MASTER THESIS
THE RELATION BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR
WITH THE MEDIATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
University of Groningen
Technology and Operations Management MSc Groningen, January 2014
Baken, J.J. (Jelmer), 2063026 j.j.baken@student.rug.nl
0031 (0) 6 – 20811876
Abstract
Orientation: Organizational Citizenship Behaviour within an organization could affect the performance of an organization in a positive way.
Purpose: the purpose of this study is twofold. First, it aims to establish a link between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Second, assumed that Leadership Style influences Organizational Citizenship Behavior, are these in mediation with Psychological Ownership? I.e. does the Leadership Style influence the Psychological Ownership, which in turn influences Organizational Citizenship Behavior?
Motivation for the study: previous research describes the previously mentioned relations
theoretically. However, no empirical proof exists to support these claims. This study investigates if these proposed relations are right.
Research design, approach and method: a quantitative survey is conducted within stores of a Dutch telecom company. The sample constitutes of 109 people of different age, educational background and geographical location. Both managers and employees are participating in the survey.
Main findings: there is a positive relation between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. The suggested link of (Collective) Psychological Ownership is not proven.
Practical and/or managerial implications: by changing the Leadership Style, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour can be influenced. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour can affect company results positively.
Contribution and/or value increase: the proven relation between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour can be used to influence employees.
Content
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Theoretical research ... 6
2.1 Conceptual model ... 6
2.2 Organizational Citizen Behaviour ... 6
2.3 Stimulation of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour ... 7
2.4 Psychological Ownership ... 7
2.5 Collective Psychological Ownership ... 8
2.6 Type of Leadership Style... 9
2.7 Influences of Leadership Style ... 11
3. Methodology ... 13
4. Results ... 14
In the following chapter the results of the survey will be discussed. ... 14
4.1 Responds rate ... 14
4.2 Data entry ... 14
4.3 Characteristics of respondents ... 14
4.4 Survey results ... 14
4.5 Relation between leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior ... 15
4.6 Mediation effect ... 16
5. Discussion & further research ... 18
5.1 Discussions ... 18
5.2 Limitations ... 18
5.3 Directions for further research ... 18
6. Conclusions ... 19
7. References ... 20
8. Appendixes ... 25
Foreword
While not always an easy process, I do find pride in the result of the research. Still, I could not have done it without certain people. First, the guidance of my supervisor Dr. W.M.C. van Wezel and my second supervisor Dr. Ir. W.H.M. Alsem are very much appreciated. With their useful feedback they proved to be of immense support to the research. I would also like to thank the company making it possible to execute the research. Last my gratitude extents to my friends and family members for supporting me through good and bad times.
Jelmer Baken B-Eng Groningen, March 2014
1. Introduction
Every company aims for a well-motivated workforce. It increases the likelihood of employees performing extracurricular tasks, supporting one another and feeling for the company as a second home. A well-motivated team is managed by a good leader. This research investigates if a
relationship exists between Leadership Style, and employees performing extracurricular tasks:
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour is defined as the individual contribution, surpassing the normal role requirements (Organ D. , 1988). This behaviour is cooperative and pro-social, and therefore influences organizations in a positive way. Items to measure with Organizational Citizenship Behaviour are helping others, stimulating cooperative work, performing not only mandatory but company important tasks and working as a trustful employee (Love & Forret, 2008). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour affects companies in a positive way, thus many companies will try to increase Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.
A leader can either have a collaborative or an individual Leadership Style (Bryman, 1992). The level of collaboration can be measured on five elements. First is coaching style, which can be focussed on both individual as well as group performance. Second it is important to have shared goals, giving the group direction. The third element comprises the setup and roles within a team. Fourth, group education, is about collective knowledge and the level of exchange between group members. The final element deals with the way responsibilities are divided amongst group members.
Psychological Ownership is a sense of ownership of an organization or various organizational factors (Pierce et al., 2001). Psychological ownership is a state of mind.
As an alternative to Psychological Ownership, felt at an individual level, a group can develop Collective Psychological Ownership. With Collective Psychological Ownership, the state of mind changes from the idea of “my” to “our” organization (Pierce & Jussila, 2010). Individuals change from an individual mind-set to a shared ownership mind-set. Collective Psychological Ownership
contributes to the collective organizational responsibility. Collective Ownership can be supported by the whole team or by certain employees of the group only.
This research tests the relation between the Leadership Style, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and whether or not (Collective) Psychological Ownership is a mediator between these two. The results could be used to stimulate Organizational Citizenship Behaviour by choice of Leadership Style.
Chapter 2 starts with theoretical background, describing different theories and relations.
Consecutively, the hypothesis of the research will be discussed. Chapter 3 describes the methodology used for the research. Next, chapter 4 will discuss the results of the research, which will be put in to perspective in chapter 5. Chapter 6 will comprise the conclusions of the research.
2. Theoretical research
The aim of the theoretical research is to investigate current knowledge on Leadership Style, (Collective) Psychological Ownership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. In addition, the relation between these concepts falls within the scope of the research.
2.1 Conceptual model
The model shows the relations between the different concepts. In this model, Leadership Style is the independent variable which can be influenced by organizations. Organization Citizenship Behaviour is the dependent variable. Organizations can aim for a high level of Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour, as it has positive effects.
Figure 2.1: Conceptual model
The following sections will describe the ideas of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, (Collective) Psychological Ownership and Leadership Styles, as well the interrelations.
