by Yildirim in 2014 showed that there is a particularly important relationship between aspects of managerial communication with OCB. Specifically, from all communication dimensions investigated only the dimension of communication with supervisors was significantly correlated with two of the five dimensions of OCB. Thus, it seems that in order to improve OCB, there is an opportunity to shift the focus from employee-intrinsic attitudinal factors to management-related factors, specifically, the communication style of managers. Therefore, this study will investigate the relationship between leadership-styles, leadership communication and OCB.
Transformational leadership describes the interpersonal aspect of this approach and is characterized by the highest degree of communicative engagement (Daft, 2003; McCartney & Campbell, 2006; de Vries et al., 2010). Transformational leaders trigger positive behavioral engagement by transformation of values, beliefs, and attitudes (Jung and Avolio, 1999). Employees who experience their leader as transformational are motivated to go beyond what is expected from them and will be more likely to exhibit OCB (Jung and Avolio, 1999). As opposed to that, transactional leaders impact subordinate behavior predominantly through conditional reward-based exchange (Northouse, 2012). They put emphasize on setting goals
and all the links between performance and rewards. Behaviors need to be measured so they can be rewarded accordingly; hence transactional leaders are less likely to have influence on OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001).
Most of existing research on transformational leadership and behavioral impact however, was limited on rhetoric skill and content of communication style of a leader (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; de Vries et al., 2010; Riggio, Riggio, Salinas & Cole, 2003). Little to no research has been done on transformational leadership with particular regards to leadership styles, its effects on quality of managerial communication and the overall impact on OCB.
The research at hand will follow the objective to contribute in closing this particular gap and is guided by the question(s) of “How does leadership style impact employees’ organizational citizenship behavior?” and the secondary research question of “Does quality of managerial communication mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB?” As a first step the direct relationship between two leadership styles and OCB shall be scrutinized. Secondly, it will be determined whether leadership styles are at all positively related to quality of communication and which one(s) in specific. As final step, the quality of managerial communication will be scrutinized as a factor facilitating the relation between leadership and OCB.
Theoretical Framework
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The term OCB was firstly described as ‘supra-role behavior’ by Katz and Kahn (1966). This description points at all behaviors that will not be prescribed or are by any means required in advance for a given job. This term was changed in 1983 to ‘citizenship behavior’ (Bateman & Organ, 1983). Bateman and Organ deemed this term more suitable for OCB since they saw in it above all the willingness to help co-workers with job related problems, tolerance – as opposed to instant complaints – and the creation of a constructive working environment that resolves conflict. Further, they stressed the behaviors that aim at protecting organizational resources.
OCB was then further referred to as ‘good soldier syndrome’ (Organ, 1988). Thereby, the author enumerates five behaviors as dimensions of OCB which amount of the five-factor OCB model. These five behaviors are specified as altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Altruism is thereby discretionary behavior implemented to helping coworkers with tasks or problems relevant for the organization; conscientiousness was understood as discretionary behavior transcends in-role requirements such as attendance, taking breaks and willingness to comply with organizational rules; sportsmanship represents an employee’s motivation to tolerate adverse circumstances without or with little complaint; courtesy entails behaviors aim at prevention of any work-related problems with other agents in an organization; finally, civic virtue implies that an employee willingly participates in organizational matters through discourse, takes responsibility and their general involvement with the organization as a whole.
Later on, Organ would continue to define OCB as a type of performance that is supportive of the social and psychological environment in which tasks are performed (Organ,
& Ryan, 1995). In more recent literature it was defined as voluntary behaviors that go beyond employee’s formal role requirements which are not formally rewarded by the organization (Organ, Podsakoff and McKenzie, 2006). The bottom line of these definitions describes a type of work behavior that should lead to positive organizational performance and exists separate from ‘in-role behaviors’ and can thus be described as ‘extra-role behaviors’. It is important to note though, that latest research indicates that OCB can also be viewed for some aspects as constitutive for in-role behaviors and the lines between both are not fully clear-cut (Nahum-Shani and Somech, 2011).
Leadership Style
The influencing variables that stand before OCB are transformational and transactional leadership. As mentioned above, previous studies highlighted the importance of managerial communication for OCB. Related to that, different communication styles are associated with different leadership style (Anit Somech, 2006). According to Burns (1978), transforming leaders are figures that engage with others in such a way that both leader and follower lift one another up to greater motivation and morality. He differentiates between transactional leaders and transformational leaders. His view stipulates that the former only makes an effort to exchange valued outcomes, being of economic, psychological or political nature, also known as the ‘cost-benefit exchange’. Transactional leaders however, focus and prioritize on efficiency and time constraints, as well as on work process while being in control (Bass, 1985).
