THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS IN RELATIONSHIP...

1

THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS IN

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP

STYLES AND BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES AMONG

UNIVERSITY TEACHERS

By

Mohsin Atta

Supervised By

Prof. Muhammad Jahanzeb Khan, PhD

A dissertation is submitted to the Department of Psychology, University of

Peshawar in partial fulfillment of the requirement for th

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PSYCHOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR (2016)

THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS IN

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP

2

STYLES AND BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES AMONG

UNIVERSITY TEACHERS

By

Mohsin Atta

Supervised By


DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR (2016)

APPROVAL CERTIFICATE

It is certified that Mr. Mohsin Atta, PhD scholar, has successfully completed his

research study entitled, “The Role of Organizational Politics in Relationship between

Perceived Leadership Styles and Behavioral Outcomes among University Teachers”

3

under my supervision. His thesis meets the scholarly standard of PhD Psychology as set

by University of Peshawar.

_________________________________


Supervisor


Chairman,

Department of Psychology,

University of Peshawar

4

“The Role of Organizational Politics in Relationship

Between Perceived Leadership Styles and Behavioral

Outcomes Among University Teachers”

BY

Mohsin Atta

Approved By

_______________________

Supervisor

_______________________

Chairperson

_______________________

External Examiner

LIST OF CONTENTS

5

Page #

List of Tables i

List of Figures iii

List of

Appendices

vi

Acknowledgment vii

Abstract viii

Chapter-I Introduction 1

Perceived Leadership Styles 2

Theories of Leadership 3

Trait Leadership 3

Behavioral Approach 4

Situational Leadership 5

Full range Leadership 6

Transformational Leadership 6

Transactional Leadership 8

Organizational Citizenship Behavior 10

Classification of OCB 11

Seven Dimensional Scheme 12

OCB-Individual and OCB-Organizational 13

Organ’s Five Dimensional Classification 14

6

Consequences of OCB 15

Antecedents of OCB 16

Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

(OCB)

17

Affective Commitment (AC) 19

Three Component Model of Organizational

Commitment

20

Normative Commitment 20

Continuance Commitment 20

Affective Commitment (AC) 21

Antecedents of Affective Commitment 21

Leadership and Affective Commitment 22

Job Involvement (JI) 25

Antecedents of Job Involvement 27

Leadership and Job Involvement 28

Perceived Organizational Politics (POP) 30

Categories of POP 31

Farrell and Petersen’s Three Dimensional

Classification

31

Five Dimensional Classification 31

Three Factor Classification of POP 32

Pay and Promotion Policies 32

7

Go Along To Get Ahead 33

General Political Behavior 33

Perceived Organizational Politics: Its Moderating

Impact on Perceived Leadership Styles / Behavioral

Outcomes Relationship

34

Moderating Role of POP between Perceived

Leadership Styles and OCB

36


Leadership Styles And Affective Commitment.

38


Leadership Styles and Job Involvement

41

Rationale 44

Chapter-II Methodology 49

Objectives 49

Hypotheses 49


Perceived Organizational Politics 51

Research Plan 54

Phase I: Experts’ Opinion and Adaptation of

Selected Instruments

54

Phase II: Pilot Study 55

Phase III: Main Study: Model and Hypotheses

Testing and Examination of Demographics’

Influence

55

8

Phase I: Experts’ Opinion 55

Objectives 55

Participants for expert’s opinion 56

Instruments 56

Procedure 56

Results / Experts’ Feedback 57

Committee Approach for the Adaptation of Scales 57

Participants for Committee Approach 58

Instruments 58

Procedure 58

Results. 59

Phase II: Pilot Study 61

Objectives of Pilot Study 61

Sample 61

Operational Definition of Variables 62

Perceived Organizational Politics 62


Transformational Leadership 63

Transactional Leadership 63

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale

(OCBS)

63

9

Affective Commitment 63

Job Involvement 64

Instruments 64

Perception of Organizational Politics Scale

(POPS: Kacmar& Carlson, 1997)

64

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ

5X, Bass & Avolio, 1997)

65

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Lee

& Allen, 2002)

66

Affective Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer,

1990)

66

Job Involvement Scale (Kanungo, 1982) 67

Procedure 67

Data Analyses and Results of Pilot Study 67

Factor Analysis of Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ)

70

Discussion of Pilot Study 78

Conclusion 82

Chapter-III Phase III: Main Study 84

Instruments 84

Sample 84

Procedure 87

Results of Main Study 88

10

Summary of Hypotheses Tests 138

Chapter IV Discussion 155

Psychometric Properties of Measurement Instruments 153

Perceived Leadership Styles and Behavior Outcomes 157

Perceived Transformational Leadership Styles as

Predictor of OCB

157

Perceived Transactional Leadership Styles as Predictor

of OCB

161

Perceived Transformational and Transactional

Leadership Styles as Predictor of Affective

Commitment and Job Involvement

164

Perceived Organizational Politics (POP) and its

Relationship with OCB, Affective Commitment and Job

Involvement.

167

Moderations 170

POP as Moderator in Relationship between Perceived

Leadership Styles and OCB

170

POP as Moderator between Perceived Leadership Styles

and Affective Commitment (AC)

175

POP as Moderator between Perceived Leadership Styles

and Job Involvement (JI)

179

Impact of Demographics 184

Conclusions 187

Practical Implications 188

11

Limitations and Suggestions 191

References 194

Appendices 231

List of Tables

Tables # Title Page #

1 Original and Adapted Items of Various Scales 60

2 Descriptive and Psychometric Properties for Scales of the Present Study (N = 120) 68

3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Principe Component with Varimax Rotation

Showing Three Factor Structure of Multifactor Leadership Scale (N = 120)

72

4 Correlation Matrix for Leadership Styles and Their Sub-scales (N = 120) 74

5 Correlation matrix for the Main Variables of Present Study (N = 120) 75

6 Demographic Characteristics of the two Samples of Main Study 85

7 Descriptive and Psychometric Properties for Scales of the Present Study (N = 494) 89

8 Correlation Matrix Computed for Study Variables (N = 494) 90

12

9 Descriptive and Psychometric Properties for the Sample of the Heads of University

Departments on Leadership Styles (N = 57)

92

10 Comparison of Leadership Styles of University Departmental Heads and Teachers on

Transformational and Transactional Styles (N = 551)

93

11 Correlation Matrix for Leadership Styles and Their Sub-scales (N = 494) 94

12 Multiple Regression Analysis of Leadership Styles Predicting Organizational

citizenship Behavior, Affective Commitment and Job Involvement (N = 494)

95

13 Multiple Regression Analysis of Transformational Leadership Constructs Predicting

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Affective Commitment and Job Involvement (N

= 494)

96

14 Multiple Regression Analysis of Transactional Leadership Constructs Predicting


= 494)

98

15 Multiple Regression Analysis of Perceived Organizational Politics Predicting


= 494)

99

16 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics and

General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (N = 494)

100

17 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of go-along-to-get-ahead and pay and

promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior (N = 494)

107


General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective

Commitment (N = 494)

112


promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective


118


General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Job

125

13

Involvement (N = 494)


promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Job Involvement

(N = 494)

131

22 Summary of Tests of Hypotheses 138

23 Mean and Standard Deviations of Variables of the Current Study in Relation to

Demographics (N = 494)

144

24 Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for the Variables of the Present

Study (N = 494)

146

14

List of Figures

Figure # Title Page #

1 Conceptual model of POP as moderator between the relationship of leadership styles and OCB

38

2 Conceptual model of POP as moderator between the relationship of leadership styles and AC

41

3 Conceptual model of POP as moderator between the relationship of leadership styles and JI

43

4 Proposed theoretical model of the current study. 48

5 Scree plot for factor analysis of Leadership styles 71

6 Graphical description of interactive demographic data of sample of teachers

86

7 Graphical description of interactive demographic data of sample of heads of departments

86

8 Interactive effect of transformational leadership and perceived organizational politics on organizational citizenship behavior

103

9 Interactive effect of transactional leadership and perceived organizational politics on organizational citizenship behavior

104

10 Interactive effect of transformational leadership and general political behavior on organizational citizenship behavior

105

11 Interactive effect of transactional leadership and general political behavior on organizational citizenship behavior

106

12 Interactive effect of transformational leadership and pay and promotion policies on organizational citizenship behavior.

110

13 Interactive effect of transactional leadership and pay-and-

promotion-policies on organizational citizenship behavior.

111

14 Interactive effect of perceived organizational politics and transformational leadership on affective commitment

115

15 Interactive effect of perceived organizational politics and transactional leadership on affective commitment

116

16 Interactive effect of general political behavior and transactional leadership on affective commitment

117

17 Interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead and transformational leadership on affective commitment

121

15

18 Interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead and transactional leadership on affective commitment

122

19 Interactive effect of pay and promotion policies and transformational leadership on affective commitment

123

20 Interactive effect of pay and promotion policies and transactional leadership on affective commitment

124

21 Interactive effect of perceived organizational politics and transformational leadership on job involvement

128

22 Interactive effect of perceived organizational politics and

transactional leadership on job involvement

127

23 Interactive effect of general political behavior and transactional leadership on job involvement

130

24 Interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead and transformational leadership on job involvement

134

25 Interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead and transactional leadership on job involvement

135

26 Interactive effect of pay and promotion policies and transformational leadership on job involvement

136

27 Interactive effect of pay and promotion policies and transactional leadership on job involvement

137

28 Interactive effect of marital status and gender on transformational leadership.

147

29 Interactive effect of marital status and gender on transactional leadership

148

30 Interactive effect of marital status and gender on organizational citizenship behavior

149

31 Interactive effect of marital status and gender on perceived organizational politics

150

32 Interactive effect of marital status and job experience on perceived organizational politics

151

33 Interactive effect of marital status and job experience on organizational citizenship behavior

152

34 Interactive effect of age, job experience, and marital status on transformational leadership

153

35 Interactive effect of age, job experience, and marital status on transformational leadership

154

16

List of Appendices

Appendix # Title Page #

A Informed Consent, Introduction and Demographic Sheet 231

B-1 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Original) 232

B-2 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Adapted for HODs)

234

B-3 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Adapted for Teachers)

236

C-1 Perceived Organizational Politics Scale (Original) 239

C-2 Perceived Organizational Politics Scale (Adapted for Teachers) 241

D-1 Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Original) 243

D-2 Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Adapted for Teachers)

245

E Affective Commitment Scale (Original) 247

F-1 Job Involvement Scale (Original) 248

F-2 Job Involvement Scale (Adapted for Teachers)

249

17

Acknowledgements

First of all I would like to acknowledge Allah Almighty Who bestowed upon me

the abilities and courage to complete my work. Undoubtedly nothing was possible

without His love and benediction upon my academic journey.

I thank Dr. Muhammad Jahanzeb Khan, my supervisor who directed me as a kind

supervisor all over my research work and braced me with useful remarks on the concept-

version. I am heartily grateful for his extensive feedback and good advice throughout the

framework of research that led to successful completion of this PhD Dissertation.

I also pay my gratitude to my loving and caring wife. Her commendable patience

and support was indeed valuable source of inspiration for me. My beloved kids Shobi,

Ayyan and Rehan also deserve acknowledgement and love, who always inspired hope,

optimism, and real happiness within me.

Furthermore, my thanks also go out to the: Dr Adnan Adil for generously sharing

his skills whenever I needed or requested and for providing me with useful advice during

brainstorming and writing; Dr Najma Iqbal Malik who magnanimously reinforced and

facilitated me in completion of my strenuous work; Ms Irsa Fatima who never refused to

help me out devotedly at different times and stages of my research work.

I also pay thanks to my friends whose names are not possible to mention here due

to shortage of space and University of Peshawar for offering me their moral support and

advice during the writing process. Thank you all volunteers who participated in this

research and those who helped me in data collection.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, whose unconditional support instilled

belief within me and my abilities. They always remain with me in hard and blissful times

and enlighten my way with prayers, monetary support, backing me up, and whatever I

desired.

Mohsin Atta

18

Abstract

The current study was an empirical attempt to examine the role of perceived

organizational politics (POP) in relationship of leadership styles i.e. transformational

(TRF) and transactional (TRS) with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), affective

commitment (AC), and job involvement (JI). A convenient sample of teachers (N = 494)

of different public sector universities of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces of

Pakistan was included in this study. In order to compare the perceive leadership styles of

teachers and self-reported styles of departmental heads, a second sample of departmental

heads (N = 57) was selected to measure the leadership styles. Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio, 1997), Organizational Politics Scale (Kacmar

& Carlson, 1997), Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Lee & Allen, 2002),

Organizational Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990), and Job Involvement Scale

(Kanungo, 1982) were used to operationalize the constructs. Cross-sectional survey

research design was executed for the present study and was comprised of three phases.

Phase one was established to ask for experts’ opinion on instruments selected for current

study followed by committee approach to adapt the MLQ-5X. Phase two comprised of

pilot study, which helped determine the psychometric soundness of scales, whereas phase

three constituted the main study to test hypotheses. Pearson correlation was computed to

have an insight into the relationship pattern among variables. t-test revealed significant

differences on leadership styles between perceived leadership styles of teachers and self-

reported leadership styles of heads of institutes, where heads were found to be higher on

both TRF and TRS. Multiple regression analysis revealed that perceived transformational

and transactional leadership styles of teachers were significant positive predictors of

OCB, AC, and JI. Idealized influence (attributes), idealized influence (behaviors),

inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation dimensions of TRF and contingent

reward factor of TRS were also found to be significant positive predictors of OCB, AC,

and JI. Among facets of leadership and management-by-exception-active yield non-

significant results for OCB and AC; individualized consideration did not predict OCB and

JI. Multiple regression analysis further demonstrated POP and its factors i.e. general

political behavior (GPB), go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA), and pay-and- promotions-

policies (PPP) as significant negative predictors of OCB, AC, and JI. Hierarchical

regression accounted for moderation analyses and results revealed that POP, GPB, and

PPP significantly moderated between perceived leadership styles and OCB such that the

19

interaction of these variables and both leadership styles strengthened the positive effect of

these leadership styles on OCB. GATGA turned out to be non significant moderator

between leadership styles and OCB. Current findings further disclosed that POP, GPB,

and PPP significantly moderated between perceived leadership styles and AC such that

the interaction of these political behaviors and both leadership styles (transformational

and transactional) strengthened the positive association of these leadership styles and AC

whereas GPB appeared to be non significant moderator between TRF and AC. The study

finally examined the moderating role of POP in leadership and JI relationship to test the

proposed model. Current findings entailed that POP, GPB, and PPP served as significant

moderators between perceived leadership styles and JI such that the interactive effect of

these political behaviors and both leadership styles (TRF and TRS) fortified the positive

association of these leadership styles and JI, while GPB found to be non significant

moderator between TRF and JI. In addition to hypotheses testing, current study has also

explored impact of certain demographics of university teachers in relation to variables

operationalized for present study. Significant findings of multivariate analyses of variance

were followed by univariate analyses to assess the influence of demographics on variables

of the present study. Implications of this study and suggestions for future empirical

exploration of the constructs have been also discussed.

Keywords: Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, perceived

organizational politics, OCB, affective commitment, job involvement.

20

Chapter-I

Introduction

Strength of every building steadfastly lies in its foundation. Same is the case with

the building of countries. If their base is strong, they can stand erect in the world, whereas

if their foundations are feeble, even a little disaster can pull them down to earth. The

question raises here that, who is responsible for constructing the bases of the country? It

is the teacher whom we consider important enough that we leave our future to his/her

hands. S/he teaches us how to speak, read and write. S/he struggles for us when we

cannot write even our own names. S/he trains us how to live not only the present moment

but prepares us for the next. The doctor gives treatment to the patients and his duty is

finished. The engineer constructs the machines and his responsibility is over. Same is the

case with other professions, but it is only the teacher who has to perform dual

responsibilities. S/he teaches the students, which is his/her duty and s/he also teaches

what the student has to do to learn what is taught; which is the responsibility of the

student himself. S/he teaches us how we can have knowledge, how we can learn

knowledge and how we can construct knowledge.

This is not the only hardship of their work. They have to face a lot of hurdles at

their workplace. One such thing is organizational politics. In a situation like ours, where

teachers have little security of their future organizational politics is even more negative.

Organizational politics is an important phenomenon faced by employees of today’s

organizations. Organizational researchers have been interested in exploring its individual

as well as interactive effects on employees in various settings. Its individual effects have

often been observed as negative but its interactive effects are found mixed for the

employees. The current study is an endeavor to explore the individual and interactive

effects of the organizational politics among university teachers. It is an attempt to study

that what effects do the perceived leadership styles of heads produce on the employees

and how the employees respond when they perceive their leaders as transactional or

transformational in environments with high or low organizational politics.

Universities are organizations, no doubt, but these organizations are different from

other manufacturing or human service organizations. Like other organizations,

universities have chain of command (from vice chancellor to deans, from deans to head of

departments and from head of departments to the teachers); but unlike other

21

organizations, the authorities of these departments do not possess professional

administrative trainings. Teachers are primary unit in the hierarchy of university faculty

and they differ from teachers of colleges and schools in many way. They are supposed not

only to teach higher classes and supervise research work, but also demonstrate some

administrative task e.g. organization of training workshops, seminars, and study tours etc.

Such activities do not involve formal administration but teachers’ exposure, with slight

autonomy, to manage these tasks help them certainly to develop the sense of better

perception about leadership, organizational politics and other pertinent organizational

attitudes and behaviors. In such a situation, role of leaders (i.e., head of departments) and

teachers become more critical and interesting for organizational researchers.

Universities have always been conceived as vital units contributing, in various

sectors of development and growth, through intellectual input. Teaching faculty is most

important force assumed to contribute in span of knowledge that is substantial for the

improvement of society and progress of the state. There are certain organizational and

individual issues that need to be addressed to understand in order to facilitate the behavior

and attitudes of teaching faculty. Therefore, the present study is focused on the individual

impacts of perceived leadership styles, individual effects of perceived organizational

politics and interactive effects of these two variables on work outcomes including

organizational citizenship behavior, affective commitment, and job involvement.

It is assumed that moderating variable (perceived organizational politics) will

influence the impact of leadership styles on its work outcomes by increasing the intensity

of their relationship.

Perceived Leadership Styles

Leadership is the process of influencing followers in order to achieve a common

goal (Northouse, 2001). It is defined as a process of influencing group members, in a

certain work related situation, for the sake of common goals and objectives (Stoner,

Freeman, & Gilbert, 1996; Yukl, 1994). It is a relationship between the individuals who

want to lead and the individuals who desire to be leaded (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). To

conclude, leadership has been defined in the terms of personality, compliance, center of

group processes, influence, specific behaviors, persuasion, power relation, differentiated

role and all possible combinations of these aspects (Bass, 1997). Leadership styles refer

to the manners which are used by the leader to influence others by providing directions to

them and motivating them to work (Duta, 2011).

22

The present study focuses on how employees perceive the leadership style of their

leader i.e., their perceived leadership style. Now a days, researchers are turning their

attention towards how the employees perceive their leaders rather than solely the impact

of leadership styles. For instance, Shums-ur-Rehman, Shareef, Mahmood and Ishaque

(2012) studied the impact if perceived leadership style on employee commitment among

staff of educational institutes in Pakistan. Mitonga-Monga, Coetzee, and Cilliers (2012)

studied the relationship of perceived leadership style and employee participation among a

sample of manufacturing organization. Similarly, Mester, Visser, and Roodt (2003)

observed the relationship of perceived leadership style with organizational commitment,

job involvement, job satisfaction, and OCB. They also studied the effects of leadership

styles and found different results as compared to perceived leadership styles. This

suggests that perception of employees regarding the leadership style of the manager is of

crucial importance.

Theories of leadership.

Many theories of leadership have been proposed viewing leadership from different

perspectives. These theories can be clustered on the bases of who leads, how leads, under

what circumstances leads, and who follows. Some of the important leadership theories are

discussed below:

Trait leadership. The leadership perspective which considers personal

characteristics fro differentiating leaders from the individuals who are not leader are

clustered in this paradigm (Robbins & Judge, 2006). The basic tenet of trait theory is that

leaders possess some traits which non-leaders do not. The theory suggests that the leaders

generally inherit the traits which distinguish them from others and draw people for

followership toward them (Cleveland, Stockdale & Murphy, 2000). Stogdill (1974)

identified various traits and skills which a leader generally possesses and which

differentiates them from other non-leaders. The traits include assertiveness, adaptability

to situation, cooperation, dependability, persistence, decisiveness, dominance, tolerance,

energetic, willingness to take responsibility, and ambition etc. the list of skills identified

by Stogdill (1974) include intelligence, creativity, social skills, persuasion, conceptual

skill, tactfulness, fluency in words, administrative skills, and diplomacy etc.

Three categories of the traits have been studied including demographic

characteristics, characteristics related to task competence and interpersonal attributes

(Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Demographics which have been

considered important characteristics of leaders include gender, education, experience, and

23

physical characteristics (Fiedler, 1970; Howard & Bray, 1988; Judge & Cable, 2004).

Second category of traits considered important for leaders include characteristics related

to task competence. This category involves the traits regarding how the leaders perform

the tasks. This category includes intelligence, openness to experience, conscientiousness,

and emotional stability. The traits which are related to interpersonal attributes include

those characteristics which determine how the leader interact with others for instance

extroversion, communication skills, and agreeableness (Bass & Bass, 2008; Derue,

Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011).

Behavioral approach. While trait theorists focused on traits the leaders possessed,

behavioral theorists emphasized relationships with others, output and performance

(Bolden, Gosling, Marturano, & Dennison, 2003). These theories tend to differentiate

leaders from non-leaders in terms of specific behaviors (Robbins & Judge, 2006). The

shift towards behavior school was the result of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y

(1960). According to this theory managers are divided into two groups who have different

assumptions towards human nature. The managers of theory X consider that individuals

dislike work and want to avoid it. Therefore, in order to achieve organizational goals,

most of the times others should be directed, punished, and controlled. The other group of

managers belonging to theory Y assumes that like physical activity, every human being

possesses some level of mental effort which he or she wants to consume, and everyone

seeks to take responsibility. Moreover, they believe that the people generally control and

direct themselves in order to achieve the goals.

Subsequent proliferation of behavior paradigm identifies some 65 different

classifications of leader behaviors (Fleishman et al., 1991). But most of these behaviors

can be clustered into one of the four categories including task-oriented, relational

oriented, change-oriented and passive leadership behaviors. Task related behaviors

include initiating structure tasks for instance defining task roles, coordinating the group

members about their and others’ actions, defining desired standards and making

subordinates to perform according to those performance standards. Relation-oriented

leaders are highly considered for others, respect others, treat group members equally, are

participative, empowering and democratic (Bass, 1990; Gastil, 1994; Kahai, Sosik, &

Avolio, 1997; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006).

Change-oriented behaviors of leadership include developing a vision for change in

the organization and communicating it to others. Change-oriented leaders prefer

innovative thinking and risk-taking and encourage such thinking among others (Yukl,

24

Gordon, & Taber, 2002). Passive leadership behaviors include the behaviors of leader’s

inaction. Such leaders do not engage in activities when there is no apparent task-related

problem (Bass, 1990). Such leaders do not actively participate in the organization when

there is no problem or challenge. One such example is laissez-faire leadership style which

is characterized by leader inactivity (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).

Situational leadership. Current leadership theories neither focus on particular

traits nor behaviors rather these theories suggest that no leadership is effective in all

situations. These theories suggest that effective leadership style is dependent on

situational factors, the followers, the tasks, the people and the organization (Bolden,

Gosling, Marturano, & Dennison, 2003). Fiedler’s contingency approach to leadership

(1967; 1970) is an example of situational leadership. This theory postulates that it is the

situation which makes effective leadership and that there is no single best way of

leadership. Fiedler (1967; 1970) proposed three different situations which shape the

leadership style including leader member relations (what type of relationship the leaders

and the followers have), task structure, and position power (the power the manager has).

The Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership (1977) is another example of

situational approach to leadership. This approach proposes that leadership styles are

determined by the developmental levels of the followers. The basic tenant of the theory

revolves round the task behavior and relationship behavior of the leader and maturity

level of the follower. Task behaviors include the behaviors of leader regarding describing

the duties of the subordinates at individual or group level. The behaviors of leader

regarding the communications to the individuals or group are included in relationship

behaviors. Finally, maturity is the act of followers regarding their willingness to assume

responsibility. The theory suggests four types of leadership behaviors including directing,

coaching, supporting and delegating styles. The leader uses appropriate leadership style

according to the maturity level of the sub-ordinate.

Full range leadership. Full Range Model of Leadership originally proposed by

Burns (1978), has also been labeled as cutting-edge leadership theory (Robbins &

Coultar, 2005). According to this model, three types of leadership behaviors can be found

including transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership style. The theory

states that the leaders, who transform the followers by bringing positive change among

them, encourage them and make them more helpful, caring, and harmonious for other

fellow workers as well as for their organization as a whole, are grouped under

transformational leaders. On the other hand, transactional leaders are those who involve

25

in a transaction with their followers. This leadership style involves an exchange of

leader’s interest and follower’s expectations (Paracha, Qamar, Mirza, Inam-ul-Hassan, &

Waqas, 2012). The third category of leadership, which is termed as laissez-faire

leadership consists of inactive leaders, the leaders who avoid involvement (Bodla &

Nawaz, 2010).

The most welcomed leadership styles among the researchers are transformational,

and transactional (Avoloio & Bass, 1991; Hambley, Neill, & Kline, 2007). Therefore,

these two leadership styles are focused in the study. A brief introduction of these two is

summarized here:

Transformational leadership. The leaders who are proactive, make their followers

aware of collective interests and help them to achieve organizational goals are

transformational leaders (Bodla & Nawaz, 2010). Such leaders bring many positive

changes among employees as they are proactive and produce a fundamental change

among their employees’ beliefs and attitudes regarding the organization (Cleveland,

Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000). Transformational leadership involves the behaviors of

leaders that transform their followers and inspire them so that they are able to perform

beyond expectations and could go beyond their own self-interests for the sake of

organization (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). Transformational leaders bring

change among their employees by using one or more components of transformational

leadership including idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,

individualized consideration and idealized attributes (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Idealized Influence. Idealized influence consists of those acts of the leader

which are related to beliefs, values and a sense of goal achievement. The behaviors of

leader through which he specifies goals and the importance of a sense of purpose,

clarifies ethical and moral side of decisions, encourages his followers to explore new

possibilities, and tell them about the significance of trusting others are included in this

category (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Inspirational motivation. By inspirational motivation, those qualities of leaders

are meant which energize his followers by proposing an optimistic view of the future. The

leader with inspirational motivation motivates his employees by painting a positive

picture of future, by talking with enthusiasm about the goals to be accomplished, and

26

showing trust on the employees that they are able to accomplish those tasks and capable

of achieving the specified goals. The leader with inspirational motivation enthusiastically

articulates to his followers about what they should actually consider (Antonakis, et al.,

2003; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Intellectual stimulation. Intellectual stimulation refers to the acts of the leader

which inspire the follower to use their logic and problem solving abilities, and enable

them to explore the solution of their problems creatively. The leader high on intellectual

stimulation encourages his employees to question the accuracy of critical assumptions, to

focus on problems from different new perspectives, to discover innovative ways of

completing the assignments, and to rethink those notions which have never been

questioned (Antonakis, et al., 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Individualized consideration. Individualized consideration involves those

behaviors of leader which are related to the follower’s needs and respect. The

transformational leader high on individualized consideration focuses on each employee’s

needs, is concerned for the employee’s concerns. Such a leader communicates well with

the employees, gives them respect and encourages each member’s participation to the

team work. It results in development of intrinsic motivation among the followers. Such a

leader spends time in teaching others, considers the individual differences of the

employees rather than treating them merely as team members, and encourages others to

develop themselves (Antonakis, et al., 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Idealized attributes. Idealized attributes involve those behaviors of leaders which

enable others to trust the leader. Leader, with his charisma, build a sense of pride among

his followers for being associated with him. The transformational leader acts in such a

way that others give him respect and feel pride in following him. He makes personal

sacrifices for the benefit of others, and perceived as confident, powerful, and focusing on

ethics and high-order ideals (Antonakis, et al., 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

What does transformational leadership contribute for?. Transformational

leadership behaviors motivate the employees by idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and idealized attributes

(Bass & Avolio, 1994). When leaders motivate their followers by these behaviors, the

followers tend to set those goals which are more value-oriented and thus, find their work

27

as more meaningful (Bono & Judge, 2003; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). This inner

motivation leads the employees towards organization facilitating behaviors, attitudes and

work outcomes. This was explored by Voon, Lo, Ngui, and Ayob (2011) who studied a

sample of public sector employees of Malaysia. They found that transformational

leadership style resulted in intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction of employees. Similarly,

Stewart (2006) noted collective performance as an outcome of transformational

leadership.

Similarly, transformational leadership behavior yields change-commitment,

morality, motivation and empowerment of followers (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir,

2002; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008). As with many other professions,

transformational leadership brings many positive outcomes to the teachers. For instance,

Mine (2008) found that the perceived leadership style of principals of the schools

increased the reported job satisfaction of the teachers. Other positive outcomes produced

by transformational leadership behavior among teachers include an increase in teacher’s

satisfaction, motivation, effectiveness, school-aggregated student achievement progress,

performance, collective teacher efficacy, self-efficacy and a decrease in turnover (Demir,

2008; Griffith, 2004; Hetland & Sandal, 2003; Suarva, 2002).

Transactional leadership style. The leadership style characterized by gaining

power through using rewards, promises and praises which may take the form of

bargaining, compromising, and trading between the leaders and the followers (Northouse,

2010). Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that transactional leaders fulfill the current needs of

employees, resulting in a short term satisfactory effects on the employees. Locke et al.,

(1999) are of the view that all kinds of leadership are transactional in a sense that they

involve some kind of transactions (not specifically the rewards). In fact, the salient

characteristic of transactional leadership style is rewards which the leader offers as an

exchange process and the reward structure is based upon the process through which

leaders and their followers fulfill their contractual obligations, where the leader sets goals,

monitors the employees and control the outcomes (Antonakis, et al., 2003). Transactional

leadership consists of three factors including contingent reward, management by

exception (active) and management by exception (passive).

Contingent Rewards (i.e., constructive transactions). Contingent reward behaviors

include those behaviors of the leaders which are aimed at clarifying the roles of the

28

followers along with explaining task requirements to them. The transactional leader

performs these behaviors by indulging in a transaction where rewards are offered by the

leader for expected results and for fulfillment of the contractual duties (Antonakis, et al.,

2003).

Management-by-Exception Active (i.e., active corrective transactions). This

component of transactional leadership involves the active participation of the leader

whose efforts are aimed at ensuring the standards to be met. Such a leader participates

actively in monitoring his employees and takes correcting measures in order to achieve

desirable results (Antonakis, et al., 2003).

Management-by-Exception Passive (i.e., passive corrective transactions). This

component of leadership behavior involves a relatively less active role of the leader.

Here, the leader participates only when the some non-compliance or a mistake has already

been committed. Such a leader uses punitive measures to achieve his goals and interrupts

only when there is already a problem has been occurred (Antonakis, et al., 2003).

What does transactional leadership contribute for?. Transactional leadership style

is an exchange between the leader and the follower for each party’s desired outcomes

(Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). This type of leadership enables the employees to protect the

status quo. It involves clear monitoring and correction of the employees which result in

short-term success of the followers (Bass, 1985). The focus of transactional behaviors lies

upon prevention-focused preferences of employee, their apprehensions for avoiding

mistakes, and their willingness to prefer short-term benefits (Forster & Higgins, 2005;

Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 2001). Therefore, transactional leadership has been found

associated with many positive outcomes for instance, it increases innovation, enhances

team performance, enables promotions of the followers and results in facilitating the

followers to have acquaintance with their job objectives and obligations and objectives

(Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Burke, et al., 2006; Lo, Ramayah, & Min, 2009;

Munaf, 2011).

In indigenous culture of Pakistan, researchers have explored the impacts of

transactional leadership on work-related constructs. Paracha, Qamar, Mirza, Inam-ul-

Hassan an Waqas (2012) observed a sample of school teachers from various public and

private institutes and concluded that transactional leadership behaviors were stronger

29

predictors of performance of teachers than transactional ones. Chaudhry, Javed, and Sabir

(2012) studied a sample of bank employees and found that transactional leadership style

was significantly related to employee’s motivation. Riaz and Haider (2010) carried out a

study in order to explore the contribution leadership styles make on job success of

employees from various private sector organizations and concluded that transactional

leadership style resulted in an increased level of job success among the employees.

In short, these two leadership styles are important predictors of work outcomes.

They have been found positively related with many work outcomes and behaviors

including job satisfaction and career satisfaction (Riaz & Haider, 2010), bringing

innovation and increasing knowledge (Jansen, Vera, & Crossan, 2009) trust, and team

efficacy (Burke et al., 2006), organizational commitment, and performance, (Kim, 2009),

and productivity (Masi & Cooke, 2000). As the leader, in the leadership process is the

only element who is not stagnant and can bring change among other elements, the leader

can influence his followers in variety of ways. He can bring loyalty among the employees

to the extent that they go beyond their duties and perform favors to organization which

are not part of their formal roles. In other words, leaders can increase organizational

citizenship behaviors among their followers (Banu, Amudha, & Surulivel, 2012).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior is a cluster of discretionary, organization-

facilitating behaviors which add to psychological and social context of performance but

do not bring reward for the worker under formal reward system (Alizadeh, Darvishi,

Nazari, & Emami, 2012; Organ, 1988, 1997; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).

These are the behaviors which add to the development of the organization but are not

included in the formal job description. Organ (1988) first introduced this concept when he

revisited the traditional concept of job performance. He noted that along with quantitative

aspects of work, job performance was something more than the call of duty. It included

some qualitative aspects, which he termed organizational citizenship behavior, which add

to the social and psychological context of the work.