2.2 Organizational Citizen Behaviour
When deploying Organizational Citizen Behaviour, an employee shows a wide set of organizational behaviour disciplines such as cooperative and pro-social behaviour, rather than the mere job description (Schurer R. , 2013). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour affects organizations positively (Organ & Ryan, 1995).
Organizational Citizen Behaviour is defined by Organ 1988 as:
“Individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ D. , 1988).
Organizational Citizen Behaviour is separated into five dimensions (Organ & Podsakoff, 2006):
altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy and sportsmanship. These dimensions will be discussed consecutively.
2.2.1 Altruism
Altruism is helping another person with an organisationally relevant task or problem. The assisting behaviour of cooperatively facing a problem can exist both between inter- and intra-company colleagues (Love & Forret, 2008).
2.2.2 Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness can be described as behaviour that goes well beyond the minimum role
requirements of the organization (Organ & Podsakoff, 2006). Some examples of conscientiousness are obeying rules and regulations, attendance, taking breaks, attending required meetings, keeping the work area clean and being punctual (Organ D. , 1988). Conscientiousness can be seen as a “good soldier” syndrome.
2.2.3 Civic virtue
Civic virtue is the behaviour of responsibly participating in, involving in, or being concerned about the wellbeing of the company. Civic virtue represents a macro level of interest in the company as a whole (Schurer R. , 2013). The definition of civic virtue is: “taking on extra responsibilities and being
involved in the professional life of the organization” (Jimmieson & Hannam, 2010). Besides the internal issues, civic virtue is also concerned with external factors like promoting the organization image and reputation (Paile, 2009).
2.2.4 Courtesy
Courtesy is the behaviour of solving work related problems, initiated by colleagues (Organ &
Podsakoff, 2006). Courtesy is also the behaviour of thinking about the job satisfaction of colleagues (Love & Forret, 2008). Courtesy prevents chaos and conflicts and maintains social order and group harmony (Jimmieson & Hannam, 2010).
2.2.5 Sportsmanship
Sportsmanship is defined as the willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal
circumstances, without complaining (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 2000). Employees administering sportsmanship do not just avoid complaining when inconvenienced by colleagues, but maintain a positive attitude even when things do not go their way (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 2000).
2.3 Stimulation of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
As described in Organ & Ryan, 1995, a high degree of Organizational Citizenship Behavior affects organizations positively and motivates employees to work.
In the study of (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) a positive relation is described theoretically between Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Phychological Ownership. Within the article of (Trivellas &
Drimoussis, 2012) a positive relation is described between the Leadership Style and doing extra- curricular work.
2.4 Psychological Ownership
As discussed in section 2.3 there is a relation between Psychological Ownership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Psychological Ownership suggests that under set conditions employees can develop feelings of ownership towards the organization and various organizational factors (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001). When having the mind-set of Psychological Ownership towards an organization, an individual feels as if (parts of the) organization are “his”. Besides individual
Psychological Ownership also Collective Psychological Ownership can arise. Collective Psychological Ownership transforms the idea of “my” organization to “our” organization (Pierce & Jussila, 2010).
Groups or several group members feel a collective ownership towards their organization. Both issues and the relation to Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour will be discussed.
2.4.1 Psychological Ownership
The main idea of Psychological Ownership is the idea of possessiveness and being the psychological owner of an object (Belk, 1988). Employees who feel Psychological Ownership describe their
organization as “my” organization. Psychological Ownership is a state in mind, which is created partly by the attitude of the person, partly by the object and partly by the mind (Pierce, Rubenfeld, &
Morgan , 1991).
The rise of personal Psychological Ownership is dependent on the mind and attitude of the person, but for the existence of Psychological Ownership three reasons can be described:
Efficacy and effectiveness: efficacy and effectiveness means being in control and being able to organize the work, thus the work can be performed effectively (Isaacs, 1993). The discretion to independently organize the work creates a feeling of ownership (Beggan, 1991).
Self-identify: for psychological ownership to exist, people need to identify themselves with the organization (Dittmar, 1992). Any expression of the organization needs to be in line with the employees’ view. To create a sense of ownership there must be a connection between the ideas of the organization and the ideas of the individual.
Having a place: the idea of ownership can also be described as having a place, a certain territory or home (Ardrey, 1966). The feeling of having a home within the organization is important for the right mind-set of the employee (Duncan, 1981).
These conditions can be used to investigate the possibility of Psychological Ownership occurring in organizations.
When employees make decisions affecting the organization they feel more responsible and concerned towards the wellbeing of the organization, resulting in a higher level of Psychological Ownership. (Mayhew & Ashkanasy, 2013). Expected is that the high level of Psychological Ownership has a positive impact on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. The Leadership Style can influence the aforementioned feelings of responsibility and concern, influencing the level of Psychological
Ownership.
This relation is tested with the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Psychological Ownership is a positive mediation factor between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
2.5 Collective Psychological Ownership
Once the concept of Psychological Ownership is defined as ‘my organization’, the discussion shifts towards the transformation from Individual Psychological Ownership towards Collective
Psychological Ownership, i.e. from ‘my’ company towards ‘our’ company. According to (Gibson, 2001), a group of united people, i.g. a working team, feel ownership towards an organization, organization related parts or objects. This is when the state of mind of individuals changes from ‘my
organization’ to ‘our organization’. Collective Psychological Ownership can be supported either by the whole or part of the group. Group members can feel (Individual) Psychological Ownership and Collective Psychological Ownership at the same time. Collective Psychological Ownership emerges when interactive group dynamics take place, uniting individuals through a single and shared mind-set and goal (Pierce & Jussila, 2010). Collective Psychological Ownership is often seen in sports because of cohesive supporter groups, who often use terms as ‘our team’. Collective Psychological Ownership increases responsibility for the organization.