Transactional leadership entails the following dimensions: contingent reward, management by exception-active and management by exception-passive (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Contingent reward is the explicit exchange with subordinates. The leader communicates their expectations and defines the rewards and penalties for succeeding or
failing to meet these. Management by exception is portrayed in two manners. Firstly, it consists of taking a seemingly laissez-faire attitude, for so long as all expectations are met (Bass, Avolio and Goodheim, 1987). Secondly, it is reflected in the degree to which a leader intervenes when performance is poor (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
A distinction is also made between active versus passive management by exception. Active transactional leaders intervene in order to prevent unwelcomed behaviors by monitoring subordinate’s behavior and anticipate issues (Howell & Avolio, 1993). As opposed to that, a passive transactional leader will wait with taking action until subordinate’s behaviors have already caused problems. In contrast, transformational leaders transcend a cost-benefit exchange and motivate and inspire followers towards better performance and to invest more resources into their work than what the leader formally demands of them (Bass, 1985).
A transformational leader is defined as a leader with whom followers want to identify with; share a common vision with and work with in a committed manner not only for their self-interest (Hater and Bass, 1988). What defines them further is that those leaders consider risky decisions to seize opportunities, approach work in an innovative manner and focus on effectiveness beyond efficiency with the intention of going against conventional ways - if reasonable (Lowe, Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Another property of a transformational leader is their capacity to not merely adapt to environmental circumstances but further, shaping and creating a new environment (Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Transformational leadership entails four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1999). Idealized influence is the extent to which a leader behaves in supportive acts such as arouse confidence to his/her subordinates, being respectful and support faith in the team. This behavior fosters subordinates’ will identification with the leader (Avolio, Bass and Jung,
1999). Further, they express a vision through which they inspire their subordinates and nurture their motivation. This aspect is called inspirational motivation. Leaders who practice inspirational motivation carry optimism about future goals and challenge subordinates to lift up their standards for accomplishing these goals.
The dimension of intellectual stimulation is the extent to which a supervisor stimulates his/her subordinates to approach tasks in new ways, to take risks, question current assumptions and welcomes their ideas. Finally, individualized consideration refers to the leader’s approach towards subordinate’s needs and concerns. He/she will act as a mentor to empower a team with learning through common experiences (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Even though both concepts of leadership have been treated separately, they cannot be understood as mutually exclusive. Den Hartog et al. (1997, p.20) emphasize that transformational leadership can be regarded a special case of transactional leadership, since “both approaches are linked to (...) some goal or objective”. Bass and Avolio (1990) go further to say that highly skilled leaders use both transactional and transformational leadership simultaneously. That is, they are not merely relying on either leadership style alone, but employ aspects of both leadership styles as conscious response to the given context. If there is a greater need to dictate clear tasks, rewards and punishments, they employ transactional leadership, whereas they remploy aspects of transformational leadership if there is a need to create a higher sense of identification with organizational values in their employees.
Bass (1997) describes a positive development of leadership in beginning with leader-subordinate exchange in a transactional way that evolves in additional transformational aspects on top of a transactional basis. This insight will not make a difference for measurement of both constructs as they are still distinct from one another, but it will
nonetheless be considered in the understanding of the data to be analysed and the recommendations to be derived from it.
Leadership Styles and OCB
According to Podsakoff et al. (1990) transactional leadership can be described as a process of constant exchange, in which the leader gives out rewards to his subordinates for their effort and performance (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Transformational leadership, however, is characterized by motivating followers to exceed set expectations by appealing to their higher order needs (Pillai et al., 1999). As such, a climate of trust is created, which causes subordinates to perform beyond self-interest for the organization’s sake (Pillai et al., 1999).
Hence, there has been indication for a positive correlation between transformational leadership and OCB already since the early beginnings of these concepts. However, no direct relationship was found, but only indirect positive relationships between transformational leadership and OCB were revealed in several studies. These studies - as opposed to the present research - focussed on the idea that charismatic leadership fosters OCB based on the presence of intrinsic factors, i.e. dispositions that are inherent to the follower of respective leader. Babock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) found that ‘work-engagement’ is one intrinsic and mediating variable that facilitates the relationship. In this particular study it was attempted to build upon earlier studies that had investigated on the link between charismatic leadership and OCB with ‘intrinsic motivation’ as mediating factor, such as done by Avolio and colleagues (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).
Another indirect relationship between transformational leadership and OCB was discovered via ‘followers’ trust in the leader’ as facilitating variable (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The study by Podsakoff and colleagues was the first investigation that aimed at proving the (indirect) link between charismatic leadership and OCB with focus on factors that are
inherent to the employee. It was to build the foundation for more recent studies to follow, which all focused on these intrinsic factors, just like aforementioned research on leadership and OCB via ‘ intrinsic motivation’ and ‘work engagement’.
The underlying idea for transformational leadership to impact OCB via intrinsic factors was the theory that charismatic leadership behaviors work in the best interest of a follower because it supports their development and comfort (Walumbwa, Hartnelln, & Oke, 2010). Due to that, an environment is created that motivates employees to reciprocate this concession with extra-role behavior. This finding is further corroborated by a study by Den Hartog, De Hoogh and Keegan (2007), which shows that employees, who perceive their leader as charismatic show more OCB.
