Post on 13-May-2022
Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Does the type of organizational culture and leadership style
affect organizational citizenship behaviors?
Executive Programme in Management Studies – Leadership
University of Amsterdam
Name author: Priscilla Vanessa van der Ploeg
Student number: 10499377
Date: June 2015
Name supervisor: D.N. Hartog
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Priscilla Vanessa van der Ploeg who declares to
take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the extend and the work
presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the
text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is
responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Table of contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Theory and hypotheses ....................................................................................................................... 11
Organizational Citizenship Behavior ............................................................................................ 11
Culture and Organizational Citizenship Behavior ....................................................................... 14
Leadership style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior ........................................................ 18
Engagement ...................................................................................................................................... 24
Research Design ................................................................................................................................... 35
Organizational context .................................................................................................................... 35
Participants and procedure ............................................................................................................ 36
Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Results .................................................................................................................................................. 40
Reliability of Constructs ................................................................................................................. 40
Descriptive statistics ........................................................................................................................ 41
Hypotheses testing ........................................................................................................................... 42
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Limitations and future research .................................................................................................... 53
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 54
References ............................................................................................................................................ 56
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 62
4
Abstract
Organizational citizenship behavior (hereafter: OCB) has been an important
factor in determining individual and organization performance outcomes and
effectiveness of organizations. Therefore it is of interest to do research on which
factors influence OCB. Previous research has mainly been focused on the relationship
between personality traits and attitudes of employees and OCB. This study examines
the relationship of contextual factors that are imposed by the organization or sector
and where an individual has little or no influence on with OCB. The factors that were
used in this study are two culture types and two leadership styles. The culture types
that were examined are a hierarchical culture and a constructive culture. The
leadership styles that were examined are a transformational and transactional style.
Also is tested whether engagement of employees mediates between the antecedents
and OCB.
This study was conducted at a local bank in the Netherlands. Results, based on
164 completed surveys, indicated that a hierarchical culture did not have a direct
relationship with OCB. Also the two types of leadership styles, transformational and
transactional, did not affect OCB directly. In addition, engagement does not mediate
between the predicted relationship of a hierarchical culture, transformational
leadership and transactional leadership with OCB. However, results indicated that a
constructive culture was found to be related to OCB and engagement is a mediating
mechanism in this relationship.
5
Introduction
Extra-role behavior of employees has been an important factor in
determining the performance of an organization. Therefore extra-role behavior
has become of great interest in the research field of organizational behavior.
Much researchers refer to the term OCB to describe extra-role behavior (Katz
and Kahn, 1966, Organ, Podsakoff, and McKenzie, 2006; Sun, Chow, Chiu, and
Pan, 2013). OCB can be described as “voluntary behaviors of employees that
transcend an employee’s specified role requirements and are not formally
rewarded by the organization” (Organ, Podsakoff and McKenzie, 2006).
OCB has an effect on the performance of organizations (Podsakoff and
MacKenzie, 1994; Chen, Hui and Sego, 1998). The performance outcomes of an
organization can be distinguished in individual and organizational performance
outcomes. At the individual level OCB had a positive relationship with
performance evaluations of employees and manager’s reward allocation
decisions (Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting and Podsakoff, 2009). In addition, a
negative relationship was found between OCB and employees intentions to leave
the organization, the actual turnover rate, and absenteeism of employees
(Podsakoff et al., 2009). At the organizational level OCB had a positive
relationship with the productivity, profitability, efficiency and customer
satisfaction. However a negative relationship was found with costs and turnover
(Podsakoff et al., 2009). In addition to the effect that OCB has on the
performance outcomes of an organization it also promotes the social and
psychological environment of an organization, which improves the effectiveness
of an organization (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010).
6
Based on previous research findings OCB contributes to individual and
organizational performance outcomes and effectiveness of organizations.
Therefore it is of interest to determine which factors influence the behavior of
employees and what makes it that employees choose to show OCB. Previous
studies which have examined the factors that influence OCB have mainly been
focused on the relationship between attitudinal and personality character traits
with OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Farh, Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Konovsky
and Organ, 1995). In their meta-analysis Organ and Ryan (1995) found that
attitudinal factors such as satisfaction and commitment had a direct positive
relationship with OCB. Personality traits like conscientiousness and
agreeableness seem to have an indirect positive relationship with OCB. Organ
and Ryan (1995) found that personality traits affect the attitude of an employee
towards events that occur and relationships with colleagues, in turn attitudes
then affect whether an employee will show OCB. The purpose of this study is to
examine other factors than attitudinal and personality character traits that affect
OCB. This study examines the relationship of contextual factors where an
individual has limited influence on such as the organizational culture and type of
leadership style with OCB. Therefore as a first step this research will test the
direct relationship between two culture types and two leadership styles with
OCB.
It is of interest to test the relationship between organizational cultures and
OCB because the culture of an organization influence the behavior of employees
(Gregory, Harris, Armenakis and Shook, 2009). That is because the values that
are shared by employees determine which behavior is appropriated and accepted
in the organization. These appropriated and accepted behaviors come from
7
experiences with how work is done and how problems are solved. The types of
culture that have been used to examine the relationship with OCB are a
hierarchical and a constructive organizational culture. A hierarchical culture is
characterized by a focus on control over employees through rules and standard
procedures (Richard, McMillan-Capehart, Bhuian and Taylor, 2009). Where a
constructive organizational culture is characterized by cooperation and support
(Balthazard, Cooke and Potter, 2006). The reason that these types of cultures are
chosen to examine the relationship with OCB is because they differ in terms of
the appropriate and accepted behaviors. In a constructive culture employees are
allowed to dictate their own behaviors (Van Muijen, Koopman, and De Witte,
1996) whereas in a hierarchical culture behaviors are guided by strict guidelines
(Gregory et al., 2009).
Some organizations or sectors such as the organization where this research
is conducted have to deal with rules and regulations that are imposed. This
framework of rules and regulations determine how work should be done and
how problems are solved which ultimately determines the culture of the
organization (Schein, 1984). Employees who experience the culture of their
organization as hierarchical may have the feeling that they are bounded to do
their work and this can affect their willingness to show OCB. In contrast to a
hierarchical culture a constructive culture is characterized by allowing
employees to dictate their own behavior (Gregory et al., 2009). Employees can
decide how to do their work and they experience empowerment which can also
affect their willingness to show OCB. It is also of interest to test the relationship
between the organization culture and OCB because there is no research found
that examined this relationship.
8
Besides the organizational culture the type of leadership style has an
influence on the behavior of employees and therefore it is of interest to examine
the relationship between different leadership styles and OCB of employees. The
leadership styles that have been used to examine the relationship with OCB are
transformational and transactional leadership. These leadership styles are used
because both leadership styles motivate their employees but require different
behaviors of them. Transactional leaders motivate their employees to perform
only the task that the leader wishes them to do (Burns, 1978). Therefore the
behavior that a transactional leader requires of its employees can be described as
in-role behavior. In contrast a transformational leader motivates employees to go
beyond the behavior that is expected from them to do the task (Bass, 1985).
Transformational leaders therefore asks of its employees behavior that goes
beyond the in-role behavior. Previous research has indicated that a
transformational leadership style has a positive relationship with OCB
(Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010; Walumbwa, Hartnell and Oke, 2010).
Whereas a transactional leadership style has an indirect effect on OCB through
the level of trust in the manager as mediating mechanism (MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, and Rich, 2001).
After examining the impact of the above-mentioned factors with OCB this
study will look at the potential mechanism. The mechanism that is used in this
study is engagement. Employees are engaged in their work when they are
psychologically present when occupying an organizational role (Rich, LePine,
and Crawford, 2010). Engagement is used as mediator because employees that
are engaged in their work will show increased OCB, which can be explained by
how they make choices to allocate their physical, cognitive and emotional
9
energies into their work (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010). When employees
are engagement in their work they show positive attitudes such as investing
effort in their work, they are enthusiastic, and challenge themselves (Schaufeli,
Salanova, Gonzales-Roma and Bakker, 2002). The organizational culture affects
positive attitudes of employees (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis, and Shook, 2009).
Therefore it is of interest to test whether engagement is a mechanism in the
possible relationship between a hierarchical and a constructive culture with
OCB.
The type of leadership style also has an effect on employees to engage in
their work. Transformational leaders energizes employees to lift themselves to
extraordinary heights and let employees do more than they are expected to do
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter, 1990). Employees who
experience their leader as transformational reported more engagement in their
work (Bono and Judge, 2003; Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010). Thus,
engagement is viewed as playing a potential mediating role in the relationship
between the leadership styles and OCB.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a hierarchical
culture, constructive culture, transformational leadership style, and transactional
leadership style on OCBs, and to test the potential mediating mechanism of
engagement. The research model is summarized below in figure 1. This study
makes a contribution from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. This
study aims to add knowledge to existing research by examining contextual
factors and their relationship with OCB. Finally, this study is practically relevant
for organizations because it is important for practicing managers and leaders
which organizational culture and leadership styles influence OCB. When
10
managers and leaders know which culture types and leadership styles have a
positive effect on OCB they can stimulate this culture type an leadership style.
FIGURE 1
Model of antecedents and their relationship with organizational citizenship behavior with engagement as mediator
11
Theory and hypotheses
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The term OCB is first described as supra-role behavior by Katz and Kahn
(1966). By this definition they refer to “behavior that cannot be prescribed or
required in advance for a given job.” In 1983 the authors Bateman and Organ
have changed this term into “citizenship behaviors” because they found this a
better term for these kind of behaviors. According to Bateman and Organ (1983)
behaviors that were not prescribed or required in advance for a given job were
helping co-workers with a job related problem; tolerating temporary impositions
without complaining; making timely and constructive statements; promoting a
work climate that is tolerable and minimizes the distractions created by
interpersonal conflict; protecting and conserving organizational resources and
helping to keep the work floor clean.