The development of Collective Psychological Ownership is influenced by interdependence, group identification, team cohesion and group chemistry (Pierce & Jussila, 2010). Collective Psychological Ownerships manifests itself during five stages. Before Psychological Ownership can arise, a clear identity for the group needs to be established, uniting the group. During the second stage, the group builds, through common experiences, a collective memory. At the third stage the group obtains a common goal, accepted and supported by every member (Belk, 1988). The fifth stage makes outsiders define the group as being a group, starting to identify the group by the common goal. At the final stage, interactive dynamics cause the individual members to define themselves as a collective.
The effects of Collective Psychological Ownership are both positive and negative. Positive effects of Collective Psychological Ownership are employees having a high level of role-performance (Brown &
Crossley), a feeling of psychological empowerment and responsibility (Avey & Crossley, 2009) and a high degree of job satisfaction, along with a low intention to quit the organization (Avey & Crossley, 2009). Negative effects are resistance to organizational changes (Brown & Crossley), anxiety and fatigue due to the responsibility (Pierce & Jussila, 2010) and less personal sacrifices due to the collectivism of the group. Last, there is a high group synergy, but the willingness to provide support to non-group members is low (Han, Chiang H.H., & Chang, 2008).
Collective Psychological Ownership is partially related to Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The feeling of one group, a precondition for Collective Psychological Ownership, is linked by the altruism of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Conscientiousness and civic virtue are promoted by the more responsible people. (Pierce & Jussila, 2010) found that Collective Psychological Ownership promotes group work. To test the relation between Psychological Ownerhsip and Organizational Citizenship, and the influences of the Leadership Style, the following hypothesis is tested:
Hypothesis 2: Collective Psychological Ownership is a positive mediation factor between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
2.6 Type of Leadership Style
Above, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and (Collective) Psychological Ownership have been discussed. Leadership Style will be discussed consecutively. Current literature describes a link between management style, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and (Collective) Psychological Ownership (Likert, 1967) (Olckers, 2013) (Pierce & Jussila, 2010).
Leadership has been defined in many different ways, however the definition always includes a
‘group’, ‘influences’ and a ‘goal’ (Bryman, 1992). Two types of leadership are taken into account for this research, i.e. Collaborative Leadership and Individual Leadership. A collaborating group should experience gains in their productivity, meaning they must be more productive than working
individually and aggregate work (Steiner, 1972). This research promotes five factors that result in a certain level of collaboration. These five factors are often used to measure and define the Leadership Style. The factors, discussed more extensively below, are shared goals, coaching, team building, learning and responsibility.
2.6.1. Shared goal(s)
An important basis for a collective team is a clear goal, “a point on the horizon to work towards” (Yeh
& Smith, 1995). A shared goal ensures the individual team members to work in the same direction so to achieve the goal.
Team goals exist of three parts (Yeh & Smith, 1995):
Values. Values influence team member behaviour: the motives of team members to perform.
Vision. Vision builds shared ownership within the team and inspires and motivates team members.
Mission. Mission provides a direction for the team. A structured plan to work effectively towards a goal.
A well-defined, shared goal motivates cooperation, sharing experiences and communicating results, resulting in a united effort of working towards the goal (Akrivou & Boyatzis, 1982).
2.6.2 Coaching
Coaching serves a twofold purpose. First, coaching an employee enables a manager to emphasize group goals as opposed to individual goals. Second, a culture where individuals coach each other is seen as improving the overall performance. (Cunningham, 2003).
A collaborative coaching style pays more attention to group performance than to individual performance (Bryman, 1992). A collaborative coaching style focusses on the performance of the entire group. Besides performance, three underlying factors are taken into account while coaching (Clutterbuck, 2013). This is first honesty of the group, i.e. the degree of honesty between group members. Second, the application and development of unique skills, i.e. different skills of different people within the group (Walbeek & In der Maur, 2013). And last, the identification of limitations to perform and the proposed solutions.
Coaching between colleagues has several benefits (Cunningham, 2003). It contributes to cohesive teams with individuals supporting each other to achieve common goals. Additionally, chances are that employees much rather accept information from a colleague than from their manager, i.g.
because of social issues. Also, managers do not always know the exact issue, thus coaching between individuals works better.
2.6.3. Team
Teambuilding determines the degree of the team as a coherent group. Several issues play a role (Yeh
& Smith, 1995). First, communication and problem solving, i.e. how is communication structured and to which degree can the group solve problems by themselves. Second, the way roles and tasks are divided within the group, including the manager. Last, the extent to which the team anticipates towards each other, i.e. the degree team members are aware of qualities and weaknesses of other team members (Yeh & Smith, 1995).
2.6.4 Group education
Group education is defined in various ways, but can be seen as an aggregate of individual education.
Group education takes place when unique knowledge and information is shared (Drugskat & Kayes, 2000). Group education contributes to the efficacy and cohesion of the group (Butworth, 1997).