However, some research on transactional leadership and OCB further shows indication for a positive relationship between one transactional leadership dimension (i.e. contingent reward) and OCB. Research performed by Walumbwa, Wu and Orwa (2008) demonstrated a positive effect of contingent reward on employee’s behavior. This positive trend between transactional leadership and OCB was explained by the fact that transactional leaders not only reward task performance but OCB as well. Further, employees would be more willing to show OCB when employees perceive that they are rewarded in a fair manner. However, other research by MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich (2001) on OCB among salespeople found no significant relationship between TAL and OCB. They argued that this relationship turned out insignificant in their studies due to a lack of trust between the salespeople and their managers, which is an important prerequisite for OCB. The authors argue that this lack of trust on the salespeople’s side is caused by transactional leadership, and it is possible that a salesperson whose manager constantly demands high performances could develop distrust if the manager fails to express any confidence in his or her employee’s ability to achieve those expectations.
This somewhat conflicting information raises the demand for further studies on this relationship. In order to solve the conflicting information from different studies, the relationship between transactional leadership and OCB will be investigated. In line with the reasoning of MacKenzie et al., it will be argued that subordinates who are poorly transformationally led will show less OCB: Leadership influences employees’ behavior in a specific direction. OCB seems more likely to be promoted by transformational leaders who by definition motivate employees and increase engagement beyond their formal job description. Since OCB is usually not acknowledged and rewarded by the formal structure, OCB is not very likely to be encouraged by transactional leaders. Employees who perceive leaders as transactional might assume they will only obtain rewards for completing tasks within in-role behaviors.
Therefore, it seems logical that employees do not feel a necessity to perform extra-role behaviors knowing they are neither rewarded nor do they feel inspired to practice OCB. Based on the discussion above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
➔ H1: Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’ organizational
citizenship behavior.
➔ H2: Transactional leadership is negatively related to organizational citizenship
behavior.
Quality of Communication
The study of leadership as the interactive fundament of an organization directly links to the very phenomenon of communication. According to communication competence research by Harris and Cronen (1979) the competency of individuals should not only be characterized by effectivity alone but also by the very appropriateness of their communication. Accordingly, the concept of communication competence was conceptualized
by Spitzberg (1983) to contain the elements of knowledge, motivation, skill, behavior, and effectiveness. Spitzberg and Cupach (1981) stated that competent interaction a form of interpersonal influence, in which an individual is faced with the task of fulfilling communicative functions and goals (effectiveness) while respecting conversational and interpersonal norms (appropriateness). Further, as Cushman and Craig argued (1976), communicator competence should entail the individual’s ability to display competencies such as negotiating and mere listening.
A more recent study by Salacuse (2007) indicated that leaders today need to lead more by negotiating with their employees compared to earlier generations as the latter have become more educated and intelligent over the years. Thus, in order for leaders to be persuasive with their vision and communicate it effectively, they have to appeal to their followers’ interests. Stohl (1984) mentions communicative tools such as language use, gestures and voice to be employed by competent communicators. Further, according to Shaw (2005) supervisors need to communicate and respond to information on time, be open to listen to differing opinions, interact with all levels of organization concisely and clearly and make use of differing channels of communication.
Feedback is another important characteristic of a leader- and mentorship which is a central component in consultation between employees with the objective of performance securing (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Hence, it is a primary communicative function of examining and improving the process of successful performance and is a crucial tool for leaders to support both satisfaction and commitment of employees. An employee will link learning processes to the given feedback and modify his/her action and experience on the basis of that. Open and constructive feedback improves communication and consequently, the cooperation between leader and subordinate employee (Pearson, 1991).
Although there exists a substantial amount of research on competent communication, the direct relationship between the supervisor’s communicator competence and the supervisor task and relational leadership styles has been poorly investigated. Yet, the effect of the supervisor’s communicator competence on employee outcomes has been researched to a limited extent. One study on such an effect by Berman and Hellweg (1989) showed that the way employees perceive their supervisor’s communicative competence affects their satisfaction with their superior.
Another study by Myers and Kassing (1998) examining the relationship between the subordinate perceptions of their superior’s skills, including communication competence, and the subordinate’ level of organizational identification showed that communication competence significantly predicted the level of identification with the organization. More recently, Sharbrough, Simmons and Cantrill (2006) performed a study examining the effect of motivational language on several outcomes, which demonstrated a positive relationship between a leader’s use of motivational language and the way employees perceived their superior’s effectiveness, communication competence, and their job and communication satisfaction. In sum, quality of communication has been shown to be of great utility for managers in interaction with their employees.
Satisfaction and happiness are also reported to be positively related to better performance (Fisher, 2003). Specifically, communication satisfaction has a direct impact on job performance (Goris, 2007). According to Koys (2001), OCB is another decisive aspect of job performance; therefore, it can be concluded that communication satisfaction is positively related to OCB constituting another aspect of job performance. This means that when employees display a high level of communication satisfaction (formal and informal), they try to reciprocate by engaging in OCB (Bolino, 1999).
Leadership Style and Quality of Communication
After clarifying the concepts of differing leadership styles and quality of communication, it is of further interest to discuss the interaction between leadership style and quality of communication. That is, asking what the effect of either transformational or transactional leadership could be on quality of communication. As opposed to transactional leadership, transformational leadership style is characterized by both highly cognitive and affective dimensions of communication as well (Myers & Kassing, 1995). Accordingly, wider aspects of communication are covered in the latter and should have a positive effect on the quality of communication. For instance, transactional leadership, however, lacks the additional layer of affective communication and is limited to the communication of tasks and goals (Myers & Kassing, 1995). Thus, it can be expected to have a weaker or even negative effect on quality of communication as communication is not as profound.