Organizational citizenship behavior is not the only label to describe such

behaviors; literature of organizational behavior includes other similar terms for instance

contextual performance and extra-role behaviors. Borman and Motowidlo (1997)

30

proposed the concept of contextual performance by dividing performance into two

categories i.e., task performance and contextual performance. The former is related to

duties assigned by job description and the latter involves all the behaviors of extra effort

which facilitate the organization. Extra-role behaviors (ERB), which was initiated by

Van-Dyne, Cummings, and Parks (1995), involves discretionary behaviors which are

more than the expected roles of the employees. Researchers are more interested in the

definition and conceptualization of OCB than its correlates or effects. This trend of

researchers has resulted in a serious threat of developing a literature with ambiguous

terms but no long term practical value (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Although organizational citizenship behaviors did not attract the attention of

researchers when it was first introduced yet it has been appealing researchers since 1993,

till date (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). It has been studied

exclusively as well as with many other constructs including definition and dimensions

(Wong, Ngo, & Wong, 2006; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Organ,

1988, 1990; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001), its

antecedents (Bowler & Brass, 2006; Suresh & Venkatammal, 2010; Farahbod,

Azadehdel, Rezaei-Dizgah, & Nezhadi-Jirdehi, 2012), and consequences (Kaur, 2011;

Katz & Kahn, 1966). Many classification schemes have been proposed with regard to this

construct. A brief overview of some of these schemes is summarized below:

Classification of OCB.

Almost thirsty types of OCB can be found in the literature on OCB which

suggests a disagreement among theorists regarding its types (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). A

brief account of these classification schemes is presented here:

Seven dimensional scheme. Podsakoff et al., (2000) reported that literature is

filled with different types of OCB but many of them are same or similar on conceptual

backgrounds and these all types can be grouped into seven common dimensions including

helping behavior, organizational loyalty, sportsmanship, individual initiative,

organizational compliance, civic virtue, and self development.

Helping behavior. The most commonly defined type of OCB is helping behavior

which might be traced in the literature of OCB with many names. Almost everyone has

tried to define it who has worked in this field. All the behaviors of helping others in order

31

to prevent and solve workplace problems are clustered in this group of citizenship

behaviors. Such kind of behaviors have been labeled as altruism, interpersonal helping,

pacemaking, OCB-I, interpersonal facilitation, and courtesy (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Organizational loyalty. Organizational loyalty includes the behaviors which

indicate the loyalty of the employees with the organization. it involves promoting the

organization outside the workplace, protecting it from external threats and showing

commitment to the organization even when circumstances are in the favor of the

employee. In literature, it can be found with the names of loyal boosterism, spreading

good will, organizational loyalty and protecting the organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is exhibited in the organizations when employees

show tolerance in face of hardships and inconveniences at work and when their

suggestions are not followed. It also involves maintaining a positive attitude for the

organization when rejections or hurdles are faced at work (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Individual initiative. Individual initiative includes those behaviors which are

related to putting more than minimally required effort. These are “more than the call of

duty” because the employee is performing on assigned tasks with more than required

effort. Volunteering for extra responsibilities is an example of individual initiative. Other

labels for this construct are conscientiousness, personal industry, making constructive

suggestions, and job dedication etc (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Organizational compliance. The employees who internalize organizational

procedures, rules and regulations and stick to them even when they are not watched by

anyone, they are exhibiting organizational compliance. Although adherence to such rules

and regulations is the part of job yet it is termed as organizational compliance because

most of the times, the employees do not follow the rules and regulations of the

organization when alone. Other labels for organizational compliance include generalized

compliance, organizational obedience, and job dedication (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Civic virtue. Civic virtue is manifested when employees show themselves as good

citizens of the organization. They own the organization in such a way that they take its

interests as those of their own. The employees take interest in the organization at macro-

level by preventing it from external threats by monitoring possible opportunities for its

32

development. Organizational participation and protecting the organization are other labels

for this construct (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Self-development. Self-development includes those behaviors of organizational

citizenship which are related to development of oneself in the relevant field. These are

extra-role in the sense that these are not part of formal assigned duties but ultimate benefit

of these behaviors goes to the organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

OCB-Individual and OCB-Organizational.

Based on the target of the citizenship behavior, this taxonomy divides OCB into

two forms including OCB targeted towards individuals (OCB-I) and OCB targeted

towards organization (OCB-O). Literature available on OCB discloses that this

classification scheme was proposed since 1983, when Smith, Organ, and Near (1983)

proposed the concepts of altruism and generalized compliance. Altruism involves

behaviors of helping others at workplace in face to face situations while citizenship

behaviors aimed at fostering the development process of the organization other than

helping specific individuals at work were categorized under the label of generalized

compliance. Williams (1988) also divided citizenship behaviors into two dimensions i.e.

benefits to the organization and benefits to the employees in organization. The label

OCB-I and OCB-O for these categories was suggested by Williams and Anderson (1991)

who categorized organizational citizenship behaviors on the bases of target of the

behavior. OCB-I includes the behaviors which aid the process of organizational

development by helping other employees at work while OCB-O consists of behaviors

which are not directly helping to other employees but are more than the defined duties of

the employees and thus, are beneficial for the organization for instance adherence to the

rules and regulations of the organization.

Organ’s five dimensional classification. Organ (1988) proposed this

categorization scheme of OCB which divides OCB into five dimensions. The most widely

welcomed categorization scheme among the researchers is Organ’s five dimensional

scheme (Mehboob & Bhutto, 2012). It divides OCB into five dimensions including

courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue, conscientiousness and altruism.

Courtesy. Courtesy involves taking steps to help other employees in prevention of

problems before they occur. It also involves does not abusing the rights of fellow

33

employees (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). Examples

of such behaviors include telling others before taking action against them, advance

notices, communication of information before the problem occurs and reminders (Organ,

1988; Singh and Singh, 2010).

Sportsmanship. In organizations, employees have to face some circumstances

which are not according to their expectations rather, are troublesome for them.

Sportsmanship is manifested when employees do not complaint about such circumstances

and even maintain a positive attitude towards it (Organ, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Examples of such behaviors involve not complaining about small maters (Moorman,

1993).

Civic virtue. Civic virtue is related to the behaviors which are concerned with

taking interest in political life of the organization at macro-level (Moorman, 1993). It

involves being concerned for the organization even at the stake of personal interests,

checking the environment of the organization for possible benefits and losses, defending

it against external and internal threats, being conscious about having knowledge of the

organizational life, and participating in the meetings which are important but their

attendance is not mandatory (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness involves exerting more effort on work-

related tasks than is actually assigned. Employees exhibit conscientiousness when they

exhibit more than minimally required level of punctuality, attendance, and follow the

organization’s rules and regulations. The employees who are high at conscientiousness do

not take extra respites during work hours and are stick to rules and regulations even when

others are not watching them. Such behaviors are related to assigned duties in a way that

employees perform these assigned duties on a level which is well beyond the required

level (Moorman, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Altruism. The most widely studied and discussed form of OCB is altruism which

has been found to be an important part of OCB by almost everyone who has touched this

topic (Podsakoff et al., 2000). It consists of those voluntary and intentional behaviors

which are aimed at helping a specific employee at work in face-to-face situations.

Altruism also includes helping others with work related problems. Examples include

instructing others how to use a new equipment, or orienting a new person at work,

34

fetching some equipment which is difficult for him etc. Another label for altruism is

interpersonal helping, which consists of those helps which is provided when such help is

needed (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).

Consequences of OCB.

OCB involves those behaviors which are more than the actual call of duty but aid

the development of the organization. Hence, OCB has always been found a positive

construct in the field of organizational behavior. The consequences of OCB can be

divided into two major categories i.e., effects of OCB on organizational performance and

effects of OCB on judgment of the employee and reward procedure (Podsakoff et al.,

2000). One very important result of OCB is that it increases the level of job satisfaction

among employees. Sharma, Bajpai, and Holani (2011) carried out a study in India and

found that and increase in OCB results in an increase in job satisfaction. Zarea (2012)

found that higher levels of OCB result in increased level of social capital which is the

ability to solve collective problems. Yilmaz and Cokluk-Bokeoglu (2008) studied a

sample of school teachers and found that those teachers were more committed to their

schools who were high at OCBs.

Similarly, higher levels of OCB result in decreasing turnover intention (Khalid, et

al., 2009) and job burnout (Abdi, Kianzadeh, Talebpour, Emami, Bahmanpour, & Nasiri,

2012). Turning towards the other category of consequences, OCB has been found

exerting strong impacts on the evaluation of the employee by managers for rating of

performance. In order to observe the effects of OCB on rating, Coole (2003) carried out

an experimental study and observed that performance of citizenship behaviors influenced

the raters for judgment of performance in a sense that the perpetrators of OCB were

judged as high performer than those who did not perform OCB. Similarly, (Podsakoff,

Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009) carried out a meta-analytic study and observed that

OCBs are at least as much important in managerial evaluation of performance and

determining the rewards and pay raises as task performance. Moreover, they summarized

that OCB increases organizational productivity, profitability and effectiveness, whereas it

decreases absenteeism, turnover intentions and actual turnover.

Antecedents of OCB.

35

Researchers have been found interested in exploring the antecedents of OCB.

Podsakoff et al., (2000) divide its antecedents into four categories including individual,

task and work characteristics and leadership behaviors. Among factors related to

individual are job satisfaction (Paille’, 2011), motivation (Bowler & Brass, 2006),

organizational commitment (Noor, 2009), organizational concern, prosocial values,

impression management, role identity (Dávila & Finkelstein, 2010) and predispositional

characteristics (Suresh & Venkatammal, 2010). Demographic variables have also been

found as predictors of OCB. For instance, Chou and Pearson (2011) found age and tenure

as significant positive predictor of all the five dimensions of OCB. Ucho, Mkavga, and

Onyishi (2012) observed that the more the employees stayed in the organization the

higher was the level of OCB. Bukhari and Ali (2009) found that in Pakistan, more

educated employees show a greater level of citizenship behaviors. Similarly, Banu,

Amudha, and Surulivel (2012) found age, tenure and income as significant positive

predictors of OCB.

Predictors related to task characteristics include task feedback and intrinsic

satisfaction which are positive while task routinization (Todd & Kent, 2006) and task

conflict (Ng & Van Dyne, 2005) are negative contributor to OCB. Work related

characteristics which predict OCB are perceived organizational politics (Afshardoust,

Feizabadi, Zakizadeh, & Abdolhoseyni, 2013), perceived fair interpersonal treatment and

perceived organizational support (Ehigie & Otukoya, 2005), team member exchange

(Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007), group cohesiveness (Ng & Van Dyne, 2005), intensity of

friendship (Bowler & Brass, 2006), social exclusion (Twange et al., 2007) and

organizational justice (Wan & Semarak, 2012). Final category of predictors of OCB

includes factors related to leadership. Leadership behaviors such as leader-member

exchange (Farahbod, Azadehdel, Rezaei-Dizgah, & Nezhadi-Jirdehi, 2012),

transformational leadership and transactional leadership (McKenzie et al., 2001) are

predictors of OCB. Leadership behaviors are among the strongest predictors of

organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Leadership is a composite of three interacting elements, which are the leader,

follower, and situation. The follower and the situation are the elements which are almost

stable; it is the leader who has to bring change among these two elements for smooth

36

development of the organization (Duta, 2011). Appropriate leadership style can exert a

very significant effect on the followers and can motivate them to increase their inputs for

formal, prescribed duties as well as extra-role behaviors. This association can be

understood in terms of leader-member exchange theory which suggests that if leaders

have a positive, high quality relation with their sub-ordinates, the sub-ordinates respond

with favorable attitudes and behaviors. One such positive work-place behavior is OCB

which is the result of high-quality relationship between the leader and the follower

(Brouer, Duke, Treadway, & Ferris, 2009).

Therefore, appropriate leadership has been found associated with OCB. For

instance, Johnson (2008) studied the effects of perceived charismatic leadership among a

sample of school teachers and their heads and found that attribution of charismatic

leadership style results in an increase in OCB among the teachers. Similarly, Farooqui

(2012) studied a sample of lecturers from different universities of Pakistan and found that

leadership was a strong predictor of employees’ OCB. She reasoned for such a

relationship in terms of clear communication from the leader. She stated that when the

head of the universities clearly state the expected role of the lecturers by appropriate

leadership style, the lecturers are more likely to perform according to the expectations,

which results in favorable behaviors of the employees for example OCB.

OCB is discretionary extra-role behavior that is not part of job role as well as is

not rewarded by formal reward system (Jacqueline et al., 2004; Organ, 1988). Voluntary

behaviors, which add to the development of the organization, but are not required by

formal job roles, are termed as OCB. As transformational leadership involves

encouraging the employees, motivating them to work, and cultivating long term

relationship with the employees (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Paracha et al., 2012), it increases

the job satisfaction of the employees (Riaz & Haider, 2010) and when they are satisfied

with their jobs, they are more likely to perform OCB (Kaur, 2011). Further, an important

characteristic of transformational leadership is that it can achieve performance beyond

expectations (Bass, 1985). It is therefore, the subordinates make their potential efforts to

perform more than requirement of the job. Furthermore, social exchange theory (Blau,

1965) explains that, when followers build up positive perceptions of their leaders and find

them as encouraging and motivating them, in return, they try to give positive response

37

through performing more than their formal duties. Therefore, a strong positive

relationship is assumed between transformational leadership style and OCB.

The relationship has been found to be true by many researchers. One such study

was carried out by Lian and Tui (2012) who observed a large sample from various

mining, construction, manufacturing and services companies in Malaysia. The results of

their study suggest that transformational leadership is positively while transactional

leadership is negatively associated with OCB. Moreover, Banu, Amudha, and Surulivel

(2012) observed an Indian travel agency and found that transformational leadership style

result in a higher level of OCB among employees. Similarly, Purvanova, Bono and

Dzieweczynski (2006) found that transformational leadership behaviors cause an increase

in citizenship behaviors among employees. Other researchers have also supported these

results (e.g. Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Babcock-Roberson, & Strickland,

2010; Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006).

Along with transformational leadership, transactional leadership has also been

found associated with increased level of OCB among employees. Transactional leaders

improve the behaviors of the followers by offering rewards to them. When rewards are to

be allocated, the leaders not only consider in-role performance but extra-role behaviors

are also considered. Therefore, in order to get more rewards the employees perform more

extra-role behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Therefore

transformational leadership has been observed as an important predictor of OCB among

employees. Moreover, a transactional leader can increase the level of OCB among

employees by using the principal of operant conditioning. When rewards are given on

increased level of OCB, the employees are more likely to perform OCBs.

This was discussed by Mackenzie et al., (2001) who found a strong positive

relationship between transactional leadership style and organizational citizenship

behavior but the relationship of transactional leadership with OCB was weaker than that

of transformational leadership style with organizational citizenship behavior. Piliai et al.

(1999) also studied the relationship of transactional leadership with OCB and found that

these two variables were strongly related.

The researchers are at controversy in explaining the relationship of transactional

leadership with OCB. While some researchers have found a positive relationship between

38

these two, some others have failed to find any relationship between transactional

leadership style and OCB. Mester, Visser, and Roodt (2003) for example failed to observe

any significant relationship between these two behaviors. Even Lian and Tui (2012)

found a negative relation between perceived transactional leadership style and

subordinate’s citizenship behaviors among a sample of manufacturing, services,

construction and mining companies in Malaysia. They reasoned for such results in terms

of hard approach the leader uses which is found to be ineffective for the employees to

make them committed for the organization.

Previous inconsistent results for the relationship of perceived leadership styles and

OCB suggest that researchers should try to focus more paths of relationships between

these two variables including some possible third variable effect which perhaps acts as a

moderator or mediator. This scarcity of literature was discussed by Boerner et al., (2008),

who stated that little information is available on the contextual factors which affect the

relationship of charismatic leadership and OCB. Similarly, Porter and McLaughlin (2006)

stated that same leadership style yield different outcomes when contextual factors are

different. Researchers are now turning their attentions towards exploring the possible

mediator or moderator effect for the relationship of these two variables for instance,

managerial performance, job satisfaction, environmental uncertainty, and subordinates’

need for leadership (Boerner et al., 2008; De Hoogh et al., 2004; Yun, Cox, & Sims,

2007). More variables should be considered which might affect the relationship among

these variables.

Affective Commitment (AC)

Organizational commitment, an attitudinal and behavioral organizational

construct, has been a focus of interest among organizational researchers. Organizational

commitment is the extent to which the employees are committed to the organization.

Researchers have defined it as a psychological state and a mindset that connects the

employees to the organization and leads them to follow the course of particular actions,

and thus reduces their turnover intention (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Herscovitch,

2001). It is the extent to which an employee is involved in the organization and identifies

with his/her organization (Porter et al., 1974). Organizational commitment has drained the

attention of many researchers because it leads significantly to an increased level of

organizational performance (Suliman & Iles, 2000). It has been identified that

39

organizational commitment has both the cognitive and affective aspects which include the

behavioral elements, cognitive basics of the commitment, and the emotions of staying

loyal to the organization (Meyer et al., 2006).

Three component model of organizational commitment.

Wasti (2005) argues that the three component model of organizational

commitment has gained popularity among the literature available on the types of

organizational commitment. The model was proposed by Meyer and Allen (1991) who

stated that employee’s commitment to the organization reflects an obligation, a need and

a desire to maintain the relationship therefore, commitment can be divided into three

different but related types including affective, normative and continuance commitment.

Normative commitment. Normative commitment is the part of commitment which

is manifested in a perceived moral obligation to stay in the organization. It is the

normative part of the commitment where, for a number of reasons including norms of

reciprocity, feelings of indebtedness and process of organizational socialization, the

employee wants to stay committed to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et

al., 2002).

Continuance commitment. Employees want to stay committed to the organization

because they compare the perceived social and economical costs and benefits of staying

in the organization and leaving the organization. This part of commitment follows the

rules of Side-bet theory (Becker, 1960) which suggests that the employees continue to

stay in the organization (or committed to the organization) to fulfill their need and to

avoid the perceived costs of leaving the organization (Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen,

1991; Meyer et al., 2002).

Affective Commitment (AC). The most strongly-correlated part of organizational

commitment with many positive work outcomes, is the affective part of organizational

commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). It is the affective part

of the organizational commitment which is manifested by the employee’s strong

identification to, involvement in, and feeling of attachment to the organization (Allen &

Meyer, 1990; Huey & Kamarul, 2009). The employees affectively committed to the

organization, identify themselves with the organization in such a way that they get

40

involved in the goal-seeking process of the organization and strive for the values and

goals of the organization (Mowday et al., 1979).

The type of organizational commitment which is characterized by emotional

attachment, identification and involvement with the organization, is termed as affective

commitment (Huey & Kamarul, 2009). It is cordial for the organization as the employee,

when having such kind of commitment, stays in an organization because the employee

wants to stay in the organization. The employee works for the betterment of the

organization because the employee is emotionally attached and involved with the

organization. This importance of AC has made it appealing for the researchers. It has

been studied in relation with organizational support, work-nonwork interaction, job

satisfaction, organizational politics, organizational structure, turnover, job performance,

absenteeism and organizational citizenship behavior (Boehman, 2006; Meyer &

Herscovitch, 2001).

Antecedents of affective commitment.

Organizational Support Theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa,

1986) has been found effective in explaining how affective commitment is build among

employees (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). This theory assumes that the

employees personify the actions of the agents of the organization and attribute them

towards the organization rather than sole motives of the agents. This personification, in

terms of organizational norms, policies and culture, makes the employees to perceive the

organization as favorable or unfavorable to them (Levinson, 1965). Therefore, as Rhoades

and Eisenberger (2002) suggest that, perceived organizational support, based on norms of

reciprocity, should induce care, respect and approval to the organization because it fulfills

socio-emotional needs of the employees which in turn increase favorable outcomes to

both the employee and to the organization including increased OCB, job

satisfaction, positive mood and affective commitment.

Moreover, it has been observed that employees want to repay the benefits offered

by organization when they perceive high organizational support (Tumwesigye, 2010).

Personality has also been observed as an important predictor of affective commitment

where individual conscientiousness has been observed as a strong positive correlate and a

good predictor of affective commitment (Hackney, 2012; Watrous & Bergman, 2004).

41

Extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability have also been found contributing for

affective commitment among employees (Finkelstein, Protolipac, & Stiles, 2006) Among

other predictors of affective commitment, there are organizational tenure, perceived

fairness, age of respondents, and perceived organizational support (Hawkins, 1998).

Other organizational variables which affect affective organizational commitment include

job engagement and trust in management (Westgeest, 2011).

Leadership and affective commitment.

When the employees trust their leader, they are more likely to show commitment

to their organization (Chiang & Wang, 2012). As discussed earlier, among the three

elements of the leadership process it is the leader only who can change the employees and

the leadership situation. He can transform his followers to have positive emotions towards

their organization making them more emotionally committed to their organizations.

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the leadership styles exert a great influence on

affective commitment of the employees (Shirbagi, 2007).

Organizational commitment has been found to be influenced by work behaviors of

the employees, their attitude, their motivation level and their performance. These all

aspects are shaped by transformational leadership resulting in a stronger bond between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio,

2002). This was explored by Shukui and Xiaomin (2009) who found transformational

leadership style as a strong predictor of employee’s commitment to their organization

where culture acted as a moderator. When relationship of perceived leadership style and

organizational commitment is considered, it has been observed that perceived

transformational leadership style is a stronger predictor of organizational commitment

(Shams-ur-Rehman, Shareef, Mahmood, & Ishaque (2012). Among the components of

transformational leadership, charisma, individualized consideration and intellectual

simulation are the factors which are associated with job satisfaction and organizational

commitment (Emery & Barker, 2007).

Moreover, it was found that transformational leaders uplift motivational level of

the employees and solve their problems creatively. They increase the trust and team

efficacy of their subordinates. Therefore, they succeed in developing the emotional bond

(i.e., affective commitment) of the employees with the organization (Walumbwa &

42

Lawler, 2003; Arnold, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001).In the same fashion, transformational

leadership has been found associated with an increased level of affective trust (Bennis,

1984) which is the emotional bond of attachment between the leader and its followers and

is created when the leader and its followers connect with close interpersonal interactions

(McAllister, 1995). The researchers have explored that transformational leadership results

in affective trust which leads the employees to develop an emotional bond to the

organization i.e., affective commitment. This relationship was observed by Chiang and

Wang (2012) who studied a sample of hotel employees and found that affective trust

mediated the relationship of transformational leadership and affective organizational

commitment. Moreover, it has been found associated with AC where culture acts as a

moderator (Ramachandran & Krishnan, 2009).

Riaz, Akram, and Ijaz (2011) carried out a research on bank employees from

Pakistan in order to confirm the effects transformational leadership produces on affective

commitment of the employees. The results of their study revealed that transformational

leadership contributed significantly for affective commitment. Turning towards the

relationship of the facets of transformational leadership with affective commitment, the

literature available proposes mixed findings. While Tseng and Kang (2008) found all the

four components of transformational leadership as strong correlates of affective

commitment, Chiun, Ramayah, and Min (2009) found idealize influence, intellectual

stimulation and inspirational motivation associated with affective commitment. Another

study, carried out by Kent and Chelladurai (2001) observed only two components of

transformational leadership, i.e., individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation,

related with affective commitment.

This positive relationship has been supported in many previous studies. For

example it was found that transformational leaders uplift motivational level of the

employees and solve their problems creatively. They increase the trust and team efficacy

of their subordinates. Therefore, they succeed in winning the commitment of their

subordinates for their organization (Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003; Arnold, Barling, &

Kelloway, 2001). Shams-Ur-Rehman, Shareef, Mahmood, and Ishaque (2012) carried out

a study in Pakistan and also concluded the results that transformational leadership

increases affective commitment. Others have also demonstrated a positive relationship

43

between transformational leadership and affective commitment (e.g. Chandna &

Krishnan, 2009; Alison, 2007; Hayward, Goss & Tolmay, 2004).

Transactional leadership involves a transaction between leaders’ interests and

employee’s needs, which involves promises and commitments from leader (Kuhnert &

Lewis, 1987). Rowold and Schlotz (2009) state that this leadership is characterized by

explicit transactions where leaders give rewards to their employees for their performance

and these rewards increase the likelihood of positive work outcomes (e.g., performance).

In other words, leaders reward their employees and in return, the employees perform

those behaviors which are expected by the leader. One of the outcomes, expected by the

leaders is affective commitment. Following the notions of organizational support theory,

when the employees perceive their organization as supportive to their needs and ready to

give instant rewards to the employees (for example, giving rewards from a transactional

leader), the employees form global positive beliefs towards their needs (Eisenberger,

Huntington, Hutchison, &Sowa, 1986; Shore & Shore,1995). And according to norms of

reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), the employees want to pay back the organization when they

perceive organization as rewarding them and fulfilling their needs which in turn, might tie

the employee with the organization through an emotional bond which is termed as

affective commitment. Therefore, it is safe to assume that there exists a positive

relationship between transactional leadership and affective commitment.

The relationship was supported by Yahchouchi (2009) who studied a Labenese

sample and found that transactional leadership style was positively associated with

organizational commitment. Although research has consistently been found a positive

relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment, there is a

controversy among researchers on the relationship between transactional leadership and

affective commitment. Shams-ur-Rehman, Shareef, Mahmood, and Ishaque (2012) for

example found that in Pakistani culture, transactional leadership is a strong predictor of

affective commitment although the relationship of affective commitment with

transactional leadership is slightly weaker than that of transformational leadership and

affective commitment. Similarly, Chiang and Wang (2012) found a strong positive

relationship between transactional leadership style and affective commitment, although

the relationship of transformational leadership style and affective commitment was

stronger than that of transactional leadership style and affective commitment.

44

Ahmad and Gelaidan (2011) studied a sample from Yemen in order to explore the

relationship of transactional leadership style with affective commitment to change and

found that transactional leadership style was a good predictor of affective commitment to

change. Hakwoo (2009) also studied the relationship of three components of transactional

leadership (i.e., contingent reward, management by exception active and management by

exception passive) with affective commitment among a sample of sport employees. The

results of their study revealed that contingent rewards is positively associated with

affective commitment; management by exception (passive) is negatively associated with

affective commitment whereas, there is no relationship between management by

exception (active) and affective commitment.

Other researchers for example, Cemaloğlu, Sezgin, and Kilinç (2012) studied a

sample of primary school teachers from Ankara. The results of their study concluded even

different results regarding the relationship of components of transactional leadership and

affective commitment. It was observed that contingent reward was negatively and

significantly related with affective commitment whereas, management by exception

(active) and management by exception (passive) both were related significantly positively

with the affective organizational commitment. There are even researches which have

failed to find the relationship between transactional leadership style and affective

commitment (e.g., Lien-Tung, 2005; Lee, 2004). The inconsistency among previous

researches for the relationship of leadership behaviors and affective commitment gives

room for presence of some third variable possibly some mediator or moderator.

Job Involvement (JI)

The extent to which an individual identifies psychologically with his job, and

incorporates the importance of the job in his self-image and self-concept is termed as job

involvement (Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; Shaffer, Joplin, & Hsu, 2011). It is in

fact, how an employee describes his relationship with the job and the work environment

and how his job is intermingled with his life. When the employee has low job

involvement, he is alienated from his work, work environment and the whole organization

and feels his life separated from his work (Hirschfeld & Field, 2000; Rabinowitz & Hall,

1981). An employee is said t be involved in the job when he takes his job as central to the

interests of his life and perceives it essential to his/her self-esteem (Dubin, 1956; Gurin et

al., 1960). It is manifested when the employees internalize their work values and make it

45

important to themselves (Ramsey et al., 1995). It is a relatively stable job attitude, which

a person has about the need satisfying ability of the job (Dalal, Brummel, Wee, &

Thomas, 2008).

Job involvement serves as some part of actualization to the employees therefore,

Lodah and Kejner (1965) identified job involvement as the degree to which the

employees seek some part of actualization in their jobs. To conclude, definitions of job

involvement consists of two main tenants including psychological identification of the

employee with the job, work place and the organization and the degree to which the job

contributes to one’s self image. Job involvement is an important construct because every

means of increasing performance needs increased levels of job involvement

(Elankumaran, 2004). This variable has also been reported as contributing for overall

human resources for the organization (Gore, 2001). JI is also important to the

organizational researchers because the more the employees are involved in the jobs, the

more they will own their tasks and will perform them with more enthusiasm. Therefore, JI

has been found to be a very important topic for the researchers.

The employees who were low at job involvement by high at affective commitment

were termed as corporate citizens. Blau and Boal (1987) state that such employees do not

identify with their organization and do not incorporate their work into their self-esteem.

Finally, the apathetic employees were those employees who were neither highly

committed nor involved in their jobs. Such employees were found to be the lowest in

productivity because they exerted their minimal efforts to the organization, searched for

alternatives and were ready to quit the organization as soon as possible. As Blau and Boal

(1987) suggest that the employees who are less involved in their jobs are more likely to

search for alternatives, it has been found that such employees are more likely to be absent

from their work. Wegge, Schmidt, Parkes and Dick (2007) for instance found that job

involvement was associated with decreased level of total time absent from work among a

German sample of civil service employees. Similarly, job involvement has been found

reducing stress related variables. Azeem (2010) for instance studied a sample of

university teachers from India, and found that job involvement resulted in decreased level

of depersonalization and an increased level of personal accomplishment.

Moreover, JI increases the likelihood of positive organizational variables. One

such variable is work engagement. It has been observed that JI contributes for

46

organizational development by increasing work engagement. Moreover, it has been found

decreasing psychological detachment from work during holidays which results in

increased level of work engagement (Kuhnel, Sonnentag, & Westman, 2009). Similarly, it

enhances organizational commitment not only directly but also by causing work values to

increase the level of organizational commitment (Ho, 2006). Rizwan (2011) observed that

job involvement results in increased level of employee performance among bank

employees of Pakistan. To conclude, it contributes for organizational development by

enhancing work engagement (Kuhnel, Sonnentag, & Westman, 2009), facilitating

organizational commitment (Uygur & Kilic, 2009), increasing job attention (Wang et al.,

2005), and reducing turnover intentions (Malik, Danish, & Munir, 2011) etc. On the bases

of these studies it might be concluded that individuals who are highly involved in their

jobs are more attentive and engaged in their work, more committed and satisfied with

their work, and exhibit low levels of absenteeism and turnover intentions.

Antecedents of job involvement.

Because of its salience, researchers have been interested in exploring the factors

which contribute for job involvement. McKelvey and Sekaran (1977) proposed that the

antecedent factors of JI found in literature can be categorized into four categories

including characteristics regarding demographics, job, organization and satisfaction.

Demographics include age, education, tenure, urban vs rural background, religious

activity, and parents’ education etc. Antecedent factors related to job include challenge,

autonomy, technology, time pressure, initiative, and use of skills. Organizational related

factors which contribute to JI include participation in decision making, leadership,

chances of promotion, opportunity for achievement, teamwork, role clarity, technical

availability of supervisor, open communication, number of people contacted per day, and

leadership. The factors related to satisfaction which determine JI include satisfaction with

supervision, promotion, work itself, people, and motivational variables.

Subsequent research has also explored variables which contribute for JI. One such

variable is personality traits. Liao and Lee (2009) for instance found that neuroticism

decreased the level of JI whereas openness to experience, conscientiousness,

agreeableness and extroversion all increase the level of job involvement among plastic

industry employees in Taiwan. Among negative predictors, there exists job instability

which decreases the level of JI among the employees (Ouyang, 2009). Other predictors

47

include training, job characteristics, motivation, personal characteristics and personality

hardiness which have been observed as contributing for JI (Seng, Xin, Tong, & Chin,

2012). As discussed by McKelvey and Sekaran (1977), among other predictors of JI,

organization related behaviors are of great importance. Organization can develop JI

among employees by using various strategies and leaders play a great role in shaping such

attitudes of the employees as JI (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965).

Leadership and job involvement.

Brown and Keeping (2005) found that job involvement is highest in the work

environments which are supportive, provide autonomy and control over work, give

appropriate feedback and provide supportive relationship with supervisors. This is what

can be provided only by the leader and thus, effective leadership can contribute to

increase the level of job involvement among the employees. According to equity theory,

if the employees perceive that their leader is giving them more than they deserve, they

will try to put more input in the job through increasing job involvement (Ouyang, Cheng,

Hsieh, 2010). This is what social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958) suggests

that social behaviors are shaped by both material (such as rewards, pay increase) and non-

material things (e.g., praise, autonomy, approval). When the employee perceives he is

being rewarded according to his efforts (this is what transactional leader does) and is

encouraged or praised for his inputs (this is how transformational leader works) there will

be more chances of the employees to get involved in their jobs which results in high JI.

Another related theory is Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory (Graen et al.,

1982). The theory explains the relationship of leader and their followers and how they

influence each other in the organizations. It has been found that the employees who have

high LMX, have increased level of intrinsic satisfaction because it is related with

challenging tasks and autonomy Bhal and Ansari, 2007). Therefore, such leadership

behaviors as LMX have been found associated with higher level of JI. Ouyang, Cheng,

and Hsieh (2010) for instance found that LMX enhances job satisfaction, and corporate

social responsibility, which contributes to an increased level of organizational

commitment and this increased level of organizational commitment results in enhanced

job involvement. This very study suggests how complex is the relationship of leadership

behavior and JI.

48

Among teachers, it has been observed that their leaders, or in other words, their

heads, their decision making styles and their appropriate leadership styles exert positive

impacts on the teachers. They bring positive effects on teachers’ perceptions of their

occupations which results in increased level of satisfaction (Bogler, 2001). As discussed

in the model of McKelvey and Sekaran (1977) satisfaction has been found to be a strong

antecedent of JI. Therefore it is safe to assume that the leaders who use appropriate

leadership styles (e.g., transformational or transactional leadership styles) are more likely

to enhance their followers JI than the leaders who do not use such leadership styles.