Group education reflects on group maturity, i.e. the process of moving from a group of individuals to a complex and integrated system (Sessa, 1982). Due to group education, knowledge will be reused and elaborated. Mutual trust is necessary for effective group education; without the trust, members will withhold information. Group education and information exchange is usually given low priority, thus it needs to be triggered i.g. work can only be completed after education took place (Sessa, 1982).
2.6.5. Responsibilities
The way responsibilities are distributed amongst group members have a certain impact. Delegating responsibilities has three different effects: first, because group members need to be in contact with other members, they become dependent upon each other. This also raises the quality of the contact.
Second, members that carry responsibility have higher motivation and feel more involved with the overall performance of the group. Last, distributed responsibilities cause the team to manage itself more, due to individual group members’ performance having a direct link to the overall performance.
Nevertheless, there are negative effects to sharing responsibilities. When responsibility is shared, a feeling of ownership is established amongst the team members. This causes conflicts and
demotivation when colleagues perform tasks which they do not have the delegated responsibility for (Cater & Justes, 2010).
2.7 Influences of Leadership Style
Leadership Style influences both (Collective) Psychological Ownership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Researches show that feelings of ownerships are present more in teams with
responsibilities allocated throughout the group (Duliwiz & Higs, 1986). This feeling of ownership originates when a team member takes a decision on a subject for which he carries the delegated responsibility: the person will feel responsible for the decision’s result. This proposes a direct link between responsibilities of Leadership Style and Efficacy and Effectiveness (being in control) of Psychological Ownership.
Another relation is between “teams” of leadership and “having a place” within psychological ownership (Yeh & Smith, 1995). The teams aspect of leadership styles is about the roles in teams when group members have found their role this results in feelings of having a place. Also other aspects are related to each other. So lead a clear group goal to the possibility to identify yourself with the company. And leads coaching of colleagues to the possibility to influence the process, “Efficacy and effectance” of Psychological Ownership.
The idea of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour is that group members do important company tasks also when this is not in their job description (Organ D. , 1988). Within a collective team people are because of a common goal dependent on each other, and so will be more intended to help each other (Altruism of OCB). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour tasks is a precondition for collective teams. Also a link can be made between delegation of responsibility of collective teams and Civic virtue of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. To become a collective team more or less
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour is needed. Hypothesis two will test this relation.
The following hypothesis will be tested to test these relations:
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relation between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relation between a collective leadership style and (collective) Psychological Ownership.
3. Methodology
The research hypotheses mentioned in the theoretical background are researched by a quantitative survey research. This is done through a survey research within a retail organization to test the proposed hypothesis.
Survey research
With the survey research the hypotheses are tested in a practical situation. Before the start of the survey three qualitative interviews are done within different retail shops to make sure the company is appropriately for the research.
The following steps are executed in the survey research; the steps are based on The Survey Research Process described by Karlson, 2009.
Step 1: Survey design
Before the research actually starts a quantitative survey design is made. For the first and second topic; leadership styles and psychological ownership a survey is made about the concepts of leadership styles and psychological ownership. The questions for type of Leadership Style are made around the five items of Leadership Style: shared goals, coaching, team, group learning and
responsibilities. Further are the questions based on the organization. For Psychological Ownership and Collective Psychological Ownership the questions are based on: efficacy and affectance, self- identify and having a place, whit the organization in mind. For organizational citizenship behaviour the survey of (Schurer R. , 2013) is used. This is a standard and proven survey. A copy of the entire quantitative survey can be found in appendix 3. For both employees and the manager is a different survey designed.
After the survey design a test with a group of 10 employees is done to see of the survey works correct. Hereafter no changes are made on the survey.
Step 2: Investigating the research group
For the research retail outlets of a big Dutch Telecom company are used. For the research all retail outlets of the company in North and East of The Netherlands are taken into account, both sales employees as well shop managers. The group consists then of 23 teams, with 23 managers and in total of 109 people.
Step 3: collecting data
The collecting of data is done by an e-survey. The participants are invited three times by e-mail (beginning and middle of December 2013 and ones in January 2014). Hereafter a management invitation is done by telephone.
Step 4: Validation
After the research a check is done if there were wrong entries. Here after a Cronbach Alpa test is done to see which questions are valid to use for the analysis.
Step 5:Analysis
To check the hypothesis a T-Test is done to see the relation in hypothesis 3. For hypothesis 1,2 and 4 a mediation test is done based on Baron and Kenny's (1986).
4. Results
In the following chapter the results of the survey will be discussed.
4.1 Responds rate
The questionnaire is sent three times by e-mail to the sample population, hereafter a management of the managers sent an instruction by e-mail to react. The first mail is sent at the beginning of December (2013), which results in 14 results. The second invitation is sent in the middle of December (2013), this results in another 9 results. The third invitation is sent in the beginning of January which results in 6 results. Management instruction came in the middle of January and results in 4 results.
From the sample of 109 employees who work in the North and east of The Netherlands a total of 33 results are collected, which results in a unit response rate of 30% (33/109). 3 Survey results were not complete and cannot be used, so 30 results where left.
4.2 Data entry
All results are checked on wrong entry, zero errors were found.
4.3 Characteristics of respondents
The respondents consist of people living in the North and East of The Netherlands. Their age range is between 21 and 46. The respondents group consists of people which work long for the company, more than 15 years, and short, up to 5 years. The respondents consists of managers and employees.