In addition, it is possible for communication quality to simply be perceived as less accomplished due to that lack of the affective component that is experienced as inspiration and trust (Myers & Kassing, 1995). This possible outcome in turn represents a hypothetical expectation that requires further elaboration and exists in view of two circumstances: first, but less crucial in this context, there is the fact that the measurement of communication quality is based on subordinates’ observation of supervisors’ behavior. This in turn may be biased to the advantage of a transformational leader, who responds to the emotional needs of a follower.
For that emotional response to be reciprocated - be it consciously or subconsciously - the subordinate may perceive a transformational leader as more competent. This represents a limitation of the research that will be discussed in further detail at the end of this thesis. It can already be said however, that this limitation does not gravely impair the validity of assessment because regardless of the contingency described, the assessment of communication quality is based on specific and observable behavior (Madlock, 2008).
Secondly, and more importantly, the reason for the expectation of transactional leadership to be negatively related to communication quality is directly linked to the incompleteness of supervisory communication in transactional leadership. The term ‘incompleteness’ is referring thereby to the lack of an affective component, such as intimacy and trust. It is arguably harder for mutual understanding to occur since comprehensibility of (supervisor) communication is part of the construct ‘communication quality’ and is in turn affected by emotional relation (i.e. trust and intimacy) between sender and recipient of a message (Burgoon, & Newton, 1991; McAllister, 1995).
The task of ‘decoding’ the supervisor’s message directly results in the comprehension of information and will - occasionally if not permanently - be influenced by the presence (or absence) of affective communication, intimacy, trust and involvement (Burgoon, & Newton, 1991; McAllister, 1995). For these reasons, a transformational leadership style can be expected to be conducive to high quality of communication. Following the inversion of the same argument, transactional leadership can be expected to be impeding the quality of communication. Incidentally it needs to be emphasized in this context that the communication behavior which defines a leadership style does not overlap with the construct of (perceived) ‘quality of communication’. The latter is a separate construct that captures other distinct observable behaviors and competence. Those are exercised independently and are distinct from those behavioral dimensions that constitute a leadership style. Based on the above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
➔ H3: Transformational leadership is positively related to the quality of communication. ➔ H4: Transactional leadership is negatively related to the quality of communication.
Communication Quality and OCB
According to Madlock (2008), the behavioural characteristics of leadership are brought about through communication. Leaders take on different forms of responsibilities, the main one consisting of instructing and guiding their team or employees in a work context. Through this, they directly influence organizational information including decision-making processes and the decisions themselves, procedural actions and policies (Den Hartog et al., 2007).
The key characteristic that encompasses interactions between leaders and their subordinates is being able to effectively fulfill communicative functions, while remaining appropriate within a professional context and respecting related interpersonal norms (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1981; Madlock, 2008). According to Pfeffer and Salancik (1975), leaders are individuals that not only carry-out tasks they are responsible for, but are also people who’s behavioural characteristics focus on relations and interpersonal interactions (cognitive aspects versus affective aspects).
Supervisors can have strong influences on their subordinates. In cases where supervisors are highly involved and interact on a frequent basis with their subordinates, they are able to impact, on a systematic basis, both the communication between the two parties and the degree to which employees align with the values and mission of an organization. The key however, is for supervisors to both have consistent interactions with their subordinates, that are both meaning yet remain professional (Myers & Kassing, 1998). Through these interpersonal communicative methods, supervisors are able to positively influence the degree to which employees identify with their work environment. Additionally, strong and trustful relationships can result from supervisors that transmit feelings of supportiveness and attentiveness to their subordinates. Again, this will further develop and establish positive feelings towards one’s work environment and organization (Myers & Kassing, 1995).
This notion is supported by research on trust development. By expressing and communicating feelings related to companionship, supervisors are able to gain both confidence and trust from the side of their subordinates, who then feel like their emotional needs are taken into account and can be met. This is backed up by findings from a study from Anderson and Martin (1995), who concluded that interactions between employees and their leaders are based on the need to fulfill certain emotional needs such as pleasure and inclusion. This has a direct impact on how efficiently and effectively communication is established.
According to Allen (1995), there is a strong correlation between the conversations held between supervisors and subordinates, and the positive feelings and support one has towards their organization. This, along with numerous existing research, demonstrates the direct correlation between the extent to which an employee identifies with their workplace, and the quality as well as extent to which positive communication flows are established with the supervisors. The employees identification with their organization is an important prerequisite for characteristics such as OCB. It can thus be assumed that the quality of communication between an employee and his supervisor impacts both the employees identification with the values of the organization, and their willingness and motivation in out-performing the expectations that their employee has of them (extra-role behaviour).