Later Organ introduced the term OCB and defined this as “performance
that supports the social and psychological environment in which task
performance takes place” (Organ, 1997 as cited in Podsakoff, Whiting,
Podsakoff and Blume, 2009). In more recent work the term OCB is described as
“voluntary behaviors that transcend an employee’s specified role requirements
and are not formally rewarded by the organization (Organ, Podsakoff and
McKenzie, 2006). These different terms that are used to describe OCB all have
in common that they describe work behavior that should lead to organizational
performance and behaviors that are separate from in-role behaviors also
described as extra-role behaviors. Although more recent research has indicated
12
that OCB is viewed as an aspect of in-role behaviors (Nahum-Shani and
Somech, 2011).
The background of OCB can be referred to the “active citizenship
syndrome” described by Inkeles (1969 as cited in Van Dyne, Graham and
Dienesch, 1994). The “active citizenship syndrome” consists of three categories
where citizens are responsible for being associated with several beliefs and
behaviors. These three categories, associated beliefs and behaviors are Obedience,
which involves “respect for orderly structures and processes”. Obedient citizens
are responsible citizens that obey the law and respect “rational-legal” authority.
The second category of the “active citizenship syndrome” is Loyalty, which
means “serving the interest of the community as a whole and values that it
embodies”. Behaviors associated with Loyalty are promoting and protecting the
community and voluntarily make extra effort for the common good. The third
category is Participation, which contains “active and responsible involvement in
community self-governance in whatever ways are possible under the law.”
Citizens that participate behave responsible and keep themselves well-informed,
exchange information and ideas with other citizens and make a contribution to the
well-being of the community and encourage other citizens to participate (Van
Dyne, Graham and Dienesch, 1994).
Thus, the origin of OCB lies in the political philosophy. Graham (1991 as
cited in Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch 1994) has translated this political
philosophy of the “active citizenship syndrome” to organizational settings. The
categories Obedience, Loyalty and Participation are translated to organizational
settings whereby obedience reflects to employees that accept the need for rules
and regulations. Employees that are loyal can identify themselves with the
13
organization which reflects in behaviors such as defending the organization
against threats and cooperating with others and to serve the interest of the whole.
Employees that participate keep themselves informed, take their responsibility and
are involved in organizational governance.
OCB is also described as the “good soldier syndrome” (Organ, 1988).
Organ (1988) identified five types of behaviors as the dimensions of OCB also
known as the five-factor OCB model. This five type of behaviors are altruism,
conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Altruism can be
described as discretionary behavior that leads to helping others with an
organizational relevant task or problem; conscientiousness is discretionary
behavior that goes beyond the in-role requirements in the areas of attendance and
taking breaks and accepting and adhering to the rules, regulations, and procedures
of the organization; sportsmanship is the willingness of an employee to tolerate
less than ideal circumstances without complaining and making problems seem
bigger than they really are; courtesy is behavior that is aimed at preventing work-
related problems with others in the organization; civic virtue is behavior that
indicates that an employee participates, takes responsibility, and is involved in the
organization as a whole.
LePine and VanDyne (1998) have added an extra type of extra-role
behavior knowing voice behavior. LePine and Van Dyne (1998) defined voice
behavior as behavior that is not specified in normal job description and
emphasizes on “speaking out and challenging the status quo” with the intent to
improve rather than to criticize the situation. Employees with voice behavior
initiate communication with superiors. Examples of voice behavior are giving
cost-saving suggestions or telling that there are problems (Withey and Cooper,
14
1989). According to Organ (1988) voice is considered the most risky and costly
type of OCB. This is because when employees speak out they risk being seen as
troublemakers who criticize the organization and disrupt the status quo.
Most research on OCB has focussed primarily on individual factors such
as attitudinal and personality characteristics of an employee that predict an effect
on OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Farh, Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Konovsky
and Organ, 1995). There has been less attention to contextual factors of the
organization and what their effects are on OCB. This study aims to test the
relationship between contextual factors with OCB. One of these contextual factors
is the organizational culture.
Culture and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational culture is a complex phenomenon. Schein’s (1984)
defines organizational culture as “the patterns of basic assumptions that a given
group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its
problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked
well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members
as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to problems”.
There are three fundamental levels to analyse an organizational culture.
These different levels are visible artifacts, values and assumptions (Schein,
1990). Visible artifacts refers to that which you can observe in an organization
such as how the organization is constructed, office layout, and the way
employees dress. Visible artifacts can be described as behaviors that are
observable but does not explain the underlying logic why a group behaves like it
does. The level of why employees behave like they do are the values that direct
15
these behaviors. Values are difficult to observe and represent the espoused
values of an organizational culture. These values determine the decisions and
behaviors of employees (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis and Shook, 2009). The
third level, assumptions, gives an explanation of these values and behaviors.
These underlying assumptions are the unconscious of employees and define how
employees perceive, think, and feel. Assumptions arise by experiences of
employees on how problems are solved and which behavior is appropriate to
solve these problems. These assumptions manifest themselves in values (Schein,
1984, 1991).
There are different types of organizational cultures. Quinn and
Rohrbaugh (1983) developed a multidimensional framework to assess
organizational cultures. This competing values framework provides an overview
of different types of organizational cultures by focusing on two dimensions.
These dimensions describe how an organization is structured in terms of
flexibility and control and if the organizational has an internal or external focus.
This research focuses on how an organization is structured to appoint
organizational culture. The dimension structure conceptualizes the differences in
organizational cultures in terms of employee behaviors ranging from striving for
consistent patterns of behaviors to allowing employees to dictate their own
behaviors (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983).
Organizational cultures with consistent patterns of behaviors can be
defined as a rules oriented or hierarchical culture (Van Muijen, Koopman and
De Witte, 1996; Gregory et al., 2009). A hierarchical culture focus on internal
control and its characteristics are uniformity and coordination of internal
efficiency. Employee behaviors are guided by strict guidelines (Gregory et al.,
16
2009). The characteristics of a rules oriented culture are respect for authority,
rationality of procedures, and division of work. Organizations with a rules
oriented culture have a hierarchical structure and communication is often formal
and written. Decisions are made top-down and power is based on formal
authority (Van Muijen et al., 1999). A hierarchical or rules oriented culture can
be compared to a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracy can be defined as an
organizational structure that is characterized by regulated procedures and
policies, hierarchy, divisions of responsibility and impersonal relationships.
Employees in a bureaucratic organization are exposed to high levels of rules and
regulations. Stamper and Dyne (2001) found in their research that employees in
a less bureaucratic organization showed stronger OCB than employees in a more
bureaucratic organization. Their explanation for this effect is that organizations
in a more bureaucratic organization do not support or reward OCB in contrast
with less bureaucratic organizations.
To build further on this relationship between bureaucratic organizations
and OCB employees who perceive their culture as hierarchical or rules oriented
will show less OCB because their behavior should fit within a culture with
consistent patterns of behavior so there will be little room for discretionary
behavior (Gregory et al., 2009). Employees who perceive their culture as
hierarchical or rules oriented do their work according to the rules, regulations,
and procedures that are written down. Elements of a hierarchical or rules
oriented culture can lead to dysfunctional outcomes (Balthazard, Cooke and
Potter, 2006). Employees who do their work within a framework of rules and
procedures will not do their work differently which can be necessary in a certain
situation. The consequence of not adjusting to the situation can have
17
dysfunctional outcomes for the organization. A hierarchical or rules oriented
culture could limit employees to show behavior that is not included in their
formal job description such as OCB.
The culture of an organization that allows its employees to dictate their
own behavior can be defined as a supportive oriented or a constructive culture
(Van Muijen et al., 1996; Balthazard, Cooke and Potter, 2006). The
characteristics of a supportive oriented culture are participation, cooperation,
people-based, mutual trust, team spirit, and individual growth. Communication
is often verbal and informal. The style of leadership is people oriented and
employees are encouraged to express ideas about their work and feelings about
each other. The commitment of the individual towards work and the
organization are emphasized (Van Muijen et al., 1999). A constructive culture
can be characterized by strong norms that promote cooperative behaviors and is
achievement oriented which affects satisfaction and commitment of employees
(Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. and Potter, R.E. (2006). It can be stated that a
constructive culture promotes positive behaviors such as OCB.
As stated above organizational cultures that promote positive behaviors
can be defined as a constructive or supportive oriented culture. Balthazard,
Cooke and Potter (2006) found in their research that when an organization holds
constructive norms employees show achievement-oriented and cooperative
behaviors because they are more satisfied and motivated. This is related to OCB
because Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff and Blume (2009) argued that
satisfaction and motivation are indicators of OCB which means that satisfied and
motivated people are more likely to show OCB than people that are not.
Employees develop more positive behaviors in an organization where the culture
18
provides positive expectancies about how employees should behave (Gregory et
al., 2009) and thus are more willing to go beyond the formal job description.
Supportive oriented cultures allow their employees to dictate their own
behaviors (Gregory et al., 2009) and employees are encouraged to express ideas
about their work (Van Muijen et al., 1999). Employees that experience their
organizational culture as supportive oriented or constructive will have the
feeling that their organization supports and rewards them to show extra-role
behavior
Employees behaviors are influenced by how they perceive the
organizational culture (Schein, 1984). Based on the perceived organizational
culture, hierarchical or constructive, employees behave in ways that are
consistent with the type of organizational culture. Thus, the perceived type of
organizational culture has an influence on the willingness of an employee to
show OCB. Therefore the following is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between a hierarchical
culture and organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive relationship between a constructive
culture and organizational citizenship behavior.
The expectation is that the organizational culture perceived by an
employee has a relationship with OCB. Another important antecedent of OCB is
the type of leadership style evaluated by subordinates.
Leadership style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The leadership styles used in this study as antecedents of OCB are
transformational and transactional leadership. The reason that these two
19
leadership styles are tested is because these types desire different behaviors of
their subordinates. Where a transactional leader asks in-role behaviors to perform
a task, a transformational leader stimulates extra-role behaviors (Burns, 1978;
Bass, 1985). Burns (1978) defined transforming leadership as “a leader that
engages others in a way that the leader and follower raise one another to a higher
level of motivation and morality.” Burns (1978) distinguishes transactional
leaders from transforming leaders because according to him a transactional leader
initiates contact with subordinates in an effort to exchange valued outcomes which
can be economic, psychological or political also known as the cost-benefit
exchange.