4.4 Survey results
Questions are asked in four categories: leadership style (8 questions divided in 5 categories), psychological ownership (10 questions divided in 4 categories), collective psychological ownership (three questions divided in 1 categories) and organizational citizenship behavior (19 questions divided in 5 categories). An overview of these questions can be found in appendix 1. The questions are answered with a 5 Liker-scale, whereby 1 = totally agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = disagree and 5 = totally disagree.
To see whether the results are consistent per category a Cronbach Alpha test is done. Table 4.4a gives an overview of the results of the Cronbach Alpha test after taking out questions.
Used questions
Number of questions used
Number of participants
Cronbach Alpha’s score
Quality
1. Leadership style
1,7,8 3 30 0.41 Poor
2. Phychological ownership
9-18 10 30 0.53 Acceptable
3. Collective psychological ownership
20-21 2 30 0.78 Good
4.Organizational citizenship behavior
22-40 19 30 0.76 Good
Table 4.4a: Results of Cronbach Alpa
Within the leadership categories the three main questions are left. Using more questions of the leadership style results in a too low Cronbach Alpha Score. However the main issues of the category are still in the category and so the results can be used for further research.
Within Psychological Ownership all questions are used, which results in a Cronbach Alpha score of 0.53. Only the left out of questions in category 1 or 4 improves the score. However in these categories are only two questions where in the other categories there are three questions. To get reliable numbers with all items of Psychological Ownership, all questions are used for the research.
Within Collective Psychological Ownership the first questions influences the Cronbach Alpha
significant, as the answers on this question are not in line with the two other questions this question is left out, a Cronbach Alpa score of 0.78 is left over.
For Organizational Citizenship Behavior the use of all questions results in a score of 0.76, and so to get the most reliable results all questions are used.
After the use of the reliable questions the overall scores per category are shown in table 4.4b.
Average Standard deviation Variance
1. Leadership style 2.44 1.43 1.30
2. Psychological ownership 2.22 0.94 0.88
3. Collective psychological ownership
2.28 0.74 0.55
4. Organizational citizenship behavior
2.10 0.95 0.90
Table: 4.4b: Overview research results
4.5 Relation between leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
At first the relation between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior is tested. The test will check of a Collaborative Leadership Style results in more Organizational citizenship behavior.
For this test the results will be divided in two groups a less Collaborative Leadership Style group and more Collaborative Leadership style group, two groups of 15 participants are created. With this group the results on Organizational Citizenship Behavior will be tested with an independent sample t- test.
Figure 4.5: Tested relation
This relation test must be done before other mediation can be tested, if there is no relation between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship behavior there are also no mediation effects.
Table 4.5a shows the statistics of the both groups, table 4.5b shows the results of the independent sample t-test.
Leadership style (independent variable)
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
(dependent variable) Positive relation
Number of participants
Mean on Organizational citizenship behaviour
Standard deviation on Organizational citizenship behaviour
Std. error mean on Organizational citizenship behaviour Group 1: Less
Collaborative Leadership Style
15 1.9 1.30 0.076
Group 2: More Collaborative Leadership style
15 2.9 0.88 0.056
Table 4.5a: Group statistics
Values within group 1 has a minimum of 1,33 and a maximum of 2,33, values within group 2 has a minimum of 2,33 and a maximum of 3,67.
Levene’s Test for Quality of Variances
Significance 2 tailed
F Sig.
Equal variances assumed
3.198 0.085 0.046
Equal variances not assumed
4.5b: Results of Independent Sample T-Test
The two tailed significance level is 0.046, which means that with 95,4% certainty the relation between a high score on Leadership Style results in a high score on Organizational Citizenship Behavior can be accepted.
4.6 Mediation effect
To test if there is a mediation effect between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior by Psychological Ownership and collective Psychological Ownership a linear regression analysis is done between the relations, which are shown in figure 4.6a.
Figure 4.6a: Relation diagram Leadership style
Psychological Ownership
Collective Psychological Ownership
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
A B
C D
By the Baron and Kenny's (1986) method a mediation effect can be seen as there is a significant relation between the independent variable and the mediation variable and between the mediation variable and the dependent variable.
Relation Significance level Significant
A. Leadership style – Psychological ownership
0.297 No
B. Psychological Ownership – Organizational Citizenship Behavior
0.048 Yes
Mediation effect: No direct mediation effect Table 4.6a: Results mediation analysis
Relation Significance level Significant
C. Leadership style – Collective Psychological ownership
0.569 No
D. Collective Psychological Ownership – Organizational Citizenship Behavior
0.012 Yes
Mediation effect: No direct mediation effect Table 4.6b: Results mediation analysis
For a mediation effect there must be a significant relation between the independent variable, the mediation variable and the dependent variable. As there are no significant relations between Leadership Style and Psychological Ownership and Leadership Style and Collective Psychological Ownership a mediation effect cannot be proven.
5. Discussion & further research
5.1 Discussions
The main purpose for this research was to see of the type Leadership Style influences Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and to see of (Collective) Psychological Ownership a mediator forms between the type of Leadership style and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. This to elaborate on existing research about Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Organ & Ryan, 1995), Psychological Ownership (Olckers, 2013) and collective Psychological Ownership (Pierce & Jussila, 2010).
The two tailed sample T-Test between type of Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior results in a significance score of 0.046, and so this relation is proven. However the differences in type of Leadership Style are small, and limited to organizational restrictions. The relation between the Type of Leadership Style and (collective) Psychological Ownership is not proven, Psychological Ownership cannot be seen as an mediator. So the positive relation gets his foundation from other issues of type of Leadership Style. Within the study of (Schurer R. , 2013) a relation is described between task responsibility and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, which is also a issue of type of Leadership Style. Also other issues of type of Leadership Style could be assumed as positive influencers for Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, including: group goals, teams and coaching.