Literature available on the leadership styles also supports the notion that

leadership style contribute to JI among employees. One study carried out by Gillis and

Muirhead (2004) is an interesting example of this relationship. The study was done in

order to explore the relationship of correctional instructors’ leadership style and the

offenders’ attitude involving JI. At first the instructors were trained to use

transformational and transactional leadership style; then, the effects of training was

measured on the instructor and the association of these new leadership styles with the

offenders work attitudes (one of which was JI) were measured. The results concluded that

both the transformational leadership style and transactional leadership styles were

strongly related to job involvement among offenders. Another study carried out by

Omolayo and Ajila (2012) explored the effect of leadership style on JI among staff of

educational institutes. They used two leadership styles including autocratic and

democratic leadership styles (which are by definition share some characteristics of

transactional and transformational leadership styles respectively) and studied their impact

on the employees job involvement and job satisfaction. The results revealed that

autocratic and democratic leadership styles significantly influence JI where democratic

leadership style positively contributes to JI whereas autocratic leadership style is a

negative predictor of JI. While some others failed as well to conclude any relationship of

transformational and transactional leadership with job involvement (e.g. Mester, Visser,

Roodt, & Kellerman, 2003).

The discussion above articulates how leadership styles are associated with the

work outcomes. The discussion postulates that previous researchers have inconsistent

findings regarding the relationship of leadership styles with OCB, AC and JI. This

49

suggests the possible presence of some third or intervening variable, which might be a

mediator or moderator.

Perceived Organizational Politics (POP)

Organizational politics has been defined as those acts of influence by employees

which are aimed at enhancing or protecting the interests of oneself or of the group (Allen,

Madison, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1979). These are the acts of seeking, developing

and using power in order to gain required and desirable outcomes in the organization

specifically when there is uncertainty (Pfeffer, 1981). Ferris, Russ and Fandt (1989)

define organizational politics as the influence process which is strategically designed in

order to maximize self-interest. These self-interests might be short-term or long-term and

these might be consistent or contrary to the interests of others in the organizations. Other

definitions indicate organizational politics as power taking action by using various

techniques (Buchanan & Badham, 2007) and indulging in activities of influencing which

are aimed at increasing the interests of oneself or those of the organization (Rosen, Harris,

& Kacmar, 2009).

Organizational politics is important for the organization as it is a vital part of it.

Acts of politics for instance, struggles for power, making alloy groups, planning

strategically and pulling legs are as common in the organizations as other more visible

acts of management for instance, planning, controlling and managing (Schein, 1977).

Changing environment in organizational environment has made the organizations even

more vulnerable to such acts of politics (Zanzi & O’Neill, 2001). Therefore, it is an

important dimension of leadership behaviors. Leaders often indulge in political acts

such as making lobbies, struggle of power for resources, and allocating informal rewards

(Hales, 1986). Thus, organizational politics plays an instrumental role in clarifying the

ambiguity in organization as well as constructing shared meanings around those issues

which are not properly defined hence, clarifying such issues (Ammeter et al., 2002).

Along with its positive role in management, there is also a dark side of

organizational politics. That is, when it is perceived by the employees as negative. When

organizational politics is viewed from the side of employees, it often takes a negative

form and has been found to be a negative variable in organizational politics. It then, is

termed as perceived organizational politics. It has been argued that organizational politics

50

is not a reality objective enough to be perceived as alike by every individual in the

organization; rather, it is differently perceived by everyone. Therefore, it is better to

entitle it as “perceived organizational politics” rather than “organizational politics” (Ferris

et al., 1989).

Categories of POP.

Because of its salience in organizational settings, various theorists have tried to

classify its dimensions. Introduction of some of these schemes is summarized here:

Farrell and Petersen’s three dimensional classification. Farrell and Petersen

(1982) proposed that political behaviors can be classified on the bases of three

dimensions including vertical-lateral, internal-external and legitimate-illegitimate.

Vertical-lateral dimension means acts of politics involve which type of hierarchy. For

example whether vertical resources are used (e.g., asking favor from a boss) or lateral

resources are utilized (e.g., leg pulling the colleague). The second dimension, external-

internal, categorizes the behaviors on the bases of internal or external resources; for

instance, whether an employee uses resources from inside or outside of the organization.

Legitimate/illegitimate dimension suggests whether the acts of politics are minor

everyday acts or are extreme ones. On the bases of these dimensions, they proposed eight

clusters of acts of organizational politics including legitimate lateral-internal, legitimate

vertical-internal, legitimate lateral-external, legitimate vertical-external, illegitimate

lateral-internal, illegitimate vertical-internal, illegitimate lateral-external and illegitimate

vertical-external.

Five dimensional classification. This classification scheme was introduced by

Fedor, Ferris, Harrell-Cook, and Russ (1998) which classifies POP into five dimensions.

They used factor analysis in order to determine the types of POP. The factor analysis

revealed five dimensions of POP including rewards, key others, image, distortion and

clarity. Rewards include those acts of political behavior which are elated to reward

system of the organization and to the qualities which determine promotion and progress

in an organization. By key others, Fedor et al., (1998) meant the powerful group in the

organization which is perceived as hard to be crossed over. Image included those

behaviors which are related to enhance self-image. The perpetrator here poses as if these

behaviors are to enhance others but in actual, these behaviors are aimed at increasing self-

image. Distortion involves those acts of politics which include self-enhancement by

51

purposefully presenting information and policies in wrong way. The final category of

POP includes the acts of clarity. Such acts involve a blurred vision of pay and promotion

policies (Fedor, Ferris, Harrell-Cook, & Russ; 1998; Makhdoom, 2013).

Three factor classification of POP. The most welcomed classification scheme

among the researchers and theorists of perceived organizational politics is the three factor

classification scheme proposed by Kacmar and Ferris (1991). They used the same

technique as used by Fedor, Ferris, Harrell-Cook, and Russ (1998) and studied the results

of a 31-item scale of POP. The results of factor analysis of this scale revealed a 5-factor

structure of POP which they termed as general political behavior, pay and promotions, go

along to get ahead, POP related to co-workers and POP related to supervisors. Then they

observed the results of another scale of POP with 40-items. They also included Job

Descriptive Index and the items which loaded on both the scales were removed from the

scale (Makhdoom, 2013). Thus, they concluded a 12-item three factor scale of POP which

has been hailed widely among researchers in this field. These factors include pay and

promotion policies, go along to get ahead, and general political behavior. An introduction

of all of these categories is summarized here:

Pay and promotion policies. Pay and promotion policies is the category of

political behavior which is related to the pay and reward system of the organization. It

suggests whether the pay raises and promotions of the employees are done on the bases of

merit or some other, political way determines the reward structure of the organization.

For instance, pay raises, or other benefits may be done on the bases of favoritism or some

other political action (Kacmar & Ferris, 1991; Rosen, 2006). ‘Pay and promotion

policies’ is supposed to be high when the employees perceive that the reward structure of

the organization is unjust and the rewards and benefits are allocated on the political bases

other than merit (Chivakidakarn, Dastoor, & Mujtaba, 2009).

Go along to get ahead. Go along to get ahead involves those acts of politics where

individual remains quiet and takes no action in order to save valued outcomes and that

non-threatening silent people are rewarded because they do not take action against others

and do not interfere with the acts of powerful others (Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). This would

result in a safety of the valued outcomes of the perceiver (Chivakidakarn, Dastoor, &

Mujtaba, 2009).

52

General political behavior. This type of political behaviors involves general acts

of politics which are aimed at achieving one’s valued outcomes. These acts are the result

of uncertainty where no actual rules are available and are often manifested when the actor

wants to approach scarce resources. Examples of such behaviors include blaming

someone else at work for the mistakes, taking credit of some fellow and going into

someone’s alloy group who is powerful in the organization (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997;

Kacmar & Ferris, 1991; Rosen, 2006). Such behaviors are termed as self-serving because

they are aimed at achieving valued outcomes (Chivakidakarn, Dastoor, & Mujtaba, 2009).

Because of its salience in organizational settings, the researchers have been

interested in the factors which contribute to perceived organizational politics; which

develop the perception that there is politics played and is valued in the organization. The

antecedents can be classified into three categories including organizational factors, factors

related to work and personal characteristics.

Organizational factors are several organizational factors which contribute to

development of POP. One of these is hierarchical level (O’Connor & Morrison, 2001). It

has been observed that the POP is perceived to be high in lower level jobs. This is so

because the employees of lower position are the most victims of organizational politics

(Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al., 1996; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992). Span of control is also an

important contributor to POP. It has been found that as the number of subordinates

increases with a supervisor, he/she has to provide less time to the supervisees which

increases the likelihood of ambiguity. The ultimate result of this perceived ambiguity is a

higher level of perceived organizational politics (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992).

Characteristics related to work are more important in determining POP among

employees than organizational or personal characteristics (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992). It has

been observed that the employees who receive positive feedback, encouraging feedback

are less likely to perceive organizational politics than the employees who do not (Lin,

2003). It has also found that employees’ skill variety enables them to perceive low

organizational politics (Liu, 2002). The employees who find more progress opportunities

are less likely to perceive that there is politics in the organization (Munyon, 2009).

Personal characteristics are related to the employee himself are also salient in

predicting POP. One type of personal characteristics determining politics perception at

53

workplace includes demographic variables. Hochwarter, Ferris, Laird, Treadway and

Gallagher (2008) for instance, carried out a research involving three studies and five

samples. Research with some of the samples i.e. the employees of human resource

employees of a university, state agency employees, financial service and employees of

public works organization reported demographics as associated with POPThe results

revealed that position tenure and age were negatively related with POP in study one

among one of the four samples whereas age was negatively related with one of the

samples in third study.

Similarly, Treadway et al. (2005) studied the role of age in contributing for the

relationship of politics perception and employee’s performance. They noted that the

performance of older employees is more affected by POP than those of younger ones.

Other personal factors are related to personality including machiavellianism, self-

monitoring and locus of control (Chang, 2008; Miller & Nichols, 2008; Ferris et al.,

1989).

Perceived Organizational Politics: Its Moderating Impact on Perceived Leadership

Styles / Behavioral Outcomes Relationship

The perceived negative self-serving and manipulating behaviors that demand the

cost of global organizational or others’ interests for personal interests are termed as

organizational politics (Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989) e.g., using illegal ways to obtain

power, bypassing the chain of command, and lobbying high level managers before

promotion (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001). As organizational politics is a subjective

experience, and is different for everyone in the organization, therefore, it is titled as

perception of organizational politics (Gandz & Murray, 1980). The consequences of POP

have often been found to be negative for the organization. This is so because, as notions

of Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that the employees want to pay back

the organization positively if they perceive the organization as positive to them.

Contrarily, when the organization is thought to be as negative to them (as often is

perceived when POP is high) the employees reciprocate with negative acts, attitudes and

behaviors which results in an increased level of negative outcomes.

For instance, Makhdoom (2013) found that among school teachers, POP results in

an increased level of turnover intention, job burnout and counterproductive work

54

behaviors. Not only individually, but it reduced the positive effects of behaviors which

are beneficial for the organization, for instance OCB. She found that POP strengthens the

negative relationship of OCB with job burnout and CWB. However, when effects of

leadership styles are considered, the situation becomes entirely different. It is understood

that POP is found to be played from the side of leadership and the employees are the prey

of the acts of politics. Therefore, the interaction effects of these two variables on work

outcomes can take a very different form. Let’s examine how perceived organizational

politics acts for the relationship of perceived leadership styles and behavioral outcomes.

55

Moderating role of POP between perceived leadership styles and OCB.

According to the principles of social exchange theory (Blau, 1965) when employees

perceive organization as positive and favoring, the employees try to reciprocate through

favorable responses. Similarly, when the employees perceive the organization

unfavorable to them, they react by increasing unfavorable or reducing favorable responses

towards the organization. One example of such a transaction is the negative relationship

of POP with OCB. When we compare these two constructs on definitional level, we find

that OCB involves organization-serving behaviors which are voluntary in nature and are

always found to be positive for the organization. On the other hand, there are POPs which

include those self-serving behaviors which might put organizational interests into stake.

Therefore, a negative relationship between these two variables is not strange.

Moreover, as POP has always been perceived as negative by the employees, the

first thing what an employee can do in response to POP is that; he/she can reduce his/her

voluntary, organization facilitating behaviors. This is so because these behaviors do not

bring any direct reward to the employee, as they are not part of formal job description;

and their reduction does not result in any direct negative impact on the employee.

Therefore, it is safer for the employee to reduce OCB level in response to POP. This has

been supported by many researchers. For instance, Afshardoust, Feizabadi, Zakizadeh,

and Abdolhoseyni (2013) studied a sample of sports employees and observed a significant

negative relationship between OCB and POP. Danaeefard, Balutbazeh and Kashi (2010)

also concluded a significant negative relationship between POP and OCB when they

considered peer-report forms of these two constructs.

Randall et al., (1999) studied the relationship of POP with OCB-Individual and

OCB-Organization and concluded a strong negative relationship between these variables.

Similarly Vigoda (2007), Vigaoda and Drory (2006) observed a strong relationship

between POP and OCB in a sense that increase in POP resulted in a decrease in OCB. In

Pakistani context, Ahmad (2010) studied the individual and interactive effects of POP on

OCB. The results of his study revealed a strong negative relationship between these

variables. Similarly, Vigoda (2000b) studied the relationship of POP with altruism and

compliance (the two forms of OCB) and observed that increase in OCB was associated

with two forms of OCB.

56

On the other hand, there is transformational leadership which has been associated

positively with OCB as it involves encouraging the employee, inspiring him and

communicating clearly with him regarding his duties, roles and what the leader expects

more than the actual call of duty. When the employees perceive the atmosphere as highly

political the level of their positive work behaviors is decreased (for example low level of

OCB).

When in such environments, the employees find their leaders as transformational,

which is characterized by motivating the employees for innovativeness and goal

clarification through idealized influence; energizing the employees by an optimistic view

of the future through inspirational motivation; motivating the followers to use their

creativity and problem solving ability through intellectual stimulation and caring for the

employees’ needs and respecting him through individualized consideration; they tend to

be favorable to the organization.

Even it may happen that (following the notions of Social Exchange Theory

proposed by Blau in 1964 and norms of reciprocity, suggested by Gouldner in 1960) the

employees tend to increase their positivity towards the organization when they find that

even in highly political environment, the leader is being involved in such positive

encouraging acts of transformational leadership. Equity theory (Adams, 1965) suggests

that employees want to create an equilibrium for their relationships at work. When they

perceive the organization high in politics, and still perceive that their leader is favoring

them through acts of transformational leadership their positive reaction towards the leader

gets even stronger and in order to maintain the equilibrium, they tend to increase their

voluntary inputs to the organization (i.e., high level of OCB).

On the other hand, there are other leaders who follow the transactional procedure

in order to enhance the inputs of their followers. In highly political environments reward

structure is often ambiguous, unfair and based on politics which makes a supposed

scarcity of resources. On the other side of the picture, there is transactional leadership

which encourages the employees through offering a reward for their positive acts and

taking punitive measures when employees indulge in non-favorable acts (Vigoda-Gadot,

2007). In such situations, what the employees can best do for their interest is to maximize

voluntary positive acts which are not the part of formal reward structure in order to

achieve more rewards from their perceived transactional leaders.

57

Similarly, when employees perceive their work environment as political, they are

not certain that they will be rewarded on fair bases. Whereas, when they find their leaders

as transactional, who always indulge in give-and-take transactions, performing well on

assigned duties alone cannot help them. In such highly political situations, in order to get

more and more rewards the employees tend to increase their voluntary positive acts which

are more than their assigned duties. Therefore it is safe to assume that high level of

organizational politics acts as moderator for the relationship of transformational and

transactional leadership with organizational citizenship behavior by strengthening their

existing positive relationship.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of POP as moderator between the relationship of leadership

styles and OCB.

Moderating role of POP between perceived leadership styles and affective

commitment. Another negative outcome of POP is that it decreases the likelihood of

affective commitment in the organization. POP has often been observed to hamper the

development process of organization by increasing the likelihood of negative work

attitudes and behaviors. For instance, Bashir, Nasir, Saeed and Ahmed (2011) studied a

Pakistani sample and observed that high levels of POP are associated with the perception

that the psychological contract is broken which in turn leads the employees towards the

perception of organization as lacking integrity, truthfulness and equality (i.e.,

organizational cynicism). This cynical attitude results in decreased trust in the

organization (Davis & Gardner, 2004) and as one might expect, reduces the strength of

the emotional bond with which the employee is tied to the organization (i.e., affective

commitment).

Perceived

Transactional &

Transformational

Leadership Style

Organizational

Citizenship

Behavior

Perceived

Organizational

Politics

58

Similarly, Ahmad (2010) observed a sample from Pakistan in order to explore

main and interactive effects of POP between justice and work outcomes. He suggested

that when employees have to face POP at workplace they respond by leaving the

organization. When this is not feasible for them to leave the organization, they can

increase absenteeism or can be involved in the politics. Another response to POP might

be dissociation from work and its environment (i.e., decreased level of affective

commitment to the organization). Ahmad () found that POP is significantly negatively

related with organizational commitment. Similarly, Jam, et al. (2011) studied a sample of

various public and private sector organizations in Pakistan and found that POP was a

significant negative predictor of affective commitment where political skill acts as a

moderator for the relationship.

In the same fashion, the study carried out by Meyer (2002) also concluded that

increase in POP is associated with a decline in affective commitment. Further, Boehman

(2006) explored the relationship of POP with affective commitment. He found that POP

was a significant negative predictor of affective commitment among the sample. When

the employee perceives politics in the organization, his morale is lowered down (Bodla,

Danish, & Nawaz, 2012) and he reduces his affection and emotional attachment which he

had for the organization. POP also exerts detrimental effects on the organization by

increasing job stress (Jam, et al., 2011) and reducing job satisfaction (Gull & Zaidi,

2012). When the employees are less satisfied with the organization, they are less likely to

show any kind of commitment particularly affective one (Ahmad, 2010). Moreover,

according to social exchange theory, organizational politics has been perceived

negatively, in turn the employee’s emotional attachment with the organization is

decreased. Therefore, a negative relationship has been found between the two variables.

On the other hand, there is perceived transformational leadership style which is

associated with positive outcomes in the organization. When the employees perceive high

politics in the environment and they find their leader as transformational i.e., highly

involved in themselves, motivating them through encouraging their ideas, and inspiring

them by altering their beliefs and attitudes towards the organization completely (Avolio,

Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000), the impacts of

politics are mitigated. Even in such environments of ambiguity, such employees tend to

become more committed to the organization in response to positive behaviors of their

59

perceived transformational leader. As Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that

the employees want to pay back for the favors they receive, therefore, it is not surprising

to find that the environments which is marked by enhancement of self-interest, ambiguity

and the acts of politics, transformational leadership can bring more positive results.

The atmosphere which is perceived to be highly political, gives room to reduction

in trust among employees (Poon, 2006) and when in such an environment any leader who

is perceived to be transformational can be thought as a ray of hope and the employees

may stick to him. In order to respond to such leaders, the employees might be more

committed to the organization and their emotional bond with the organization gets even

stronger. Moreover, it might happen that the transformational leader can help in reducing

the uncertainty of work environment leaving more room to justice and fairness (Vigoda-

Gadot, 2007) which might result in a stronger positive bond between transformational

leadership and affective organizational commitment.

Transactional leadership involves a transaction with employee where the

employee receives benefits when fulfilling the expectations of the leader and has to

receive punishments when fails to fulfill the expectations of the leader. Therefore,

following the well-understood rules of operant conditioning (Field, 2005; Skinner, 1938)

their positive behaviors and attitudes are strengthened in order to get more and more

rewards or to avoid punishments. On the other hand, in a highly political environment the

employees begin to perceive that the reward allocation is not fair and that, as pay and

promotion policies, a dimension of POP suggests, the rewards and promotions are based

on politics. Moreover, as POP has been found negatively associated with distributive

justice (Miller & Nicols, 2008); in an environment which gives more room to politics, the

employees believe that it is the politics which might bring rewards and promotions to

them. When the employees find their leader as transactional in such an environment, the

struggle for such resources and rewards increases and the employees tend to show more

commitment to the organization, so that they are perceived as committed employees by

the leaders, hence can receive more favors from their leaders.

Therefore, it is justified to assume that high levels of POP can increase the

relationship strength between leadership styles (including transformational leadership

style and transactional leadership style) and affective organizational commitment.

60


styles and AC

Moderating role of POP between perceived leadership styles and job

involvement. Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter and Ammeter (2002) proposed a

model describing the antecedents and consequences of POP. The model suggests that in

response to POP the employee can withdraw from the organization (i.e., high turnover

intent), can increase absenteeism, or can affect job involvement in a sense that the

employee becomes more involved in the organization and thus reduces the effects of

POP. However, Cropanzano et al. (1997) found that POP results in a negative relationship

with job involvement suggesting that when employees perceive high politics in the

organization, they tend to be less involved in their jobs. Moreover, according to its

definition, job involvement is the psychological identification the employee has with the

organization (Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992). This identification depends upon the

satisfaction an employee derives from the organization (McKelvey & Sekaran, 1977),

whereas POP results in a decreased level of satisfaction with job and with organization

(Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson, & Anthony, 1999). Therefore, it is not surprising that POP

results in a decreased level of job involvement.

The relationship can be explained in terms of Brown and Leigh’s Model (1996)

which suggests how organizational climate (the perception an employee has about his/her

work environment) affects job involvement and its relationship to other variables. They

suggested that when employees perceive their workplace as positive for them, they in turn

become attached with the organization (i.e., highly job involved) and indulge in positive

Perceived Transactional &

Transformational

Leadership Style

Affective

Commitment

Perceived Organizational

Politics

61

acts for the organization. In other words, the organizational climate in which the worker

feels supported and finds control over work is more facilitating for job involvement

(Brown & Leigh, 1996). Similarly, the employees perceive organizational politics, they

have negative feelings about the organization therefore, a lesser degree of support is

perceived by them. As organizational politics is often perceived as negative for the

organization (Makhdoom, 2013; Vigoda, 2000), the employees who perceive high level

of organizational politics find themselves as less identified with the organization.

However, researchers are at controversy in concluding the relationship of POP

with job involvement. Some researchers are of the view that POP decreases the level of

job involvement. This is what Danish (2000) observed when he studied a sample from

various financial industries in Pakistan. He found that POP was significantly negatively

correlated with JI. Similarly, Cropanzano et al. (1997) stated that POP is negatively

correlated with job involvement. On the other hand, there are some researchers who have

found that POP is positively correlated with JI. they reason for it by suggesting that when

employees perceive organizational politics unfair, they become more involved in the job

and hence escape themselves in the lap of politics itself (Delle, 2013; Ferris & Kacmar,

1992).

On the other hand, there is transformational leadership which has been found

contributing for perceived organizational support. It has been observed that

transformational leadership results in high degree of perceived support (Twigg & Kang,

2012). Moreover, it has been observed that when employees perceive the organization as

unfair (i.e., high at politics) they tend to reduce the negative consequences, and

consequently, as suggested by Delle, (2013), Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter and

Ammeter (2002), and Ferris & Kacmar, 1992, they feel themselves safe in the lap of

identification with their work (i.e., job involvement). Therefore, a weakened relationship

of transformational leadership and JI is assumed when there is a high level of politics.

Moreover, as noted by McCook (2002) perceived organizational support and

perceived opportunity for reward cause an increase in employee’s job involvement. As

transactional leadership is offering rewards in order to increase the likelihood of expected

work outcomes, when employees perceive their work environment as political, they are

justified to think that perceived opportunity for rewards is associated with politics; in a

sense that, such environments where politics perception is high, the employees might

think that reward opportunity is based on politics and that; the transactions of reward

62

allocation for the sake of desired outcomes are based on politics rather than merit.

Therefore, they tend to increase their identification with job which might result in even a

stronger positive association between these variables.


styles and JI.

Along with these main effects of POP, perception of organizational politics

produces serious impacts on organization while interacting with other variables. Vigoda-

Gadot and Talmud (2010) found that most studies have focused a direct relationship

between POP and work outcomes, there is a need of more indirect empirical studies to

support this relationship. These studies might include mediation or moderation. The

relationship between OCB and job satisfaction, for example, is considered to be a

function of POP (Goo & Lambert, 2012). Similar pattern can be found between the

relationship of leadership styles and work outcomes. Both the leadership styles

(transformational and transactional) bring positive work outcomes in an organization.

The researchers (e.g. Omolayo & Ajila, 2012; Mester, Visser, Roodt, &

Kellerman, 2003) have failed to make a consensus on the relationship of these two

leadership styles with job involvement. This suggests a possibility of some indirect

relationship (either mediating or moderating) existing between these two. One such

interacting variable between the relationships of these two might be perceived

organizational politics. When organizational politics is perceived to be high in work

environments where the leaders are transactional or transformational, the employees tend

to respond to such leaders even more favorably. Consequently, employees increase their

favors provided to the organization and voluntary, unpaid job related behaviors (i.e.

Perceived

Transactional & Transformational

Leadership Style

Job

Involvement

Perceived Organizational

Politics

63

OCB), and strengthen their emotional attachment with the organization (i.e., affective

commitment) and identification with the job characteristics (i.e., job involvement).

Rationale

The phenomenon of the perceived organizational politics has been recognized, by

many scholars, as distinct factor playing significant role in various organizational

outcomes and employees’ responses toward their supervisors. A sheer understanding of

this highly sensitive issue may result in fruitful and constructive output for organization.

Current study enhances the understanding of the perception of organizational politics

among university lecturers, which may ultimately, enrich supervisors’ capacity to deal

effectively with this phenomenon.

Although a positive relationship of transformational (TRF) and transactional

leadership (TRS) with OCB has been well documented, yet literature is suggestive of

some studies that yielded inconsistent relationship pattern between leadership and OCB.

For example Lian and Tui (2012) found negative association between TRS and OCB;

Mester et al. (2003) endorsed non significant correlation between TRS and OCB; Nguni

Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) and Yun, Cox, Sims and Salam (2007) in their studies

elucidated non significant relation of both TRF and TRS with team OCB.

On the other hand leadership and affective commitment (AC) have also

demonstrated inconsistent results in various studies. For instance, Hakwoo (2009) and

Yahachouchi (2009) studied the relationship of transactional leadership and affective

commitment among a sample of sports employees. The results of their studies revealed

that there was no relationship between MBE-A and AC, and TRS and AC accordingly.

Mester, et. al. (2003) evidenced in an empirical study that both TRF and TRS did not

significantly correlate with job involvement (JI).

In summary the researches conducted on the relationship between leadership

styles and behavioral outcomes i.e. OCB, AC and JI have brought inconsistent results

bringing positive, negative and even non significant findings (Albert, 2008; Chiang &

Wang 2012; Gillis & Muirhead, 2004; Omolayo, & Ajila, 2012; Shams-ur-Rehaman et

al., 2012). This may suggest the possibility of the presence of some third variable’s effect

on the relationship of these variables.

64

However, lesser attention has been given to the role of POP, which is likely to

moderate the degree of the relationship between leadership styles and certain behavioral

and work outcomes. Substantial work has been done on the detrimental effects of POP as

an independent variable for instance it has been found affecting job burnout (Vigoda &

Talmud, 2010), turnover, neglect, loyalty, absenteeism and job satisfaction (Vigoda-

Gadot, 2001), CWBs (Rosen, 2006), antisocial behavior (Bodla & Danish, 2013). In

indigenous culture, researchers are taking interest in determining the individual affects of

POP on work outcomes. For instance, Rashid, Saleem, and Rashid (2012) observed that

POP contributes to theft, turnover intentions and job stress among the employees of

various organizations in Pakistan. Similarly, Bodla and Danish (2013) studied that POP is

negatively associated with morale and social exchange perception among employees of

health, energy, manufacturing, financial services, telecommunication education, and

information technology.

There is further substantial literature that is suggestive of the role of various

constructs in leadership-outcomes relationship. These studies accumulate evidence

regarding organizational variables that may affect the mechanism and process by which

leadership styles exert influence on behavioral and work outcomes. For example, Vigoda-

Gadot (2007) studied perceptions of politics as a possible mediator between the

leadership style of supervisors and informal and formal aspects of employees’

performance among public sector employees and elucidated mixed findings that only

partially support the mediating effect of organizational politics on the relationship

between leadership, in-role performance and OCB; Liang and Tui (2012), explored

mediating effect of subordinates’ competence and downward influence tactics in

relationship of leadership styles and OCB. Kim (2009) in his study examined the

moderating effect of organizational commitment and job satisfaction in relation of

leadership styles (TRF and TRS) and OCB; Chiang and Wang (2012) investigated

mediated role of cognitive and affective trust between the relationship of TRF and TRS

with continuance and affective commitment among Taiwan’s hotel employees; Zohrabi,

Ahmadi, and Ahmadi (2012) studied moderating role of type A and B personalities in

relationship between TRF/TRS and three factors of organizational commitment i.e.

affective, continuance, and normative commitment; Davenport and John (2010), and

Avolio, Zhu, Koh and Bhatia (2004) examined the moderating effects of locus of control

65

and structural distance respectively between the relationship of leadership styles and

organizational commitment.

Although much work has been done in order to explore the individual effects of

POP in organizational settings, little attention has been paid towards the interactive

effects of POP. For instance, Harris, James, and Boonthanom (2005) stated that there is

an increased need to explore interactive effects of POP as it has been ignored as a

moderator. Goo, Lee, and Brekahvili (2009) and Vigoda-Gadot and Talmud (2010) also

suggested that interactive effects of POP should also be considered by the researchers in

this field. Therefore, a stream of researches have been started in order to explore the

interactive effects of POP in organizational settings.

One such study was carried out by Makhdoom (2013) who studied POP as

moderator for the relationship of OCB and its outcomes including OCB, turnover

intentions and job burnout among school teachers and found that the environments where

teachers perceive high level of organizational politics, give room to decrease the

positivity of such behaviors as OCB which results in a strengthened negative relationship

of OCB and work outcomes. Similarly, Jam, Khan, and Zaidi (2011) studied POP as

mediator for the relationship of neuroticism with job stress and turnover intentions;

Ahmad (2010) also studied POP as moderator for the relationship of justice and work

outcomes, and Jam, et al. (2011) investigated interaction effects of POP and political skill

on employee job outcomes (i.e. job stress, AC, turnover intention, contextual

performance) among 300 public and private sector managerial employee in Pakistan. It is

concluded from the facts discussed here that POP might be a potential moderator in

relationship of leadership and outcomes. It is also worth stating that the facets of POP

have not been exclusively explored by the researchers. Vigoda-Gadot (2003, 2007)

recommended the exploration of the role of the facets of POP because existing studies

mainly focused on POP as reported by the employees but did not examine other facets of

the political phenomenon in organizations.

Considering the afforementioned role of POP and relationship pattern between

leadership and behavioral outcomes, it deemed quite appropriate for the present study to

explore what effects high level of POP and its constructs may produce on the relationship

of perceived leadership styles (TRF and TRS) with OCB, JI and AC. It is assumed that

the environments with high politics give more room to transactional and transformational

66

leadership to produce more positive impacts including increased levels of OCB, JI and

AC. Moreover leadership has also been well recognized as a crucial solution, in

educational institutions like schools, colleges, and universities, for most of the problems

(Boateng, 2012). This is because, there are leaders in the form of

heads/incharges/chairpersons in university settings, who are capable to formulating the

goals and communicate them to teachers in the academic setting. They are competent to

influence teachers to believe in the goals and commit to achieve them for the

improvement of academic department. Current research would contribute to the theory

and literature along with certain practical implication in public sector university settings.

Following is the proposed conceptual model of the current study:

67

Figure 4. Proposed theoretical model of the current study.

+

+

Transformational

Leadership Style

Transactional

Leadership Style

Organizational

Citizenship Behavior

Affective

Commitment

Job Involvement

Perceived

Organizational Politics

Pay-and-

promotio

n-policies

Go-

along-

to-get-ahead

General

Political

Behavior

68

Chapter-II

Methodology

Objectives

Foremost objective of the current study was to examine the moderating role of

perceived organizational politics in relationship between perceived leadership styles and

certain organizational behavioral outcomes along with examining the relationships among the

variables used in the current study. On the bases of aforementioned discussion and review of

literature the following specific objectives were set upon:

1. To establish the psychometric suitability of scales used to measure the constructs that

were being studied in current study.

2. To investigate the relationship between perceived transformational leadership style and

behavioral outcomes.

3. To find out the relationship between perceived transactional leadership style and

behavioral outcomes.

4. To explore the relationship between perceived organizational politics and behavioral

outcomes.

5. To examine the moderating role of perceived organizational politics between the

relationship of perceived leadership styles and behavioral outcomes.

6. To study the impact of demographic variables on perceived leadership styles, perceived

organizational politics and particular behavioral outcomes (i.e. organizational citizenship

behavior, affective commitment and job involvement)

Hypotheses

To achieve the objectives of the current study following hypotheses had been

formulated for their practical testing:

69

Perceived Leadership Styles.

1. Perceived transformational leadership styles will positively predict organizational

citizenship behavior.

a. Idealized influence (attributes) will positively predict organizational citizenship

behavior.

b. Idealized influence (behaviors) would positively predict organizational citizenship

behavior.

c. Inspirational motivation would be the positive predictor of organizational


d. Intellectual stimulation will positively predict organizational citizenship behavior.

e. Individualized consideration will be positive predictor of organizational


2. Perceived transformational leadership styles will positively predict affective

commitment.

a. Idealized influence (attributes) will positively predict affective commitment.

b. Idealized influence (behaviors) would positively predict affective commitment.

c. Inspirational motivation would be the positive predictor of affective commitment.

d. Intellectual stimulation will positively predict affective commitment.

e. Individualized consideration will be positive predictor of affective commitment.

3. Perceived transformational leadership styles will positively predict job involvement.

a. Idealized influence (attributes) will positively predict job involvement.

b. Idealized influence (behaviors) would positively predict job involvement.

c. Inspirational motivation would be the positive predictor of job involvement.

d. Intellectual stimulation will positively predict job involvement.

e. Individualized consideration will be positive predictor of job involvement.