Transactional leaders engage in a transaction with their subordinates. An
effective transactional leader rewards subordinates for good performance and
punishes them for poor performance (Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders can be
characterized as leaders who have a preference for avoiding risks and operate
within the existing culture. For transactional leaders, efficiency and time
constraints are important and they are focused on the process when maintaining
control (Bass, 1985 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Transactional leadership has three dimensions: contingent reward,
management by exception-active and management by exception-passive (Judge
and Piccolo, 2004). Contingent reward is when the leader sets up the exchange
with subordinates. The leader communicates the expectations and establishes the
rewards for meeting these expectations or consequences if they are not met. The
dimension management by exception can be described as letting subordinates do
their jobs as always as long as the transaction is met (Bass, Avolio and Goodheim,
1987) and the degree to which the leader takes corrective action when the
20
transaction is not met (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). A distinction can be made
between active and passive management by exception. According to Howell and
Avolio (1993) active transactional leaders take corrective actions in order to
prevent undesirable behaviors by monitoring the behavior of subordinates and
anticipate problems. As opposed to active management by exception passive
transactional leaders wait with taking actions until behavior of subordinates have
caused problems. Passive management by exception is not included in this study
because this dimension has some resemblance to laissez-faire leadership which
represents the absence of any leadership (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
In contrast, transformational leaders go beyond the cost-benefit exchange
by motivating and inspiring followers to perform better and to give more of
themselves than only what the leader asks of them (Bass, 1985). A
transformational leader is a leader with whom followers want to identify with,
want to share a vision with and where one is willing to commit themselves not
only for self-interest (Hater and Bass, 1988). The characteristics of
transformational leaders are that they take risks in seeking opportunities, approach
work in a new way, have a preference for effective rather than efficient solutions
and do not support the status quo (Lowe, Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Another characteristic of a transformational leader is that this type of leader does
not solely respond to environmental circumstances. Instead they shape and create
the environment (Avolio and Bass, 1988 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck and
Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Transformational leadership has four dimensions, which are idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration (Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1999). Idealized influence (also known as
21
charisma) is the degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways such as
instilling pride to its subordinates, behaving respectfully and keeping faith. By
this behavior subordinates want to identify with the leader. Transformational
leaders articulate a vision and with this vision they inspire and motivate their
subordinates also known as inspirational motivation. Leaders with inspirational
motivation are optimistic about future goals and challenge subordinates to have
higher standards to achieve these goals. The dimension intellectual stimulation is
the degree to which the leader stimulates and encourages their subordinates to
think in new ways of doing their job by taking risks, challenging assumptions and
encourage subordinates to come with ideas. Individualized consideration is when
the leader behaves in a way that each subordinates needs and concerns are
respected. The leader acts as a mentor or coach and stimulates learning
experiences (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Transformational and transactional leaders have different characteristics
and relationships with their subordinates. Whereas a transformational leader
wants empowerment of subordinates and provides a new strategy or vision to do
the job the transactional leader wants dependence of subordinates and jobs are
done in “the right way” like they always are done (Lowe, Kroeck and
Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Even though the leadership styles differ from each other
both leadership styles have goals and objectives which must be achieved.
Therefore transformational and transactional leadership are complementary, that is
transformational leadership is ineffective in the absence of transactional
leadership. (Bass, Avolio and Goodheim, 1987).
The type of leadership style affects the behavior of employees in a certain
direction. Transformational leaders affect positive behaviors by transforming
22
basic values, beliefs, and attitudes (Jung and Avolio, 1999). Employees who
experience their leader as transformational are more willing to go beyond what
is expected of them and therefore are more likely to show OCB (Jung and
Avolio, 1999). Whereas a transactional leaders affect the behavior primarily
through conditional reward-based exchange (Nahum-Shani and Somech, 2011).
Transactional leaders are focused on setting goals and clarifying the link
between performance and rewards. Behaviors need to be quantitatively measured
so they can be accurately rewarded and therefore transactional leaders are less
likely to have influence on OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001).
As suggested there is a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and OCB. Babcock and Strickland, 2010 found a direct link between
transformational leadership and OCB where others found an indirect link with
trust as a mediating mechanism (Podsakoff et al., 1990). An explanation given
by Walumbwa et al. 2010 about the positive relationship is that leaders with
transformational behaviors act in the best interest of their employees by
developing their skills, knowledge and abilities and they express genuine care
and concern. With this behavior they create a social context were employees
reciprocate in extra-role behavior. Den Hartog, De Hoogh and Keegan (2007)
confirm these findings as the results of their research shown that employees
shown more OCB when they perceive there leader as charismatic.
As opposed to transformational leader as antecedent of OCB, research
has found different results regarding the relationship between transactional
leadership and OCB. Walumbwa, Wu, and Orwa (2008) found in their research
that the dimension contingent reward had a positive effect on the behavior of
employees. Their explanation of this positive relationship between transactional
23
leadership and OCB is that transactional leaders contingent rewards both on task
performance and OCB. Also when employees experience that they are been
rewarded fairly, they will be more willing to show OCB. Other research has
found no significant relationship between the dimensions of transactional
leadership and OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001). Because of the
contradicting research findings it is of interest to examine whether this study
finds a relationship with the antecedent transactional leadership and OCB.
The type of leadership style affects the behavior of employees in a certain
direction. OCB is more likely to be promoted by transformational leaders who
can motivate employees to show behavior that goes beyond their formal job
description. Because OCB is not directly recognized and rewarded by the formal
appraisal system, OCB is less likely to be promoted by transactional leaders.
Employees that see their leaders as transactional think they are only rewarded for
accomplishing the task and in-role behaviors. Therefore it is possible that
employees do not see the need to show extra-role behaviors because they are not
rewarded and motivated to show these behaviors.
Thus, the type of leadership style has influence on the willingness of an
employee to show OCB. Therefore the following is proposed:
Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 4: There will be a negative relationship between transactional
leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.
24
Engagement
Given that the above mentioned antecedents have a positive or negative
relationship with OCB it is being proposed that engagement will be a mediating
mechanism between these relationships. That is, engagement has an important
role in explaining the relationship between a hierarchical-, a constructive culture
and transformational-, and transactional leadership with OCB.
Employees are engaged when they are psychologically present when
occupying and performing an organizational role (Rich, LePine and Crawford,
2010). Personal engagement is originally defined by Kahn (1990), who has
developed a theoretical framework that illustrates how psychological
experiences of work and work contexts shape the processes of people presenting
and absenting themselves during task performances in an organizational role.
Kahn (1990) defined personal engagement as the “simultaneous employment
and expression of a person’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote
connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and
emotional), and active, full role performances”. Personal engagement refers to
the degree that people are themselves, psychically, cognitively, and emotionally,
when performing their work.
According to Kahn (1990) there are three psychological conditions that
affect employees to personally engage in their work. These three psychological
conditions are psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and
psychological availability. Employees experience psychological meaningfulness
when they feel worthwhile, useful, and valuable as though they make a
difference and are not been taken for granted. Psychological safety is when
employees feel that they can be themselves without the fear of negative
25
consequences to their self-image, career or status. And the third psychological
availability is the individual’s readiness to personally engage at a particular
moment. Employees that have psychological availability have the physical,
emotional or psychological resource to put their physical, cognitive and
emotional energies into their work and therefore they tend to exhibit higher
engagement in their work role. The three psychological conditions stated by
Kahn (1990) that affect employees to engage in their work have an influence on
OCB. This study argues that the psychological conditions meaningfulness,
psychological safety, and psychological availability affect the six dimensions of
OCB (altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue, and
voice).
For example when employees experience that they are meaningful to the
organization they more likely will tolerate less than ideal circumstance
(sportsmanship). Also, employees that have the feeling that they are worthwhile
and useful will participate and take their responsibilities because they have the
feeling that their participation and involvement is valuable to the organization
and can make a difference (civic virtue behavior). Another dimension of OCB
that will be affected by psychological meaningfulness is voice behavior. When
employees experience that they are not been taken for granted they probably will
speak out and challenge the status quo because they feel that their voice matters
and can make a difference. Employees that experience psychological safety are
also more likely to initiate communication with superiors themselves and do
suggestions to improve the organization. In safe environments employees may
feel that they can be themselves and can speak out without the fear of negative
consequence for their self-image, career or status.
26
Psychological meaningfulness has an influence on the OCB of employees
because when employees put their psychical, cognitive, and emotional energies
into their work they get a sense of energetic and effective connection with their
work and will show organizationally valued behaviors which contributes to
accomplishing organizational goals (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and
Bakker, 2002). When employees experience this energetic and effective
connection to their work they see themselves able to deal completely with the
demands of their job and will accept and adhere to the rules, regulations, and
procedures of the organization (conscientiousness). Employees that invest in
their psychical, cognitive, and emotional energy will prevent work related
problems with co-workers (courtesy) and are more focused on discretionary
behaviors that leads to helping others with an organizational relevant task or
problem (altruism).
As summarized employees that are engaged in their work put their
psychical, cognitive, and emotional energies into their work to pursuit
organizational goals. Employees that invest in their psychical, cognitive and
emotional energy are more likely to show behaviors that go beyond the in-role
behaviors such as working harder, taking no extra breaks or helping others. This
is confirmed by Babcock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) that found in their
research that job engagement was significantly positively related to OCB. Other
research also found a positive relationship between job engagement and OCB
(Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010) and their explanation for this positive
relation is that employees that are engaged in their work invest in themselves
and are more willing to go the extra mile and engage in acts that constitute OCB.
27
Thus, employees that are engaged in their work have physical, emotional,
and cognitive energies to invest in themselves and others while performing their
work and this has an effect on their extra-role behaviors. Therefore the
following is proposed:
Hypothesis 5: There will be a positive relationship between engagement and
organizational citizenship behavior.
One of the antecedents in this study that predicts a relationship with OCB is the
organizational culture where a distinction is made between a hierarchical and
constructive culture. Engagement is a mediating mechanism in the predicted negative
relationship between a hierarchical culture and OCB because employees that
experience the organizational culture as hierarchical will be less engaged with the
consequence that they will show less OCB.