The in many researches described positive relation between Psychological Ownership and Collective Psychological is by this research proven in a real life organization (Schurer R. , 2013), (Pierce & Jussila, 2010). For both Psychological Ownership and Collective Psychological Ownership results in a more positive score on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.
The outcomes of the research can be used to stimulate Organizational Citizenship Behaviour within organizations by the Type of Leadership style.
5.2 Limitations
One limitation of the research is a small sample size. The research is done within one company whereby every team has the same organizational purpose and the same management control. This homogeneity was a benefit to this research as hereby groups can be compared. However not proven is that the research holds with other organizational goals or management controls.
Subsequent the differences in type of Leadership Style are small. All teams have a same
organizational structure and organizational purpose. With this in mind team managers are assigned.
These team managers get rules and restrictions from the organization which makes it hard to perform a totally different type of Leadership Style as his colleagues.
5.3 Directions for further research
Employee responsible is described as a driver for Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Organ &
Ryan, 1995). Responsibility is also one of the issues of type of Leadership Style and so responsibility is possibly a mediation factor between a type of Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour.
Furthermore to approve the conclusions a sequel research can be done within a company where the differences in type of Leadership Style are bigger.
6. Conclusions
For the four hypothesis discussed in the background section conclusions will be made.
Hypothesis 1: Psychological Ownership is a positive mediation factor between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The positive relation between Collective Psychological Ownership and Organizational Citizenship is proven. Hereby the research endorses previous research. As there is no direct relation found between Leadership Style and Psychological Ownership, Psychological Ownership is not a mediation factor between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.
Hypothesis 2: Collective Psychological Ownership is a positive mediation factor between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The positive relation between Collective Psychological Ownership and Organizational Citizenship is proven. Hereby the research endorses previous research. As there is no direct relation found between Leadership Style and Collective Psychological Ownership, Collective Psychological Ownership is not a mediation factor between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relation between Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
There is a positive relation found between type of Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Psychological Ownerships forms not a mediation factor between this relation. In a next research the mediator “responsibility” should be tested.
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relation between a Collective Leadership style and (collective) Psychological Ownership.
There is no significant relation found between these issues and so this hypothesis does not hold. As the Cronbach Alpha score of type of Leadership style is poor and the difference between the less and more collaborative teams is small a new research confirm these rejection again.
7. References
Acorn, S. (1991). Relationship of role conflict and role ambiguity to selected job dimensions among joint appointees. Journal of Professional Nursing , 221-227.
Akrivou, K., & Boyatzis, R. (1982). The evolving group: towards a prescriptive theory of intentional group development. Journal of Management Development , 689-702.
Ardrey, R. (1966). The territotial imperative: A personal inquiry into the animal origins of property and nations. New York: Dells.
Armovich, N., & Larson, J. (2013). Strategic demonstration of problem solutions by groups: The effects of member preferences, confidence, and learning goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 36–52.
Arya, A., Fellingham, J., & Glover, J. (1997). Teams, repeated tasks, and implicit incentives. Journal of Accounting and Economics , 7-30.
Avey, J., & Crossley, B. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 171-191.
Beggan, J. (1991). Using what you own to get what you need: The role of possessions in satisfying control motivation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 229-237.
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research , 139-168.
Brown, G., & Crossley, C. What about psychological ownership and territoriality? Questions we starting to ask. Presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Los Angeles, CA.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. Sage .
Butworth, M. (1997). Individual learning and group performance: the role of collective efficacy.
Journal of Workplace Learning , 391-401.
Cater, J., & Justes, R. (2010). The development and implementation of shared leadership in multi- generational family firms. Management Research Review , 563-585.
Claude, R., & Martin, J. (1996). Retail service innovations Inputs for success. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 63-71.
Clutterbuck, D. (2013). Time to focus coaching on the team. Industrial and commercial training , 18- 22.
Cunningham, I. (2003). Managers can't (and shouldn't) do all the coaching: taking a more realistic approach to coaching in organizations. Training and strategies for tommorow , 4-10.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possesions: To have is to be. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Douglas, N., & Wiliam, D. (1982). Measuring the Performance of Industrial Salespersons. Journal of Business Research , 355-370.
Drugskat, V., & Kayes, D. (2000). Learning versus performance in short term project teams. Small group research , 328-355.
Duliwiz, V., & Higs, M. (1986). Assessing leadership styles and organisational context. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 105-123.
Duncan, N. (1981). Home ownership and social theory. London: Croom Helm.
Fransen, J., Kirschner, P., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior , 1103–1113.
Gabelica, G., & Van den Bossche, P. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review.
Educational Research Review , 123-144.
Gibson, B. (2001). From kwowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 121-134.
Haas, A., Snehota, I., & Corsaro, D. (2012). Creating value in business relationships: The role of sales.
Industrial Marketing Management , 94-105.
Hagdorn-van der Meijden, L., van Nunen, J., & Ramondt, A. (1994). Forecasting — bridging the gap between sales and manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics , 101-114.
Han, T., Chiang H.H., & Chang, A. (2008). Employee participation, psychological ownership, and knowledge sharing: Mediating Role of organizational Commitment. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management .
Hsiao, M. (2009). Shopping mode choice: Physical store shopping versus e-shopping. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , 86-95.