4. Perceived transactional leadership styles will positively predict organizational


a. Contingent reward will positively predict organizational citizenship behavior.

b. Management-by-exception active would positively predict organizational


70

5. Perceived transactional leadership styles will positively predict affective

commitment.

a. Contingent reward will positively predict affective commitment.

b. Management-by-exception active would be positive predictor of organizational


6. Perceived transactional leadership styles will positively predict job involvement.

a. Contingent reward will positively predict job involvement.

b. Management-by-exception active would be positive predictor of job involvement.

Perceived Organizational Politics.

7. Perceived organizational politics will be negative predictor of organizational

citizenship

behavior.

a. General political behavior will be the negative predictor of organizational


b. Go-along-to-get-ahead will be the negative predictor of organizational citizenship

behavior.

c. Pay and promotion policies would negatively predict organizational citizenship

behavior.

8. Perceived organizational politics will be the negative predictor of organizational

citizenship

behavior.

a. General political behavior will be the negative predictor of affective commitment.

b. Go-along-to-get-ahead will be the negative predictor of affective commitment.

c. Pay-and-promotion-policies would negatively predict affective commitment.

9. Perceived organizational politics will be the negative predictor of organizational

citizenship

behavior.

a. General political behavior will be the negative predictor of job involvement.

b. Go-along-to-get-ahead will be the negative predictor of job involvement.

c. Pay and promotion policies would negatively predict job involvement.

71

10. Perceived organizational politics will moderate between perceived transformational

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior by escalating their positive

relationship when perceived organizational politics is high.

11. General political behavior will moderate between perceived transformational

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior such as high level of general

political behavior will strengthen their positive relationship.

12. High level of go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between perceived

transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior by increasing

their positive relationship.

13. Pay-and-promotion-policies will moderate between perceived transformational

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior such that their positive relationship

will be increased under condition of high level of pay-and-promotion-policies.

14. Perceived organizational politics will moderate between perceived transactional

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior by escalating their positive

relationship in case of high perceived organizational politics.

15. General political behavior will moderate between perceived transactional leadership

and organizational citizenship behavior such as high level of general political

behavior will strengthen their positive relationship.

16. High level of go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between perceived transactional

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior such that it will raise their positive

relationship.

17. Positive association between perceived transactional leadership and organizational

citizenship behavior will be stronger by the moderating role of the high level of pay-

and-promotion-policies.


leadership and affective commitment by strengthening their positive relationship,

when perceived organizational politics would be high.


leadership and affective commitment such as high level of general political behavior

will fortify their positive relationship.

72

20. High level of go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between perceived

transformational leadership and affective commitment by increasing their positive

relationship.


leadership and affective commitment such that their positive relationship will increase

under condition of high level of pay and promotion policies.

22. Perceived organizational politics will moderate the relationship of perceived

transactional leadership with affective commitment such that the high perceived

organizational politics will make their positive association stronger.


and affective commitment such that high level of general political behavior will

strengthen their positive relationship.

24. Go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between perceived transactional leadership and

affective commitment by raising their positive relationship in case of high level of go-

along-to-get-ahead.

25. Positive relationship between perceived transactional leadership and affective

commitment will get stronger by the moderating role of the high level of pay-and-

promotion-policies.


leadership and job involvement by strengthening their positive relationship under the

condition of high perceived organizational politics.


leadership and job involvement such as high level of general political behavior will

strengthen their positive relationship.

28. Positive relationship between perceived transformational leadership and job

involvement will be fortified by the moderated role of the high level of go-along-to-

get-ahead.


leadership and job involvement such that their positive relationship will be

augmented under condition of high level of pay-and-promotion-policies.

73

30. Perceived organizational politics will moderate the relationship of perceived

transactional leadership with job involvement such that the high level of perceived

organizational politics will strengthen their positive association.

31. Go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between perceived transactional leadership and

job involvement by elevating their positive relationship in case of high level of go-

along-to-get-ahead.

32. Positive relationship between perceived transactional leadership and job involvement

will be increased by the moderating role of the high level of pay-and-promotion-

policies.


and job involvement such that high level of general political behavior will strengthen


Research Plan

For the present study cross-sectional survey research design was followed. It

comprised of three phases. Phase one was established to ask for experts’ opinion on

instruments selected for current study. Phase two was pilot study, whereas phase three

constituted main study.

Phase I: Experts’ Opinion and Adaptation of Selected Instruments .

The first phase of the present research was carried out in order to obtain the experts’

opinion on all the instruments finalized to use in this research. Prime purpose of this exercise

was to examine the suitability of the certain instruments for the university teaching faculty in

indigenous settings, because none of the scales was originally developed locally. Moreover

specifically this phase lend a hand to have a profound insight in order to inspect difficult

words found in measures regarding their cultural relevance. All the procedure followed in

this phase helped in replacing certain obscure words, rephrasing some intricate items and

finally adaptation of instruments in indigenous cultural setting.

74

Phase II: Pilot Study.

Pilot study was certainly a vital phase, which essentially provided initial information

with reference to the psychometric properties of the scales used in this study. It also

succinctly demonstrated the primary patterns of the relationships among various variables. A

detailed description of various steps involved pilot study is embedded in section of Phase II:

Pilot Study of the current study (p.63).

Phase III: Main Study: Model and hypotheses testing and examination of

demographics’ influence.

Phase-III of present study was aimed at testing the proposed model and diverse

hypotheses formulated for this study. Some pertinent demographic variables such as gender,

age, marital status and job experience were also explored regarding their impact in relation to

various variables subjected to the current study. After the execution of appropriate statistical

analyses on data obtained the findings have been discussed in relation to related literature

accompanied with implications for university teachers, suggestions, and the

recommendations for further research milieu.

A detailed description of methodology used to accomplish the respective three phases

is discussed in the following sections:

Phase I: Experts’ Opinion

Objectives.

The first phase of present study was embarked upon in order to gather expert opinion

on the suitability and appropriateness of instruments being used in this study. As the experts

were having the direct exposure in the settings of population opted for present study, their

insight and understanding provided essential assistance for the necessary modifications of

difficult words and phrases according to the indigenous requirements and characteristics of

the study population. Expert opinion further helped out to establish face and content validity

of instruments along very relevant note son cultural relevance.

75

Participants for expert’s opinion.

The sample of the experts consisted of five teachers, from University of Sargodha,

having sound knowledge of research and psychometrics. Two of them having PhD degree

were Associate Professors of psychology and other three were Assistant Professors.

Instruments.

All the measures finalized for current study were self reported which composed of

Perceived Organizational Politics Scale (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997), Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X: Bass & Avolio, 1997), Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Scale (Lee & Allen, 2002), Organizational Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990) and

Job Involvement Scale (Kanungo, 1982). The detailed description of these instruments has

been given in the section of pilot study.

Procedure.

The experts were directly and individually approached by the researcher, on the

behalf of Department of Psychology, University of Peshawar, Peshawar, in their offices and

keeping in view the nature and objectives of the present research they were thoroughly

briefed about the constructs operationally defined in this study and the nature of scales.

They were asked to provide their valued feedback on the appropriateness, ease of

comprehension, psychometric quality, suitability, and content validity of assorted

instruments. They were also requested to evaluate the instrument with reference to their

relevance for Pakistani university teachers. Finally they were provided dossiers containing

concerned scales along with lucid instructions in black and white. At the end they were

requested to have a short session of discussion regarding their feedback, which facilitated to

make their comments more comprehensible. The researcher individually paid heartily

gratitude to all the experts for their valued time and generous response to improve and refine

the instruments for Pakistani university teachers.

76

Results / Experts’ feedback.

The exercise of expert opinion demonstrated very productive outcome in refinement

of the certain measures. Experts in fact suggested a number of very useful modifications in

various items of scales, which helped researcher further to purify the instruments for

indigenous population. The experts were agreed on the face and content validity of all the

scales except the management-by-exception passive the sub-scale of Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X: Bass & Avolio, 1997) and suggested that the items of this

sub-scale should be treated as an independent scale rather than the part of transactional

leadership. The sub-scale mentioned by the experts contained item that were negatively

worded and previously had been found negatively correlated with rest of sub-scales and

leadership styles as well. Existing literature also illustrate witness to this fact e.g. Alsayed,

Motaghi and Osman (2012) also suggested that management-by-exception passive should

not be included as factor of transactional leadership style rather this factor should be treated

separately because of its inverse relationship with rest of the factors of both transformational

and transactional leadership styles. On the other hand management-by-exception passive

elucidated positive relationship with laissez-fair leadership style. It was therefore, researcher

decided to observe the results of pilot study to ultimately conclude whether to treat this scale

as part of transactional leadership and vice versa. Experts further proposed some simple

substitute words for uncommon English proverbs, phrases and unintelligible words. Items

suggested by the experts for potential modifications have been summarized in Table 1. The

feedback from expert opinion laid the grounds for adaptation of the instruments for the

population of Pakistani university teachers. In continuance of experts’ opinion, furthermore,

a committee approach was constituted for adaptation of various scales as per the needs and

characteristics of Pakistani university teachers.

Committee Approach for the Adaptation of Scales

One of the most wide-ranging approaches towards adaptation of the instruments is

committee approach because it involves a team of experts rather than one or two individuals

in the procedure. A substantial advantage of committee approach involves pretesting of the

instrument that is not carried out in any other method. Pretesting here held responsible for

77

finding out the flaws or weaknesses of the tests rather than mere the opinion of one or two

experts which makes it more scientific than rest of all methods (Pan & Puente, 2005).

Underlying logic behind the inclusion of committee approach for present study was that

group discussions have recognition in elimination or at least in decreasing the likelihood of

adopting culture-specific terms, flaws and errors on the instrument and concepts (European

social survey, 2012).

Participants for committee approach.

The committee constituted on the request of researcher for the adaptation of the

instruments comprised four teachers of University of Sargodha, and the researcher himself.

The committee was composed of five individuals in total, that included two PhD associate

professors and three PhD scholars included the researcher.

Instruments.

The instruments mentioned earlier were provided to committee members for their

adaptation to the job context of university teachers in Pakistan. Scales were not specifically

developed indigenously and had some suitability issues for university teachers of Pakistan.

The researcher was intended to measure the perceived leadership styles of university teachers

along with actual leadership styles of the heads of the different departments of universities so

it was inevitable to make some vital changes in language and phrases of items. The detailed

description of these instruments has been given in the section of pilot study.

Procedure.

The members were individually contacted by the researcher, on the behalf of

Department of Psychology, University of Peshawar, Peshawar, in their offices. They were

thoroughly briefed about the nature and objectives of the present research and they were

requested to participate in a committee approach for the adaptation of scales finalized for

present study. Four members who gave their consent were discussed for time and date to

organize the committee approach. At the time when members were gather round for

committee approach, booklet of scales were disseminated among them and they were given

short and snappy oral instructions in conjunction with written ones for adaptation of scales

78

for Pakistani university teachers. Researcher also participated as member in the session

which took almost 100 minutes to finalize the necessary changes as part of adaptation. Only

the changes were incorporated for which at least three members got agreed upon. This

meeting proved to be extremely valuable, which helped researcher to make the instruments

ready for pilot study. At the end of session researcher paid vigorous gratefulness to all the

members for their voluntary and praiseworthy participation. Researcher was also indebted for

their prestigious time, devotion, and generous commitment to refine and adapt the

instruments for Pakistani university teachers.

Results.

The researcher intended to measure the perceived leadership styles from university

teachers and actual leadership styles through collecting data from heads of the various

departments of the universities. The committee on adaptation recommended that the word

‘I’ should be substituted with ‘My Chairperson/HOD’ in case of the concept perceived

leadership styles. Consequently, various words and idiomatic phrases of Perceived

Organizational Politics Scale (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997), Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X: Bass & Avolio, 1997), Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Scale (Lee & Allen, 2002), and Job Involvement Scale (Kanungo, 1982) were replaced with

the simple and straightforward words expressions and words of English. Organizational

Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990) was the only scale which was adapted without

any modification in any of the item. Response format of all the measures was Likert type, so

a single set of instructions, for responding items on each scale, was finalized by the

committee. The representation of all the modifications incorporated by experts’ opinion and

the adaptation committee is displayed in Table 1.

79

Table 1

Original and Adapted Items of Various Scales

Scale Item

# Original Item Adapted Item

MLQ 8 I seek differing perspectives when

solving problems.

My Chairperson/HOD looks for different

perspectives when solving problems.

MLQ 10 I instill pride in others for being

associated with me.

My Chairperson/HOD promotes

pride in others for being associated

with me.

MLQ 17 I show that I am a firm believer in,

if some method doesn’t work then

don't apply it.

My Chairperson/HOD shows that I

am a firm believer in, “if some

method doesn’t work then don't

apply it”.

MLQ 18 I go beyond self-interest for the

good of the group.

My Chairperson/HOD goes beyond

self-interest for the welfare of the

group.

MLQ 20 I demonstrate that problems must

become chronic before I take

action.

My Chairperson/HOD

demonstrates that problems must

become severe before I take action.

MLQ 24 I keep track of all mistakes. My Chairperson/HOD keeps track

of all mistakes of subordinates.

MLQ 34 I emphasize the importance of

having a collective sense of

mission.

My Chairperson/HOD emphasizes

the importance of having a

collective sense of aim.

POPS 1 People in this organization attempt

to build themselves up by tearing

others down.

People in this organization attempt

to build themselves up by letting

others down.

POPS 6 It is best not to rock the boat in this

organization.

It is best not to disturb the situation

in this organization.

OCBS 4 I consume a lot of time complaining

about trivial matters.

I consume a lot of time

complaining about ordinary matters

OCBS 6 I keep abreast of changes in the

organization.

I remain aware of changes in the

organization.

OCBS 12 I read and keep up with

organizational announcements,

I read and keep in touch with

organizational announcements,

80

memos, and so on memos, and so on

JIS 7 Usually I feel detached from my

job.

Usually I feel separated from my

job.

Note. MLQ = Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; POPS = Perceived Organizational Scale; OCBS =

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale; JIS = Job Involvement Scale.

81

Phase II: Pilot Study

As mentioned earlier under research design in chapter II, that present research

comprised of three phases. The second phase comprised pilot study and this chapter has

encompassed a thorough view of the details of pilot study including its objectives, method,

findings, and discussion.

Objectives of Pilot Study.

The main objective of pilot study was to assess the psychometric soundness of certain

instruments being used in present study for the indigenous population of university teachers.

The pilot study was also an empirical effort to explore the relationship pattern among

variables of the study in order to yield an initial insight for Pakistani population. More

specifically, pilot study was carried out to attain the following objectives:

1. To find out the psychometric properties of the scales used in this study.

2. To explore general overview of the proposed relationships between the variables of this

study.

3. To finalize instruments for the main study in the light of findings of pilot study.

4. To carry out statistical analyses of data by computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and

zero order correlations for main scales and subscales of the current study.

5. To undertake exploratory factor analyses specifically for Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X: Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Sample.

Purposive convenient sampling technique would was used to draw sample of (N =

120) from different university of Punjab province of Pakistan. University of Sargodha, GC

University, Lahore, and University of the Punjab were approached by the researcher for

sample of pilot study. Participants belonged to the various departments of the universities

including psychology, history, sociology, Urdu, mass communication and education. The

inclusion criterion of the sample was those full time university teachers in public sector

universities, who were having minimum job experience of two years. The sample was

consisted of 55 male and 65 female university teachers. The age of sample ranged between of

27 to 61 (M = 40.79, SD = 8.47) years.

82

Operational Definition of Variables

For the current study all the variables have been operationalized through self-report

Likert type measures. This section is endowed with brief operational definitions of the

constructs involved in present study.

Perceived Organizational Politics.

The concept of organizational politics denotes to the individuals’ actions, which are

directed toward advancing the goal of their own interests without having any regard for the

well-being of their organization others employees (Kacmar & Baron, 1999). Perception of

subordinates in an organization to appraise the use of political tactics by leaders is recognized

as perceived organizational politics. Individuals scoring high on Perceptions of

Organizational Politics Scale (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997) will show higher perception of

organizational politics and vice versa.

Perceived Leadership Styles.

Leadership is the dynamic process through which a leader influences his followers

with an aim to achieve a common goal. It is specifically defined as the process of influencing

members of a common group, in a particular work related situation, for the accomplishment

of common goals and objectives (Yukl, 1994; Stoner et al., 1996). To conclude, leadership

has been defined in the terms of personality, compliance, centre of group processes,

influence, specific behaviors, persuasion, power relation, differentiated role and all possible

combinations of these aspects (Bass, 1997). Perceived leadership styles refer to the manners

perceived by the subordinates in an organization which are used by the leader to influence

them by providing directions and motivating them to work (Duta, 2011). The present study

primarily focuses on how employees perceive the leadership style of their leader i.e., their

perceived leadership style in relation to certain behavioral outcomes. The scores of teachers

and heads/chairpersons has been operationalized through self-reported measure viz

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X: Bass & Avolio, 1997) as the indices

of leadership styles. High score on this scale is suggestive of high transformational and

transactional leadership styles, mentioned below, and vice versa.

83

Transformational Leadership (TRF).

The leaders who are proactive, make their followers aware of collective interests and

help them to achieve organizational goals are transformational leaders. These are the leaders,

who transform the followers by bringing positive change among them, encourage them and

make them more helpful, caring and harmonious for other fellow workers as well as for their

organization as a whole, are grouped under transformational leaders (Avolio & Bass, 1991).

Transactional Leadership (TRS).

Transactional leaders on the other hand are those who involve in a transaction with

their followers. This leadership style involves an exchange of leader’s interest and follower’s

expectations (Avolio & Bass, 1991). They pay attention to fulfill the current needs of

employees, resulting in a short term satisfactory effects on the employees.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS).

These are the behaviors which add to the development of the organization but are not

included in the formal job description and are not rewarded by formal organizational reward

system. Organizational citizenship behavior is defined by Organ (1997) as “performance that

supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place” (p.

95). Those individuals who score high on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Lee &

Allen, 2002) will exhibit higher level of organizational citizenship behavior. High score on

this scale is suggestive of high organizational citizenship behavior and vice versa.

Affective Commitment (AC).

Affective commitment is of the major facets of the organizational commitment which

is acknowledged as the extent to which the employees are committed to the organization. It is

noticeably characterized by emotional attachment and identification of an employee with the

organization. Researchers have defined it as a psychological state and a mindset that connects

the employees to the organization and leads them to follow the course of particular actions,

and thus reduces their turnover intention (Allen & Meyer, 1990). More particularly affective

commitment is the affective part of the organizational commitment which is manifested by

84

the employee’s strong identification to, involvement in, and feeling of attachment to the

organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The present study has operationalized affective

commitment in terms of scores on 6-items affective commitment factor of Organizational

Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990) where higher project higher affective

commitment and vice versa.

Job Involvement (JI).

Job involvement is in fact, how an employee portrays his relationship with the job and

the work environment and how his job is amalgamated with his life. More distinctively, it is

the extent to which an individual identifies psychologically with his job, and integrates the

importance of the job in his self-image and self-concept (Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992).

Present study operationalized job involvement through scores obtained by self-reported

measure namely Job Involvement Scale (Kanungo, 1982) where high scores implied as the

index of high job involvement and vice versa.

Instruments

All the constructs of the present study were measured through self-report instruments

which included the following:

Perception of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS: Kacmar& Carlson, 1997).

Perceived organizational politics was measured using the 15-item Perceptions of

Organizational Politics Scale (see Appendix E) developed by Kacmar and Carlson (1997)

was used in present study to measure the perception of organizational politics (POP) in

university teachers. POPS included 15 items and 3 sub-scales namely: General Political

Behavior (item number 1 and 2), Go-along-to-get-ahead (items ranging from 3 to 9), and Pay

and Promotion Policies (items ranging from 8 to 15). Item number 3, 4, 10 and 11 were

inversely scored. Items were anchored on 5-point Likert type rating scale where “strongly

disagree” was scored as 1 and “strongly agree” as 5. The score on the scale ranged from 15 to

75 where high score were index of higher degree of POP and vice versa. A specimen item is

“when it comes to pay raise and promotion decisions, policies are irrelevant.” The internal

consistency estimate for the 15 items was found to be .87 (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001),

85

whereas reliability coefficients as reported by Danaaefard, Balutbzeh, and Kashi (2010) for

the subscales were .77 for General Political Behavior, .78 for Go-along-to-get-ahead and .73

for Pay and Promotion Policies. Present study incorporated not only overall scores of POPS

but also the accounted for its three sub constructs to accomplish results.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X, Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X, Short) developed by Bass and

Avolio (1997) was adapted for current study to assess the perceived leadership styles of

university teachers of Pakistani public sector universities (see Appendix B-1, B-2, B-3).

MLQ is a self report measures that measures the perception regarding leadership behavior in

each of the factor in the Full Range Theory of Leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Current

version of the questionnaire comprised of 36 items which has been finalized after several

revisions of empirical attempts to refine psychometric proprieties and to overcome

challenges regarding organizational leadership measurement in the organizational sector

(Avolio, 1995).

The MLQ (Form 5X) intend to measure a broad range of leadership types that include

three main scales, viz transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles

which further comprise of 9 leadership factors where each leadership facet is comprised of

four items. Response format is Likert type that varies from strongly disagree for 1 to strongly

agree for 5.

Transformational leadership style encompasses five sub constructs i.e. idealized

influence (attributed: items 10, 18, 21, and 25), idealized influence (behavior: items 6, 14, 23,

and 34), inspirational motivation (items 9, 13, 26, and 36), individual stimulation (items 2, 8,

30, and 32), and individualized consideration (items 15, 19, 29, and 31) respectively.

Transactional leadership style incorporates three sub constructs namely contingent reward

(items 1, 11, 16, and 35), management-by-exception-active (items 4, 22, 24, and 27), and

management-by-exception-passive (items 3, 12 17, and 20, whereas laissez-faire (items 5, 7,

28, and 33) is recognized third dimension of leadership.

Authors have reported strong evidence for validity; the MLQ has been used in

numerous studies, doctoral dissertations, and master’s theses, Construct validity is also

86

comprehensively explained with factor analyses which resulted in a six-factor model for the

MLQ (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Antonakis (2002) has also empirically supported the

nine-factor leadership model and its consistency in homogeneous situations. Reliability

scores for the MLQ subscales ranged from .63 to .92.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Lee & Allen, 2002).

OCB was measured by using the modified version of Organizational Citizenship

Behavior Scale in phase-I (see Appendix D-1, D-2). This scale was originally developed by

Lee and Allen (2002). This 16-item scale measures helping behaviors that benefit specific

individual (OCB-I: altruism & courtesy) and the organization as a whole (OCB-O:

conscientiousness, civic virtue, & sportsmanship) using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging

from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Scale was composed of five constructs i.e. altruism (item no.

1, 10, 13, 15, 23), courtesy (item no. 4, 8, 14, 17, 20), conscientiousness (item no. 3, 18, 21,

22, 24), civic virtue (item no. 6, 9, 11, 12), and sportsmanship (item no. 2, 4, 7, 16, 19),

whereas as item no. 2, 3, 4, 7, 16, 19 were inversely scored. There is sufficient empirical

evidence that entailed psychometric strength for scale as a whole and also for sub constructs

being measured through it. For instance, Lee and Allen (2002) reported the reliabilities of .83

(OCB-I) and .88 (OCB-O). Farh, Zhong, & Organ (2004) summed the 16 items of the OCB

scale to form a composite score for the OCB construct and reported coefficient alpha for the

composite OCB scale that was found to be .89. Danaaefard, Balutbazeh, and Kashi (2010)

has also reported satisfactory reliabilities for Altruism (.75), Sportsmanship (.88), Civic

Virtue (.75), Conscientiousness (.83), and Courtesy (.88).

Affective Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

For the present study a subscale of the Shortened Version of Organizational

Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990) was used to measure affective commitment. This

scale is composed of 18 items anchored on a 5-Point Likert scale. Response were ranging

from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree. Six items focus on affective

commitment (see Appendix E), six items measure continuance commitment and six items

focus on normative commitment. Authors have reported satisfactory alpha reliabilities i.e.

.87, .75 and .79 respectively for three subscales.

87

Job Involvement Scale (Kanungo, 1982).

Job involvement was measured by using the modified version of ten-item Job

Involvement Scale in phase-I (see Appendix F-1, F-2). It was originally developed by

Kanungo (1982). This scale measures the degree of psychological importance of one's job

using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Specimen items

incorporated “I consider my job to be very central to my existence” and “I am very much

personally involved in my job.” The internal consistency illustrated by author was .86 alpha

coefficient.

Procedure

Participants were contacted in their universities by the researcher on behalf of

Department of Psychology, University of Peshawar in order to get their approval. In order to

ensure the confidentiality of the information participants’ personal names and university

names were not obligatory to be provided in demographic section. This act of anonymity was

adjoined to encourage their true and free responses on measurement instruments. After

seeking informed consent and their permission, they were briefed about the objectives,

purpose and rationale of the present study. After that they were given the questionnaires and

written instructions about responding on each item. Furthermore, their queries regarding how

to respond items of various scales were also cordially entertained and they were requested to

respond on each item of all scales. Researcher did not forget to express affectionate gratitude

to each participant for his/her support and participation in this study. The filled

questionnaires from the teachers were gathered back by the researcher himself or on his

behalf by the helper.

Data Analyses and Results of Pilot Study

Data collected for pilot study were subjected to different statistical analyses in this

step. Descriptive analyses of various instruments to adequately describe the data on these

instruments and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of Reliability were accounted for various

scales and subscale in order to ascertaining the internal consistency of instruments.

Exploratory factor analysis was used to find out the factorial structure of Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire because in the first phase experts suggested to reconsider the

88

management-by-exception passive as the sub-scale of transactional leadership. Finally,

correlation matrix was computed among all the variables of the present study in order to have

a glance into the initial pattern of relationship among the variables. SPSS-17 version was

used to compute the intended analyses. The findings of pilot study have been demonstrated in

Table 3 to 6.

89

Table 2

Descriptive and Psychometric Properties for Scales of the Present Study (N = 120)

Variable M SD Items α Potential Actual Skew

TRF 80.33 6.85 20 .81 1-5 3.67-4.29 .74

TRS 42.18 2.77 8 a.72 1-5 1.84-4.25 .07

POP 51.09 4.74 14 .73 1-5 1.94-4.18 -1.46

GPB 8.07 1.28 2 .64 1-5 4.02-4.05 -.92

GATGA 28.20 3.96 7 .77 1-5 3.90-4.18 -1.78

PPP 14.82 2.93 5 .71 1-5 1.97-2.79 .32

OCB 97.04 5.71 24 .65 1-5 3.69-4.32 -.26

Sportsmanship 20.65 2.81 5 .55 1-5 3.80-4.27 -.96

Civic virtue 16.13 1.67 5 .54 1-5 4.02-4.50 -.93

Conscientiousness 19.57 2.06 4 .57 1-5 3.69-4.10 -.02

Courtesy 19.84 2.30 5 .58 1-5 3.72-4.32 -.99

Altruism 20.58 1.68 5 .59 1-5 3.86-4.22 .42

AC 34.51 4.15 6 .73 1-7 5.63-5.90 -1.38

Job Involvement 40.33 3.05 10 .67 1-5 3.87-4.91 -.14

Note. TRF = transformational leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; POP = perceived organizational

politics; GPB = general political behavior; GATGA = go-along-to-get-ahead; PPP = pay and promotion

policies; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; AC = affective commitment.

aAlpha coefficient computed for transactional leadership style with its subscale passive management-by-

exception was found (α = .56).

Table 3 indicates mean and standard deviations for all variables used in present study.

Table 3 also depicts alpha coefficients (internal consistency index) for all scales and sub-

scales of the present study. Table 3 shows that all main scales except Transactional

Leadership achieved satisfactory alpha that ranged between .63 for OCB to .81 for

Transformational leadership. The low alpha reliability of Transactional Leadership was

found to be because of its sub-scale Passive Management-By-Exception (MBE-P), which

inversely correlates with rest of scale. Reliability coefficient without MBE-P was computed

as .65.

Factor Analysis of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

90

MLQ was subjected to exploratory factor analysis so that to observe its

dimensionality. Several well-established standards were accounted for assessing the

factorability of a correlation matrix of 36 items MLQ. First of all a thorough overview of

correlation matrix of the 36 items indicated that all items were having a correlation of at least

.3 with at least one other item, representing a reasonable factorability. Secondly, the Kaiser-

Meyer Olkin sampling adequacy measure of .86 was greater than .6 recognized as the

acceptable value. It also enhanced the appropriateness of factor analysis. Thirdly, the

significant Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (χ2 (630) = 1356.30, p = .000) confirmed that the

correlation matrix significantly differed form an identity matrix and the items showed enough

common variance that could be analyzed through factor analysis. Furthermore, all the anti-

image diagonals of correlation matrix were above .5, providing support to the inclusion of

each item in the factor analysis. Finally, all the values of communalities were greater than .3,

which supported the idea that some common variance was shared by each item with other

items. Conclusively these findings suggested that all 36 items should be incorporated in

factor analysis.

Principle component factor analysis with varimax rotation was used as the extraction

method so as to identify the factorial structure of MLQ. The initial eigen values displayed

that 23.35 % of the variance was caused by first factor; the second factor explained 17.45 of

the variance; and 13.50% of the variance was contributed by third factor. Three, four, and

five factor solutions were examined, whereas the three factor solution, which explained 54.50

% of the variance, was preferred because of its previous theoretical support the ‘leveling off’

of eigen values on the scree plot after three factors, and the insufficient number of primary

loadings and difficulty of interpreting the fourth factor.

91

Figure 5. Scree plot for factor analysis of Leadership styles.

92

Table 3

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Principe Component with Varimax Rotation Showing Three Factor Structure of Multifactor Leadership Scale (N=120)

Rotation Sums of Square Factor Loadings

Item No. Factor 1:Items = 19 Factor 2:Items = 8 Factor 3:Items = 7

02 .51 - -

06 .45 - - 08 .64 - -

09 -- - - 10 .48 - -

13 .53 - - 14 .68 - -

15 .57 - -

18 .60 - - 19 .69 - -

21 .64 - - 23 .42 - -

25 .53 - - 26 .57 - -

29 .41 - - 30 .42 - -

31 .56 - - 32 .63 - -

34 .62 - - 36 .46 - -

01 - .55 -

04 - .43 - 11 - .41 -

16 - .53 -

22 - .44 -

24 - .46 -

27 - .52 -

35 - .50 -

03 - - -.54

12 - - -.45

17 - - -.49

20 - - -.47

05 --

07 -.51

28 -.46

33 -.49

Note. Factor loadings < .40 are suppressed.

Table 3 demonstrate results of principle component factor analysis with varimax

rotation which was carried out to find out the factor structure of Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ: Bass & Avolio, 2000) and this practice provided three factor structure

solution, where factor 1 represents Transformational Leadership with 19 items (except item

93

no. 9 for which loading on factor 1 were below .30); factor 2 illustrates Transactional

Leadership having 8 items and finally 3 rd factor emerged as Laissez Faire or Passive

Avoidant Leadership with 7 items (except item no. 5 for which loading on factor 1 were

below .30), which also incorporated the four items of management-by-exception passive.

Factorial structure closely resembled with theoretical structure suggested by Bass & Avolio

(1995).

Overall, findings yielded the factorial validity of the MLQ in the present sample as

composed of three discriminant yet related factors of transformational leadership,

transactional leadership and, and Laissez Faire or Passive Avoidant Leadership.

94

Table 4

Correlation Matrix for Leadership Styles and their Sub-scales (N = 120)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 -- .63*** .64*** .55*** .61*** .63*** .57*** .52*** .46*** -.32*** -.33***

2 -- -- .56*** .49*** .26** .45*** .62*** .67*** .61*** -.27** -.24**

3 -- -- -- .43*** .39*** .35*** .40*** .48*** .3*** -.23** -.27**

4 -- -- -- -- .27** .44*** .55*** .50*** .31*** -.26** -.36***

5 -- -- -- -- -- .37*** .41*** .40*** .32*** -.16* -.19*

6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .33*** .37*** .46*** -.24** -.26**

7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .57*** .44*** -.22* -.31***

8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .51*** -.21* -.16*

9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.14* -.18*

10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .27**

11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Α .81 .72 .59 .61 .67 .53 .63 .70 .58 .65 .39

M 80.33 6.85 16.42 15.31 16.09 13.71 17.26 14.59 16.71 7.61 6.38

SD 42.18 2.77 2.54 2.31 2.62 2.93 2.89 2.21 2.78 2.60 1.82

Skew .74 .07 .93 1.24 1.33 .63 1.12 1.23 1.01 -.15 -.93

Note. 1 = transformational leadership; 2 = transactional leadership; 3 = idealized influence (attributes); 4 = idealized influence (behaviors); 5 = inspirational motivation; 6 = intellectual stimulation; 7 = individualized consideration; 8 = contingent reward; 9 = management-by-exception active; 10 = management-by-

exception passive; 11 = laissez-faire leadership.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

95

Table 4 displays the correlation matrix for leadership styles and their respective sub

constructs that has been operationalized for the current study. Management by exception

passive sub-scale of transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership scale show

significant negative relationship with overall leadership styles and all of their sub-scales.

Management by exception passive and laissez-faire leadership yields significant positive

relationship.

Table 4 also demonstrates mean, standard deviation, alpha coefficients and skewness

computed for all the variables. Alpha coefficients ranged between .53 for intellectual

stimulation, to .77 for transformational leadership style.