Engagement is about being your preferred self in task behaviors, which
promotes connections to others, personal presence, and active, full role performance
(Kahn, 1990). In an organization where the culture is hierarchical it is expected of
employees that they behave in consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines
(Gregory et al., 2009). Communication is formal and written down and decisions are
made top-down (Van Muijen et al., 1999). When employees need to behave in
consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines they can have the feeling that
they are bounded by these imposed behaviors and they may experience that they
cannot be their preferred self in task behaviors because they fear that this has
consequences for their career, self-image, or status. When employees cannot be their
self in task behaviors this will have a negative effect on the psychological safety of
employees which is a condition for employees to engage in their work (Kahn, 1990).
28
When employees experience the organizational culture as hierarchical they can
have the feeling that they cannot make a difference because tasks are done uniformly
according to rules, regulations and procedures that are written down. When employees
do not have the feeling they can make a difference this will have a negative effect on
their psychological meaningfulness which is also a condition that affect employees to
engage in their work (Kahn, 1990).
Job enrichment also affects the psychological meaningfulness of employees
(May, Gilson, and Harter, 2004; Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, and Fuller, 2001; Saks,
2006). An enriched job has variety, identity, autonomy, and feedback (Niehoff et al.,
2001). In a hierarchical culture employees can experience that their work has no
variety and autonomy because tasks are done according to rules, regulations, and
procedures that are written down so there is no opportunity to make important
contributions on how things are getting done. Employees that experience their
organizational culture as hierarchical may have the feeling that their jobs are not
enriched and this has a negative effect on their psychological meaningfulness which
ultimately affects their engagement in their work.
Another reason why a hierarchical culture has a negative relationship with
engagement of employees is the way how decisions are made. In a hierarchical culture
decisions are made top down (Van Muijen et al., 1999). Employees do not participate
in decisions that are made within the organization and this can give employees the
feeling that their voice is not useful or worth it. When employees have the feeling that
they are not useful or worth it they will experience less or no psychological
meaningfulness and therefore are less likely to engage in their work (Schaufeli and
Bakker, 2004; Saks, 2006).
29
Thus, the characteristics of a hierarchical culture do not stimulate the
psychological meaningfulness and psychological safety of employees which are
conditions for employees to engage in their work. Therefore the following is proposed:
Hypothesis 6a: Engagement mediates the relationship between a hierarchical
culture and organizational citizenship behavior.
In contrast to a hierarchical culture where it is expected of employees that they
behave in consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines, in a constructive
culture employees are allowed to dictate their own behavior (Van Muijen, Koopmand
and De Witte, 1996). When employees are allowed to dictate their own behavior
during task performances they can be themselves, psychically, cognitively, and
emotionally when performing their work. Therefore in a constructive culture
employees will more likely personally engage in their work.
When employees experience the organizational culture as constructive they
have the feeling that they have the support of the organization and their co-workers to
participate without the fear of negative consequences for their self-image, career, or
status. When employees experience that they are allowed to participate and dictate
their own behavior they can get the feeling that they are valuable and useful to the
organization and can make a difference with their behavior. Therefore a constructive
culture has a positive effect on the psychological meaningfulness of employees which
affects employees to engage in their work.
Employees feel save in organizations that are characterized by supportiveness
(Saks, 2006). A characteristic of a constructive culture is that employees feel that they
are supported by the organization and their co-workers. In a culture where employees
experience supportiveness, employees have the feeling that they are allowed to
experiment and try new things without the fear of negative consequences for their self-
30
image, career, or status. Also, in a constructive culture relationships with co-workers
are based on mutual trust. Supportive and trusting interpersonal relationships promote
the psychological safety of employees (Saks, 2006). When employees experience
their organizational culture as constructive they are more likely to experience
psychological safety and this has a positive effect on their engagement.
Employees that are engaged in their work are motivated to invest in their
physical, cognitive, and emotional energy when they believe to have control over what
happens to them, when they feel they can trust others in the organization, and when
they can decide to how to do their work (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, 2010). In a
constructive culture employees can dictate their own behavior when performing a task.
Employees have control over their own career because in a constructive culture there
is room for individual growth. And interpersonal relationships are based on mutual
trust. Therefore employees that experience their organizational culture as constructive
will have the physical, emotional, and psychological resources to put their physical,
cognitive, and emotional energies into their work and exhibit higher engagement in
their work.
The perception of an employee of what the organizational culture is like
reflects the cognitive framework (Sparrow and Gaston, 1996). An organizational
culture that provides behavioral expectancies related to a positive culture will give
employees the support and cognitive framework that is necessary to develop positive
attitudes (Gregory et al., 2009). When employees see their organization as
constructive they experience psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and
psychological availability and therefore they exhibit higher engagement in their work.
Hypothesis 6b: Engagement mediates the relationship between a constructive
culture and organizational citizenship behavior.
31
Besides the organizational culture the type of leadership style has a relationship
with OCB. The types of leadership styles that are examined are transformational and
transactional leadership. Expected is that engagement mediates in the relationships
between transactional and transformational leadership and OCB. Employees will be
engaged in their work when there is a social system where they feel safe. The
relationship between the leader and employee supports this social system (Rich,
LePine and Crawford, 2010). The leader should affect their followers by providing the
tools and motivate them to accomplish goals (Babcock-Roberson and Strickland,
2010). Therefore, the type of leadership style has an important impact on the social
system and engagement of employees.
When employees see their leader as transformational they will be more likely
to engage in their work and this will have a positive effect on their OCB.
Transforming leaders engages employees to raise to a higher level of motivation
(Burns, 1978). They motivate and inspire employees to perform better and to give
more of themselves than only what the leader asks them (Bass, 1985). When
employees are challenged they invest in themselves and are likely to feel more
confident when a task is completed successfully. Transformational leaders challenges
employees to higher standards to achieve goals which increases their self-confidence
and therefore they will experience higher levels of engagement (Rich, LePine, and
Crawford, 2010). When employees are confident they appraise tasks more positively
and have greater ability to cope with the demands of a task effectively, and therefore
have more resources available to invest in the performance of their work (Judge and
Hurst, 2007). Transformational leaders increase the confidence of employees so
employees are more likely to perceive a higher level of psychological availability.
When employees have psychological availability they have the psychical, emotional,
32
and psychological resources to put their physical, cognitive, and emotional energy into
their work and therefore exhibit higher engagement in their work role.
Transformational leaders also stimulate the psychological meaningfulness of
employees which is a condition for employees to engage in their work. They do this
by stimulating and encouraging employees to think in new ways of doing their job by
taking risks, challenging assumptions, and encourage subordinates to come with new
ideas (Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1999). When employees experience their leader as
transformational they may have the feeling that their ideas and input of doing their job
in new ways are worthwhile, useful, and valuable. They have the feeling that they are
respected and they are inspired to make a difference.
The support of supervisors promotes the psychological safety of employees
which affect their engagement (May et al., 2004; Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006). When
employees experience their leader as transformational they will have the feeling that
they are supported in trying new things and will take risks without the fear that this
will have consequences for their career, status or self-image. Transformational leaders
create supportive environments and they act as a mentor and coach and stimulate
learning experiences (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Employees experience psychological
safety in supportive environments which are created by transformational leaders.
Thus, transformational leaders have a positive effect on the psychological
meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability of employees
which are conditions for employees to engage in their work. Therefore the following is
proposed:
Hypothesis 6c: Engagement mediates the relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.
33
Where a transformational leader has a positive effect on engagement a
transactional leader has a negative effect on engagement of employees. Transactional
leaders reward subordinates for good performance and punish them for poor
performance (Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders are focused on the process when
maintaining control (Bass, 1985 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam,
1996). These characteristics of a transactional leader can give employees the feeling
that the leader wants to have control over how work is done and that employees have
no control over their job and job control is associated with disengagement of
employees (Shaufeli and Bakker, 2004).
The relationship between subordinates and a transactional leader is about
meeting expectations and establishing rewards for meeting these expectations (Bass,
Avolio, and Goodheim, 1987). Employees can experience that when a leader initiates
contact with them in an effort to only exchange valued outcomes that they cannot
make a difference and that their opinion about how work is done is not valued so
employees do not have the feeling that they are worthwhile. The job should be done
as always and according to the process. When employees are not allowed to perform
their jobs how they want to, they less likely will experience that they can be
themselves. Transactional leaders do not stimulate the feeling of psychological
meaningfulness because they are focused on meeting the transaction and less on
employee’s feelings of being worth it. Work should be done according to their
expectations which can give employees the feeling that they cannot make a difference
and that they are taken for granted.
Transactional leaders reward subordinates for good performance and punish
them for poor performance (Bass, 1990). When employees do not meet the
expectations of their leader they are punished. So when employees perform poorly
34
they are punished which can give them the feeling of not being safe. Transactional
leaders can promote a unsafe environment by punishing poor performance which has a
negative effect on the psychological safety of employees. Punishing employees for
poor performance can have a negative effect on their self-confidence while performing
a task. When employees have low confidence they may have difficulty to perform a
task because they do not experience that they have the emotional or psychological
resources available to invest in their work (Judge and Hurst, 2007). The consequence
of not having the emotional or psychological resources to put physical, emotional and
cognitive energies into work is that employees tend to be less engaged in their work
role.
Based on the characteristics of a transactional leader a transactional leader does
not stimulate the psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and
psychological availability of employees. Therefore employees that experience their
leader as transactional tend to be less engaged in their work.
Hypothesis 6d: Engagement mediates the relationship between transactional
leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.
35
Research Design
Organizational context
This study is conducted at a local bank established in Amsterdam. The main
reason that this local bank fits this study is of the organizational context. Financial
institutions such as banks are required to comply with the legal regulations within the
Act of Financial Supervision. The Dutch Central Bank (DNB) and Authority for the
Financial Markets (AFM) conduct supervision on the financial sector and review how
thee banks comply to these external regulations.
Employees need to do their work according to imposed rules and regulations so
employees may view the organizational culture as hierarchical. In contrast of the
hierarchical culture the antecedent constructive culture will be tested. Recently the
organizational culture of this organization is discussed by their supervisor DNB and
has obligated this local bank to change its culture. This local bank is in search of
which culture will fit the organization. This local bank wants to have a culture that
complies with the characteristics of a constructive culture although they have to
consider the rules and regulations that are imposed. A culture that should fit the
organization is a culture that increases the extra-role behavior of employees but also
work has to be done according to imposed rules and regulations.