Isaacs, S. (1993). Social development in Young children. London: Routledge.
Jimmieson, N., & Hannam, R. (2010). Teacher organizational citizenship behavior and job efficacy:
Implications for student quality of school life. British journal of psychology , 453-79.
Karlson, C. (2009). Researching Operations Management. New York: Routledge.
Kramer, M., & Crespy, D. (2011). Communicating collaborative leadership . The Leadership Quarterly , 1024–1037.
Lam, C., & Gurland, S. (2008). Self-determined work motivation predicts job outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation? Journal of Research in Personality , 1109-1105.
Lambe, C., Webb, K., & Ishida, C. (2009). Self-managing selling teams and team performance: The complementary roles of empowerment and control. Industrial Marketing Management , 5-16.
Lathem, G., & Baldes, J. (1975). The practical significance of Locke's theory of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology , 122-124.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Loch, C., Yazij, M., & Langen, C. (2001). The fight for the alpha position:: Channeling status competition in organizations. European Management Journal , 16-25.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation:
a 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist , 705-717.
Love, M., & Forret, M. (2008). Exchange relationships at work: An examination of the relationship between team-member exchange and supervisor reports of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 342-352.
Mallin, M., & Pullins, E. (2009). The moderating effect of control systems on the relationship between commission and salesperson intrinsic motivation in a customer oriented environment. Industrial Marketing Management , 769-777.
Mann, L., Samson, D., & Douglas, D. (1998). A field experiment on the Effects of Benchmarking and Goal setting on Company sales performance. Journal of Management , 73-96.
Mark, C., & Layer, R. (2013). A model of retail job characteristics, employee role ambiguity, external customer mind-set, and sales performance. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 58-67.
Marsh, B. (2012, 04 03). Using Competition to Motivate Your Sales Team. Retrieved 09 2013, 2013, from Leveleleven: http://leveleleven.com/2012/04/using-competition-to-motivate-your-sales-team/
Martin, S. (1996). The profession and its leaders: Mutual responsibilities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 376-377.
Mayhew, M., & Ashkanasy, N. (2013). A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings. The Journal of Social Psychology , 477-500.
Miao, C., & Evans, K. (2012). Effects of formal sales control systems: A combinatory perspective.
International Journal of Research in Marketing , 181-191.
Miao, C., & Evans, K. (2007). The role of salesperson motivation in sales control systems — Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation revisited. Journal of Business Research , 417-425.
Olckers, C. (2013). Psychological ownership: Development of an instrument. OpenJournals , 39.
Organ, D. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Bahaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington:
Lexington Books.
Organ, D., & Podsakoff, P. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Bahavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Organ, D., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. School of Business , 48.
Paile, P. (2009). Assessing organizational citizenship behavior in the French context: evidence for the four-dimensional model. The Journal of Psychology , 133-146.
Pierce, J., & Jussila, A. (2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 810-834.
Pierce, J., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review , 298-310.
Pierce, J., Rubenfeld, S., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: a conceptual model of process &
effects. Academy of Management Review , 121-144.
Pinder, C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior. New York: Psychology Press.
Podsakoff, P., & Mackenzie, S. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Emperical Literature and Suggestions for future Research. Journal of Management , 513-563.
Pollitt, D. (2013). Co-operative Group induction inspires enthusiastic and engaged employees: Award- winning program proves to be great value for money. Human Resource Management International Digest , 19-21.
Robinson, S. (2004). Simulation the practice of model development and use. Chichester: Wiley.
Schurer, R. (2013). Organizational Citizenship Bahaviour within Organizations. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Sessa, V. (1982). Interventions to stimulate group learning in organizations. Journal of Management Development , 554-573.
Sharma, A., Levy, M., & Kumar, A. (2000). Knowledge structures and retail sales performance: an empirical examination. Journal of Retailing , 53-69.
Steiner, I. (1972). Group Processes and Productivity. Acedemic Press .
Stoney, G. (2007). Examining the relationship between feedback and performance in a monitored environment: A clarification and extension of feedback intervention theory. The Journal of High Technology Management Research , 157–174.
Sujan, H., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. J.Mark , 39- 52.
Trivellas, P., & Drimoussis, C. (2012). Investigating Leadership Styles, Behavioural and Managerial Competency Profiles of Successful Project Managers in Greece. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 692-700.
Van Dyne, Linn, & Pierce, J. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior , 439-459.
Walbeek, W., & In der Maur, W. (2013). Belbin role diversity and team performance: is there a relationship? Journal of Management Development , Issue 8.
Walker, A. (2009). Setting Goals. Oregon: Holden Leadership Center.
Worsfold, P. (1989). Leadership and managerial effectiveness in the hospitality industrie. Hospitality Management , 145-155.
Yeh, E., & Smith, C. (1995). Team building: a 3-dimensional teamwork model. Team Performance Management , 192-197.
Yu, L., & Keung Lai, K. (2011). A distance-based group decision-making methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision support. Decision Support Systems , 307–315.