To go beyond what is formally expected will most likely occur in cases when the level and quality of communication high. This will be due to, as previously mentioned, profound thoroughness in cognitive and affective components as well as the effectiveness and appropriateness in the communication itself. Accordingly, the following hypothesis will be investigated:
Mediation Effect of Quality of Communication on OCB
In addition to hypotheses 1 to 5, two more hypotheses will be proposed to investigate a mediating effect of quality of communication for either leadership style on OCB. As a result of H3 and H5 combined it appears that:
➔ H6: Quality of communication mediates the relationship between transformational
leadership and OCB.
Further, applying the same logic and by taking H4 and H5 together it is derived that:
➔ H7: Quality of communication mediates the relationship between transactional
leadership and OCB.
Conceptual Model
The following conceptual model (Figure 1) was used in the study to illustrate the relationships between leadership styles and OCB with transformational- and transactional leadership as antecedents for mediation via quality of communication and as independent variables. OCB represents the dependent variable. Therein, transformational leadership is assumed to be positively related to both mediator as well as dependent variable OCB. Transactional leadership is assumed to be negatively related to mediator ‘quality of communication’ as well as to dependent (outcome) variable OCB.
Figure 1: Conceptual Research Model
Research Methods
The following chapter touches upon specific research methods applied in this study. The study followed a quantitative approach in form of a survey study on the field. The polled group of respondents, procedure and design are described in more detail. Additionally, the instruments applied in the survey and the method of analysis will be presented.
Overview of Data Collection
This field study was conducted at a local establishment of a corporation in the pharmaceutical and medical sector which employs approximately 100.000 people. The branch office for medical devices holds approximately 200 employees and seems suitable to conduct this study, given that there are numerous teams led individually by a supervisor and are all centrally led at this site. These circumstances makes it easy to centrally distribute and collect all data for research on site. Data were collected from subordinate employees in a wide range of functions, using a paper-based survey, which took about 10 minutes of respondents’ time.
Questionnaires were distributed manually in June 2018 on all work-floors (survey is attached in the appendix). The data collection was ended in June 2018. The paper-based questionnaire was preferred over an online questionnaire in this case, since permission was given to place boxes for collection of questionnaires around the work-floors and pantries.
These boxes were placed not only for the purpose of recollecting the survey material in an anonymous manner but would also serve as a constant visual reminder for participation. Based on this circumstance and assuming a higher participation rate due to visual reminders a paper-based survey was applied.
The questionnaire contained a clear introduction where the purpose, the duration, and the different concepts of the questionnaire were outlined.
Procedure
Given the access to the workplace the paper surveys were handed out manually during working hours in the local establishment of the corporation. The survey was designed in the course of the preparation for this thesis under supervision from the University of Amsterdam. The questionnaire was specifically developed for the subordinate employees who are working in the establishment and are locally managed by a supervisor. The management board was therefore not asked to participate but informed even before the first internal announcement by the communications department. It was announced in the corporate newsletter, on screens around the corridors and pantries that a survey study would be conducted and questionnaires would be handed out on paper. The screens around the branch office would show this announcement continuously, starting one week before distribution.
Simultaneously to the start of the announcement via newsletter on-screen, an e-mail announcement with the same content was sent out to motivate all employees to fill out a questionnaire. The e-mail states that participation was voluntary and anonymous. After a week of informing everyone around the workplace, the questionnaires were finally distributed together with some documents that assure the ethical guidelines for the research. These documents inform every subject about the background of the research in form of a fact-sheet. Additionally, they confirm the anonymous nature of participation, the confidential treatment
of all data and provide contacts for issuing questions or concerns. After these documents were all distributed together with the questionnaire, a reminder was sent via e-mail a week later, shortly before all documents including the completed questionnaires were recollected.
Participants
A total of 51 completed employee surveys were returned. This represents a response rate of approximately 25% (51/200) for the survey. The sample consists of 41,2% women and 58,8% men. Age ranges from 24 to 54 years with an average of 38 years (SD=8.45). The respondents’ tenure ranges from one year to up to 11 years with a mean of 2 years. The time of supervision under current management starts from 1 years and goes up to a maximum of 5 years. There was no missing data in the demographics.
The entirety of the surveyed group is part of the same (lowest) hierarchical layer in the flat organisational structure, i.e being supervised by first level of management and two levels below executive leadership of the division. The branch office of the corporation represents an international office that services a European and middle-eastern region with international staff and therefore holds employment of mixed ethnic background.
Measurement
The variables included in this study are measured on leadership scales established by previous literature. Transformational leadership is measured with the use of a 5-item measure and a five point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1) adopted from Carless et al., (2000). An example of an item is: “My immediate supervisor fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members”.
Transactional leadership is measured using a 6 item measure and a five point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1) adopted from Bass (1985).
Sample items include: “My immediate supervisor tells me what to do if I want to be rewarded for my work” and “My immediate supervisor provides recognition/rewards when I/the team reaches my/our goals”.
The assessment of ‘quality of communication’ captures clearness, appropriateness, sufficiency of- and competence in information transfer of the respective supervisor and is measured with 14 items on a 5 point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ (5) to ‘strongly disagree’ (1) adopted from Madlock (2008). Sample items include “My immediate supervisor expresses his/her ideas clearly” and “My immediate supervisor is difficult to understand when communicating in written form”.