This organization fits this study because of its organizational culture. Some
employees experience the organizational culture as hierarchical where other
employees experience that the culture is changed in a more constructive culture. This
explanatory research examines the relationship between a hierarchical culture, a
constructive culture, transformational and transactional leadership with OCB. This
study is cross-sectional.
36
Participants and procedure
This bank has 631,2 FTE working of which 72% of the workforce work
fulltime. The workforce consists of 47% men and 53% women. Data were
collected using a survey. A self-completed questionnaire was send to the
respondents using the program Questback. Participants received an e-mail which
explained the purpose of the study and indicated that the study is voluntary and
anonymous. In the e-mail (see appendix 1) a hyperlink lead the participant to the
questionnaire.
The survey (see appendix 2) was distributed among all employees (N=717)
working in this organization. The survey was distributed among all business units
(retail, business advice, private banking, wholesale and business management)
because this ruled out the possibility that results might be unique to a particular
business unit and this supports generalization to the organization. For the current study
164 complete surveys were obtained and these responses are used to conduct the
analyses. The average age of the respondents is 40 years and 43,4% were employed by
the organization for less than 5 years. Women made up for 51% of the sample and
51% had at least a higher education degree. From the respondents 87% worked
fulltime and 65% worked less than one year for their current supervisor.
Measures
Each variable was measured by using different developed scales. To measure
OCB the five-factor, OCB scale developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and
Fetter (1990) was used. These five-factor scale includes the five types of OCB
identified by Organ (1988). These five types of behaviors are Altruism,
37
Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy and Civic Virtue. To make an addition to
existing research a sixth type of behavior was added to the five-factor scale which is
Voice Behavior. To measure Voice Behavior additional questions were added to the
five-factor scale. These questions are based on the 6-item scale developed by Van
Dyne and LePine (1998). OCB is measured on the individual level by the respondent
themselves using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7)
strongly agree.
Transformational leadership behavior is measured using the 6-factor scale
developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990). This model measures six key behaviors that are
associated with transformational leadership. These six behaviors are identifying and
articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of
group goals, high performance expectations, providing individual support and
intellectual stimulation. The respondents are asked to evaluate their
supervisor/manager on transformational behavior using a 7 point Likert scale ranging
from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
The contingent reward behavior scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1984) is
used to measure this factor of transactional leadership behavior. This scale consist of
five items that capture the behaviors that are fundamental to a transactional leader
which are providing rewards in exchange for an employee’s effort. To measure the
dimension management-by-expectation the Multifactor Questionnaire was used
(Avolio, Bass, Jung, 1999). The respondents are asked to evaluate their
supervisor/manager on transactional behavior using a 7 point Likert scale ranging
from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
Work engagement is measured using the 9-factor version of the Utrecht Work
Engagement scale (UWES-9) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). The UWES 9-
38
factor scale is recommend by other researchers because of its validity (Seppällä et al.
2009). The UWES-9 measures the three underlying dimensions of work engagement
Vigor, Dedication and Absorption. Work engagement is measured at the individual
level of the employee using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from (1) never to (7)
always.
To measure constructive and hierarchical culture two scales were used from the
FOCUS questionnaire, developed by Van Muijen et al. (1999). The FOCUS
questionnaire is developed by researchers from twelve different countries. This
questionnaire is based on Quinn’s (1988) competing values model. The FOCUS
questionnaire describes four culture orientations namely support, innovation, rules
and goal orientation. This study examined two of the four culture orientations. To
measure constructive culture the 4-items that measure a support oriented culture were
used. The 4-items that measure a rules oriented culture were used to measure a
hierarchical culture.
Constructive culture is comparable with the culture orientation support.
This is because a constructive culture is characterized by strong norms that
promote cooperative behaviors and is achievement oriented which affects
satisfaction and commitment of employees (Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. and
Potter, R.E. 2006) and the culture orientation support in the FOCUS
questionnaire is characterized by participation, cooperation and is based on
people, mutual trust (Van Muijen et al. 1999). So the characteristics of
constructive culture are comparable with the culture orientation support. The
respondents are asked to answer the questions from their own perspective on the
organizational culture using a 7-point Likert scale (1) strongly disagree to (7)
strongly agree.
39
Hierarchical culture is also measured using the FOCUS questionnaire.
An organization that is characterized by rules and regulations is comparable with
a culture that is focused on rules. The variable hierarchical culture is comparable
with the characteristics of the culture orientation rules. In a rules orientated
culture there is respect for authority, procedures are based on rationality, there is
a hierarchical structure and communication is mostly top-down (Van Muijen et
al. 1999). This is comparable with the characteristics of the variable hierarchical
culture because procedures are imposed by the internal organization and external
supervision and communication about how an employee should do their job is
mostly top-down. The respondents are asked to answer the questions from their
own perspective on the organizational culture (rules) using a 7-point Likert scale
(1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
40
Results
The data is entered in the statistical program SPSS. Items that are phrased such that an
agreement with the item represents a low level of construct were recoded to assure
there were no counter-indicative items. The items that measured sportsmanship in the
construct OCB are counter-indicative items and therefore were recoded such that a
high score represents higher OCB. In the construct transformational leadership there
are two items that needed to be recoded (LEIDERis1 and LEIDERis2) and in the
construct transactional leadership there are 5 items recoded (LEIDERcr5,
LEIDERmbe1, LEIDERmbe2, LEIDERmbe3, and LEIDERmbe5).
The first step in analysing the data is to look for errors in the scores and
missing data. This was done by analysing the frequency of the distribution. There are
no errors found in the data. Some respondents have not completed the survey. The
missing data range from 1 to 3 items that were not answered by a respondent, therefore
the number of missing data is negligible. The missing responses are handled by
excluding cases Listwise which means that only cases without any missing data in a
variable are analysed.
Reliability of Constructs
To test whether the measures of the scales and items in the scales are
reliable a reliability analysis was carried out on all items of the variables OCB,
transformational and transactional leadership, constructive and hierarchical
culture, and on engagement.
The Cronbach’s alpha of OCB is α=.852. The values of the items
OCBcons1, OCBcons2, OCBcons3, and OCBcons4 in the Corrected Item-Total
Correlation are < .30 which means that these items do not correlate with the
41
overall score from the scale OCB. Therefore these items are deleted from the
scale. After deleting these items the Cronbach’s alpha is α= .872.
The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale transformational leadership is α= .925.
The Corrected Item-Total gives a value < .30 for the items LEIDERpam1 and
LEIDERhpe3. Because of the already high Cronbach’s alpha α= .925 and the
content of the items these items are not deleted from the scale. The scale of
transactional leadership has a Cronbach’s alpha of α= .762. After deleting the
items recodeLEIDERmbe1, recodeLEIDERmbe3, and recodeLEIDERmbe4 the
Cronbach’s alpha is α= .847 and all items have a Corrected Item-Total of > .30.
The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale hierarchical culture is α= .589. The item
Culturerules4 has a Corrected Item-Total value of .137 therefore this item do not
correlate with the overall score from the scale and is removed. The Cronbach’s
alpha, after removing the item is α= .719 which supports deleting the item. The
scales of constructive culture and engagement are > .80 respectively α= .803 and
α= .856. All items in these scales have a Corrected Item-Total value > .30 so the
items correlate with the scales and no items are deleted. After deleting some
items in the scales all Cronbach’s alpha’s are > .70 and there can be concluded
that the measures reflect the construct that it is measuring.
Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviation, and inter correlations of the study
variables are presented in table 1. Results indicate that on average respondents
perceived themselves to show quite a lot of OCB (M=5,52) and that they are
usually engaged in their work (M=4,74). Employees perceived the leadership
style within the organization both transformational (M=4,89) as transactional
(M=4,96). The respondents experience the organizational culture more
42
hierarchical (M=4,54) than constructive (M=3,80). The difference between the
means is significant (p < .01).
It is worth nothing that there are weak positive correlations of OCB with
the variables transactional leadership (r = .21, p < 0.01), transformational
leadership (r = .28, p < 0.01), a hierarchical culture (r = .22, p < 0.01). Results
indicate a moderate correlation of OCB with a constructive culture (r = .33, p <
0.01). As expected the independent variables are significant related to
engagement with the exception of a hierarchical culture (r = .09). Engagement is
also significant related to OCB (r = .41, p < 0.01).
Hypotheses testing
In order to test the hypotheses a multiple regression analyse was conducted.
First I tested if the control variables had an influence on OCB. The reason that the
control variables are tested is that previous research has indicated that age and years of
experience had a significant positive effect on OCB (Murphy, Athanasou, and King,
2002). Because this study is conducted in a single organization there is also the
possibility that other variables have an effect on OCB. In order to exclude that other
43
variables have an effect on OCB the control variables age, gender, years of experience,
gender leader and years of having that leader were entered. This model was not
significant F (5,158) = 1.77; p > .05. The control variables do not have a significant
effect on OCB.
After entering the independent culture and leadership variables, the model as a
whole was significant F (9,154) = 3.49; p < .001. Table 2 gives an overview of model
1. The results indicate that the antecedent’s variables explained 17% of the variance in
OCB, after controlling for the control variables. Only a constructive culture has a
significant effect of OCB (β = .212, p < .05). The other antecedent variables were not
significant predictors of OCB. These results provide support for H2 and do not
support H1, H3, and H4.
The next step is to test whether the independent variables have an indirect
relationship with OCB. In order to test this I first tested if engagement had an effect on
OCB. Model 2 was significant F (6,158) = 7.44; p < .01 and 22% of the variance in
OCB can be explained by the control variables and engagement. Table 3 reports the
44
results of model 2. Results showed that engagement had a significant positive effect on
OCB (β = .412, p < .01) and therefore H5 is supported.
Secondly, I tested if the independent variables are correlated with engagement.
Model 3 was significant F (9,154) = 3.43; p < .01 after controlling for the control
variables. The results of model 3 are reported in table 4. Constructive culture showed a
significant positive effect on engagement (β = .307, p <.01) which supports H6b.
Results indicate that a hierarchical culture, transformational and transactional
leadership are not significant predictors of engagement. Based on these results H6a,
H6c, and H6d are not supported.