96

Table 5

Correlation matrix for the Main Variables of Present Study (N = 120)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 -- .63*** -.02 -.02 .11* -.12* .20*** .26*** .22*** .13* .73*** .11** .31*** .35***

2 -- -- .08 .07 .22* .10 .24*** .23*** .38*** .06 .72*** .12* .36*** .35***

3 -- -- -- .68*** .82*** .43*** -14* -.15** -.21** -.16* -.17** -.18* -.19** -.21**

4 -- -- -- -- .57*** .17** -.15** -.23* .10* -.18** -.15** -.11* -.21** -.14*

5 -- -- -- -- -- .17* -.21* -.31* -.22** -.10* .19** -.13* -.14* -.18*

6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -.16** -.26** -.17** -04 -16** -.05 -.32** -.34**

7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .48*** .65*** .64*** .21** .78** .37* .40*

8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .14** .05 .27*** .11* .40*** .34***

9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .27*** .17** .50*** .23*** .30***

10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .02 .57*** .15** .17**

11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .18** .2*** .29***

12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.15** .22**

13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .58***

14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Note. 1 = transformational leadership; 2 = transactional leadership; 3 = perceived organizational politics; 4 = general political behavior; 5 = go-along-to-get-

ahead; 6 = pay and promotion policies; 7 = organizational citizenship behavior; 8 = sportsmanship; 9 = civic virtue; 10 = conscientiousness; 11 = courtesy; 12 =

altruism; 13 = affective commitment; 14 = job involvement.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

97

Table 5 portrays correlation matrix computed for having an initial insight of

relationship pattern between the variables operationalized for the current study. Perceived

transformational and transactional leaderships yield non significant or weak negative

correlations with POP and its construct scales, whereas significant positive correlations with

OCB and its constructs. Table 6 demonstrates desired pattern of significant negative

relationship between overall scores of POP and OCB.

98

Discussion of Pilot Study

Second phase of present study contained pilot study that was conducted with an

objective of examining the psychometric properties of various instruments being used in

present study to measure various constructs of interest. It was also an endeavor to explore the

initial pattern of relationship among variables of the study applied on Pakistani population.

Furthermore, exploratory factor analyses was specifically carried out to determine the

structural components of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X: Bass &

Avolio, 1997). Psychometric analysis was substantial in gleaning the suitability of various

scales, primarily developed in western typical organizational settings, for the indigenous

population.

Phase-I of the current study, followed by pilot study invaluably contributed in

adaptation of instruments to the endemic culture of Pakistan and ratification of the scales to

the job context of university teachers of Pakistan. This phase was of critical importance as

the scales have barely been studied with Pakistani population in particular university

educational setup. Expert opinion and committee approach both refined the instruments

through essential modifications of difficult words, vague phrases, and fuzzy sentences, which

provided participants an opening possibility to respond more clearly. Procedure of committee

approach comprised 5 experts, for adaptation was followed because it was considered as a

reliable and convenient method. Pan and Puente (2005) have recognized that judging out the

flaws or weaknesses of the tests through committee approach rather than mere the opinion of

one or two experts is more scientific than rest of all methods.

In order to concentrate on objectives of pilot study the instruments adapted in first

phase were finally administered on a convenient sample of 120 full time with minimum two

years of job experience teaching employees of three public sector universities of the Punjab

province. This phase was planned to determine psychometric properties of the scales

through statistical analyses. Overall analyses of the data capitulated fruitful and rich

information not only for reliability of measurement instruments but also revealed empirical

evidence to the items, which might have not been contributing towards the measurement of

transactional leadership. Internal consistencies of main scales and their subscales were

estimated through the computation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (see Table 3), which

has mostly been taken as an indication of internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951). In addition

99

separate alpha reliabilities were assured for leadership styles i.e. transformational and

transactional, and their subscales after findings of exploratory factor analysis specifically

computed for these styles (see Table 5).

Results revealed overall satisfactory alpha reliabilities for main scales of the study

that ranged between .65 to .81 for organizational citizenship behavior scale (OCBS) and

transformational leadership accordingly (see Table 3 & 5). Nunnally (1978) has

recommended that alpha > .70 is considered as an adequate index for the scale. Four out of

total six major scales of the present study exhibited reliability coefficients greater than .70,

whereas, only two of these namely organizational citizenship scale (16 items) and job

involvement scale (10 item) showed slightly lower values which were .65 and .67

respectively. These can be attributed to small but diverse sample (see Table 2) and relatively

low number of items.

The reliabilities of subscale turned out to be lower than .70 except for two sub-scales

of perceived organizational politics that were go-along-to-get-ahead (α = .77) and pay and

promotion policies (α = .71). Rest of the sub-scales of certain instruments entailed alpha

coefficients that ranged from .53 for intellectual stimulation to .67 for inspirational

motivation. Having keen observation of data it was found that the aforementioned subscales

occupied some inversely scored items, which most likely overwhelmed positive items.

Sportsmanship the sub-scale of OCBS comprised 4 reversed coded items out of total 5

items. All four items of management-by-exception passive sub-scale of transactional

leadership found to be negatively related with rest of items and reliability computed for

transactional leadership inclusive of these items was displayed relatively very low (α = .56).

These relatively low reliabilities of sub-scales can also be justified in terms of the low

number of items in sub-scales. Except go-along-to-get-ahead all the sub-scales of the study

contained minimum 2 to maximum 5 items, which may also be the potential reason for

lower alpha reliabilities. Current findings can also be explained with reference to Iacobucci

and Duhachek (2003) who investigated that alpha coefficients are increased with exceeding

number of items. Previously it has been acknowledged by researchers and psychometricians

that number of items and strength of alpha reliabilities can be undertaken as related issue,

for instance George and Muller (2003) also recommend that alpha coefficients are evidently

reduced as the number of item are decreased.

100

Expert opinion was not only aimed to seek invaluable information about the

readability comprehension, and ease of English language but also intended to acquire the

scholarly estimates of the face and content validity of scales that were anticipated to be used

for operationalization of various constructs of the current research. All measures were

reported to be face and content valid by the experts with sound knowledge of research and

psychometrics (5 teachers, two of them were associate professors with PhD degree and

remaining three were assistant professors) except the transactional leadership scale. They

unanimously suggested that there are few suspected items apparently negatively worded in

the transformational leadership scale so that it should be empirically evaluated by the

researcher. Those item were pertaining to the sub-scale management-by-exception passive.

Furthermore, in pilot study when alpha reliability computed for transactional leadership

(TRS) included management-by-exception passive (MBE-P), which in itself reflects negative

effect, was also found exclusively low as .56 which elucidated insufficiency of internal

consistency of this particular scale (see Table 2). The researcher decided to examine the

factorial structure of the main scales proposed to measure leadership styles and Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was subjected to exploratory factor analysis.

Initially adequacy of sample was confirmed by both by both Bartlett’s test of

Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test. Results of factor analysis revealed three

distinct factors to represent leadership styles. The emerged three factors were named as

transformational leadership (19 items), transactional leadership (8 items), and laissez-faire

leadership (7 items), whereas item number 5 and 9 were deleted due to low factor loadings.

Findings of exploratory factor analyses for MLQ also revealed that the both MBE-P,

which was sub-scale of transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership formed as single

higher-order factor. Besides MBE-P rest of the items were loaded on their respective factors.

MBE-P is passive generally the form of leadership in which leaders are inclined to identify

and address the problem imminently and this pattern most closely resembles with laissez-

faire leadership in which leader also avoid involvement in the problem and remain passive

proved to be ineffective. Both scales have been found to be inversely correlated with rest of

scales in MLQ.

There is existing controversy regarding the dimensionality of MLQ and many

researchers indicated about the positive relationship between management-by-exception-

101

passive and laissez-faire leadership (e.g. Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997;

Druskat, 1994; Mester, Visser, Roodt, & Kellerman, 2003). This discrepancy has also been

empirically tested by some researchers who reported both of these scales, possessing

avoidant and passive nature, form single dimension. Present findings are in line with

Alsayed, Hossein, Motaghi, and Osman (2012) who explored the MLQ 5X-Short (Bass &

Avolio, 1995) and EFA demonstrated three dimensional structure where items of MBE-P

were loaded with laissez-faire leadership and both emerged as single dimension, and Mester,

et al. (2003) who explored that MBE-P significantly and inversely correlated with rest of the

dimensions of TRF and TRS. They also observed positive correlation between MBE-P and

laissez fair. Current results closely relates to the theoretical structure of leadership proposed

by Bass (1985) where data had also supported the same structure.

It was expected that TRS might exert uncertain finding in the presence of MBE-P and

EFA also endorsed slightly different structure for MLQ so researcher operationalized the

instrument for main study in the light of finding of pilot study.

Dimensional structure of MLQ 5X-Short (Bass & Avolio, 1997) was further

examined by calculating inter subscale correlations of each scale where all sub-scale of a

scale were correlated with one another and the total score (see Table 5). Significant

correlations of most of the subscales of each scale with one another and the scale total

provided the evidence for convergent validity. Inter sub-scale correlation also confirmed the

significant negative relationship of MBE-P and laissez-faire with rest of main scales and

sub-scale, hence both entailed significant positive relationship with each other. These results

also yielded evidence that the current three factorial structure of MLQ was conceivable.

Finally, the correlation matrix was computed to get through the relations pattern and

results explained relationships in the expected directions among various variables of the

present study (see Table 6). Transformational leadership (TRF) was found to be positively

related with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its constructs i.e. sportsmanship,

civic virtue, conscientiousness, courtesy, and altruism. It also positively correlated with

affective commitment and job involvement. Transactional leadership (TRS) demonstrated

the same relationship pattern except in the care of conscientiousness where both elucidated

non-significant relationship. It was further found that perceived organizational politics

(POP) negatively correlated not only with OCB and its constructs but also with affective

102

commitment and job involvement. Although most of correlation coefficients between the

relationships of sub-scales of POP (i. e. general political behavior, go-along-to-get-ahead,

and pay and promotion policies) and rest of dependant variable were not much strong but

the pattern remained almost similar significant and negative. Pay and promotion policies

among sub-scales of POP entailed non-significant relation with conscientiousness and

altruism.

TRF was found to be negatively and non-significantly related with POP and general

political behavior and it exhibited significant positive and negative relationships with go-

along-to-get-ahead, and pay and promotion policies respectively. TRS was related

significantly and positively with go-along-to-get-ahead and found non-significant

correlations with POP, general political behavior and pay and promotion policies.

Correlation matrix among certain variables of the main study displayed that the

relationships were in harmony with the proposed model of the present study and provided an

initial support to the expected relationships among the variables.

Conclusion

Findings of pilot study were quite satisfactory in the perspective of psychometric

properties of the scales and sub-scales operationalized for present study. Overall, most of

the scales and their construct scales were found to be reasonably reliable and internally

consistent. Exploratory factor analyses and inter scales correlations helped not only in

establishing the construct validity of constructs but also entailed three dimensional structure

of MLQ as the items of management-by-exception passive significantly loaded on laissez-

faire factor. Rest of sub-scales were correlated with each other and their corresponding

constructs in meaningful ways. Most important aspect regarding EFA results is that the

MLQ was adapted to measure perceived leadership style for the current study, and it was

applied on the sample of university teachers of Pakistan rather than on their

chairperson/heads. Finally, correlation matrix elucidated the pattern of relationships among

various variables of the present study was supposedly in line with the expected directions

and none of the relationship was found significant in contrary direction. This bestowed an

initial insight into the hypothesized relationships among operationalized variables of the

current study and maintained an initial support to the proposed model of the study.

103

Chapter-III

Phase III: Main Study

Phase-III of present study couched the testing of proposed model and diverse

hypotheses formulated for this study. Some pertinent demographic variables such as gender,

age, marital status and job experience were also explored regarding their impact in relation to

various variables subjected to the current study.

Instruments

The same instruments finalized (see p. 61) and used in the pilot study were used in

main study.

Sample

Purposive convenient sampling technique was used to draw two samples i.e.

university teachers (N = 494) and second sample of heads of the departments (N = 57) from

different university of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces of Pakistan. Universities

of Punjab province included, University of Sargodha, GC University Lahore, Bahaudin

Zikrya University Layyah Campus, University of Gujrat, Fatima Jinnah Women University

Rawalpindi, GC University Faisalabad and University of the Punjab Lahore. From Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa province three universities namely University of Peshawar, Islamia College

University Peshawar and University of Swat were approached by the researcher for both

samples of main study. Participants conveniently accessed did belong to the various

departments of the universities e.g. psychology, history, sociology, Urdu, mass

communication, English literature and linguistics, public administration, food sciences,

geography and education. The inclusion criteria of the sample one was those full time

university teachers in public sector universities, who were having minimum job experience

of two years, and for Heads of departments inclusion criteria was also minimum job

experience of two years working on current position. Sample of teachers consisted of 260

male and 234 female university teachers, whereas sample of Heads of departments comprised

43 male and 14 female participants. The age of the sample of teachers ranged from 23 to 62

(M = 36.38, SD = 9.01) years. On the other hand the age of sample of

chairpersons/heads/incharges ranged between 28 to 61 (M = 43.19, SD = 10.38) years. A

comprehensive tabular and graphic description of the both samples is presented below in

Table 7 and Figure 6 & 7:

104

Table 6

Demographic Characteristics of the two Samples of Main Study

Sample of Teachers Sample of Heads of Departments

Variables Male f (%)

Female f (%)

Total f (%) Male f (%) Female f (%)

Total f (%)

Experience

2-5 years 94 (19) 114 (23) 208 (41) 13 (23) 2 (4) 15 (27)

6-10 years 62 (13) 62 (13) 124 (26) 6 (10) 2 (4) 8 (14)

11 years and

above

106 (22) 56 (11) 162 (33) 24 (42) 10 (17) 34 (59)

Marital

Status

Married 176 (36) 125 (25) 301 (61) 35 (62) 11 (19) 46 (81)

Unmarried 83 (17) 110 (22) 193 (39) 8 (14) 3 (5) 11 (19)

Age

25-35 113 (23) 142 (29) 255 (52) 12 (21) 2 (4) 14 (25)

36-45years 94 (19) 67 (15) 161 (34) 13 (23) 6 (10) 19 (33)

46 and above 52 (10) 26 (4) 78 (14) 18 (32) 6 (10) 24 (42)

Faculty

Position

Lecturers 149 (30) 166 (34) 315 (64) -- -- --

Assistant Prof. 77 (16) 51 (10) 128 (26) 5 (9) 3 (5) 8 (14)

Associate Prof. 19 (4) 14 (3) 33 (7) 15 (26) 10 (18) 25 (44)

Professors 14 (3) 4 (1) 18 (3) 17 (30) 7 (12) 24 (42)

Gender 260 (53) 234 (47) 494 (100) 43 (75) 14 (25) 57 (100)

Table 6 illustrates frequency and percentages of the demographic attributes of the two

samples of the study with respect to gender. Table 6 depicts that samples are characterized

with respect to experience, marital status, age, faculty position and gender. Frequency and

percentage of males and females in relation to each category have been described.

105

Figure 6 . Graphical description of interactive demographic data of sample of teachers.

Figure 7. Graphical description of interactive demographic data of sample of heads of

departments.

Table 5 and 6 represents demographic characteristics of the sample of teachers and

heads accordingly. Graphs portray data interactive of age, marital status, gender and job

experience.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

22-35 Yearsof Age

36-45 Yearsof Age

Above 46Years of Age

22-35 Yearsof Age

36-45 Yearsof Age


22-35 Yearsof Age

36-45 Yearsof Age


2-5 Years of Job Experience 6-10 Years of Job Experience More Than 11 Years of Job Experience

Men Women

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

Mar

ried

Sin

gle

25-35 Yearsof Age

36-45 Yearsof Age


25-35 Yearsof Age

36-45 Yearsof Age


25-35 Yearsof Age

36-45 Yearsof Age


1-5 Years of Job Experience 6-10 Years of Job Experience More Than 11 Years of Job Experience

Men Women

106

Procedure

Participants of both samples of the main study were contacted in their universities by

the researcher on behalf of Department of Psychology, University of Peshawar in order to get

their approval. In order to ensure the confidentiality of the information participants’ personal

names and university names were not mandatory for them to provide in demographic sheet

(see Appendix A). This act of anonymity was put in to persuade their true responses on

measurement instruments. After seeking informed consent and his/her permission, each

individual was separately briefed about the objectives, purpose and rationale of the present

study. After that participants were given the questionnaire dossier along with written

instructions about how to respond on each item. Their verbal queries regarding how to

respond items of various scales were also cordially entertained and they were further

requested to respond on each item of all scales. A total of 1000 questionnaire dossiers were

disseminated among university teachers and 100 among departmental heads. A few of them

returned data on the spot and majority of them, in case of both samples, agreed upon

returning the concerned data on next day. Researcher visited on next day to take the data

from quarter concerned where ever it was indispensable. Eventually 545 forms of teachers

and 65 from heads were gathered which designated 54.5% and 65% response of both samples

respectively. Researcher was obliged and at the end expressed warm gratitude to each

individual for his/her valuable support and participation in this study.

After an intense review of data obtained, 51 questionnaires of teachers and 8 of heads

of departments were discarded as a result of missing responses, random responses and

incomplete demographic information. Finally data of 494 university teachers and 57

departmental heads was assumed to be safe and sound for further analyses of the Main Study.

107

Results of Main Study

Keeping in view the assumptions of the proposed study data collected for the main

study were subjected to different statistical analyses in this step. These analyses included

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of Reliability to account for various scales and subscale in

order to ascertaining the internal consistency of various instruments of the study. Pearson

correlation illustrated pattern of relationship among the variables. Multiple and hierarchical

regression analyses accounted for hypotheses testing. Finally, multivariate analysis followed

by univariate analyses was computed to explore the effect of the demographics on the various

variables of study. SPSS-22 version was used to compute the proposed analyses. Findings of

main study have been presented in this section.

108

Table 7

Descriptive and Psychometric Properties for Scales of the Present Study (N = 494)


TRF 76.92 10.59 20 .90 1-5 3.70-4.06 .23

TRS 41.34 4.51 8 .76 1-5 3.70-4.06 -.39

POP 47.85 7.05 14 .74 1-5 1.97-4.00 -.47

GPB 7.11 2.04 2 .71 1-5 3.49-3.62 -.49

GATGA 25.47 4.99 7 .76 1-5 3.26-4.00 -.46

PPP 15.26 3.40 5 .71 1-5 2.02-2.97 .05

OCB 93.66 9.35 24 .81 1-5 3.54-4.27 -1.26

Sportsmanship 18.53 3.66 5 .70 1-5 3.54-4.14 -.43

Civic virtue 15.45 2.43 5 .63 1-5 3.79-3.95 -.19

Conscientiousness

19.83 7.78 4 .70 1-5 3.77-4.05 -.60

Courtesy 18.84 2.84 5 .62 1-5 3.71-4.27 -.40

Altruism 20.06 2.72 5 .61 1-5 2.35-3.94 -.25

AC 32.96 5.89 6 .78 1-7 5.39-5.72 -.87

Job Involvement 38.33 5.39 10 .80 1-5 3.40-4.02 -.93


politics; GPB = general political behavior; GATGA = go-along-to-get-ahead; PPP = pay and promotion

policies; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; AC = effective commitment.

Table 7 depicts means and standard deviations for all variables of present study.

Table 7 also demonstrates alpha coefficients (internal consistency index) for all construct

scales and sub-scales of the current study. Table 7 shows that all main scales achieved

satisfactory alpha that ranged between .74 for POP to .90 for Transformational leadership.

The low alpha reliabilities of sub-scales were also found to be reasonable ranging between

.61 to .76.

109

Table 8

Correlation Matrix Computed for Study Variables (N = 494)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 -- .69*** .10 -.12 -.16* -.09 .27** .14* .16* .37** .61** .15** .35*** .39***

2 _ -- .09 -.06 .07 .10 .16* .25* .19* .24* .31** .10 .37*** .28**

3 -- -- -- .53*** .78*** .32*** -.14* -.25* -.19* -.25* -.30** -.15* -.17* -.25**

4 -- -- -- -- .48** .22* -.23* -.21* -.12* .04 -.14* -.02 -.14* -.15*

5 -- -- -- -- -- -.28** -.16* -.20* -.37** -.23* -.43** -.09* -.22* -.23*

6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -.17* -.19* -.05 -.04 -.16* .04 -20* -.33**

7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .68*** .35*** .37*** .11* .55** .17* .23*

8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .22* .07 .23* .17* .28* .18*

9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .37* .24** .16* .29* .28*

10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .31** .29* .23* -.25**

11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .17* .26* .34**

12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .18* .21*

13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .36***

14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Note. 1 = transformational leadership; 2 = transactional leadership; 3 = perceived organizational politics; 4 = general political behavior; 5 = go-along-to-get-

ahead; 6 = pay and promotion policies; 7 = organizational citizenship behavior; 8 = sportsmanship; 9 = civic virtue; 10 = conscientiousness; 11 = courtesy; 12 =

altruism; 13 = affective commitment; 14 = job involvement.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

110

Table 8 presents the bivariate zero-order correlations between the constructs

operationalized for the present study. Transformational and transactional leaderships yield

weak or negative correlations with POP and its construct scales, whereas significant positive

correlations with OCB and its constructs except altruism. Table 3 demonstrates desired

pattern of significant negative relationship between overall scores of POP and OCB.

111

Table 9

Descriptive and Psychometric Properties for Sample of the Heads of University Departments

on Leadership Styles (N =57)


TRF 83.92 8.82 20 .85 1-5 3.52-4.51 -.79

TRS 48.33 3.45 8 .65 1-5 1.86-4.35 -.20

Note. TRF = transformational leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; Skew = skewness.

Table 9 demonstrates mean and standard deviations, alpha coefficients of leadership

styles computed from the data of heads of university departments. Table 9 also displays

actual and potential range and skewness for the variables, which is indicating that it is not

restricted range and showing appropriate variability.

112

Table 10

Comparison of Leadership Styles of University Departmental Heads and Teachers on

Transformational and Transactional Styles (N = 551)

HODs (n = 57) Teachers (n = 494) 95% CI

Cohen’s

d LS

M SD M SD t(549) p

LL UL

TRF 83.92 8.82 76.92 10.60 4.41 .000 -5.45 -2.34 .72

TRS 48.33 3.45 41.34 6.48 13.94 .000 -3.87 -.89 1.35

Note. HODs = heads of departments; LS = leadership styles; TRF = transformational leadership; TRS =

transactional leadership.

Results in Table 10 showed the mean differences on TRF and TRS between actual

leadership styles of heads of university departments and perceived leadership styles of

university teachers. The mean differences are found to be significant on TRF and TRS. It

implies that actual and perceived leadership styles have accounted for significant differences

and perceived leadership styles of university teachers have high mean scores as compared to

heads of university departments.

113

Table 11

Correlation Matrix for Leadership Styles and Their Sub-factors (N = 494)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 -- .69* .84* .85* .65* .83* .87* .82* .67*

2 _ -- .66* .69* .36* .65* .72* .83* .81*

3 -- -- -- .63* .53* .59* .70* .68* .58*

4 -- -- -- -- .47* .64* .66* .70* .59*

5 -- -- -- -- -- .47* .51* .50* .42*

6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .63* .67* .56*

7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .73* .56*

8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .59*

9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

a .90 .76 .62 .70 .71 .63 .70 .72 .61

M 76.92 41.34 15.47 15.46 14.05 15.07 15.16 15.53 15.26

SD 10.59 4.51 2.42 2.40 1.83 2.48 2.72 2.52 2.47

Skew -.23- -.39 .93 1.04 1.21 .43 1.35 1.32 1.08

Note. 1 = transformational leadership; 2 = transactional leadership; 3 = idealized influence (attributes); 4 = idealized influence (behaviors); 5 = inspirational motivation; 6 = intellectual stimulation; 7 = individualized

consideration; 8 = contingent reward; 9 = management-by-exception-active.

*p < .001.

Table 11 illustrates the Pearson correlation for the sub-constructs of transformational

and transaction leadership styles that are operationalized for the current study. Management

by exception passive sub-scale of transactional leadership shows significant with overall

leadership styles and all of their sub-scales.

Table 11 also demonstrates mean, standard deviation, alpha coefficients and skewness

foe all the variables. Alpha coefficients ranged between .61, for management-by-exception

active, to .90 for transformational leadership style.

114

Table 12

Multiple Regression Analysis of Leadership Styles Predicting Organizational citizenship

Behavior, Affective Commitment and Job Involvement (N = 494)

Models OCB Affective Commitment Job Involvement

Predictor

Variable β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2

TRF .12*

.07

.21***

.19

.22***

.14

TRS .19** .36*** .21***

Note. TRF = transformational leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; OCB = organizational behavior; AC =

affective commitment; JI = job involvement

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 12 summarizes the results of multiple regressions that were carried out to

investigate the contribution of leadership styles in dependent variable of the present study.

Table 12 suggests that 7% of the variance in OCB can be designated to transformational and

transactional leadership styles (R2 = .07) and overall the model was significant {F (2, 492) =

10.10, p < .001} and among the predictors, TRF (β = .12, t = 1.51, p < .05) and TRS (β =.19,

t = 2.54, p < .001) were found to be significant positive predictors of OCB.

Table 12 also demonstrates the effect of both leadership styles on affective

commitment and explained that 19% of the variance (R2 = .19). Overall the model was

significant {F (2, 492) = 37.59, p < .001} and among the predictors TRF (β = .21, t = 2.89, p

< .001) and TRS (β =.36, t = 5.23, p < .001) were found to be significant positive predictors

of affective commitment.

Finally Table 12 explains the 14% of variance in job involvement (R2 = .14) that was

attributed to TRF (β = .22, t = 2.90, p < .001) and TRS (β = .21, t = 2.93, p < .001). On the

whole the model was significant {F (2, 492) = 26.52, p < .001}.

115

Table 13

Multiple Regression Analysis of Transformational Leadership Constructs Predicting

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Affective Commitment and Job Involvement (N = 494)


Predictor


IA .13*

.084

.25***

.113

.31***

.133

IB .12* .06 .09*

IM .14** .14** .13*

IS .10* .12* .11*

IC .08 .16** .07

Note. IA = Idealized influence (attributes); IB = Idealized influence (behaviors); IM = Inspirational motivation;

IS = Intellectual stimulation; IC = Individualized consideration; OCB = Organizational citizenship behavior.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 13 demonstrates the results of multiple regressions that were computed to

investigate the contribution of the sub constructs of TRF in dependent variables of the current

study. Table 14 imply that 8.4% of the variance in OCB can be designated to TRF constructs

(R2 = .084). Overall the model is significant {F (5, 489) = 15.99, p < .001} and among the

predictors, IA (β = .13, t = 2.49, p < .05), IB (β = .12, t = 2.44, p < .05), IM (β = .14, t = 2.66,

p < .01), and IS (β = .10, t = 1.96, p < .05) were found to be significant positive predictors of

OCB.

Table 13 also presents the effect of TRF constructs on affective commitment and

model explains 11.3% of the variance (R2 = .113). Overall the model was significant {F (5,

489) = 16.16, p < .001} and among the predictors IA (β = .25, t = 3.94, p < .001), IM (β =

.14, t = 2.56, p < .01), IS (β = .12, t = 2.68, p < .05), and IC (β = .16, t = 3.37, p < .01) were

found to be significant positive predictors of affective commitment.

116

Finally Table 13 elucidates the 13.3% of variance in job involvement (R2 = .133) that

is attributed to IA (β = .31, t = 4.94, p < .001), IB (β = .09, t = 1.98, p < .05), IM (β = .13, t =

2.18, p < .05), and IS (β = .11, t = 2.24, p < .05). Overall the model yields significant findings

{F (5, 489) = 16.16, p < .001}.

117

Table 14

Multiple Regression Analysis of Transactional Leadership Constructs Predicting

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Affective Commitment and Job Involvement (N = 494)


Predictor


CR .16**

.094

.15**

.176

.17**

.118

MBE-A .04 -.03 .13*

Note. CR = contingent reward; MBE-A = management-by-exception-active; OCB = Organizational citizenship

behavior

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 14 summarizes the results of multiple regression analyses that are carried out to

examine the contribution of constructs of TRS in dependent variable of the present study.

Table 15 imply that 9.4% of the variance in OCB can be designated to TRS constructs (R2 =

.094) and overall the model elucidates significant results {F (3, 491) = 12.58, p < .001} and

among the predictors, CR (β = .16, t = 2.81, p < .01) is found to be significant predictors of

OCB.

Table 14 also displays the effect of TRS constructs on affective commitment and

elucidate that 17.6% of the variance (R2 = .176) is contributed by TRS constructs. Overall the

model has been found significant {F (3, 491) = 35.95, p < .001}. Results reveal that and

among the predictors CR positively (β = .15, t = 2.85, p < .01), predicting affective

commitment.

Finally Table 14 explains that 11.8% of variance in job involvement (R2 = .118) that

is attributed to CR (β = .17, t = 3.06, p < .01), GPB (β = -.14, t = 2.93, p < .001), MBE-A (β

= .13, t = 2.45, p < .05). Overall the model yields significant findings {F (3, 491) = 23.04, p

< .001}.

118

Table 15

Multiple Regression Analysis of Perceived Organizational Politics Predicting Organizational

Citizenship Behavior, Affective Commitment and Job Involvement (N = 494)


Predictor Variable β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2

POP -.16**

.08

-.10*

.11

-.12**

.14

GPB -.14* -.12* -.14**

GATGA -.18** -.10* -.20***

PPP -.15** -.31*** -.22***

Note. POP = perceived organizational politics; GPB = general political behavior; GATGA = go-along-to-get-

ahead; PPP = pay and promotions policies; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 15 depicts the results of multiple regressions that were carried out to explore

the contribution of POP in dependent variables of the present study. Table 16 imply that 8%

of the variance in OCB can be designated to POP and its constructs (R2 = .08) and overall the

model was significant {F (4, 490) = 12.36, p < .001} and among the predictors, POP overall

(β = -.16, t = 2.69, p < .01), GPB (β = -.14, t = 1.78, p < .05), GATGA (β = -.18, t = 3.44, p <

.01), and PPP (β = -.15, t = 3.37, p < .01) were found to be significant negative predictors of

OCB.

Table 15 also displays the effect of POP and its constructs on affective commitment

and explained that 11% of the variance (R2 = .11). Overall the model was significant {F (4,

490) = 19.61, p < .001} and among the predictors POP overall (β = -.10, t = 1.98, p < .05),

GPB (β =-.12, t = 2.55, p < .01), GATGA (β = -.10, t = 1.48, p < .05), and PPP (β = -.13, t =

7.37, p < .001) were found to be significant negative predictors of affective commitment.

Finally Table 15 elucidates the 14% of variance in job involvement (R2 = .14) that

was attributed to POP overall (β = -.12, t = 2.47, p < .01), GPB (β = -.14, t = 2.93, p < .001),

GATGA (β = -.20, t = 3.87, p < .001), and PPP (β = -.22, t = 5.24, p < .001). Overall the

model was significant {F (4, 490) = 15.68, p < .001}.

119

Table 16 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics and

General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Organizational



Model 1 Predictor ∆R2 β

Step 1 TRF .04 .20***

Step 2 POP

TRF

.05 -.13***

.20***

Step 3 POP × TRF .06 .08*

Model 2

Step 1

Total R2

TRS

.15

.05

.22***

Step 2 POP

TRS

.06

-.12**

.20***

Step 3 POP × TRS .07 .09*

Total R2 .18

Model 3

Step 1

TRF

.04

.20***

Step 2 GPB

TRF

.06

-.15***

.20***

Step 3 GPB × TRF .07 .14**

Total R2 .17

Model 4

Step 1

TRS

.047

.22***

Step 2 GPB

TRS

.063

-.13***

.21***

Step 3 GPB × TRS .074 .11*

Total R2 .184

Note. TRF = transformational Leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; OCB = organizational citizenship

behavior; POP = perceived organizational politics; GPB = general political behavior

120

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 16 summarizes the results for moderating role of perceived organizational

politics (POP) and general political behavior (GPB) in relationship between leadership styles

and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

Model 1 shows hierarchical regression analysis for predicting OCB moderated by

POP in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step is statistically

significant {∆R2 =.04, F (1, 493) = 20.64, p < 001} comprising of TRF, which is significantly

predicting OCB in positive direction (β = .22, t = 4.54, p <. 001). Second step of model 1 is

also found to be significant {F (2, 492) = 14.51, p < 001} where TRF is (β = .20, t = 4.63, p <

.001) positively and POP negatively (β = -.13, t = 2.84, p < .001) predicting OCB. Step 2

explained significant variance {∆R2 =.05, ∆F (1, 491) = 8.09, p < .001}. Step 3 of model 1

accounted for product of independent and moderator variables on outcome variable. The step

was found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) = 9.76, p < .05}. Product of TRF and

POP significantly predicted OCB ({β = .08, t = 2.53, p < .05}). This interactive effect added

1% variance in 3rd step {∆R2 =.06, ∆F (1, 490) = 2.28, p < .05}. The Figure 8 presented

below shows the moderation analysis with its significant interaction effect.

Model 2 of the Table 16 comprises in terms of interaction of transactional leadership

and perceived organizational politics. Regression analysis has been perfromed in three steps

and all three steps are found to be significant. In first step {∆R2 =.05, F (1, 493) = 25.46, p <

001} transactional leadership (TRS) is positively predicting OCB (β = .22, t = 5.05, p < .001)

and it indicates 5% variance in OCB. In step 2 POP and TRS both were entered and step is

found statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 16.75, p < 001}. As obvious from beta values that

POP negatively (β = -.12, t = 4.63, p < .001), whereas TRS is (β = .16, t = 2.55, p < .001)

positively predicting OCB. This step significantly describes 1% additional varraince {∆R2

=.06, ∆F (1, 491) = 7.69, p < .001}. Finally step 3 demonstrated the interaction effect of

POP and TRS on outcome variable and this step has been found to be statistically significant

{F (3, 491) = 12.16, p < .05} and the interaction of POP and TRS significantly predicted

OCB {β = .09, t = 1.59, p < .05}. This interactive effect added 1% variance in step {∆R2

=.07, ∆F (1, 490) = 2.85, p < .05}. The Figure 9 presented below shows the graphic

description of moderation analysis with its significant interaction effect.