OCB covers the dimensions Conscientiousness, Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue and is measured by a 9 item 5-point Likert scale adopted from Kelloway et al. (2002). The answers range from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. An example of an item is: ‘I help colleagues with their work when they are absent’.
Data Analysis and Results
Data Analysis
The data was imported and analyzed by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 24.0 (SPSS 24.0). Firstly the dataset was checked for abnormal data, for errors and missing data. This was done by analyzing the frequency of the distribution. There were no errors found in the data, no outliers and all respondents completed the survey except for three missing responses. The missing data was filled with the average of the other responses on the same item.
Further, two items were recorded as their phrasing was counter-indicative. Then, the reliability of items was reviewed by using the Cronbach’s alpha. The different scales for the
four constructs were created by averaging the items. Finally, the hypotheses H1-H5 were tested by means of regression analyses and H6 and H7 were tested through mediation analysis using the PROCESS command by Hayes (Hayes, 2012).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations (SDs) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are presented in the following table:
Cronbach’s Alpha No of Items Mean SD Quality of Communicatio n ,863 15 3,731 0,399 Transformatio nal Leadership ,935 7 3,975 0,742 Transactional Leadership ,802 6 3,657 0,669 OCB ,725 9 3,984 0,462
As mentioned previously, well-established instruments have been used in our study in order to measure the constructs. The Cronbach’s alphas of all variables except for OCB (alpha is ,725) are greater than .80, which indicated the reliability of the instruments. The lower alpha-value for OCB is negligible due to the small sample size.
Hypothesis testing (H1-H5) by Regression Analysis
H1 & H2: Regression analysis for transformational and transactional leadership on OCB. Coefficient table of the first regression for H1 and H2.
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta f Sig.
Constant 2,930 ,336 8,727 ,000 TL_total_Av e ,401 ,156 ,643 2,565 ,014 TAL_total_A ve -,147 ,173 -,213 -,849 ,400
While transactional leadership style has a negative but insignificant effect on OCB, transformational leadership has a moderate positive relationship with OCB. Thus, while the first hypothesis, namely that transformational leadership will be positively related to OCB can be upheld, the second hypothesis, namely, that transactional leadership will have a negative effect on OCB cannot be supported due to a lack of significance.
Regression analysis H3 & H4:
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta f Sig.
Constant 2,086 ,220 9,476 ,000 TL_total_Av e ,287 ,102 ,534 2,799 ,007 TAL_total_A ve -,138 ,114 ,231 1,214 ,231
Both transactional and transformational leadership have a positive effect on quality of communication, yet only the former has a significant effect (p = 0.007). Thus,while the third hypothesis, namely that transformational leadership will be positively related to quality of communication can be upheld, the fourth hypothesis, namely, that transactional leadership will have a negative effect on quality of communication cannot be supported due to a lack of significance.
Regression Analysis H5:
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta f Sig.
Constant 2,465 ,582 4,236 ,000
QoC_Total_ Ave
,407 ,155 ,351 2,626 ,011
The third regression analysis reveals a moderate positive relationship between quality of communication and OCB, which is also significant (p-value equals 0.011). Thus, the fifth hypothesis, namely that quality of communication has a positive effect on OCB can be supported.
Hypothesis Testing (H6&H7) by PROCESS Mediation Analysis
Subsequently, it was tested if there exists a mediation of ‘quality of communication’ for either leadership style to OCB. For the testing of this model, the PROCESS Macro toolbox for IBM SPSS 24 by Hayes was used. It allows for the conduct of a bivariate regression analysis including statistical tests for mediation effects.
It was hypothesized therein, that quality of communication assumes a mediating role in the relations between transformational and OCB and transactional leadership and OCB,
respectively. Thus, two separate mediation analyses were run: One for assessing if quality of communication mediates the relation between transformational leadership and OCB; and one to evaluate if quality of communication serves as mediator in the relation between transactional leadership and OCB.
According to Hayes (2012), a significant mediation effect of a particular variable is found when the reported confidence intervals in the output do not contain the value 0. Confidence intervals are more suitable than p-values for finding statistically significant mediation effects, as solely interpreting p-values can be misleading (Hayes, 2012). The following tables display the results of the PROCESS analyses:
PROCESS Analysis 1: Transformational Leadership Mediated by Quality of Communication
Model Summary (first output):
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
,7328 ,5370 ,0767 56,8393 1,0000 49,0000 ,0000
Model:
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2,1646 ,2114 10,2409 ,0000 1,7398 2,5894 TL_Total ,3941 ,0523 7,5392 ,0000 ,2891 ,4992
R-squared is quite high (53,7%), thus more than half of the variation in quality of communication is explained by transformational leadership. Positive and significant relationship between transformational leadership and quality of communication as the
coefficient is positive (0,3941) and the p-value is greater than 0.05. Thus, with an increase of transformational leadership style there is also an increase in quality of communication.