45
In order to test whether engagement mediates in the relationship between the
independent variables and OCB, an additional regression analysis was conducted. The
model was significant F (10,153) = 5,491; p < .001. The antecedents and mediator
explained 26,4% of the variance in OCB. The regression analyse of model 5 showed
that the effect size of the constructive culture in relation to OCB decreased (Δ .103)
and became insignificant when engagement was added to the regression equation.
Therefore the results showed that engagement forms a mediating mechanism in the
relationship between a constructive culture and OCB. The results of model 4 are
presented in table 5.
46
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between
contextual factors that are imposed by the organization or sector and where an
individual employee has limited or no influence on with OCB. The factors that
were used to examine this relationship were two culture types (hierarchical an
constructive) and two leadership styles (transactional and transformational).
Furthermore, this study examined to what extent engagement was a mediating
mechanism of the proposed relationships between the above-mentioned
antecedents and OCB. The results indicated that a constructive culture had a
significant positive relationship with OCB and engagement did form a mediating
mechanism in this relationship. However a hierarchical culture, transformational
leadership and transactional leadership were not predictors of OCB. Also,
engagement did not appear to be a mediating mechanism in the relationship
between the two types of leadership styles, a hierarchical culture and OCB.
Although these antecedents have no direct or indirect relationship the
respondents in this study did evaluated themselves high on OCB (M=5,52).
Therefore it can be concluded that there are other factor(s) that affect the OCB of
employees.
So, the study results supported the hypothesis that a constructive culture
has a direct relationship with OCB. A culture that is characterized by
cooperation, participation, mutual trust, team spirit, and individual growth
promotes positive behaviors such as OCB. Employees who experience the
organizational culture as constructive are more likely to show OCB because they
are allowed to dictate their own behavior (Gregory et al.,2009) are encouraged to
express ideas about their work (Van Muijen et al., 1999) and have the feeling
47
that the organization supports and rewards them to show extra-role behavior.
Thus, the characteristics of a constructive culture (cooperation, people based,
and team spirit) have a positive effect on the OCB of employees. That is, in a
constructive culture employees are more likely to help others (altruism), accept
rules, regulations, and procedures (conscientiousness), tolerate less than ideal
circumstances (sportsmanship), prevent work related problems (courtesy),
participate and take responsibility (civic virtue), and speak out (voice). This
finding is in line with previous research that found that the characteristics of a
constructive culture promotes positive behaviors such as OCB (Cooke and
Potter, 2006; Balthazard, Cooke, and Potter, 2006).
Also results supported the hypothesis that engagement mediates between
the relationship of a constructive culture and OCB. When employees have the
feeling that the organization supports them to participate without the fear of
negative consequences for their self-image, career, or status likely has a positive
effect on their psychological safety, which is a condition for employees to
engage in their work. Also in a constructive culture employees feel that they are
valuable and useful because they are allowed to participate and speak out which
has a positive effect on their psychological meaningfulness, also a condition for
employees to engage in their work. When employees are engaged in their work
they have the physical, emotional, and cognitive energies to go beyond in-role
behaviors (Babcock-Roberson and Crawford, 2010). Engagement explained 17%
of the variance in OCB. When employees are engaged in their work this is likely
to have a positive effect on the dimensions of OCB. Therefore there can be
concluded that when employees are engaged in their work, work harder, take no
extra breaks, participate, tolerate less than ideal circumstances, prevent work-
48
related problems, and are willing to help others. This finding is in line with
previous research that found that employees who are engaged in their work are
more likely to show OCB (Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010; Rich,
LePine and Crawford, 2010). Thus, employees who experience the
organizational culture as constructive will be more engaged in their work and
this will increase their OCB.
Employees at this local bank experienced their organizational culture as
more hierarchical than constructive which means that work is done according to
rules, regulations, and procedures. For this organization to increase OCB they
should stimulate a constructive culture so employees are more willing to show
OCB such as accepting and adhering to these rules, regulations, and procedures.
This organization should stimulate a constructive culture so employees feel that
they are supported by the organization, are valuable and useful so they are more
likely to engage in their work. And when employees are engaged in their work
they have psychical, emotional, and cognitive energies to invest in themselves
and others while performing their work and this has an positive effect on their
extra-role behaviors.
In contrast to a constructive culture results did not find support for the
hypothesis that a hierarchical culture has a direct effect on OCB. Expected was
that when employees perceive their organizational culture as hierarchical will
show less OCB because their behaviors should fit within a culture with
consistent patterns of behaviors and in a hierarchical culture there will be little
room for discretionary behaviors such as OCB (Gregory et al., 2009). An
explanation that a hierarchical culture has no direct or indirect relationship with
OCB may be found in the role of perceived organizational support which is a
49
construct of the social exchange theory (Tekleab and Chiaburu, 2011). Perceived
organizational supports refers to employees global beliefs regarding how much
the organization cares about their well-being and values their contribution
(Eisenberg et al., 2001). When employees experience that the organization
values their contribution and cares about their well-being employees feel
obligate to increase their extra-role behavior (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005;
Lynch, Eisenberger and Armeli, 1999). Perhaps employees can still experience
sufficient organizational support in hierarchical cultures. Although in this study
the organizational culture is experienced as hierarchical employees evaluated
their OCB as high. Therefore, perhaps despite the hierarchical culture,
employees do perceive organizational support which they reciprocate with OCB.
It was expected that a hierarchical culture would limit employees to show OCB
because this type of culture is oriented on doing work according to rules,
regulations, and procedures. Building on the social exchange theory, however,
perhaps the characteristics of a hierarchical culture do not affect OCB as long as
employees experience that the organization values their contributions and cares
about their well-being. This needs further testing.
Another possible explanation that this study did not find support for the
hypothesis that a hierarchical culture would have a negative effect on OCB is
that the employees in this study may experience a strong fit with the values and
beliefs of the organization and because of this person-organization fit the
hierarchical culture has no negative effect on employees’ willingness to show
OCB. Person-organization fit theory refers to the level of compatibility in terms
of values, beliefs, personality and/or goals between employees and an
organization (Andrews, Baker and Hunt, 2011). The attitudes and behaviors of
50
employees are influenced by the congruence between employees and the
organization. For example a strong fit between employees and the organization
has a positive effect on the OCB of employees (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006). The
employees in this study evaluated themselves high on OCB despite that they
experienced the organization culture as hierarchical which is in contrast with the
hypothesis. It is possible that the employees that work at this local bank
experience a fit with the values of the organization that represent a hierarchical
culture and this fit has an effect on their willingness to show OCB.
Expected was that the type of leadership style had an influence on the
extra-role behavior of employees. Results did not find support that the type of
leadership style had a direct or indirect effect on OCB. Perhaps this is due to the
role of leader member exchange (Tekleab and Chiaburu, 2011). Leader member
exchange refers to the relationship between the employee and leader which is
based on the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources
(Tekleab and Chiabur, 2011). When employees experience emotional support
from their supervisor and when they can trust the supervisor to exchange their
obligations employees will reciprocate by displaying behaviors such as OCB
(Tekleab and Chiabur, 2011).
Expected was that a transactional leader had a negative effect on OCB
because a transactional leader only rewards in-role behaviors therefore
employees are less likely to show extra-role behaviors. Results found no support
for a direct or indirect relationship between a transactional leader and OCB. This
is in line with previous research findings that also did not found a significant
relationship with OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001). An explanation
that the characteristics of a transactional leader has no effect on OCB is that it is
51
not the behavior of the leader that influence OCB, but the relationship between
the leader and employee. In this relationship it is important that the employee is
not a “passive role recipient” but have some control over the transaction (Wang,
Law, Hackett, Wang and Chen, 2005). When an employee can reject, embrace,
or negotiate about the transaction this will more likely reciprocate in positive
behavior such as OCB. Whereas an employee has no control over the transaction
the employee is less likely to show positive behaviors such as OCB. This is in
line with previous research findings (Wang et al., 2005).
Also this study did not find support for the hypothesis that a
transformational leadership style has a positive effect on OCB. This finding is
not in line with previous findings that found a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and OCB (Babcock and Strickland, 2010; Podsakoff
et al., 1990). This study did not find a significant relationship between the
characteristics of a transformational leader and OCB. Engagement did also not
mediates between the predicted relationship. The reason that there is no direct
and indirect relationship found, perhaps is also due to the leader member
exchange theory. That is, the relationship between the leader and employee
determines if an employee will show OCB and not the behavior of the leader.
Although the behaviors of a transformational leader do not have a direct positive
effect on OCB these behaviors have an important role in the quality of the
relationship. Transformational leaders foster the relationship between them and
their employees, therefore their behaviors are more likely to have a positive
effect on the relationship. When there is a high-quality relation between the
leader and employee the employee is more likely to show OCB. Wang et al.
(2005) have found in their research that transformational leadership has a
52
positive relationship with OCB and leader member exchange is a mediating
mechanism in this relationship. Building on the leader member exchange theory,
perhaps the behaviors of a transactional leader and transformational leader do
not affect the extra-role behaviors of employees, rather the quality of the
relationship between the employee and supervisor, regardless of leader behavior,
determines if an employee reciprocates in OCB (Tekleab and Chiaburu, 2011).
Another possible explanation that this study did not find support for the
hypotheses on leadership styles is that previous research indicates that
employees often view OCB as an aspect of their in-role performance (Nahum-
Shani and Somech, 2011). It was expected that OCB would be more likely to be
promoted by transformational leaders because they motivate employees to show
behavior that goes beyond the formal job description. When OCB is viewed as
an aspect of in-role behavior transformational leaders are less likely to promote
OCB because these behaviors are part of the formal job description and
employees already show OCB. In contrast it was expected that a transactional
leader would be less likely to promote OCB because this leadership style only
rewards the in-role behavior of employees. When OCB is viewed as an aspect of
in-role behavior transactional leaders reward employees for showing OCB and
therefore transactional leaders do not have a negative effect on OCB.
Also this study expected that engagement would be a mediating
mechanism between the two leadership styles, a hierarchical culture and OCB.
There was no evidence found that engagement mediates between these
antecedents. These findings suggest that the characteristics of a hierarchical
culture, transactional leader and transformational leader do not affect the
engagement of employees. A possible explanation for these findings can again
53
be found in social exchange theory. It is perhaps not the characteristics of a
hierarchical culture, transformational or transactional leader that influence
psychological safety, psychological meaningfulness and psychological ability of
employees but rather the perceived organizational support and leader member
exchange stimulates these psychological conditions.