121

Model 3 of Table 17 shows hierarchical regression analysis for predicting OCB

moderated by GPB in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step is

statistically significant {∆R2 =.04, F (1, 493) = 20.63, p < 001} comprising of TRF, which is

significantly predicting OCB in positive direction (β = .20, t = 4.53, p <. 001). Second step of

model 3 is also found to be significant {F (2, 492) = 16.72, p < 001} where TRF is (β = .20, t

= 4.65, p < .001) positively and POP negatively (β = -.15, t = 3.51, p < .001) predicting OCB.

Step 2 explained significant additional variance {∆R2 =.06, ∆F (1, 491) = 12.33, p < .001}.

Step 3 of model 3 accounted for product of independent and moderator variables on criterion

variable. The step was found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) = 11.55, p < .05}.

Product of TRF and GPB significantly predicted OCB ({β = -.14, t = 1.09, p < .05}). This

interactive effect added 1% variance in 3rd step {∆R2 =.07, ∆F (1, 490) = 2.99, p < .05}. The

Figure 10 illustrate plot below showing the moderation analysis with its significant

interaction effect.

Model 4 of the Table 17 comprises a step in terms of interaction of TRS and GPB.

Regression analysis has been perfromed in three steps and all three steps are found to be

significant. Step 1 yields significant Models {∆R2 =.045, F (1, 493) = 25.47, p < 001}

transactional leadership (TRS) is positively predicting OCB (β = .22, t = 5.04, p < .001) and

it indicates 4.5% variance in OCB. In step 2 GPB and TRS both has been entered and step is

found statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 17.56, p < 001}. Beta values indicate that GPB

negatively (β = -.13, t = 3.03, p < .001), whereas TRS is (β = .21, t = 4.82, p < .001)

positively predicting OCB. This step significantly demonstrate additional varraince {∆R2

=.063, ∆F (1, 491) = 9.23, p < .001}. Finally step 3 demonstrated the interaction effect of

GPB and TRS on outcome variable and this step has been found to be statistically significant

{F (3, 491) = 12.01, p < .05} and the interaction of GPB and TRS significantly predicted

OCB {β = -.11, t = 2.76, p < .05}. This interactive effect added significant variance in step

{∆R2 =.074, ∆F (1, 490) = 3.92, p < .05}. The Figure 11 depicts the graphic presentation of

the moderation analysis with its significant interaction effect.

122

Figure 8. Interactive effect of transformational leadership and perceived organizational

politics on organizational citizenship behavior.

Figure 8 is showing the moderating role of perceived organizational politics (POP) in

relation between transformational leadership (TRF) and organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB). The slope of the regression line shows that the positive relationship between TRF

and OCB is much stronger at high level of POP. When POP is low, TRF and OCB are still

positively related but the slope of line is not that steeper as it is in case of high POP. Thus

high POP may moderate to increase the positive relationship between TRF and OCB.

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Low TRF High TRFOrg

an

izati

on

al C

itiz

ensh

ip B

ehavio

r

Low POP

High POP

123

Figure 9. Interactive effect of transactional leadership and perceived

organizational politics on organizational citizenship

behavior.

Figure 9 is showing the moderating role of perceived organizational politics (POP) in

relation between transactional leadership (TRF) and organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB). The slope of the regression line describes that the positive relationship between TRS

and OCB is much stronger when POP is high. When POP is low, TRS and OCB are still

shows positive relation but the slope line is not that as steeper as in case of high POP. Thus

high POP may moderate to enhance the positive relationship between TRS and OCB.

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Low TRS High TRS

Org

an

izati

on

al C

itiz

ensh

ip B

ehavio

r

Low POP

High POP

124

Figure 10. Interactive effect of transformational leadership and general political behavior

on organizational citizenship behavior.

It is evident from Figure 10 that general political behavior (GPB) is moderating the


(OCB). The plots are revealing that the positive relationship between TRF and OCB is

relatively much stronger when GPB is high. On the other hand although TRF and OCB are

still showing positive relation but the slope line is not much steeper when GPB is low. Thus

it is safe to infer that high GPB may moderate to strengthen the positive relationship between

TRF and OCB.

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Low TRF High TRF

Org

an

izati

on

al C

itiz

ensh

ip B

ehavio

r

Low GPB

High GPB

125

Figure 11. Interactive effect of transactional leadership and general political behavior

on organizational citizenship behavior.

Figure 11 demonstrates the moderating role of general political behavior (GPB) in

relation to transactional leadership (TRS) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

The plots are enlightening that the positive relationship between TRS and OCB is relatively

much stronger when GPB is high. On the other hand although TRF and OCB are still

showing positive relation but the slope line is not much steeper when GPB is low. Thus it is

safe to summarize that high level of GPB may moderate to strengthen the positive

relationship between TRS and OCB.

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Low TRS High TRS

Org

an

iza

tio

na

l C

itiz

ensh

ip B

eha

vio

rLow GPB

High GPB

126

Table 17 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of go-along-to-get-ahead and pay and

promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Organizational




Step 1 TRF .047 .20***

Step 2 GATGA

TRF

.076 -.18***

.20***

Step 3 GATGA × TRF .074 -.02

Model 2

Step 1

Total R2

TRS

.197

.044

.22***

Step 2 GATGA

TRS

.071

-.18**

.17***

Step 3 GATGA × TRS .070 -.03

Total R2 .185

Model 3

Step 1

TRF

.038

.20***

Step 2 PPP

TRF

.052

-.13***

.18***

Step 3 PPP × TRF .075 .17***

Total R2 .162

Model 4

Step 1

TRS

.047

.22***

Step 2 PPP

TRS

.058

-.12***

.19***

Step 3 PPP × TRS .080 .16***

Total R2 .185

Note. TRF = transformational Leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; OCB = organizational citizenship

behavior; GATGA = go-along-to-get-ahead; PPP = pay and promotion policies.

127

*p > .05. **p > .01. ***p > .001.

Table 17 summarizes the results for moderating role of go-along-to-get-ahead

(GATGA) and pay and promotion policies (PPP) in relationship between leadership styles

and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

Model 1 shows hierarchical regression analysis for predicting OCB moderated by

GATGA in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step is statistically

significant {∆R2 =.038, F (1, 493) = 20.63, p < .001} comprising of TRF, which is

significantly predicting OCB in positive direction (β = .22, t = 4.54, p < .001). Second step of

model 1 is also found to be significant {F (2, 492) = 21.28, p < .001} where TRF (β = .20, t =

4.12, p < .001) and GATGA (β = .20, t = 2.84, p < .001) are positively predicting OCB. Step

2 explained significant variance {∆R2 =.076, ∆F (1, 491) = 21.07, p < .001}. Step 3 was

found to be non significant {F (3, 491) = 14.28, p = n.s} and does not yield additional

significant variance {∆R2 =.077, ∆F (1, 490) = .22, p < .05}.

Model 2 of the Table 17 comprises a step in terms of interaction of TRS and

GATGA. Regression analysis exhibits first step is signigicant {∆R2 =.05, F (1, 493) = 25.46,

p < .001}, where transactional leadership (TRS) is positively predicting OCB (β = .22, t =

5.04, p < .001) and it indicates 4.4% variance in OCB. In step 2 GATGA and TRS both were

entered and step is found statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 21.17, p < .001}. Beta values

represent that GATGA (β = .18, t = 4.01, p < .001), and TRS are (β = .16, t = 2.55, p < .001)

positively predicting OCB. This step describes significant additional varraince {∆R2 =.071,

∆F (1, 491) = 16.11, p < .001}. Finally step 3 demonstrates the interaction effect of GATGA

and TRS on outcome variable and this step has been found to be statistically non significant

{F (3, 491) = 14.09, p < .05} and the interaction of POP and GATGA is found to be non

significant {∆R2 =.070, ∆F (1, 490) = -.03, p = n.s.}.

Model 3 of Table 17 shows hierarchical regression analysis for predicting OCB

moderated by PPP in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step is

statistically significant {∆R2 =.04, F (1, 493) = 20.63, p < .001} comprising of TRF, which is

significantly predicting OCB in positive direction (β = .20, t = 4.53, p < .001). Second step of

model 3 is also found to be significant {F (2, 492) = 14.59, p < .001} where TRF is (β = .18,

128

t = 3.95, p < .001) positively and PPP negatively (β = -.13, t = 2.87, p < .001) predicting

OCB. Step 2 explains significant additional variance {∆R2 =.056, ∆F (1, 491) = 8.23, p <

.001}. Step 3 of model 3 accounts for product of independent and moderator variables on

criterion variable. The step is found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) = 14.30, p <

.001}. Product of TRF and PPP significantly predicts OCB (β = .17, t = 3.60, p < .05). This

interactive effect added significant change variance in 3rd step {∆R2 =.075, ∆F (1, 490) =

13.00, p < .001}. The Figure 12 in given below shows the graphic display of significant

interaction effect.

Table 17 also portrays model 4 that is computed to find out interaction effect of TRS

and PPP on OCB. Regression analysis has been perfromed in three steps and all three steps

are found to be significant. Step 1 yields significant results F (1, 493) = 25.46, p < .001}

where TRS is positively predicting OCB (β = .22, t = 5.04, p < .001) and it indicates 4.7%

variance in OCB (∆R2 =.047). In step 2 PPP and TRS both has been entered and step is

found statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 16.15, p < .001}. Beta values indicate that PPP

negatively (β = -.12, t = 2.55, p < .001), whereas TRS is (β = .19, t = 4.31, p < .001)

positively predicting OCB. This step significantly demonstrates additional varraince {∆R2

=.058, ∆F (1, 491) = 6.54, p < .001}. Finally step 3 demonstrates the interaction effect of

PPP and TRS on outcome variable and this step has also been found to be statistically

significant {F (3, 491) = 15.39, p < .001} and the interaction of GPB and TRS significantly

predicts OCB {β = .16, t = 3.61, p < .001}. This interactive effect added significant variance

in 3rd step {∆R2 =.080, ∆F (1, 490) = 13.05, p < .001}. The Figure 13 presented below shows

the slopes of moderation analysis with its significant interaction effect.

129

Figure 12. Interactive effect of transformational leadership and pay and

promotion policies on organizational citizenship behavior.

Figure 12 indicates the moderating role of pay and promotion policies (PPP) in


(OCB). Regression slopes are illustrating that the positive relationship between TRS and

OCB is quite stronger when level of PPP is high. On the other hand, although TRF and OCB

are showing almost no relationship, in case of low PPP. Therefore it is safe to deduce that

high level of PPP evidently moderates to increase the positive relationship between TRF and

OCB.

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Low TRF High TRF

Org

an

izati

on

al C

itiz

ensh

ip B

ehavio

r

Low PPP

High PPP

130

Figure 13. Interactive effect of transactional leadership and pay-and-

promotion-policies on organizational citizenship behavior.

Figure 13 displays that pay and promotion policies (PPP) are moderating the relation

between transformational leadership (TRS) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

Regression plots are demonstrating that the positive relationship between TRS and OCB is

pretty stronger when level of PPP is high, whereas in case the low level of PPP the

relationship between TRS and OCB is negligibly positive. It is therefore safe to construe that

the high level of PPP clearly moderates to raise the positive relationship between TRS and

OCB.

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Low TRS High TRS

Org

an

izati

on

al C

itiz

ensh

ip B

ehavio

r

Low PPP

High PPP

131


General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective


Affective Commitment


Step 1 TRF .091 .31***

Step 2 POP

TRF

.101 -.09*

.31***

Step 3 POP × TRF .125 .12**

Model 2

Step 1

Total R2

TRS

.317

.128

.36***

Step 2 POP

TRS

.139

-.11**

.37***

Step 3 POP × TRS .153 .09*

Total R2 .42

Model 3

Step 1

TRS

.128

.36***

Step 2 GPB

TRS

.126

-.01

.36***

Step 3 GPB × TRS .137 .13**

Total R2 .391

Model 4

Step 1

TRF

.096

.31***

Step 2 GPB

TRF

.095

-.03

.31***

Step 3 GPB × TRF .094 -.02

Total R2 .285

Note. TRF = transformational Leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; POP = perceived organizational

politics; GPB = general political behavior; AC = affective commitment.

132

*p > .05. **p > .01. ***p > .001.



and affective commitment (AC).

Model 1 shows hierarchical regression analysis for predicting AC moderated by POP

in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step is statistically significant

{∆R2 =.091, F (1, 493) = 53.95, p < 001} comprising of TRF, which is significantly

predicting OCB in positive direction (β = .31, t = 7.32, p < .001). Second step of model 1 is

also found to be significant {F (2, 492) = 28.81, p < .05} where TRF is positively (β = .31, t

= 4.12, p < .001), whereas POP negatively (β = -.09, t = 2.84, p < .001) predicting AC. Step 2

explains significant unique variance {∆R2 =.101, ∆F (1, 491) = 3.73, p < .05}. Step 3 of

model 1 also presents an interaction of TRF and POP. Overall the step is found to be

significant {F (3, 491) = 19.27, p = .001} and interaction of TRF and POP significantly

predicts AC (β = -.12, t = 1.53, p < .01). Step 3 capitulates additional significant variance

{∆R2 =.125, ∆F (1, 490) = 10.28, p < .05}. The Figure 14 displayed below shows the

significant interaction effect.

Model 2 of the Table 18 portrays findings for moderating role of POP in relationship

of TRS and AC. Regression analysis reveals that first step is signigicant {∆R2 =.128, F (1,

493) = 73.49, p < .001} where transactional leadership (TRS) is positively predicting AC (β

= .36, t = 8.57, p < .001). In step 2 POP and TRS both were entered and step is found

statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 40.86, p < 001}. Beta values represent that TRS

positively (β = .37, t = 8.38, p < .001), and POP has been negatively (β = -.11, t = 2.71, p <

.01) predicting AC. This step significantly describes additional varraince {∆R2 =.139, ∆F (1,

491) = 7.34, p < .001}. Finally step 3 presents the interaction effect of POP and TRS on

criterion variable and this step has been found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) =

27.20, p < .001} suggesting the interaction influence of POP and TRS on AC ((β = -.09, t =

1.88, p < .01). Step 3 causes additional significant variance {∆R2 =.153, ∆F (1, 490) = 10.03,

p = .05}. The Figure 15 presented below elucidates the graphic display of significant

interaction effect.

133

Model 3 of Table 18 shows hierarchical regression analysis for predicting AC

moderated by GPB in relation with transactional leadership (TRS). The first step is

statistically significant {∆R2 =.128, F (1, 493) = 73.40, p < .001} comprising of TRF, which

is significantly predicting AC in positive direction (β = .36, t = 8.57, p < .001). In second step

GPB and TRS variables are entered in predictor list. Overall step is also found to be

significant {F (2, 492) = 36.66, p < .001}, where TRS is found to be significant positive

predictor of AC (β = .36, t = 8.55, p < .001) and GPB institute non significant model (β = -

.01, t = 2.87, p < .001) in prediction of AC. Step 2 does not explain significant additional

variance {∆R2 =.126, ∆F (1, 491) = .00, p = n.s.}. Step 3 accounts for an interaction of TRS

and GPB. The step is found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) = 27.02, p < .001},

where product of TRS and GPP significantly predicts AC (β = -.13, t = 2.61, p < .01). This


6.85, p < .01}. The Figure 16 given below visualize the this significant interaction effect.

Table 18 also portrays model 4 that is computed to examine the interaction effect of

TRF and GPB on AC. Step 1 suggests significant results F (1, 493) = 53.59, p < .001} where

TRF is positively predicting AC (β = .31, t = 7.32, p < .001) and it indicates 9.6% variance in

AC (∆R2 =.096). In step 2 GPB and TRS both has been entered and step is found statistically

significant {F (2, 492) = 18.03, p < .001}. Beta values indicate that GPB as a non significant

predictor of AC (β = -.03, t = .62, p = n.s.), whereas TRF (β = .31, t = 7.32, p < .001) is

predicting AC positively. This step does not significantly demonstrates additional varraince

{∆R2 =.095, ∆F (1, 491) = .38, p < .001}. Finally step 3 illustrates the interaction effect of

GPB and TRF on outcome variable and this step is found to be statistically significant {F (3,

491) = 18.03, p < .001} but the interaction effect of GPB and TRF demonstrates non

significant variance in {∆R2 =.094, ∆F (1, 490) = .25, p = n.s.}.

134

Figure 14. Interactive effect of perceived organizational politics and

transformational leadership on affective commitment.

Figure 14 exhibits the interactive effect of perceived organizational politics (POP)

and transformational leadership (TRF) on affective commitment (AC). Slope line of high

level of PPP is explaining that the positive relationship between TRS and AC is more

stronger when level of POP is high, whereas in terms of the low level of POP the relationship

between TRS and AC is slightly positive. Overall the plot yields that the high level of POP

clearly moderates to increase the positive relationship between TRS and AC.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRF High TRF

Aff

ecti

ve C

om

mit

men

tLow POP

High POP

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRS High TRS

Aff

ecti

ve C

om

mit

men

t

Low POP

135


transactional leadership on affective commitment.

Plot in Figure 15 presents the interactive effect of that perceived organizational

politics (POP) and transactional leadership (TRS) on affective commitment (AC). Regression

lines are demonstrating that the positive relationship between TRS and AC has been stronger

enough when level of POP is high, whereas in case the low level of POP the relationship

between TRS and AC is positive but slightly week. It is therefore safe to construe that the

high level of PPP may moderates to raise the positive relationship between TRS and AC.

Figure 16. Interactive effect of general political behavior and transactional

leadership on affective commitment.

Figure 16 demonstrates that general political behavior (GPB) is moderating the

relation between transactional leadership (TRS) and affective commitment (AC). Regression

lines are demonstrating that the positive relationship between TRS and AC is much stronger

when level of GPB is high, but the slope line is not much steeper when GPB is low. It may be

deduced that the high level of GPB moderates to escalate the positive relationship between

TRS and AC.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRS High TRS

Aff

ecti

ve C

om

mit

men

t

Low GPB

High GPB

136


promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment (N

= 494)

Affective Commitment


Step 1 TRF .096 .31***

Step 2 GATGA

TRF

.097 -.05

.31***

Step 3 GATGA × TRF .102 .09*

Model 2

Step 1

Total R2

TRS

.289

.128

.36***

Step 2 GATGA

TRS

.126

.04

.36***

Step 3 GATGA × TRS .135 .10*

Total R2 .389

Model 3

Step 1

TRF

.096

.31***

Step 2 PPP

TRF

.166

-.27***

.26***

Step 3 PPP × TRF .172 .09*

Total R2 .434

Model 4

Step 1

TRS

.128

.36***

Step 2 PPP

TRS

.185

-.25***

.30***

Step 3 PPP × TRS .191 .11**

Total R2 .185

Note. TRF = transformational leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; AC = affective commitment; GATGA

= go-along-to-get-ahead; PPP = pay and promotion policies

137

*p > .05. **p > .01. ***p > .001.



and affective commitment (AC).

Model 1 manifests the moderating influence of GATGA in relationship between

transformational leadership (TRF) and AC. The first step is statistically significant {∆R2

=.096, F (1, 493) = 53.59, p < 001} comprising of TRF, which is significantly predicting AC

in positive direction (β = .31, t = 7.32, p <. 001). Second step of model 1 is also found to be

significant {F (2, 492) = 27.54, p < 001}, where TRF is found significant predictor (β = .31, t

= 7.16, p < .001) and GATGA yields non significant predictor (β = -.05, t = 1.20, p = n.s.) of

AC. Step 2 does not explain significant additional variance {∆R2 =.097, ∆F (1, 491) = 1.44, p

= n.s.}. Step 3 institutes an interaction of TRF and GATGA and is found to be significant {F

(3, 491) = 19.64, p = .001}. Interaction effect significantly predicts outcome variable (β = -

.09, t = 1.88, p < .05) and exhibits additional significant variance {∆R2 =.102, ∆F (1, 490) =

3.55, p < .05}. The Figure 17 presented below visually displays shows this significant

interaction effect.

Model 2 of the Table 19 comprises a step in terms of interaction of transactional

leadership (TRS) and GATGA on outcome variable. Regression analysis shows first step is

signigicant {∆R2 =.128, F (1, 493) = 73.44, p < 001}, where TRS is positively predicting AC

(β = .36, t = 8.57, p < .001) and it indicates 12.8% variance in AC. In step 2 GATGA and

TRS both were entered and step is found statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 36.65, p <

001}. Beta values represent that GATGA in non significant predictor (β = .04, t = 4.01, p <

.001), whereas TRS is significant positive predictor (β = .36, t = 8.32, p < .001) of AC. This

step does not describe significant additional varraince {∆R2 =.126, ∆F (1, 491) = .09, p =

n.s.}. Finally step 3 demonstrates the interaction effect of GATGA and TRS on outcome

variable and this step displays statistically significant findings {F (3, 491) = 25.45, p < .05},

where the interaction of TRS and GATGA is significantly predicting outcome variable (β = -

.10, t = 1.74, p < .05) and demonstrating additional significant variance {∆R2 =.135, ∆F (1,

490) = 3.21, p < .05}. The Figure 18 is visual manifestation of the moderation analysis with

its significant interaction effect.

138

Model 3 of Table 19 shows hierarchical regression analysis for predicting AC,


statistically significant {∆R2 =.096, F (1, 493) = 53.60, p < .001} comprising of TRF, which

is significantly predicting AC in positive direction (β = .31, t = 7.32, p < .001). Second step

of model 3 is also depicting significant findings {F (2, 492) = 49.97, p < .001} where TRF is

positively (β = .26, t = 6.25, p < .001) and PPP negatively (β = -.27, t = 6.47, p < .001)

predicting AC. Step 2 explains significant additional variance {∆R2 =.166, ∆F (1, 491) =

41.90, p < .001}. Third step of model 3 presents interaction effect of independent and

moderator variables on outcome variable. The step is found to be statistically significant {F

(3, 491) = 35.16, p < .001}. Product of TRF and PPP significantly predicts AC ({β = .09, t =

2.18, p < .05}). This interactive effect added significant variance in 3rd step {∆R2 =.172, ∆F

(1, 490) = 4.78, p < .05}. The Figure 19 describes this moderation analysis with its

significant interaction effect.

Tables 19 also presents model 4 that is computed to find out interaction effect of TRS

and PPP on AC. Regression analysis has been perfromed in three steps and all three steps are

found to be significant. Step 1 yields significant results F (1, 493) = 53.60, p < 001} where

TRS is positively predicting AC (β = .36, t = 8.57, p < .001) and it indicates 12.8% variance

in AC (∆R2 =.128). In step 2 PPP and TRS both has been entered and step is found

statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 56.95, p < 001}. Beta values indicate that PPP

negatively (β = -.25, t = 5.94, p < .001), whereas TRS is positively (β = .30, t = 7.18, p <

.001) predicting OCB. This step significantly demonstrates change in varraince {∆R2 =.191,

∆F (1, 491) = 35.34, p < .001}. Finally step 3 demonstrates the interaction effect of PPP and

TRS on outcome variable and this step has also been found to be statistically significant {F

(3, 491) = 39.81, p < .001} and the interaction of GPB and TRS significantly predicts AC {β

= .11, t = 2.65, p < .05}. This interactive effect contributes significant variance in 3rd step

{∆R2 =.191, ∆F (1, 490) = 4.59, p < .001}. The Figure 20 visualizes this moderation analysis

with its significant interaction effect.

139

Figure 17. Interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead and transformational leadership

on affective commitment.

Figure 17 unveils the interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA) and

transformational leadership (TRF) on affective commitment. Regression plots are

demonstrating that the positive relationship between TRF and AC is relatively stronger when

level of GATGA is high, but tends to decrease in case the low level of GATGA. It is

therefore safe to construe that the high level of GATGA evidently moderates to elevate the

positive relationship between TRF and AC.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRF High TRF

Aff

ecti

ve C

om

mit

men

t

Low GATGA

High GATGA

140

Figure 18. Interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead and transactional

leadership on affective commitment.

Figure 18 displays that go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA) tends to moderating the

relation between transformational leadership (TRS) and affective commitment (AC).

Regression plots are demonstrating that the positive relationship between TRS and AC is

comparatively stronger when level of GATGA is high, whereas in case the low level of

GATGA the relationship between TRS and AC is also positive but not as strong as in the

case of high level of GATGA. Plots indicate high level of GATGA moderates to raise the

positive relationship between TRS and AC.

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Low TRS High TRS

Aff

ecti

ve C

om

mit

men

t

Low GATGA

High GATGA

141

Figure 19. Interactive effect of pay and promotion policies and

transformational leadership on affective commitment.

Regression lines of Figure 19 illustrate that pay and promotion policies (PPP) is

moderating the relation between transformational leadership (TRF) and affective

commitment (AC). Slope line in much steeper in terms of high level of PPP which explains

that the positive relationship between TRF and AC. On other hand in case of the low level of

PPP this relationship is positive but weaker in nature. It is therefore safe to assume that the

high level of PPP clearly moderates to elevate the positive relationship between TRS and

AC.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRF High TRF

Aff

ecti

ve C

om

mit

em

en

t

Low PPP

High PPP

142

Figure 20. Interactive effect of pay and promotion policies and

transactional leadership on affective commitment.

Plot of Figure 20 shows the interactive effect of pay and promotion policies (PPP)

and transactional leadership (TRS) on affective commitment (AC). Slope line in much

steeper in terms of high level of PPP which elucidates that the positive relationship between

TRS and AC. While in case of the low level of PPP this relationship is also positive but that

is relatively weak. It may be safe to conclude that the high level of PPP noticeably moderates

to raise the positive relationship between TRS and AC.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Low TRS High TRS

Aff

ecti

ve C

om

mit

men

tLow PPP

High PPP

143


General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Job Involvement

(N = 494)

Job Involvement


Step 1 TRF .120 .35***

Step 2 POP

TRF

.121 .03

.35***

Step 3 PA × TRF .136 .13**

Model 2

Step 1

Total R2

TRS

.377

.124

.35***

Step 2 POP

TRS

.122

-.02

.35***

Step 3 POP × TRS .128 .09*

Total R2 .374

Model 3

Step 1

TRF

.121

.36***

Step 2 GPB

TRF

.122

.08

.35***

Step 3 GPB × TRF .121 .04

Total R2 .364

Model 4

Step 1

TRS

.124

.35***

Step 2 GPB

TRS

.122

.05

.35***

Step 3 GPB × TRS .137 .15**

Total R2 .383


politics; GPB = general political behavior; JI = job involvement.

144

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.



and job involvement (AC).

Model 1 shows hierarchical regression analysis that is computed to predict JI

moderated by POP in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step indicates

statistically significant findings {∆R2 =.120, F (1, 493) = 69.12, p < 001}. TRF is found

significant predictor of OCB in positive direction (β = .35, t = 8.31, p < .001). Second step of

model 1 is also found to be significant {F (2, 492) = 34.76, p < .001}, where TRF predicts JI

positively (β = .35, t = 8.32, p < .001), whereas POP suggests non significant results (β = .03,

t = .68, p = n.s). Step 2 does not yield significant unique variance {∆R2 =.121, ∆F (1, 491) =

.46, p = n.s.}. Step 3 presents an interaction of TRF and POP. Overall the step is found to be

significant {F (3, 491) = 26.88, p = .001} and interaction of TRF and POP significantly

predicts JI (β = -.13, t = 3.14, p < .01). Step 3 contributes additional significant variance {∆R2

=.136, ∆F (1, 490) = 9.87, p < .01}. The Figure 21 displayed below shows the moderation

analysis with its significant interaction effect.

Model 2 of the Table 20 represents findings for moderating role of POP in

relationship of TRS and JI. Hierarchical regression analysis reveals that first step is

signigicant {∆R2 =.124, F (1, 493) = 70.54, p < 001}. Step 1 also suggests that transactional

leadership (TRS) is positively predicting AC (β = .35, t = 8.40, p < .001). In second step

POP and TRS both are entered and step is found statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 35.20,

p < .001}. Beta values indicates that TRS is positive predictor of outcome variable (β = .35, t

= 8.38, p < .001), and POP depicts non significant results (β = -.02, t = .04, p = n.s.) in

predicting JI. This step does not add significant varraince {∆R2 =.122, ∆F (1, 491) = .02, p =

n.s.}. Finally step 3 presents the interaction effect of POP and TRS on criterion variable and

this step has been found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) = 25.13, p < .001} and

suggests the interaction influence of POP and TRS on JI ((β = .09, t = 2.12, p < .05). Step 3

donates additional significant variance {∆R2 =.128, ∆F (1, 490) = 4.49, p = .05}. The Figure

22 yields this moderation analysis with its significant interaction effect.

145

Model 3 of Table 20 shows hierarchical regression analysis for predicting JI

moderated by GPB in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step is

statistically significant {∆R2 =.121, F (1, 493) = 69.12, p < .001}, where TRF significantly

predicts JI in positive direction (β = .36, t = 8.34, p < .001). Step 2 comprising GPB and TRF

is also found to be significant {F (2, 492) = 35.25, p < .001}, but GPB is found to be non

significant predictor of JI (β = .08, t = 1.17, p = n.s.). Step 2 does not explain significant

additional variance {∆R2 =.122, ∆F (1, 491) = .82, p = n.s.}. Step 3 accounts for an

interaction of TRF and GPB. The step is also found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491)

= 33.79, p < .001}, where product of TRF and GPP yields non significant findings (β = .04, t

= .91, p = n.s.) in prediction of JI. This interactive effect also attributes non significant

change variance in 3rd step {∆R2 =.121, ∆F (1, 490) = .82, p = .n.s}.

Table 20 finally portrays model 4 that is computed to examine the interaction effect

of TRS and GPB on JI. Step 1 of these fingings suggests significant results F (1, 493) =

70.54, p < .001} where TRs is positively predicting JI (β = .35, t = 8.40, p < .001) and it

indicates 12.4% variance in AC (∆R2 =.124). In step 2 GPB and TRS both has been entered

and step is found to be statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 37.27, p < .001}. Beta values

indicate that GPB as a non significant predictor of AC (β = .05, t = .36, p = n.s.), whereas

TRS (β = .35, t = 8.34, p < .001) is predicting JI positively. This step does not significantly

demonstrates additional varraince {∆R2 =.122, ∆F (1, 491) = .13, p = n.s.}. Finally step 3

illustrates the interaction effect of GPB and TRS on outcome variable and this step is found

to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) = 27.01, p < .001} and the product of these variables

contributes significant findings (β = .35, t = 8.34, p < .001) in prediction of JI. This

interactive effect also attributes significant change variance in 3rd step {∆R2 =.137, ∆F (1,

490) = 9.29, p < .05}. The Figure 23 presented below is the visual illustration of the

moderation analysis with its significant interaction effect.

146


transformational leadership on job involvement.

Figure 21 displays the interactive effect of perceived organizational politics (POP)

and transformational leadership (TRF) on job involvement (JI). Regression plots has been

demonstrating that the positive relationship between TRF and JI is relatively stronger in case

of the high level of POP, whereas when the level of POP is low the relationship between TRF

and JI is comparatively weak. It is therefore safe to construe that the high level of POP

moderates to enhance the positive relationship between TRF and JI.

Figure 22. Interactive effect of perceived organizational politics and transactional

leadership on job involvement.

30

32

34

36

38

40

Low TRF High TRF

Jo

b I

nv

olv

em

en

t

Low POP

High POP

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRS High TRS

Jo

b I

nv

olv

em

en

t

Low POP

High POP

147

Figure 22 is meant to explain that perceived organizational politics (POP) is

moderating the relation between transactional leadership (TRS) and job involvement (JI).

Regression lines are demonstrating that the positive relationship between TRS and JI is pretty

stronger when level of POP is high, whereas in case the low level of POP the slope line is

less steeper indicating the weak relationship between TRS and JI. Overall it is safe to deduce

that the high level of POP evidently moderates to increase the positive relationship between

TRS and JI.

Figure 23. Interactive effect of general political behavior and transactional


Figure 23 explains the interactive effect of general political behavior (GPB) and

transactional leadership (TRS) on job involvement (JI). Regression plots tend to demonstrate

that the positive relationship between TRS and JI is fairly strong when level of GPB is high,

whereas in case the low level of GPB the relationship between TRS and JI is still positive but

not as stronger as in case of high GPB. It is therefore safe to construe that the high level of

GPB noticeably moderates to elevate the positive relationship between TRS and JI.

30

32

34

36

38

40

Low TRS High TRS

Jo

b I

nv

olv

em

en

t

Low GPB

High GPB

148


promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Job Involvement (N =

494)

Job Involvement


Step 1 TRF .121 .35***

Step 2 GATGA

TRF

.139 .14***

.34***

Step 3 GATGA × TRF .149 .11**

Model 2

Step 1

Total R2

TRS

.409

.124

.35***

Step 2 GATGA

TRS

.132

.12*

.33***

Step 3 GATGA × TRS .143 .10*

Total R2 .399

Model 3

Step 1

TRF

.121

.35***

Step 2 PPP

TRF

.151

-.18***

.32***

Step 3 PPP × TRF .158 .10*

Total R2 .434

Model 4

Step 1

TRS

.125

.35***

Step 2 PPP

TRS

.151

-.16***

.31***

Step 3 PPP × TRS .159 .09*

Total R2 .435

Note. TRF = transformational leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; JI = job involvement; GATGA = go-

along-to-get-ahead; PPP = pay and promotion policies.

149

*p > .05, **p > .01, ***p > .001.



and job involvement (JI).

Model 1 describes moderating effect of GATGA in relationship of transformational

leadership (TRF) and JI. The first step is statistically significant {∆R2 = .121, F (1, 493) =

69.12, p < .001} comprising of TRF, which is significantly predicting JI in positive direction

(β = .35, t = 8.31, p < .001). Second step of model 1 is also found to be significant {F (2,

492) = 40.91, p < .001} where TRF (β = .34, t = 7.99, p < .001) and GATGA (β = .14, t =

3.36, p < .001) are positively predicting JI. Step 2 explains significant unique variance {∆R2

=.139, ∆F (1, 491) = 11.26, p < .001}. Step 3 presents interaction of TRF and GATGA.