Model Summary (second output):
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
,4601 ,2117 ,1792 6,4438 2,0000 48,0000 ,0033
Model:
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2,7670 ,5726 4,8324 ,0000 1,6157 3,9183 TL_Total ,2722 ,1174 2,3181 ,0248 ,0361 ,5084 QoC_Tota ,0363 ,2184 ,1664 ,8685 -,4028 ,4754
R-squared is 0,2117, thus both variables, transformational leadership and quality of communication explain around 21% of the variation in OCB. Both variables are positively related to OCB, whereas only the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB is significant at p =0,0248. the significance level of the relationship between quality of communication and OCB is at p=0,8685
Model Summary (third output):
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
,456 ,2112 ,175713 ,1202 1,0000 49,0000 ,0007
Model:
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
TL_Total ,2866 ,0791 3,6222 ,0007 ,1276 ,4456
Total effect of transformational leadership on OCB if quality of communication was not a mediator. Relationship is significant as seen by the low p-value (0.0007). R-squared is at 0,2121, thus 21% of the variance in OCB is explained by transformational leadership. Transformational leadership alone accounts for almost all the explained variation in output 2, thus supporting the insignificant relationship between quality of communication and OCB.
Indirect effect(s) of X on Y (fourth output):
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
QoC_Tota ,0143 ,0796 -,1390 ,1750
Confidence intervals contain the value 0 , thus demonstrating that no mediation effect of quality of communication exists for transformational leadership.
Test no 2: Transactional Leadership mediated by Quality of Communication Model Summary (first output):
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
,6910 ,4775 ,0866 44,7778 1,0000 49,0000 ,0000
Model:
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2,2233 ,2291 9,7059 ,0000 1,7630 2,6836 TAL_Tota
l
R-squared is quite high (47,75%), thus about half of the variation of quality of communication is explained by transactional leadership. Positive and significant relationship between transactional leadership and quality of communication as the coefficient is positive (0,4123) and p equals 0. Thus, with an increase of transactional leadership style there is also an increase in quality of communication.
Model Summary (second output):
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
,3767 ,1419 ,1951 3,9698 2,0000 48,0000 ,0254
Model:
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2,5515 ,5879 4,3401 ,0001 1,3695 3,7335 TAL_Tota
l
,1303 ,1280 1,0179 ,3138 -,1270 ,3876
QoC_Tota ,2565 ,2145 1,1958 ,2376 -,1747 ,6877
R-squared is 0,1419, thus both variables, transactional leadership and quality of communication explain around 21% of the variation in OCB. Both variables are positively related to OCB, however, the significance level of both relationships with OCB are insignificant as both p-values are larger than 0.05.
Model Summary (third output):
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
Model:
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 3,1217 ,3454 9,0382 ,0000 2,4276 3,8158 TAL_Tota
l
,2360 ,0929 2,5403 ,0143 ,0493 ,4227
Total effect of transactional leadership on OCB if quality of communication was not a mediator. Relationship is positive as seen by the low p-value (0.0007). R-squared is at 0,2121, thus 21% of the variance in OCB is explained by transactional leadership. Transactional leadership alone accounts for almost all the explained variation in output 2, thus supporting the insignificant relationship between quality of communication and OCB.
Indirect effect(s) of X on Y (fourth output):
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
QoC_Tota ,1057 ,0756 -,0348 ,2763
Confidence intervals contain the value 0 , thus no mediation effect of quality of communication exists for transactional leadership.
For both models, no significant evidence for quality of communication mediating either of the relations between leadership style and OCB was found. The most important output table is the one which reports the indirect effects. There, the results suggests that quality of communication is neither a full nor a partial mediator. This can be observed by considering the confidence intervals: They range from -.1390 to .1750 and from -,0348 to .2763 . Since both confidence intervals contain the value of zero, the null hypothesis of quality of communication not being a mediator cannot be rejected.
Conclusion
The aim of this thesis was to explore the relationship between multiple variables that are used to predict OCB in the corporate workplace. OCB was investigated as a function of two leadership styles, transformational and transactional. Quality of communication was chosen as a potential mediator variable between the two leadership styles and the dependent variable, OCB.
Following the theoretical explanation of the concepts used, 7 hypotheses were formulated. In the first two, it was hypothesized that transformational leadership is positively related to OCB, and that transactional leadership is negatively related to this variable. The theoretical section of the thesis provides the reasoning that lead to these hypotheses. After performing the regression analysis, a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB has been reported, thus affirming H1. H2 was refuted due to lack of significance; thus, the negative relationship cannot be supported. H3 and H4 aimed to predict the relationship between the two leadership styles and quality of communication.
It was hypothesized that transformational leadership will have a positive effect on the quality of communication, a statement proven right by my results using a regression analysis. Transactional leadership was hypothesized to have a negative effect on the quality of communication, an expectation contradicted following mydata analysis, as the observed effect was positive. However, the latter finding is not significant since the p-value is above the set alpha level (0.05). Thus, the relationship between transactional leadership and quality of communication is still to be investigated as no information about the nature of this relationship can be inferred from this analysis.