8. Appendixes
Appendix 1: Quantitative survey
Leadership Way of coaching
Shared goals Team building Group learning Responsibility Total score on
Psychological ownership Efficacy and effectance
Self-identity Having a place
Other psychological ownership factors Collective ownership
Total score on Psychological ownership
Organisational citizen behaviour Score on altruism Score on courtesy Score on civic virtue Score on sportmanship Score on conscientiousness
Total score on organisational citizen behaviour
Leadership
1. Als ik stuur op targets stuur ik op team targets, boven individuele targets 2. Ik kijk altijd eerst naar mijn eigen targets en daarna naar die van de winkel
3. Mijn team weet wat we met elkaar willen bereiken de komende periode, we hebben een duidelijk€ team doel(en)
4. Ik weet wat we met het team willen bereiken dit jaar, ik pas mijn werkwijze aan om dit doel te bereiken.
Hoe vaak worden er teambuilding activiteiten ontplooid? (hieronder wordt verstaan:
team uitjes & teambuildings activiteiten op bijvoorbeeld een werkoverleg).
5. Nooit - Enkele malen per jaar – eens per maand – meerdere keren per maand
6. Welke van onderstaande groepsleeractiviteiten zijn er in het afgelopen halfjaar voorgekomen?
o Kennis presentatie, van medewerker
o Actief on-the-job meeluisteren, van begin tot eind
o Sessies waarbij kennis in groepsverband onderling georganiseerd gedeeld wordt.
o Groepstrainingen
7. Mijn medewerkers dienen alle taken te kunnen uitvoeren, en doen dit ook (denk hierbij aan winkel indeling, voorraad beheer en klachtbehandeling)
8. Ik voer alle winkel taken uit. Inclusief de minder voorkomende taken als inboeken, winkel indeling, klacht behandeling etc.
Phychological ownership
Kun je bij onderstaande stellingen aangeven in hoeverre deze bij jou van toepassingen zijn? (Heel erg van toepassing, Redelijk van toepassing, noch van toepassing noch niet van toepassing, niet zo van toepassing, helemaal niet van toepassing)
Questions on Efficacy and effectance
9. Ik kan mijn werk zo inrichten dat ik mijn werktijd effectief kan benutten, ik word hierbij niet gehinderd door bedrijfsvoorwaarden
10. Ik denk regelmatig na over hoe ik mijn verkoopgesprek uitvoer. Het geeft mij voldoening als een door mij bedachte techniek werkt.
Questions on Self-identity
11. Hoe in mijn winkel omgegaan wordt met klanten zou ik zelf ook geholpen willen worden.
Dit geldt voor mijzelf maar ook wat ik bij mijn collega’s zie.
12. Als ik zelf de winkel zou inrichten zou ik het net zo doen.
13. Ik vertel anderen met trots dat ik in de KPN Winkel werk
Questions on Having a place
14. De winkel waar ik werk voelt als mijn tweede huis. Het voelt vertrouwder dan dat het alleen de winkel is waar ik werk.
15. Met vrienden en kennissen spreek ik over mijn of onze (KPN) winkel, in plaats van de KPN Winkel / een telecomwinkel etc.
16. Ik ben zuinig op de winkel waar ik werk en doe mijn best om deze netjes te houden.
Questions on Other phychological ownership factors
17. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mij soms meer verantwoordelijk voel voor de winkel / verkoop dan een van mijn gelijkwaardige collega’s.
18. Ik vind veranderingen die door het management boven de winkel besloten worden vervelend en heb regelmatig het idee dat dit niet de juiste keuzes zijn.
Collective Phychological ownership
19. Ik heb het gevoel dat we binnen de winkel min of meer afhankelijk van elkaar zijn.
20. Ik voel mij een met de groep van collega’s, we zijn een soort familie
21. Ik heb sterk het gevoel dat we binnen de winkel een gezamenlijke richting/doel hebben
Organisational citizen behaviour
Kun je bij onderstaande stellingen aangeven in hoeverre deze bij jou van toepassingen zijn? (zeer lage mate, lage mate, neutraal, hoge mate, zeer hoge mate)
Questions to measure altruism
22. Ik help collega’s welke absent geweest zijn
23. Ik ben altijd klaar om mensen in mijn winkel te helpen
24. Ik help andere wanneer zij het druk hebben (bijvoorbeeld met studie of andere verplichtingen)
Questions to measure courtesy
25. Ik hou rekening met hoe mijn gedrag invloed heeft op de werkzaamheden van anderen 26. Ik maak geen misbruik van mijn collega’s
27. Ik neem stappen om problemen met collega’s te voorkomen
Questions to measure civic virtue
28. Ik woon meetings bij (vergaderingen, jaarstart / einde jaar bijeenkomst / trainingen etc) welke niet verplicht zijn maar wel belangrijk.
29. Ik ben aanwezig bij werkzaamheden die niet verplicht zijn, maar die een positief effect hebben op het imago van het bedrijf.
30. Ik houd mij op de hoogte van veranderingen binnen de organisatie
31. Ik lees en blijf op de hoogte van mededelingen, notities en dergelijke die afkomstig zijn van de organisatie.
Questions to measure sportsmanship
32. Ik heb de neiging om van een mug een olifant te maken 33. Wat de organisatie doet vind ik altijd fout
Questions to measure conscientiousness
34. Ik ben een van de meest zorgvuldige medewerkers 35. Ik geloof in een eerlijke dag werken voor een eerlijk loon 36. Ik neem geen extra pauzes
37. Ik overtreed geen regels, ook als ik weet dat niemand hier op let.
Questions to measure helping behaviour
38. Ik onderneem stappen om problemen met collega’s te voorkomen.
39. Ik moedig andere aan als ze zich minder voelen
40. Ik ben een stabiliserende factor als er onenigheden ontstaan