This study contributes to the research field of organizational behavior
firstly because it found contradictions with other studies that did found support
for the relationship between a transactional and transformational leader with
OCB. Secondly, no study has examined the relationship with the organizational
culture and OCB. This study found that a constructive culture has a positive
effect on OCB. Therefore this study is also practically relevant for organizations
because according to the findings organizations that want to increase OCB of
employees should stimulate a constructive culture.
Limitations and future research
This study has limitations. Firstly, this study was conducted within a single
industry and one local bank which could question generalizability of the results.
Secondly, because this study was conducted within the banking industry person-
organization fit could have affected some of the results. Person-organization fit could
have affected the hypothesis that a hierarchical culture has a negative effect on OCB.
That is, the banking industry has to confirm to rules, regulations, and procedures. This
framework of rules and regulations has an influence on the organizational culture.
People may choose to work at a bank because the values and beliefs of the
organization fit with their personal values and beliefs. That is, people are attracted to
and select organizations that have the same values and beliefs as their own (Schneider,
1987). Further research should extend these findings to non-financial firms to enhance
54
generalizability. It is also interesting to test whether these result findings differ when
the values and beliefs of an organization are not clear.
A third limitation is that respondents were asked to evaluated their own OCB
which could give a social-desirable effect. Further research should examine whether
results differ when OCB of employees is rated by their supervisors and/or peers.
Engagement did not mediate between a hierarchical culture and the two leadership
styles. There are possible other mediating mechanisms in the relationship with these
antecedent and OCB. Further research should test whether perceived organizational
support, leader member exchange and person-organization fit is a mediating
mechanism between the examined antecedents and OCB.
Conclusion
OCB has been an important factor in determining the performance of an
organization. Previous research has found that OCB has a positive effect on individual
and organizational outcomes (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994). Therefore it is of
interest for organizations to understand which factors affect OCB. This study
examined the relationship of factors that are imposed by the organization or sector and
where an employee has limited or no influence on with OCB. This results supports the
hypothesis that a constructive culture has a positive effect on OCB. Engagement
seems to be a mediating mechanism in this positive relationship. Therefore,
organizations that wants to increase the OCB of employees should look at their
organizational culture. A culture that is focused on participation, cooperation, people-
based, mutual trust, team spirit, and individual growth stimulates employees to engage
in their work which has a positive effect on their OCB. However, this research did not
find support for the hypotheses that a hierarchical culture and the two type of
55
leadership styles have an effect on OCB. Also engagement was not a mediator
between the studied antecedents and OCB. Further research should investigate
whether the constructs of the social exchange theory and the person-organization fit
theory are mediating mechanisms between the relationships of the antecedents
examined in this study and OCB.
56
References
Andrews, M.C., Baker, T. and Hunt, T.G. (2011). Values and person-organization fit. Does moral intensity strengthen outcomes? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, (32), 5-19.
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.
Balthazard, P.A, Cooke, R.A. and Potter, R.E. (2006). Dysfunctional Culture, dysfunctional organization. Capturing the behavioral norms that form organizational culture and drive performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (21), 709-732.
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.
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.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational behavior. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, (18), 19-31.
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal,(46), 554-571.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chen, X.-P., Hui, C. and Sego, D.J. (1998). The role of OCB in turnover: conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, (83), 922-931.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, (31), 874-900.
Dunlop, P.D. and Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, OCB, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Joural of Organizational Behavior, (25), 67-80.
Den Hartog, D.N. and Koopman, P.L. (2001). Leadership in Organizations. Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, (2), 166-187.
Den Hartog, D.N., De Hoogh A.H. and Keegan, A.E. (2007). The interactive effects of belogingness and charisma on heling and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology, (92), 1131-1139.
57
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, (86), 42-51.
Farh, J, Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W. (1990). Accounting for OCB: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, (16),705-722.
Garcia-Morales, V.J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M.M. and Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, (65), 1040-1050.
Gregory, B.T., Harris, S.G., Armenakis, A.A. and Shook, C.L. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research, (62), 673-679.
Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources. European Journal of Oral Sciences, (113), 487-497.
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.
Hoffman, B.J. and Woehr, D.J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, (68), 389-399.
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.
Judge, T.A. and Hurst, C. (2007). The benefits and possible costs of positive core self-evaluations: A review and agenda for future research. In D.L. Nelson and C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive Organizational Behavior, 159-174. London: Sage.
Jung, D.J. and Avolio, B.J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, (42), 208-218.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, (33), 692-724.
Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, (45), 321-349.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1966) The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Konovsky, M.A. and Organ, D.W. (1995). Dispositional and contextual determinants of OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (17), 253-266.
58
Kwantes, C.T. and Boglarsky, C.A. (2007). Perceptions of organizational culture, leadership effectiveness and personal effectiveness across six countries. Journal of International Management, (13), 204-230.
LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, (83), 853-868.
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. Ledership Quarterly, (7), 385-425.
Lynch, P.D., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, (84), 467-483.
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.
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M. (1997). The Truth About Burnout. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Murphy, G., Athanasou, J. and King, N. (2002). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour. A study of Australian human-service professionals. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (17), 287-297.
Nahum-Shani, I. and Somech, A. (2011). Leadership, OCB and individual differences: Idiocentrism and allocentrism as moderators of the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and OCB. The Leadership Quarterly, (22), 353-366.
O’Reilly III, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, 1991. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, (34), 487-516.
Organ, D.W. (1988). OCB: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of OCB. Personnel Psychology, (48), 775-800.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and McKenzie, S.B. (2006). OCB: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). OCBs and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, (3), 351-363.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R.B. and Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and OCBs. Leadership Quarterly, (1), 107-142.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of OCBs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, (94), 122-141.
59
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J.A. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, (29), 363-377.
Rich, B.L., LePine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, (53), 617-635.
Richard, O.C., McMillan-Capehart, A, Bhuian, S.N., and Taylor, E.C. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of psychological contract: Does organizational culture really matter? Journal of Business Research, (62), 818-825.
Richardsen, A.M., Burke, R.J. and Martinussen, M. (2006). Work and health outcomes among police officers: The mediating role of cynicism and engagement. International Journal of Stress Management, (13), 555-574.
Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (21), 2006.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior, (25), 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma and V., Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, (3), 71-92.
Schein, E.H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, (25), 3-16.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist Association Inc.,2, 109-119.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psycholgy, (40), 437-453.
Sparrow, P.R. and Gaston, K. (1996). Generic climate maps: A strategic application of climate survey data. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (17), 679-698.
Stamper, C.L. and Van Dyne, L. .(2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behaviour: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (22), 517-536.
Sun, L.Y., Chow, I., Chiu, R.K., Pan, W. (2013). Outcome favorability in the link between leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: Procedural fairness climate matters. The Leadership Quarterly, (24), 215-226.
Tekleab, A.G. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2011). Social exchange theory: Empirical examination of form and focus. Journal of Business Research, (64), 460-466.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, (37), 765-802.
60
Van Muijen, J.J., Koopman, P. and De Witte, K. (1996). The competing value model and the measurement and changing of organization culture. Academic Service: Schoonhoven, NL.
Van Muijen J.J., Koopman, P., De Witte, K., De Cock, G., Susan Z., Lemoine, C., Bourantas, D., Papalexandris, N., Branyicski, I., Spaltro, E., Gonzalves Das Neves, J.J.J., Pitariu, H., Konrad, E., Peiró, J., González-Romá, V. and Turnipseed, D. (1999). Organizational Culture: The Focus Questionnaire. European Journal of Work and organizational psychology, (4), 551-568.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, (40), 82-111.
Walumbwa, F.O., Wu, C. and Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and OCB: The role of procedural justice climate percepetions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, (19), 251-265.
Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnelln, C.A. and Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and OCB: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, (95), 517-529.
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D., and Chen, Z.X. (2005). Leader-Member Exchange as a mediator of the relationship between tansformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, (48), 420-432.
Withey, M.J. and Cooper, W.H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, (34), 521-539.
61
Appendix 1
Best collega, Mijn naam is Priscilla van der Ploeg en ik ben werkzaam bij de afdeling financiële logistiek. Naast mijn werk volg ik een studie bedrijfskunde aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Voor mijn eindopdracht doe ik onderzoek naar een aantal factoren die van invloed kunnen zijn op het gedrag van medewerkers.
Als medewerker wordt bepaald gedrag van je verwacht om je functie uit te oefenen. Naast gedrag om je functie uit te oefenen kan je ook gedrag laten zien dat niet van je gevraagd wordt om je functie uit te oefenen wat ook wel “extra-role behavior” wordt genoemd. Hierbij kan je denken aan het helpen van collega’s of het geven van je mening om de organisatie beter te maken.
Verschillende factoren kunnen invloed hebben op dit gedrag. Ik ga onderzoeken of de factoren leiderschap en cultuur invloed hebben op het extra-role behavior van medewerkers en waar deze mogelijke relatie door veroorzaakt wordt.
Om dit te onderzoeken wil ik jou vragen een vragenlijst in te vullen. zal ongeveer 10 minuten in beslag nemen. Jouw antwoorden worden anoniem behandeld. De vragenlijst kan tot uiterlijk vrijdag 24 april ingevuld worden.
Jouw antwoorden dragen bij aan het succesvol afronden van mijn studie! Bij voorbaat dank voor je medewerking!
Met vriendelijke groet,
Priscilla van der Ploeg
Klik hier om deel te nemen
62
Appendix 2
Factoren die van invloed zijn op het gedrag van medewerkers.
Allereerst worden enkele persoonlijke vragen gesteld. Vervolgens worden een aantal
stellingen gegeven. Deze stellingen hebben betrekking op de volgende onderwerpen:
• Jouw gedrag binnen de organisatie.
• Wat jij vindt van het gedrag van je direct leidinggevende.
• Hoe je denkt over de cultuur binnen de organisatie.
• Hoe jij je voelt op het werk.