From these findings it can be derived that transformational leadership indeed positively and significantly relates to both OCB and QOC. In H5 it was hypothesized that
OCB and QOC are positively related, and in the Results section significant evidence supporting this claim is provided. However, the relationship between QOC and OCB was only significant when performing a linear regression analysis, a finding invalidated by the findings following the PROCESS Macro toolbox for IBM SPSS 24 following Hayes analysis, which was used to investigate QOC as a mediator variable in two separate relations between transformational leadership and OCB and transactional leadership and OCB. As stipulated and supported in the Results section, the mediating role of QOC in both scenarios was statistically insignificant.
Following this summary of the findings, the main findings in context with their applicability in managerial practice are discussed. There are numerous studies that have proposed to explain the relation between leadership styles and OCB, but contrary to the usual approach, a different one was chosen. Whereas this relationship is usually investigated via intrinsic factors like motivation, work engagement and attitude as mediating variables, a contextual factor was investigated, namely Quality of communication.
The main finding of the study from the proposed hypotheses and the corresponding data analysis is the capacity of transformational leadership to explain variance in both OCB and QOC with a considerably higher success than the transactional style. If translated into managerial practice, the findings would encourage the transformational style to be chosen and implemented over the transactional one, as OCB is a highly relevant factor in organizational practice and this particular leadership style is suggested by this paper to be the one with better stimulation of such behavior. Regarding QOC, transformational leadership should also be taken into consideration as the used approach, since supporting and encouraging proper communication can only facilitate and improve organizational practice
Limitations and further research
As with any field survey, the conducted interview is not fully free of biases. Due to the non-randomized design, selection bias is a particular factor which might influence the validity of the results. Overall, the results might be hard to generalize as the focus was on one specific industry and one company branch only. Even within companies, leadership styles at different offices might differ considerably. However, this is exactly why more studies similar to the one described in this paper are required to differentiate the effect from leadership styles on company performance and organizational citizenship behavior with regard to the respective business environment.
Additionally, further studies might clarify the role of ‘quality of communication’ for influencing company performance through varying leadership styles. Logically, the quality of communication in any environment is a fundamental element for effectively and efficiently reaching communication goals, independent from the leadership style.
Yet, no significant statistical mediating role of ‘quality of communication’ was derived. Further researchers should built up on that and try to identify the role of ‘quality of communication’ for organizational citizenship behavior.
References
Anit Somech (2006). The Effects of Leadership Style and Team Process on Performance and Innovation in Functionally Heterogeneous Teams, Volume: 32 issue: 1, page(s): 132-157, Volume: 32 issue: 1, page(s): 132-157
Awamleh, R. & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10 (3), 345–373.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462. Babcock-Roberson, M.E. and Strickland, O.J. (2010). The relationship between Charismatic Leadership, Work Engagement, and OCBs. The Journal of Psychology, (144), 313-326. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational behavior. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing Transformational Leadership: 1992 and Beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training , 14 (5), 21-27.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-19. Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management
Journal, (26),
587-595.
BH Spitzberg (1983), Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression, Communication Education 32 (3), 323-329
WR Cupach, BH Spitzberg (1981), Relational competence: Measurement and validation, annual meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, San Jose, CA Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?
The Academy of Management Review, 24 (1), 82-98.
Burgoon, J. K., & Newton, D. A. (1991). Applying a social meaning model to relational message interpretations of conversational involvement: Comparing observer and participant perspectives. Southern Journal of Communication, 56(2), 96-113. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chan, S. H. J., & Lai, H. Y. I. (2017). Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
business research, 70, 214-223.
Daft, R. L. (2003). Management (6 Ausg.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western. Dansereau, F. & Markham, S. E. (1996). Superior-Subordinate Communication: Multiple
Levels of Analysis. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, R. K. H. & L. W. Porter, Handbook of Organizational Communication, (4th Ed., pp. 343-388). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A. & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = communication?
The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. 25, 367-380.
Den Hartog, D. N. & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. The Leadership Quarterly , 8 (4), 355–391.
Den Hartog, D.N., De Hoogh A.H. and Keegan, A.E. (2007). The interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, (92), 1131-1139.
scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, (16),705-722.
Fisher, D. C. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24 (6), 753-777.
Goris, J. R. (2007). Effects of satisfaction with communication on the relationship between individual-job congruence and job performance/satisfaction. Journal of Management
Development, 26 (28), 737-752.
Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.. Journal of Applied Psychology, (73), 695-702.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
Hirokawa, R. (1979). Communication and the managerial function: Some suggestions for improving organizational communication. 8, 83–95.
Howell, J.P. and Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated
business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, (78), 891-902. Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
Meta-Analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, (89), 755-768
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of
Kandlousi, N. S. A. E., Ali, A. J., & Abdollahi, A. (2010). Organizational citizenship behavior in concern of communication satisfaction: The role of the formal and informal communication. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(10), 51. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1966) The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd edition Ausg.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Khalili, A. (2017). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38 (7), 1004-1015.
Konovsky, M.A. and Organ, D.W. (1995). Dispositional and contextual determinants of OCB.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, (17), 253-266.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study.
Personnel Psychology, 54 (1), 101-114.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, (7), 385-425.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., and Rich, G. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,
(29), 115-134.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-59. McCartney, W. W. & Campbell, C. R. (2006). Leadership, management, and derailment: A