Overall step is found to be significant {F (3, 491) = 29.70, p < .001} and product of TRF and

GATGA predicts JI significantly (β = .09, t = 2.53, p < .05). Interaction effect contributes

additional significant variance {∆R2 =.149, ∆F (1, 490) = 6.37, p < .05}. In below Figure 24

elucidates the moderation analysis with its significant interaction effect.

Model 2 of the Table 21 comprises a step in terms of interaction of TRS and

GATGA. Regression analysis exhibits first step is signigicant {∆R2 =.124, F (1, 493) =

70.54, p < .001}, where transactional leadership (TRS) is positively predicting JI (β = .35, t =

8.40, p < .001) and it indicates 12.4% variance in OCB. In step 2 GATGA and TRS both

were entered and step is found statistically significant {F (2, 492) = 38.48, p < .001}. Beta

values characterize that GATGA (β = .12, t = 2.39, p < .05), and TRS (β = .33, t = 7.69, p <

.001) are predicting OCB positively. This step describes significant additional varraince {∆R2

=.132, ∆F (1, 491) = 5.69, p < .05}. Finally step 3 demonstrates the interaction effect of

GATGA and TRS on outcome variable and this step has also been found to be statistically

significant {F (3, 491) = 26.19, p < .001}. Step 3 also depicts that product of GATGA and

TRF significantly predicts JI (β = .10, t = 2.25, p < .05) and this interaction effect attributes

significant variance {∆R2 =.143, ∆F (1, 490) = 7.56, p < .05}. The Figure 25 is graphic

presentation of this moderation analysis with its significant interaction effect.

150

Model 3 of Table 21 shows hierarchical regression analysis for prediction of JI


statistically significant {∆R2 = .121, F (1, 493) = 69.12, p < .001} comprising of TRF, which

is significantly predicting OCB in positive direction (β = .20, t = 8.31, p < .001). Second step

of model 3 is also found to be significant {F (2, 492) = 44.96, p < .001} where TRF is (β =

.32, t = 7.49, p < .001) positively and PPP negatively (β = -.18, t = 4.28, p < .001) predicting

JI. Step 2 explains significant additional variance {∆R2 =.151, ∆F (1, 491) = 18.36, p < .001}.

Step 3 of model 3 demonstrates effect of the product of independent and moderator variables

on criterion variable. The step is found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) = 31.28, p <

.001}. Product of TRF and PPP significantly predicts JI (β = .09, t = 1.86, p < .05). This


5.46, p < .05}. Figure 26 presented below shows the moderation analysis with its significant

interaction effect.

Table 21 also reveals model 4 that is computed to find out interaction effect of TRS

and PPP on JI. Regression analysis has been perfromed in three steps and all three steps are

found to be significant. Step 1 yields significant results F (1, 493) = 70.54, p < 001} where

TRS is positively predicting JI (β = .35, t = 8.39, p < .001) and it indicates 12.5% variance in

OCB (∆R2 =.125). In step 2 PPP and TRS both has been entered and step exhibits significant

findings {F (2, 492) = 43.79, p < .001}. Beta values indicate that PPP negatively (β = -.16, t

= 3.87, p < .001), whereas TRS is positively (β = .31, t = 7.34, p < .001) predicting JI. This

step significantly demonstrates additional varraince {∆R2 =.151, ∆F (1, 491) = 15.02, p <

.001}. Finally step 3 demonstrates the interaction effect of PPP and TRS on outcome

variable and this step has also been found to be statistically significant {F (3, 491) = 30.70, p

< .001} and the interaction of GPB and TRS significantly predicts JI {β = .09, t = 2.01, p <

.05}. Finally this interactive effect added significant variance in step 3 {∆R2 =.159, ∆F (1,

490) = 4.02, p < .05}. Figure 27 in following is the visual display of this significant

interaction effect.

151

Figure 24. Interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead and transformational


Figure 24 depicts that go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA) tends to moderate the relation

between transformational leadership (TRF) and job involvement (JI). Regression plots

demonstrates that the line of high level of GATGA is much steeper explaining the strong

positive relationship between TRS and JI, whereas in case the low level of GATGA this

relationship is yet positive but relative weaker. It can be safe to construe that the high level of

GATGA is moderating to enhance the positive relationship between TRS and JI.

Figure 25. Interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead and transactional


Figure 25 explains the interactive effect of go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA) and

transactional leadership (TRS) on job involvement (JI). Regression plots are elucidating that

30

32

34

36

38

40

Low TRF High TRF

Jo

b I

nv

olv

em

en

tLow GATGAHigh GATGA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRS High TRS

Jo

b I

nv

olv

em

en

t

Low GATGA

High GATGA

152

the positive relationship between TRS and JI is relatively stronger when level of GATGA is

higher, whereas in case the low level of GATGA this relationship tend to remain slightly

weaker. It is therefore safe to infer that the high level of GATGA tends to moderate to raise

the positive relationship between TRS and JI.

Figure 26. Interactive effect of pay and promotion policies and transformational


Figure 26 shows the interactive effect of pay and promotion policies (PPP) and

transformational leadership (TRF) on job involvement. Regression plots are demonstrating

that the positive relationship between TRF and JI is comparatively stronger when level of

PPP is high. In case the low level of PPP the slope line is not much steeper which indicates

that the relation between TRF and JI is although positive but it is relatively weaker. It may be

safe to conclude that the high level of PPP evidently moderates to elevate the positive

relationship between TRS and JI.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRF High TRF

Jo

b I

nv

olv

em

en

t

Low PPP

High PPP

153

Figure 27. Interactive effect of pay and promotion policies and transactional


Figure 27 demonstrates the interactive effect of pay and promotion policies (PPP) and

transactional leadership (TRS) on job involvement (JI). Regression slope of the high level of

PPP is much steeper that grounds the strong positive relationship between TRS and AC

rather than low level of PPP. It may be safe to deduce that the high level of PPP moderates to

strengthen the positive relationship between TRS and JI.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Low TRS High TRS

JO

b I

nv

olv

em

en

tLow PPP

High PPP

154

Summary of Hypotheses Tests

Statistical analyses which deemed appropriate were applied on the data to test the

predictive hypotheses and Table 23 summarizes the results of hypotheses tests. Main

variables that were operationalized for present study included perceived leadership styles,

perceived organizational politics, organizational citizenship behavior, affective commitment

and job involvement and their respective constructs as well.

Table 22

Summary of Tests of Hypotheses

H. # Hypotheses Status

1. Perceived transformational leadership styles will positively

predict organizational citizenship behavior.

Supported

a. Idealized influence (attributes) will positively predict

organizational citizenship behavior.

Supported

b. Idealized influence (behaviors) would positively predict

organizational citizenship behaviour.

Supported

c. Inspirational motivation would be the positive predictor of

organizational citizenship behaviour.

Supported

d. Intellectual stimulation will positively predict organizational


Supported

e. Individualized consideration will be positive predictor of


Not

supported


predict affective commitment.

Supported

a. Idealized influence (attributes) will positively predict affective

commitment.

Supported

b. Idealized influence (behaviors) would positively predict affective

commitment.

Not

Supported

c. Inspirational motivation would be the positive predictor of

affective commitment.

Supported

d. Intellectual stimulation will positively predict affective Supported

155

commitment.

e. Individualized consideration will be positive predictor of


Supported


predict job involvement.

Supported

a. Idealized influence (attributes) will positively predict job

involvement.

Supported

b. Idealized influence (behaviors) would positively predict job

involvement.

Supported

c. Inspirational motivation would be the positive predictor of job

involvement.

Supported

d. Intellectual stimulation will positively predict job involvement. Supported

e. Individualized consideration will be positive predictor of job

involvement.

Not

Supported

4. Perceived transactional leadership styles will positively predict


Supported

a. Contingent reward will positively predict organizational


Supported

b. Management-by-exception active would positively predict


Not

supported



Supported

a. Contingent reward will positively predict affective commitment. Supported

b. Management-by-exception active would be positive predictor of


Not

supported


job involvement.

Supported

a. Contingent reward will positively predict job involvement. Supported

b. Management-by-exception active would be positive predictor of

job involvement.

Supported

7. Perceived organizational politics will be negative predictor of Supported

156


a. General political behavior will be the negative predictor of


Supported

b. Go-along-to-get-ahead will be the negative predictor of


Supported

c. Pay and promotion policies would negatively predict

organizational citizenship behavior

Supported

8. Perceived organizational politics will be negative predictor of


Supported

a. General political behavior will be the negative predictor of


Supported

b. Go-along-to-get-ahead will be the negative predictor of affective

commitment.

Supported

c. Pay and promotion policies would negatively predict affective

commitment.

Supported

9. Perceived organizational politics will be negative predictor of


Supported

a. General political behavior will be the negative predictor of job

involvement.

Supported

b. Go-along-to-get-ahead will be the negative predictor of job

involvement.

Supported

c. Pay and promotion policies would negatively predict job

involvement.

Supported

10. Perceived organizational politics will moderate between

perceived transformational leadership and organizational

citizenship behavior by escalating their positive relationship

when perceived organizational politics would be high.

Supported

11. General political behavior will moderate between perceived

transformational leadership and organizational citizenship

behavior such as high level of general political behavior will

strengthen their positive relationship

Supported

157

12. High level of go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between

perceived transformational leadership and organizational

citizenship behavior by increasing their positive relationship.

Not

supported

13. Pay and promotion policies will moderate between perceived

transformational leadership and organizational citizenship

behavior such that their positive relationship will be increased

under condition of high level of pay and promotion policies.

Supported


perceived transactional leadership and organizational citizenship

behavior by escalating their positive relationship in case of high

perceived organizational politics.

Supported


transactional leadership and organizational citizenship behavior

such as high level of general political behavior will strengthen


Supported


perceived transactional leadership and organizational citizenship

behavior such that it will raise their positive relationship.

Not

supported

17. Positive association between perceived transactional leadership

and organizational citizenship behavior will be stronger by the

moderating role of the high level of pay and promotion policies.

Supported


perceived transformational leadership and affective commitment

by strengthening their positive relationship, when perceived

organizational politics would be high.

Supported


transformational leadership and affective commitment such as

high level of general political behavior will fortify their positive

relationship.

Not

Supported


perceived transformational leadership and affective commitment

Supported

158

by increasing their positive relationship.


transformational leadership and affective commitment such that

their positive relationship will be increased under condition of

high level of pay and promotion policies.

Supported

22. Perceived organizational politics will moderate the relationship

of perceived transactional leadership with affective commitment

such that the high perceived organizational politics will make

their positive association stronger.

Supported


transactional leadership and affective commitment such that high

level of general political behavior will strengthen their positive

relationship.

Supported

24. Go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between perceived

transactional leadership and affective commitment by raising

their positive relationship in case of high level of go-along-to-

get-ahead.

Supported

25. Positive relationship between perceived transactional leadership

and affective commitment will get stronger by the moderating

role of the high level of pay and promotion policies.

Supported


perceived transformational leadership and job involvement by

strengthening their positive relationship under the condition of

high perceived organizational politics.

Supported


transformational leadership and job involvement such as high

level of general political behavior will strengthen their positive

relationship.

Not

supported

28. Positive relationship between perceived transformational

leadership and job involvement will be fortified by the moderated

role of the high level of go-along-to-get-ahead.

Supported

159


transformational leadership and job involvement such that their

positive relationship will be augmented under condition of high

level of pay and promotion policies.

Supported

30. Perceived organizational politics will moderate the relationship

of perceived transactional leadership with job involvement such

that the high level of perceived organizational politics will

strengthen their positive association.

Supported

31. Go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between perceived

transactional leadership and job involvement by elevating their

positive relationship in case of high level of go-along-to-get-

ahead.

Supported

32. Positive relationship between perceived transactional leadership

and job involvement will be increased by the moderating role of

the high level of pay and promotion policies.

Supported


transactional leadership and job involvement such that high level

of general political behavior will strengthen their positive

relationship.

Supported

160

Table 23

Mean and Standard Deviations of Variables of the Current Study in Relation to Demographics (N = 494)

Variable TRF TRS POP OCB AC JI

N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Gender Men 259 77.43 10.34 45.77 6.72 47.91 7.17 92.75 9.92 32.90 5.76 38.53 5.32

Women 235 76.36 10.86 45.23 6.21 47.79 6.93 94.67 8.59 33.03 6.04 38.03 5.46

Age 22 to 35 Yrs. 255 75.01 11.55 43.85 6.70 46.16 7.39 92.22 10.36 32.10 6.66 37.10 5.92

36 to 45 Yrs. 161 79.31 8.82 47.24 5.35 49.35 36.49 94.81 8.47 33.71 4.81 39.74 4.46

46 and above 78 78.22 9.54 47.39 6.51 50.31 5.98 96.01 6.48 34.24 4.75 39.19 4.32

Exp. 2 to 5 Yrs. 208 75.80 11.15 44.01 6.34 45.45 7.42 91.74 10.17 31.74 6.76 37.05 6.18

6 to 10 Yrs. 124 76.58 11.32 45.85 6.80 48.80 6.34 94.63 9.09 33.54 5.22 38.60 4.38

11 and above 162 78.62 9.02 47.58 5.97 50.23 6.00 95.40 7.95 34.09 4.82 39.65 4.60

MS Married 301 78.88 10.80 46.86 6.37 47.60 5.28 95.70 9.99 33.43 5.57 38.45 5.17

Unmarried 193 76.97 8.98 44.97 5.63 49.26 6.69 93.61 9.70 32.24 6.31 38.04 5.71

Note. Exp. = job experience; Yrs. = number of years; MS = marital status; TRF = transformational leadership; TRS = transactional leadership;

POP = perceived organizational politics; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; AC = affective commitment; JI = job involvement.

161

Table 23 depicts M and SDs of all variable of the present study in relation to the

various demographics intended to be explored. An outline of Table 23 discloses that the

mean differences are not much different across various categories of demographics.

Highest mean difference occurs for job experience where the mean job involvement of

more experienced teachers is 2.60 points greater than those of less experienced ones.

Standard deviations of certain demographics are also relatively stable across various

categories, which suggest that main effect of various demographics on study variables

tend to be quite unlikely.

Table 24 in following presents the findings of multivariate analysis of variance

and the follow up post hoc univariate analyses of variance intend to explore the

interactive and main effects of the abovementioned demographics on current study

variables. The Table 24 demonstrates only those interactive and main effects for which

multivariate F statistic was found to be significant. They were further explored through

univariate analyses of variance for each of the study variables. Figures 28 to 35 illustrates

the significant interactive effects visually.

162

Table 24

Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for the Variables of the Present Study

(N = 494)

MANOVA F ANOVA F

Variable TRF TRS POP OCB AC JI

MS 2.35* 5.00* 3.02* 6.80** 2.68* .23 .52

ExMS 2.15* .03 .26 3.15* 3.28* .23 .67

AxExMS 3.43* 3.81* 3.15 2.43 9.84** .06 .43

Note. F ratios are Wilk’s approximation of F. ANOA = univariate analysis of variance; MANOVA =

multivariate analysis of variance; MS = marital status; E = job experience; A = age. aMultivariate df = 15, 397; Univariate df = 1, 411. bMultivariate df = 30, 794, Univariate df = 2, 411

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 24 yields the significant findings of multivariate analyses for assessing the

influence of demographics on our study variables. Only marital status, among all the

factors, indicated a significant multivariate F whereas all other factors i.e. gender, age,

and job experience were found to be non-significant in relation to the combination of

variables of the present study. The significant main effect of marital status was followed

by univariate analyses of variance, which showed significant differences in TRS, TRF,

POP and OCB where married individuals had significantly higher mean score on TRS,

TRF and OCB as compared to their counterparts. Unmarried yielded significantly higher

mean score on POP.

Job experience and marital status had a significant two-way interactive impact on

POP and OCB, whereas age, job experience and marital status produces three way

significant interaction multivariate F ratios and they were followed through univariate

analyses of variance for each of the variables of the present study. These interactive

effects have been illustrated in Figure 28 to 35.

163

Figure 28. Interactive effect of marital status and gender on transformational

leadership.

As depicted in Figure 28, unmarried male demonstrate higher levels of

transformational leadership as compare to married counterpart. Plot further explains that

female unmarried individuals exhibit relatively higher transformational leadership rather

than married females.

164

Figure 29. Interactive effect of marital status and gender on transactional

leadership.

Figure 29 reveals that transactional leadership increases in case of unmarried

males, whereas there is negligible mean differences on transactional leadership between

married and unmarried females.

165

Figure 30. Interactive effect of marital status and gender on organizational


Figure 30 describes that organizational citizenship behavior (OCD) raises among

both male and female unmarried university teachers. The lowest means are displayed by

the male married teachers on OCB.

166

Figure 31. Interactive effect of marital status and gender on perceived

organizational politics.

As depicted in Figure 31, unmarried females possess higher levels of perceived

organizational politics (POP) as compare to married ones. It is also evident from plot that

unmarried male teachers also incorporates high level of POP rather than married teachers.

167

Figure 32. Interactive effect of marital status and job experience on perceived

organizational politics.

Slope in Figure 32 illustrates that perceived organizational politics (POP) of

unmarried teachers gradually enhances with the increase in their job experience. In the

case of unmarried teachers there level of POP subject to increase in job experience,

however the most experienced teachers and those with 6 to 10 year of job experience

demonstrate almost no change in POP.

168

Figure 33. Interactive effect of marital status and job experience on organizational


Plots in Figure 33 demonstrates that organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of

married teachers gradually increases subject to enhancement in their job experience.

However this increase is rapid between teachers with job experience 2 to 5 years and

those with 6 to 10 and slightly increases after that. In the case of the less experienced

unmarried teachers the OCB is higher.

169

Figure 34. Interactive effect of age, job experience, and marital status on

transformational

leadership.

Figure 34 indicates that for married university teachers of all job experience

groups, transformational leadership (TRF) increases with advancement in age in first two

groups and declines for the group with age of 46 years and above. TRF remain almost

stable in age groups with 36 to 45 year and 46 and above year. In case of unmarried

teachers the trend is increase in experience with advanced age and younger age group of

unmarried teachers having minimum job experience have lowest mean score on TRF.

170

Figure 35. Interactive effect of age, job experience, and marital status on organizational


As showed in Figure 35, married university teachers with lowest job experience and age

group mean score is highest on organizational citizenship behavior. Teachers with 6 to 10 year

job experience demonstrate high score among all age groups and in case of teachers with highest

job experience the highest mean score on OCB is demonstrated by youngest age group.

Figure 35 also depicts that teachers with 36 to 45 year age having lowest job experience

found to be highest on OCB and rest with advanced age and experience remain almost stable

with slight decline on OCB.

171

Chapter-IV

Discussion

The present study was targeted at examining not only the relationships among

certain variables of the study but also the moderating impact of perceived organizational

politics (POP) in the relationship between perceived leadership style and its outcomes

that included organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), affective commitment (AC),

and job involvement (JI).

Current chapter of the study has been devoted to the explanation of salient

findings in relation to relevant theory and literature. Findings have been an endeavor to

assimilate the gaps in existing research through related literature and sound augments.

Most of the proposed hypotheses of this research were found to be supported by data (see

Table 23).

Discussion is organized in the way that first of all results of this study about

relationships of perceived leadership styles with various outcome variables has been

elucidated following the overview of psychometric properties of scales. Then results of

perceived organizational politics in relation to various criterion variables have been

integrated through logical explanations. Finally the discussion concerning moderating

effect of POP in the relationship of perceived leadership styles and aforementioned

behavioral outcome. At the end significant influences of demographics of university

teachers including age, gender, job experience, and marital status on study variables have

been elaborated.

Psychometric Properties of the Measurement Instruments

Before computing the correlation matrix among the variables of the present study,

the psychometric strength of the instruments measuring various construct was scanned.

To accomplish this purpose, descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients (see Table

8) were determined for all scales. The low to moderate values of standard deviations of

various scales provide a clue that the scale means were good approximation of their

172

corresponding parameters. The skewness values of all the scales were also within the

acceptable range which suggested that variable of the present study approximated

normal curve in their distributions, which justified the application of parametric tests

such as MANOVA and linear regression.

Results revealed that overall various scales of the study manifested an adequate

index of alpha reliability that is greater than .70 (Nunnally, & Bernstein, 1994; George

& Mallery (2003), except three sub-scales of OCB namely; civic virtue, courtesy, and

altruism. The alpha reliabilities of these sub-scales ranged between .61 to .63. Keeping

in view that increase in alpha value is partially subjected to number of items a scale

held, these reliabilities were also considered to be acceptable as recommended by

George and Mallery, (2003). Separate alpha coefficients were accounted for the sub-

scales of transformational and transactional leadership styles (see Table 12) and results

also demonstrated up to the mark values and made it evident that all the instruments

were fit to use for further analyses.

In order to examine whether there were any significant differences between the

perceived leadership styles of teachers and the heads of departments, t-test was

performed. Current findings accounted for significant differences between the both where

the scores of heads of departments were found to be higher on transformational

leadership (TRF) and transactional leadership (TRS) (see Table 11). These results

endorsed support from existing literature that self-report ratings are consistently found to

be more favorable than ratings by others (Mester, Visser, Roodt, & Kellerman, 2003).

One explanation may be that respondents were inclined to give socially desirable

responses as contrary to their actual behaviors in practice. Another reason that can also be

potential factor for these differences might be that in university settings teachers are

highly qualified and are used to enjoy freedom and autonomy rather than being entirely

under the influence of heads. It is therefore, they may perceive and evaluate their heads

differently as compare to the heads themselves. Finally, the average age of the

respondents may also be a factor that could be of importance in explaining these results,

as the majority of heads were above 40 year of age (M = 43.19), whereas the mean age of

teachers was lesser (M = 36.38). Heads because of their advanced age and greater job

173

experience may assume themselves more confident and higher on leadership styles. It is

worth mentioning here that for hypotheses testing the scores of teachers i.e. perceived

leadership styles were used instead of self-reported scores of heads. The data randomly

obtained from heads comprised only 57 participants and was considered to make a

comparison with perceived leadership styles of teachers.

Perceived Leadership Styles and Behavior Outcomes

After having keen insight hooked on psychometric soundness of the instruments

the first and primary objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of

perceived transformational and transactional leadership styles on outcomes variables

comprising organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), affective commitment (AC), and

job involvement (JI) among public sector university teachers of Pakistan. Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) was specifically modified and adapted for teaching

faculty to measure their perception of both transformational and transactional leaderships.

As discussed earlier in the pilot study, that management-by-exception-passive dimension

of transactional leadership was excluded on the bases of the evidence spawned through

factorial analysis; therefor it was not integrated as part of the transactional leadership in

main study. Zero order correlation (see Table 9 & 12) was initially computed for peeping

into the relationship pattern among variables of the study and desired relationship pattern

provided researcher assurance to move further for analyses to test hypotheses of the

study. Following sections are denoted to comprehensive discourse to analyze the

hypotheses tests:

Perceived Transformational Leadership Styles as Predictor of OCB.

Our finding revealed that perceived transformational leadership (TRF) and its

constructs directly predicted OCB in the expected directions (see Table 13 & 14), except

the individualized consideration which was non significant predictor of OCB. In

organizational work settings, the most important entities are recognized as leaders who

are most probable to employ a direct influence on the behavior, attitude, and performance

of their subordinates. They are expected to encourage a reciprocal communication

process and facilitate employee to participate in not only decision making but also create

174

an auspicious environment for them. Thus their followers are being encouraged and

motivated to work for goals keeping aside their short-term self-interest (Ivancevich,

Konopaske, & Matteson, 2008). This positive association between both leader and

followers stimulates OCB and other work related progressive behaviors in employees.

There has always been a need of strong motivation and determination to evolve a

positive behavior among employees and transformational leaders are among those

influential individuals who are meant to assure poise between employees’ perception and

their OCB. Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) has also described TRF as a process

of mutual benefit and help between leaders and followers to enhance a higher level of

motivation and morale. It is therefor, the positive relationship between TRF and OCB is

plausibly understandable and justified.

Among Pakistani public sector university teachers, OCBs are more likely to be

demonstrated voluntarily, when employees perceive that the person sitting on chair of

head is visionary and goal oriented. University faculty members themselves are highly

qualified and academic elite living in an academic environment so they can only be

swayed in the presence of chairperson who must possess some extraordinary leadership

qualities. TRF has been widely recognized in transformation of subordinates’ behavior

through charismatic attitude and visionary guidance. TRF in an organization like

university is among one of the most suitable styles to raise the performance of faculty

members and generation of OCBs among them. Burns (2003) who was first to establish

the concept of leadership, has articulated that TRF create substantial change in the life of

persons and organizations through sheer vision and goals. Keeping in view his theoretical

manifestation that TRF can redesign values and perception, changes ambitions and

expectations of employees it is safe to conclude that the OCB is directly and vastly linked

with TRF. There is empirical evidence that TRF positively belongs to promote OCB

among employees for example Organ, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) examined that

OCB among employees was affected by transformational leaders’ behavior.

Current study also examined the effect of the four core behavioral components of

TRF identified by the Avolio and Bass (2002), and those are generally recognized as the

175

pillars of TRF. They include idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration.

When transformational leaders exercise individualized influence their followers

imitate them by identifying with their aspirations. Leaders pay considerable attention to

followers’ needs and also concentrate on their risks and yield consistent conduct with

underlying values, ethics, and principles beyond their own interests and needs. As a

result, leader is reciprocated with respect, admiration, and trust by the followers and this

entire scenario becomes encouraging for them to promote OCB. Mutual trust plays a

major role in creating an environment in which followers identify and recognize OCB.

Current findings can be empirically supported by Kucukbayrak (2010) who investigated

positive relationship between trust in TRF and OCB. Moreover, findings of Asgari,

Silong, Ahmad, and Samah (2008) explored significant mediated effect of trust in

relationship between TRF and OCB.

Transformational leaders behave through inspirational motivation in ways that

motivate their subordinates by providing them challenges and meaning in order to engage

in common goals and activities. They also display optimism and enthusiasm; encourages

employees to envisage striking future states and consequently they succeed in arousing

individual and team spirit. Thus it is expected that the individual’s perception of

treatment and worth received by leader might lead him to adopt OCBs. Employees’

perception of value and fairness and their participation in decision making may exert

extensive effect on their behavior. A positive relationship between TRF and OCB in

findings of present research can reasonably be supported by Kaur (2011) who explained

that a positive perception of an employee leads to citizenship behaviors.

Intellectual stimulation refers to the acts of the transformational leader which

inspire the follower to use their logic and problem solving abilities, and enable them to

explore the solution of their problems creatively. The leaders high on intellectual

stimulation encourages their employees to question the accuracy of critical assumptions,

to focus on problems from different new perspectives, to discover innovative ways of

completing the assignments and to rethink those notions which have never been

176

questioned. There is no mockery or criticism of individual members’ mistakes rather their

new ideas and innovative solutions to problematic issues are implored and continuously

considered in the process of problem addressing and solution finding in an organization.

Current findings can be discerned within this context that a sense of job involvement and

self worth is likely to be developed among employees as a result of intellectual

stimulation and they are inclined to change their behavior positively towards both leader

and organization and are expected to demonstrate OCB. Although there is scant literature

available on direct relationship between the core constructs of TRF and OCB, yet there is

empirical confirmation for current results. For example Kucukbayrak (2010) explored

intellectual stimulation as significant positive predictor of OCB among 148 employees of

public banks in Turkey.

Present findings elucidated non significant results regarding the hypothesis 1e that

individualized consideration will be positive predictor of OCB. A transformational leader

usually use individualized consideration behavior to pay attention to each individual’s

needs for accomplishment and advancement by acting as a mentor or coach. Followers

are expected to develop sequentially higher levels of potential and learning openings in a

growing climate. An explanation of current results might be that in universities, faculty

members mostly belong to diverse individual and social background. Their individual

differences are not most of the time possible to be addressed adequately by the respective

heads in terms of needs and desires which might not be motivating for teachers to initiate

OCB among them. An other promising reason might be the construct of TRS which in

aggregate is perceived more meaningfully as compared to the its components

individually. The findings of Emery and Barker (2007) provide evidence that specific

behaviors of TRF did not reflect leader’s behavior perfectly. Present results are also

consistent with those of Kucukbayrak (2010) who found that individualized support, a

TRF construct similar to individualized consideration, was non significant predictor of

OCB in public sector bank employees.

Current findings, as far as the relationship between TRF and OCB is concerned,

found to be consistent with indigenous studies of Saeed and Ahmad (2012) who observed

positive relationship between constructs of perceived transformational leadership and

177

OCB in university administrative staff, and Khan, Ghouri, and Awang (2013) who

confirmed positive relationship between TRF and OCB among IT solution finders of

small and medium scale IT firms functioning in Pakistan. Farooqui (2012) also provided

similar results while examining a sample of lecturers from different universities of

Pakistan and found that leadership was a strong predictor of employees’ OCB. There are

various western studies exhibiting the same relationship pattern (e.g. Asgari, et al., 2008;

Lian & Tui, 2012; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006; Rabcock-Roberson &

Strickland, 2010), which witnessed the fact, that present findings are also empirically

consolidated with existing literature.

Perceived Transactional Leadership Styles as Predictor of OCB.

Our findings revealed that perceived transactional leadership and contingency

rewards predicted OCB, affective commitment, and job involvement in positive direction,

whereas active-management-by-exception (MBE-A) was found to be the positive

predictor of job involvement only. Thus our hypotheses 4, 4a, 5, 5a, 6, 6a, and 6b were

supported and hypotheses 4b and 5b were not supported by the data (see Table 13 & 15).

Leadership has been recognized as one of the important factors in influencing

behavior of employees and molding them to contribute to success and effectiveness of

groups and organizations. Cherry (2007) described transactional leadership (TRS) as

those who set goals and targets to ensure success by clear communication of tasks and

activities, and achieve targets in collaboration with subordinates by motivating them

through aligning resources. They basically emphasize on relationship based on “give and

take” and use conventional punishment and reward to ensure compliance from employees

and inspire them to manifest OCB. These leaders use incentives or rewards to achieve

desired results when employees did not meet their expectations. Employees cultivate the

perception that their behavior is contingent to rewards and thus produce more OCB.

Study of Riaz and Haider (2010) has also documented evidence that TRS rewards

positively and give recognition to the employee for his/her good performance and

contribution to success.

178

OCBs are theoretically described as multifaceted constructs pertaining to all

positive behaviors related to an organization that are specifically not recognized and

rewarded by a formal system. They are not formally required roles of job description,

rather they are subject to individuals’ own choices and are generally perceived as non

punitive if not exhibited (Organ, 1988), but as a matter of fact this situation may vary in

certain conditions. At individual level employee is in urge of getting some benefit or

reward from leadership as a result of his OCB. Plethora of research has witnessed that the

role of OCB are positively associated with variety of effectiveness measures of

organization e.g. profitability, productivity, and efficiency (Podsakoff, Whiting, &

Podsakoff, 2009), basic trauma life support (Nasiripour, 2011), job satisfaction and

commitment (Sharma, Bajpai, & Holani) job performance, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment (Ahmad, 2010).

Leaders largely demand OCB from followers because of its recognized affectivity

and they influence employees through social exchanges for enhancing the citizenship

behaviors among them. The study of Bass and Riggio (2006) strengthens our argument,

that transactional leaders intend to enhance OCB through the concept of social exchange

(e.g., subsidies for campaign contributions and financial rewards). Moreover, an other

judicious explanation to current research findings might be that OCBs are also vital in

determining reward allocation decisions and managerial evaluations therefor, these are

also used to influence TRS in gaining advantage in decision making processes of

transactional leaders. Such decisions are important, some times, in job promotion for

instance in universities annual confidential reports (ACR) endorsed by heads are

considered and given weightage for promotion of a university teacher. So a positive

relationship of TRS and contingent reward with OCB is discernable. Podsakoff et al.,

(2009) in a meta analytic study on OCB found that OCBs were positively associated with

reward allocation and ratings of employees. Current results are similar with few studies

of near past e.g., Rubin, Bommer, and Bachrach (2010) and Walumbwa, Wu, and, Orwa

(2008) who also found a significant relationship of TRS and contingent reward with

OCB.

179

In case of MBE-A, transactional leaders not only use corrective methods but also

keenly monitor the work performed to influence behavior of employees, in order to

ensure whether the work has been done up to acceptable standards. A strict monitoring

may cause some negative consequences for employee e.g., stress, work-family conflicts,

turnover intentions etc. These negative consequences may originate negative relationship

between MBE-P and OCB. Bolino and Turnley (2005) also investigated that consequence

of OCB, include stress, increased levels of role overload, and work-family conflicts.

Findings of present study regarding TRS in prediction of OCB are parallel with

considerable indigenous and western research. For example Khan, et al., (2013)

confirmed positive relationship between TRS and OCB among IT solution finders of

small and medium scale IT firms running in Pakistan. Similarly Zabihi and Hashemzehi

(2012) in an Iranian study explored TRS and contingent rewards as significant positive

predictors and MBE-P as non significant predictor of OCB. Asgari et al., (2008) also

found similar relationship pattern among full time public sector employees in Malaysia.

Finally Kim (2009) also found TRS and contingent rewards as significant positive and

MBE-A as non significant predictors of OCB in a sample 359 athletic head coaches.

Both TRF and TRS have also been found to be associated with increased level of

OCB among employees. TRS improves the behaviors of the followers by offering

rewards to them. When rewards are to be allocated, the leaders not only consider in-role

performance but also the extra-role behaviors. Therefore, in order to get more rewards,

the employees perform more extra-role behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, &

Fetter, 1990). Therefore, TRS has been observed as an important predictor of OCB

among employees. Moreover, TRS can increase the level of OCB among employees by

using the principal of operant conditioning. When rewards are given on increased level of

OCB, the employees are more likely to perform OCBs.