Wanneer in de vragenlijst gesproken wordt over de organisatie wordt bedoeld Rabobank
Amsterdam. Wil je per stelling aangeven in welke mate je het met de stelling eens of
oneens bent of in welke mate een situatie zich volgens jou voordoet?
Ik benadruk nogmaals, dat de antwoorden volstrekt anoniem worden behandeld.
Alvast bedankt voor het invullen van de vragenlijst!
63
Algemene gegevens
Hoelang bent u werkzaam bij Rabobank Amsterdam?
korter dan 5 jaar
5 - 10 jaar
10 - 15 jaar
15 - 20 jaar
20 jaar of langer
Bent u fulltime of parttime werkzaam?
Fulltime (32 uur of meer)
Parttime (8 tot 32 uur)
Binnen welke Formule bent u werkzaam?
Particulieren (PA & FA)
Bedrijven Advies
Private Banking
Zakelijk (GZ & ZR)
Bedrijfsmanagement
Bent u vrouw of man?
Vrouw
Man
Wat is uw leeftijd?
…………………..
Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?
Basisonderwijs
Lager / voorbereidend beroepsonderwijs (VBO/LBO)
Middelbaar algemeen vormend onderwijs (MAVO/MULO)
64
Hoger algemeen vormend onderwijs (HAVO)
Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO)
Voorbereidend wetenschappelijke onderwijs (VWO)
Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO/HEAO/HBS)
Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (Universiteit)
Anders
Hoe lang werkt u voor uw huidig leidinggevende?
…………………..
Is uw leidinggevende een man of vrouw?
Man
Vrouw
65
De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op uw gedrag binnen de organisatie. Het is de
bedoeling dat u het antwoord kiest dat het best bij u past.
Helemaal Helemaal mee oneens mee eens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Ik help collega's die een hoge werkdruk hebben □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Door te klagen en te protesteren probeer ik □ □ □ □ □ □ □ aandacht te krijgen 3. Ik vind dat ik eerlijk betaald wordt voor de werkzaamheden die ik doe □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 4. Ik doe vanuit mezelf aanbevelingen om de organisatie te verbeteren □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 5. Ik verbruik veel tijd met het klagen over onbelangrijke zaken □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 6. Ik probeer te voorkomen dat collega’s in problemen komen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7. Ik geef mijn mening over onderwerpen die voor mij en mijn afdeling van □ □ □ □ □ □ □ belang zijn en moedig mijn collega’s aan ook hun mening te geven 8. Ik blijf op de hoogte van veranderingen binnen de organisatie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 9. Ik heb de neiging om dingen groter te maken dan ze zijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 10. Ik denk na over de impact die mijn acties kunnen hebben op mijn collega’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 11. Ik neem deel aan overleggen die niet verplicht zijn, maar wel belangrijk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ gevonden worden 12. Ik ben altijd bereid om mijn collega’s te helpen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 13. Ik geef mijn eigen mening ook al hebben mijn collega’s een □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 14. Ik oefen taken uit die niet opgenomen zijn in mijn functie profiel, maar in □ □ □ □ □ □ □ het belang zijn voor de reputatie van de organisatie 15. Ik lees en hou de aankondigingen en berichten over de organisatie bij □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 16. Ik help andere met hun werkzaamheden wanneer zij afwezig zijn geweest □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 17. Ik kom uit mezelf met ideeën voor projecten of om processen anders in □ □ □ □ □ □ □ te richten 18. Ik maak geen misbruik van de rechten van mijn collega’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 19. Ik help vrijwillig mijn collega’s met werk gerelateerde problemen □ □ □ □ □ □ □
66
20. Ik ben betrokken bij onderwerpen die invloed hebben op de kwaliteit van □ □ □ □ □ □ □ de werkomgeving 21. Ik kijk altijd naar het negatieve in plaats van het van de positieve kant te □ □ □ □ □ □ □ bekijken (glas is altijd half leeg) 22. Ik onderneem stappen om problemen met collega’s te voorkomen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 23. Gemiddeld ben ik meer dan 8 uur per dag aan het werk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 24. Ik vind altijd fouten in dingen waar de organisatie mee bezig is □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 25. Ik ben mij ervan bewust welke invloed mijn gedrag heeft op mijn collega’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 26. Ik neem geen extra pauzes □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 27. Ik zorg dat ik op de hoogte blijf van onderwerpen waar mijn mening van □ □ □ □ □ □ □ belang kan zijn 28. Ik gehoorzaam de regels van de organisatie zelfs wanneer niemand kijkt □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 29. Ik werk nieuwe medewerkers in zonder dat dit van mij gevraagd wordt □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 30. Ik voer mijn werkzaamheden nauwkeurig uit □ □ □ □ □ □ □ De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op wat jij van het gedrag van je direct
leidinggevende vindt bij het uitvoeren van uw dagelijkse werk.
Helemaal Helemaal mee oneens mee eens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Mijn direct leiding gevende laat zien dat hij/zij veel van mij verwacht □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft mij altijd positieve feedback wanneer □ □ □ □ □ □ □ ik goed presteer 3. Mijn direct leidinggevende handelt zonder hierbij rekening te houden met □ □ □ □ □ □ □ mijn gevoelens 4. Mijn direct leidinggevende schetst een mooi toekomst perspectief voor onze □ □ □ □ □ □ □ afdeling 5. Mijn direct leidinggevende vraagt niet meer van mij dan noodzakelijk is om □ □ □ □ □ □ □ mijn werkzaamheden uit te voeren
67
6. Mijn direct leidinggevende leidt de afdeling door te doen in plaats van door □ □ □ □ □ □ □ te vertellen waar hij/mee bezig is 7. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft mij erkenning wanneer ik goed werk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ geleverd heb 8. Mijn direct leidinggevende respecteert mijn gevoelens □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 9. Mijn direct leidinggevende is een rolmodel die ik wil volgen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 10. Mijn direct leidinggevende gedraagt zich attent ten aanzien van mijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ persoonlijke behoeften 11. Mijn direct leidinggevende dringt aan op de beste prestatie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 12. Mijn direct leidinggevende gaat met mij om zonder rekening te houden □ □ □ □ □ □ □ met mijn gevoelens 13. Mijn direct leidinggevende vertelt mij alleen wat noodzakelijk is om mijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ werk te kunnen doen 14. Mijn direct leidinggevende heeft een helder beeld waar we naar toe gaan □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 15. Mijn direct leidinggevende complementeert mij wanneer ik mijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ werkzaamheden beter dan gemiddeld uitvoer 16. Mijn direct leidinggevende gaat niet akkoord met second best □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 17. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft mij persoonlijk een compliment wanneer □ □ □ □ □ □ □ ik uitstekend werk heb verricht 18. Mijn direct leidinggevende moedigt samenwerking aan tussen verschillende □ □ □ □ □ □ □ afdelingen 19. Mijn direct leidinggevende verandert niets zolang ik mijn werk goed doe □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 20. Mijn direct leidinggevende erkent vaak mijn goede prestaties niet □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 21. Mijn direct leidinggevende inspireert andere met zijn/haar plannen voor □ □ □ □ □ □ □ de toekomst 22. Mijn direct leidinggevende daagt mij uit om op een andere manier over □ □ □ □ □ □ □ problemen na te denken 23. Mijn direct leidinggevende is in staat andere aan zich te verbinden met □ □ □ □ □ □ □ zijn/haar visie 24. Mijn direct leidinggevende is tevreden met mijn werk wanneer ik volgens □ □ □ □ □ □ □ het huidige proces werk
68
25. Mijn direct leidinggevende stelt vragen die mij laten nadenken □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 26. Mijn direct leidinggevende moedigt medewerkers aan om “team players” □ □ □ □ □ □ □ te zijn 27. Mijn direct leidinggevende stimuleert mij om dingen anders aan te pakken □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 28. Mijn direct leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar kansen voor de organisatie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 29. Mijn direct leidinggevende zorgt dat de groep samenwerkt om het □ □ □ □ □ □ □ gezamenlijke doel te behalen 30. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft het goede voorbeeld □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 31. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft ideeën die mij uitdagen anders □ □ □ □ □ □ □ te denken over mijn werkzaamheden 32. Mijn direct leidinggevende ontwikkelt teamspirit tussen mij en mijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ collega’s 33. Mijn direct leidinggevende moedigt mij niet aan om initiatieven te nemen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ werkzaamheden anders te doen voorgeschreven staat
De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op de cultuur binnen de organisatie. Geef bij de
stellingen aan hoevaak een situatie volgens u voorkomt in de organisatie.
Nooit Altijd
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Hoe vaak worden mensen met persoonlijke problemen geholpen? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Hoe vaak worden mensen die vooruit willen komen door de □ □ □ □ □ □ □ leidinggevende gesteund? 3. Hoe vaak zijn instructies schriftelijk vastgelegd? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 4. Hoe vaak wordt het komen met nieuwe ideeën voor de organisatie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ aangemoedigd? 5. Hoe vaak tonen de leidinggevenden belangstelling voor de □ □ □ □ □ □ □ persoonlijke problemen van werknemers? 6. Hoe vaak wordt het werk volgens vaste procedures verricht? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7. Hoe vaak volgen leidinggevenden de regels zelf op? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8. Hoe vaak laat de stijl van leiding geven vrijheid in het werk toe? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op hoe u uw werk beleeft en hoe u zich daarbij
voelt. Wilt u aangeven hoe vaak de stelling op u van toepassing is.
69
Nooit Altijd
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Op mijn werk bruis ik van energie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Ik vind het werk dat ik doe nuttig en zinvol □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 3. Als ik aan het werk ben, dan vliegt de tijd voorbij □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 4. Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 5. Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 6. Als ik werk vergeet ik alle andere dingen om me heen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7. Mijn werk inspireert mij □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8. Als ik ’s ochtend opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 9. Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, dan voel ik mij gelukkig □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 10. Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 11. Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 12. Als ik aan het werk ben, dan kan ik heel lang doorgaan □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 13. Mijn werk is voor mij een uitdaging □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 14. Mijn werk brengt mij in vervoering □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 15. Op mijn werk beschik ik over een grote mentale (geestelijke) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ veerkracht 16. Ik kan me moeilijk van mijn werk losmaken □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 17. Op mijn werk zet ik altijd door, ook als het tegenzit □ □ □ □ □ □ □