Perceived Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as

Predictor of Affective Commitment and Job Involvement.

Present research also intended to examine the relationship of TRF and TRS with

affective commitment (AC) and job involvement (JI) and findings revealed TRF and TRS

180

as significant positive predictors of both AC and JI, thus four main hypotheses of present

research i.e. 3, 4, 5 and, 6 were supported (see Table 13). In case of dimensions of TRF,

all the concerned variables were found to be the significant positive predictors of AC and

JI, except idealized influence (behaviors) which did not predict AC and individualized

consideration as non significant predictor of JI (see Table 14). Contingent reward (CR)

predicted AC and JI positively and management-by-exception-active (MBE-A) failed to

predict AC in desired direction (see Table 15).

Organizational commitment (OC), conceptualized by the researchers as an

attitudinal and behavioral organizational construct, has been a focus of interest among

organizational researchers. OC is the extent to which the employees are committed to the

organization. Researchers have defined it as a psychological state and a mindset that

connects the employees to the organization and leads them to follow the course of

particular actions, and thus reduces their turnover intention (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer

& Herscovitch, 2001). The model of OC was proposed by Meyer and Allen (1991) who

stated that employee’s commitment reflects an obligation, a need and a desire to maintain

the relationship, therefore commitment can be divided into three different but related

types including affective, normative, and continuance commitment. Current study

incorporated affective component which is the affective part of the organizational

commitment and manifested by the employee’s strong identification to, involvement in,

and feeling of attachment to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Huey & Kamarul,

2009). The leadership primarily employs impact on perception of employees and

changing it favorably towards organization. AC is associated with many positive

organizational and behavioral outcomes, therefor leadership intends employees to have

AC.

Present results seem comprehensible provided that TRS relies on an exchange of

various kinds of rewards between leaders and subordinates and when these rewards are

recognized acceptable to them, there may be a feeling of emotional attachment and

involvement towards the organization. This could also possibly explain the significant

correlation between TRS and these positive outcomes. The relationship was supported by

181

Yahchouchi (2009) who studied a Labenese sample and found that transactional

leadership style was positively associated with organizational commitment.

On the other hand, JI is conceived as the extent to which an individual identifies

psychologically with his job, and incorporates the importance of the job in his self-image

and self-concept (Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; Shaffer, Joplin, & Hsu, 2011). It is

in fact how an employee describes his relationship with the job and the work environment

and how his job is intermingled with his life. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and

Topolnytsky (2002) in a meta-analysis reported both AC and JI has been recognized

positive and inter-correlated constructs corresponding with many positive outcome such

as job satisfaction, OCB, and organizational commitment, so leaders put their efforts

through transformational and transactional styles to influence these attitude so that to

create behavioral change among employees .

According to equity theory, if employees perceive that their leader is giving them

more than they deserve, they will try to put more input in the job through increasing job

involvement (Ouyang, Cheng, Hsieh, 2010). Moreover, leadership is one of the most

important factors in the success and development of organizations. An effective

leadership style certainly plays a very pivotal role towards the culmination of AC and JI

in employee. Another discernable reason that justifies current findings is the relationship

of trust with leadership and affective commitment. Employees’ perception of trust in

leadership persuades them to increase their emotional attachment and psychological

identification with organization and as a result AC and JI are emerged among them. The

study of Chiang and Wang (2012) consolidate this argument who verified strong

relationship of trust not only with both TRF and TRS but also with AC.

It has been discussed earlier that the components of leadership style might not be

reflective of leadership style as a whole. Present study’s non-significant effect of

individualized consideration and MBE-A constructs of TRF and TRS respectively for AC

is understandable. Hence, MBE-A behavior emphasize more on monitoring rather than

motivation and rewards and incentives so employees lacks encouragement and trust and

tend to show lesser AC. Present findings are matching with those of Hakwoo (2009) who

182

studied the relationship of three components of transactional leadership (i.e., contingent

reward, MBE-A and management by exception passive MBE-P) with affective

commitment among a sample of sport employees. The results of their study revealed that

contingent rewards was positively associated with affective commitment; MBE-P was

negatively associated with affective commitment, whereas there was no relationship

between MBE-A and affective commitment.

There is large body of past research confirming present findings that yielded

significant positive correlation between leadership style (transformational and

transactional) and AC and JI. Indigenous studies, for example, Shams-ur-Rehman,

Shareef, Mahmood, and Ishaque (2012) found that in Pakistani culture, TRF and TRS

were significant predictors of affective commitment, Ahmadi and Ahmadi (2012)

established TRF and TRS as significant positive predictors of affective, continuance and

normative commitment among 220 employees of State Retirement Organization in Iran,

and Riaz, Akram, and Ijaz (2011) investigated that TRF was strongly correlated with AC

rather than other factors of organizational commitment in a sample of 293 employees of

banking sector in Pakistan.

There are numerous western studies that also provide empirical evidence for

current results e.g., Chiang and Wang (2012) found positive causal relationship of TRF

and TRS with affective commitment in Taiwan’s hotel management. Mester, Visser,

Roodt, and Kellerman (2003) examined that both TRF and TRS styles correlate

significantly with AC. Zohrabi, McCroskey and Stacy (2007) also found that TRF was

strongly correlated with AC rather than other factors of organizational commitment.

Among the components of transformational leadership, charisma, individualized

consideration, and intellectual simulation are the factors which are associated with job

satisfaction and organizational commitment (Emery & Barker, 2007).

Existing literature available on the leadership styles also supports the notion that

leadership styles contribute to JI among employees. One study carried out by Gillis and

Muirhead (2004) is an interesting example of this relationship. The study was done in

order to explore the relationship of correctional instructors’ leadership style and the

183

offenders’ attitude involving JI. At first the instructors were trained to use

transformational and transactional leadership style; then the effects of training was

measured on the instructor and the association of these new leadership styles with the

offenders work attitudes (one of which was JI) were measured. The results concluded that

both the transformational leadership style and transactional leadership styles were

strongly related to job involvement among offenders.

Another study carried out by Omolayo and Ajila (2012) explored the effect of

leadership style on JI among staff of educational institutes. They used two leadership

styles including autocratic and democratic leadership styles (which are by definition

share some characteristics of transactional and transformational leadership styles

respectively) and studied their impact on employees’ job involvement and job

satisfaction. The results revealed that autocratic and democratic leadership styles

significantly influence JI where democratic leadership style positively contributes to JI

whereas autocratic leadership style is a negative predictor of JI. While some others failed

to conclude any relationship of transformational and transactional leadership with job

involvement (e.g. Mester, Visser, Roodt, & Kellerman, 2003).

A final annotation of leadership styles and their association with affective

commitment and job involvement helps to infer that current findings not only conceded

evidence in support of existing literature but also spawned an exclusive indigenous

context of these variables specifically in faculty of public sector Pakistani universities.

Perceived Organizational Politics (POP) and its relationship with OCB,

Affective Commitment and Job Involvement.

Among others, to explore the relationship between perceived organizational

politics and behavioral outcomes was also the one of main objectives and certain

hypotheses were formulated to the accomplishment of this objective. The findings of the

current study revealed that perceived organizational politics (POP) and its factors that

included general political behavior (GPB), go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA), and pay-

and-promotions-policies (PPP) not only predicted organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB) negatively but also found to be the significant negative predictors of affective

184

commitment (AC) and job involvement (JI). Thus our hypotheses 7, 8, 9 and their sub

hypotheses were supported (see Table 16).

Organizational politics is conceived as the presence of incompatible goals and

multiple interests that are outside the goals of organization, and to protect them by the

influence of various techniques. Rosen, Harris, and Kacmar (2009) defined the concept of

organizational politics as broad range of activities associated with the use of influence

tactics to improve organizational or personal interests. Leaders use several political

tactics not only to gain success in personal capacity but also attempt them to enhance the

positive outcomes in an organization. But in the case of subordinates the phenomenon of

politics in an organization is somewhat contrary to the leaders’ view. Their view can be

understood by the idea of Lewin (1936) that the perception of individuals worth much

than that of real object of situation. Ferris and Kacmar (1992) also endorsed empirically

that POP is elucidates greater impact on behaviors and attitudes of employees compared

to actual work lace politics.

Organizational politics is perceived by the lower level employees as negative self-

serving and manipulating behaviors that demand the cost of global organizational or

others’ interests for personal interests are termed as organizational politics (Ferris, Russ,

& Fandt, 1989) e.g., using illegal ways to obtain power, bypassing the chain of command,

and lobbying high level managers before promotion. Perception of such behaviors in an

organization demotivate employees by executing inverse effect on job satisfaction, job

stress and burnout (Vigoda-Godat & Talmund, 2010), increased job stress (Azeem, et al.

2010), poor task performance, fading their trust in leadership (Poon, 2006) and ultimately

pave negative impact on their citizenship behavior and other positive attitudes like AC

and JI. Vigoda-Godat (2007) confirmed the notion that POP generally reflects a negative

image among organizational workers when they experience it at their workplace.

Keeping the above perspective of workplace politics in consideration, it was

anticipated that POP might negatively associate with OCB, AC and JI. Present findings,

in an indigenous context, are in same fashion with Ahmad’s (2010) who in a sample of

608 employees of 41 private organizations found POP as significant negative predictor of

185

organizational commitment, job performance and OCB. Our findings have also been

supported by a relatively recent studies of Gbadamosi and Chinaka (2011) who endorsed

strong negative relationship between POP and overall organizational commitment in a

sample of 200 staff of academic and administrative staff of Babcock University, and

Vigoda-Godat (2007; 2010) entailed POP negatively associated with OCB and

organizational commitment among employees of public sector universities.

POP has been recognized as associated with negative behaviors and attitudes

among employees. It was, therefor, assumed that when employees identify high level of

POP, they may also incline to negatively change their behavior and job involvement.

Cropanzano et al. (1997) found that POP results in a negative relationship with job

involvement suggesting that when employees perceive high politics in the organization,

they tend to be less involved in their jobs. Moreover, according to its definition, job

involvement is the psychological identification the employee has with the organization

(Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992). This identification depends upon the satisfaction an

employee derives from the organization (McKelvey & Sekaran, 1977), whereas POP

results in a decreased level of satisfaction with job and with organization (Kacmar,

Bozeman, Carlson, & Anthony, 1999). Therefore, it is not surprising that POP results in a

decreased level of job involvement. Our results are similar to Danish (2000) when he

examined a sample from various financial industries in Pakistan. He found that POP was

significantly negatively related with JI. Similarly, Cropanzano et al. (1997) and Ying-Ni,

Chih-Long, and Hung (2012) confirmed that POP is negatively associated with job

involvement, whereas Vigoda (2000) and Islam, Rehman, Ahmed, (2013) in their

empirical studies found POP as negative predictor of organizational commitment and

other job attitudes among public sector employees in Israel and Pakistan accordingly.

General political behaviors (GPB) are those self-serving behaviors which are

developed when explicit rules, policies or regulations are absent or dominantly vague.

Such a situation creates uncertainty among employee and may result in decrease of

positive behaviors like OCB, AC and JI. Go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA) is

apprehended as deficiency of actions and involvement by the employees in order to gain

some advantage so they negatively perceived in work environment. Therefor a negative

186

association of GATAG with OCB, AC and JI was reasonably understandable. In the case

of pay-and-promotion-policies (PPP) there is sufficient theoretical evidence (e.g. Ferris &

King, 1991; Kacmar & Ferris, 1993) that promotions are effected by the political

behavior of the violation of performance evaluations and promotions’ formal system. If

the OCB, AC, JI or other positive outcomes in an organization are negatively effected in

the existence of PPP, that is expected and justified. Moreover, our results are also

understandable within the context of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) that suggests

that the employees want to pay back the organization positively if they perceive the

organization as positive to them. Contrarily, when the organization is thought to be as

negative to them (as often is perceived when POP is high) the employees reciprocate with

negative acts, attitudes and behaviors which results in an increased level of negative

outcomes.

Despite scarcity of available literature that explained the direct impact of

aforementioned perceived political behaviors on outcome variables our findings were

supported by Danaeefard, Balutbazeh, and Kashi (2010) who examined an Iranian sample

of 307 public sector universities’ employee and found overall POP and its constructs viz.

GPB, GATGA and PPP were significantly and negatively associated with OCB and its

some distinguished facets, and Jam et al. (2011) observed negative relationship between

POP and AC among 300 Pakistani public and private sector managerial employees.

Finally it has safely been concluded that our hypotheses related to POP-Outcomes

relationship were empirically tested and the results supported existing literature and

explained further the effect of the facets of POP on criterion variables of the present

study.

Moderations

The foremost objective of present study envisioned to investigate moderating role

of POP in relationship between perceived leadership styles and behavioral outcomes

specifically among public sector university teachers in Pakistan. POP and its sub

constructs included GPB, GATGA, and PPP were hypothesized as important key

moderators of chief relationship between perceived leadership styles and outcomes i.e.

187

OCB, AC, and JI, proposed in model (see Figure 4). This section has been embedded

with a view to have pertinent discourse centered on theory and literature related to

moderating role of POP.

POP as Moderator in Relationship between Perceived Leadership Styles and OCB

Results of the present study revealed that POP, general political behavior (GPB),

and pay-and-promotion-policies (PPP) significantly moderated between perceived

leadership styles and OCB such that the interaction of these variables and both leadership

styles strengthened the positive effect of these leadership styles on OCB. Although under

low levels of POP, GPB, and PPP, the relationships between perceived leadership styles

and OCB did remain positive but at their high levels, as observed in stronger steeps,

stronger patterns of relationship between the both were observed (see Table 17, 18 &

Figure 7 to 12). Hence, our hypotheses 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 17 were supported by the

data, on the other hand go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA) proved to be non significant

moderator between leadership styles and OCB thus hypotheses 12 and 16 were not

supported (see Table 18).

For the present study statistical procedure recommended by Baron and Kenny

(1986) was carried out to test the possible moderating effect of POP in relationship to

leadership styles and criterion variables. As we discussed earlier that the leadership

behaviors not only exert a direct influence on OCB but they may also affect OCB

indirectly via POP. When organizational politics is perceived from the employees at

workplace, it has often been taken as a negative precursor that possibly produces negative

behaviors and attitudes among them, as a result effectiveness of the organization is

dampened. The negative relationship between POP and various individual as well as

organizational outcomes has been well established and debated succinctly in previous

section of this study.

According to the principles of social exchange theory (Blau, 1965), when

employees perceive organization as positive and favoring, the employees try to

reciprocate through favorable responses. Similarly, when the employees perceive the

organization unfavorable to them, they react by increasing unfavorable or reducing

188

favorable responses towards the organization. One example of such a transaction is the

negative relationship of POP with OCB. When we compare these two constructs on

definitional level, we find that OCB involves organization-serving behaviors which are

voluntary in nature and are always found to be positive for the organization. On the other

hand, there are POPs which include those self-serving behaviors which might put

organizational interests at stake. Therefore, a negative relationship between these two

variables should not be seen as unusual.

Moreover, as POP has always been perceived as negative by the employees, the

first thing what an employee can do in response to POP is that s/he can reduce her/his

voluntary, organization facilitating behaviors. This is so because these behaviors do not

bring any direct reward to the employee, as they are not part of formal job description;

and their reduction does not result in any direct negative impact on the employee.

Therefore, it seems conceivable for the employee to reduce OCB level in reaction to

POP. This has been supported by many researchers. For instance, Afshardoust, Feizabadi,

Zakizadeh, and Abdolhoseyni (2013) studied a sample of sports employees and observed

a significant negative relationship between OCB and POP. Danaeefard, Balutbazeh and

Kashi (2010) also concluded a significant negative relationship between POP and OCB

when they considered peer-report forms of these two constructs.

In Pakistani context, Ahmad (2010) studied the individual and interactive effects

of POP on OCB. The results of his study revealed a strong negative relationship between

these variables. Similarly, Vigoda (2000b) studied the relationship of POP with altruism

and compliance (the two forms of OCB) and observed that increase in OCB was

associated with two forms of OCB.

Whereas, in western organizational settings Randall et al., (1999) studied the

relationship of POP with OCB within individual and organizational context and

concluded a strong negative relationship between these variables. Similarly Vigoda

(2007), Vigaoda and Drory (2006) observed a strong relationship between POP and OCB

in a sense that increase in POP resulted in a decrease in OCB.

189

However, on the other hand, leadership theory originally projected by Burns

(1978) yields an understanding that the TRF and OCB are positively associated because

of potential behaviors of transformational leaders implied directly or indirectly to change

or transform the followers by encouraging them, bring positive change among them

through motivation. They conclusively make them more caring, helpful, and harmonious

not only for other coworkers but also for their organization as a whole. TRF also involves

encouraging the employee, inspiring and communicating clearly with him/her regarding

his/her duties, roles and what the leader expects more than the actual call of duty. When

the employees perceive the atmosphere as highly political, the level of their positive work

behaviors is decreased e.g., decrease in OCB, but at the same time, because of the well

recognized organizational effectiveness of OCB, transformational leaders becomes more

vigilant and concerned to enrich OCB among them. They motivate the employees for

innovativeness and goal clarification through idealized influence; energize them by an

optimistic view of the future through inspirational motivation; inspiring the followers to

use their creativity and problem solving ability through intellectual stimulation and caring

for the employees’ needs and respecting him through individualized consideration. These

TRF behaviors surmise to play critical role in molding and consequently enhancing

employees’ citizenship behaviors and give them confidence to be favorable toward

organization.

A more logical explanation of strong positive TRF-OCB relationship in the

presence of high POP resides in the notions of social exchange theory proposed by Blau

in 1964 and norms of reciprocity, suggested by Gouldner (1960) that the employees tend

to increase their positivity towards the organization when they find that, even in highly

political environment, the leader is being involved in such positive encouraging acts as

TRF. A recent study of Bodla and Danish (2013) also support our articulation, in which

they examined the meditational role of social exchange perceptions between POP and

employee morale in Pakistani students working part time (during day time) in various

organizations and enrolled in MBA classes in the evening. Regression analysis and

structural equation modeling elucidated that social exchange perceptions significantly

mediated in the relationship of POP and employees’ morale, and contributed for almost

70% of the total effect.

190

More specifically existing literature also witness to the fact that TRF

demonstrates individualized consideration to listen employees attentively, deliberately

acts as mentors to pay closes attention to the employees’ growth and achievement needs,

and helps them to develop their full potential (e.g. Avoilio, 1999: Kark & Shamir, 2002).

Thus, they create and escalate positive behaviors and attitude and increased level of

OCB, in particular, among employees even when they might have been perceiving high

political activity around them.

Equity theory (Adams, 1965) also plausibly explains present findings by

suggesting that employees tend to create equilibrium in their relationships with other

individuals and heads at workplace. When they observe the atmosphere of organization

high in politics, they still perceive that their leader is favoring them through acts of

transformational leadership, which lead them to yield their positive reaction towards the

leader and that may surmise even stronger TRS-OCB association by increasing their

voluntary inputs to the organization.

The other most conspicuous form of leadership is acknowledged as transactional

leadership (TRS) that follow the transactional procedure in order to enhance the inputs of

the followers and attempts to seek high level of OCB in them. In highly political

environments, reward structure is often ambiguous, unfair, and based on political

maneuvering, which makes a supposed scarcity of resources. On the other side of the

picture, there is transactional leadership which encourages the employees through

offering a reward for their positive acts and taking punitive measures when employees

indulge in non-favorable acts (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). In such situations, we may assume

that what the employees can best do for their interest is to maximize voluntary positive

acts, which are not the part of formal reward structure in order to achieve more rewards

from their perceived transactional leaders.

POP is characterized by various political activities, which are generally exercised

by the individuals in order to gain personal benefits, which are denoted to leadership. In a

typical Pakistani public sector university, these advantages include a variety of ready

benefits. For example, positive evaluations on annual confidential reports, paid extra

191

workloads, relaxation in extra duties assigned time to time by the faculty heads, limited

nomination for faculty development programs, and university support for research

projects. Hence, in order to grab these lucrative benefits, they may offer positive extra

role behaviors or OCBs and strengthen positive relation with TRS. Our argument is

supported by Ferris, et al. (2002) and Kacmer and Ferris (1991) who found that high level

of POP are the activities, when implied by the employees to protect and maximize their

personal interests and for that they at the same time avoid negative outcomes within the

organization.

Moreover, current findings may also be defensible by the argument that when

employees perceive their work environment as political, they are not certain that they will

be rewarded on fair bases. On the other hand, when they find their leaders as

transactional, who always indulge in give-and-take transactions, performing well on

assigned duties alone cannot help them. In such highly political situations, in order to get

more and more rewards, the employees tend to increase their voluntary positive acts

which are more than their assigned duties. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that high

level of organizational politics acts as moderator for the relationship of transformational

and transactional leadership with organizational citizenship behavior by strengthening

their existing positive relationship.

Current findings did not confirm that GATAG moderates the leadership and OCB

relationship. A possible reason explaining these results may be that in order to gain

tangible of intangible advantages, while working in a highly political environment,

employees intentionally manifest their association with leadership through overt

behavioral acts (e.g. OCB) and it is appreciated and encouraged by the leaders as well.

Hence, GATGA involves non action behaviors e.g. remaining silent to acquire valuable

benefits. Chivakidakarn, Dastoor, and Mujtaba (2009) provide support to the argument

that employees involve in GATGA as a safety of the valued consequences for them. In

such a situation both leader and employee are having somewhat similar perspectives

towards GATGA i.e. employee perceive that remaining silent is possibly highly political

act or threat, compared to GPB and PPP, that could entice them to exhibit extra role

behaviors. Instead, leaders also do not consider this political behavior as worthy of their

192

consideration to be tackled with reward or admiration instantly. They are supposed not to

contemplate GATGA as potential threat towards organizational attitudes and behavioral

outcomes, thus the impact of GATGA is reduced in this employee and leadership

relationship and may not be surmised to moderate the leadership-OCB relationship.

Another logical explanation is that current results should be underscored, taken

together with the arguments of Aryee, Chen, and Budhwar (2004), and Beugre and

Liverpool (2006) that POP is also found to be undesirably related to the employee

perception about the justice and fairness in the organizational dealings. Employee

negatively reacts towards discrepancy in fairness and justice and, despite leadership

efforts, tend not to produce citizenship behaviors and even high level of POP fails to

strengthen the positive relation of leadership behaviors and OCB.

POP as Moderator between Perceived Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment

(AC)

Current findings further revealed that POP, general political behavior (GPB), and

pay-and-promotion-policies (PPP) significantly moderated between perceived leadership

styles and AC such that the interaction of these political behaviors and both leadership

styles (transformational and transactional) strengthened the positive association of these

leadership styles and AC. Although under low levels of POP, GPB, and PPP, the

relationships between perceived leadership styles and AC also remained positive but at

their high levels, as observed in slope lines, indicated rather stronger patterns of

relationship between the both (see Table 19, 20 & Figure 13 to 19). Hence, our

hypotheses 18 to 25 (except hypothesis 23) were supported by the data. On the other

hand, GPB found to be non significant moderator between TRF and AC and thus, results

did not confirm hypothesis 23 (see Table 19).

There is general consensus among researchers that decreased AC is another

possible negative outcome of POP in the organization. POP has often been observed to

hamper the development process of organization by increasing the likelihood of negative

work attitudes and behaviors. For instance, Bashir, Nasir, Saeed and Ahmed (2011)

examined a Pakistani sample and observed that high levels of POP are associated with the

193

perception that the psychological contract is broken, which in turn leads the employees

towards the perception of organization as lacking integrity, truthfulness, and equality

(i.e., organizational cynicism). This distrustful attitude results in decreased trust in the

organization (Davis & Gardner, 2004) and as one might expect, reduces the strength of

the emotional bond recognized as AC, with which the employee remain intact with the

organization.

Similarly, Ahmad (2010) observed a sample of university, banks and

telecommunication employees from Pakistan in order to explore main and interactive

effects of POP between justice and work outcomes and concluded that when employees

sense the POP at workplace, they intend to quit the organization. When this is not

feasible for them to leave the organization, they may assume to increase absenteeism or

get involved in the political activities. Another response to POP might be dissociation

from work and its environment i.e., decreased level of AC towards the organization. Butt,

Imran, Shah and Jabbar (2013) tested a sample of 200 public sector bank employees in

Pakistan and found that POP is significantly negatively related with job satisfaction and

AC. Similarly, Jam, et al. (2011) studied a sample of various public and private sector

organizations in Pakistan and found that POP was a significant negative predictor of

affective commitment where political skill acts as a moderator for the relationship.

When employees perceive politics at the place they are working in, their morale is

lowered down (Bodla, Danish, & Nawaz, 2012) and they are expected to reduce affection

and emotional attachment which they had for the organization. POP also exerts

detrimental effects on the organization by increasing job stress (Jam, et al., 2011) and

reducing job satisfaction (Gull & Zaidi, 2012). When the employees are less satisfied

with the organization, they are less likely to show any kind of commitment particularly

affective one (Ahmad, 2010). Moreover, according to social exchange theory,

organizational politics has been perceived negatively, in turn the employee’s emotional

attachment with the organization is decreased. Therefore, a negative relationship has been

perceived political activities and AC is conceived as quite realistic.

194

On the other hand, there is perceived transformational leadership style which is

acknowledged as associated with positive consequences in the organization. When the

employees perceive high politics in the environment and they find their leader as

transformational i.e., highly involved in themselves, motivating them through

encouraging their ideas, and inspiring them by altering their beliefs and attitudes

favorably towards the organization (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Cleveland,

Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000), thus alleviating the negative impacts of politics. In response

to positive behaviors of their TRF, even in such environments of ambiguity, employees

tend to become more committed to the organization.

Based on Blau’s (1964) theory both economic and social type of exchanges

primarily depend upon some return in the future. Economic exchange, nevertheless, is

well defined and discerned, whereas social exchange return is somehow not clearly

defined in terms of the return of means. It may surmise that employees want to pay back

for the favors they have contributed in response to TRF; therefore, it is not unanticipated

to infer that the environment which is marked by enhancement of self-interest, ambiguity

and the acts of politics, TRF can bring more positive results. Study of Rupp and

Cropanzano (2002) reasonably support our argument as they found that employees in an

organization form social exchange relationships towards other individuals that are based

on how they perceive others. If POPs are high, social exchange perceptions will be

affected by the behavior of leader and in return employees’ attitude like AC and job

satisfaction are likely to be increased, if they evaluate leader’s behavior as positive,

motivating, inspiring, and encouraging for them.

Moreover, the atmosphere which is perceived to be highly political, gives room to

reduction in trust among employees (Poon, 2006) and in such an environment, any leader

who is perceived to be transformational can be thought as a ray of hope and the

employees may feel secure having attachments with him. In order to respond to such

leaders, the employees may assume to demonstrate more committed to the organization

and their emotional bond with the organization gets even stronger. It might be convinced

that the TRF can help in reducing the uncertainty of work environment leaving more

195

room to justice and fairness (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007), which might result in a stronger

positive bond between TRF and AC.

As documented pithily in earlier section that TRS involves a transaction with

employee where the employee receives benefits when fulfilling the expectations of the

leader and has to receive punishments when fails to fulfill the expectations of the leader.

Therefore, following the well-understood rules of operant conditioning (Field, 2005;

Skinner, 1938) their positive behaviors and attitudes are strengthened in order to get more

and more rewards or to avoid punishments. On the other hand, in a highly political

environment the employees begin to realize that the reward allocation is not fair. They

tend to perceive that pay-and-promotion-policies, a dimension of POP, are based on

organizational politics. Moreover, as POP has been found negatively associated with

distributive justice (Miller & Nicols, 2008); in an environment which gives more room to

politics, the employees believe that it is the politics which might bring rewards and

promotions to them. When the employees find their leader as transactional in such an

environment, the struggle for such resources and rewards increases and the employees

tend to show more commitment to the organization. They are perceived as committed

employees by the leaders, and hence they may receive more favors from their leaders.

The study of Podsakoff et al., (2009) may also help in understanding the phenomenon of

TRS-AC association. In their meta-analytic study on OCB, they found that OCBs were

positively associated with reward allocation and ratings of employees. We may also

undertake an indication that these contingent rewards also play significant role in

escalating TRS-AC relationship in the presence of high political environment, because

AC functions as enticing attitude for TRS.

Current results did not endorse GPB as significant moderator in TRS-AC

relationship. One possible reason for that may be that GPB is sub-construct in nature,

which is assumed not to explain total politics because impact of totality in a construct

may differ when it is perceived in dimensionality. As discussed earlier in the case of

TRF, Emery and Barker (2007) provide evidence that specific behaviors of TRF did not

reflect leader’s behavior perfectly. The same condition may be applied when POP is

perceived by the employees in an organization.

196

Secondly, it has also been argued in previous sections of discussion that social

exchange typically depends upon some anticipated return. Social exchange relationship

towards leadership is certainly based on perception of political behavior and activities

taking place in an organization. If POP is exclusively high compared to positive TRS

behaviors, social exchange perception may be reduced (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002) and

employee’s AC tends to be affected. Hence, perceptions play very vital role in realization

of these exchange relationships (Wayne 1997), so if employees feel their TRF behavior

as unfair, politicized and based on favoritism, their perception of social exchange is likely

to be disturbed, which may result in the decrease of their AC and other positive behaviors

and attitudes towards organization.

Finally it is concluded that it is justified to assume that high levels of POP

contribute to determine the relationship strength between leadership styles (including

transformational leadership style and transactional leadership style) and affective

organizational commitment.

POP as Moderator between Perceived Leadership Styles and Job Involvement (JI)

The present study finally examined the moderating role of POP in leadership and

job involvement (JI) relationship to test proposed model. Findings of present study

revealed that POP, general political behavior (GPB), and pay-and-promotion-policies

(PPP) served as significant moderators between perceived leadership styles and JI such

that the interactive effect of these political behaviors and both leadership styles

(transformational and transactional) fortified the positive association of these leadership

styles and JI. Although under low levels of POP, GPB, and PPP, the relationships

between perceived leadership styles and JI also remained positive but at their high levels,

as observed in steeper lines, designated rather stronger patterns of relationship between

the both (see Table 21, 22 & Figure 20 to 26). Hence, our hypotheses 26 to 33 (except

hypothesis 27) were supported by the data, whereas GPB found to be non significant

moderator between TRF and JI thus, results did not confirm hypothesis 27 (see Table 21).

Existing literature illustrated the role of POP has demonstrated mixed results

depending upon perceiver’s understanding, for instance Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky,

197

Hochwarter and Ammeter (2002) anticipated a model describing the antecedents and

consequences of POP. The model suggested that in response to POP, the employee can

withdraw from the organization (i.e., increased turnover intention), can increase

absenteeism, or on the other hand can affect job involvement in a sense that the employee

becomes more involved in the organization and thus reducing the POP effects.

Conversely, Cropanzano et al. (1997) explored that POP entails negative relationship

with job involvement suggesting that when employees perceive high polittics in the

organization, they tend to be less involved in their jobs. Moreover, according to its

definition, job involvement is the psychological identification the employee has with the

organization (Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992). This identification depends upon the

satisfaction and contentment employee derives from the organization (McKelvey &

Sekaran, 1977), whereas POP results in a decreased level of satisfaction with job and

with organization (Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson, & Anthony, 1999; Kimura, 2102).

Finding of Cropanzano et al. (1997) and Ying-Ni, Chih-Long, and Hung (2012), for

instance, confirmed that POP is negatively associated with job involvement, therefore, it

is not surprising that POP results in a decreased level of job involvement.

The relationship can also be discerned in terms of Brown and Leigh’s Model

(1996), which suggests how organizational climate (the perception an employee has

about his/her work environment) affects job involvement and its relationship to other

behavioral or attitudinal outcomes. They maintained that when employees perceive their

workplace as positive for them, they in turn become attached with the organization i.e.,

high job involvement, and indulge in positive acts for the organization. In other words,

the organizational climate in which the worker feels supported and finds control over

work is more facilitating for job involvement (Brown & Leigh, 1996). Similarly, the

employees perceiving organizational politics, develop negative feelings about the

organization, therefore, a reduced degree of support is perceived by them. As

organizational politics is often perceived as negative for the organization (Makhdoom,

2013; Vigoda-Godat, 2010), the employees who perceive high level of organizational

politics find themselves as less identified with the organization.

198

Although, researchers have yielded a controversy in concluding the relationship

of POP with job involvement, for example some researchers are of the view that POP

decreases the level of job involvement. This is what Danish (2000) observed when he

studied a sample from various financial industries in Pakistan. He found that POP was

significantly negatively related with JI. Similarly, Cropanzano et al. (1997) stated that

POP is negatively associated with job involvement. On the other hand, there are some

researchers who have found that POP is positively associated with JI; they reason for it

by suggesting that when employees perceive organizational politics unfair, they become

more involved in the job (Delle, 2013; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992). Nonetheless, most

studies have accumulated evidence on focusing the possibility of direct POP-work

outcomes relationship (e.g., OCB, affective commitment, job satisfaction, general

performance). Therefore, there was need of studies to support the presence of indirect

(moderated or mediated) effects. Current study was an empirical endeavor in this context

to test the moderating role of POP in relationship between perceived leadership styles and

JI.

On the other hand, TRF has been recognized in contributing for perceived

organizational support. It has been observed that TRF results in high degree of perceived

support (Twigg & Kang, 2012). Moreover, it has been observed that when employees

perceive the organization as unfair (i.e., high at politics), they tend to reduce the negative

consequences, and consequently, as suggested by Delle, (2013), Ferris, Adams,

Kolodinsky, Hochwarter and Ammeter (2002), and Ferris & Kacmar, (1992), they feel

themselves safe through their identification with work (i.e., job involvement). Therefore,

it may be assumed that a substantial strong relationship of TRF and JI is expected when

there is a high level of politics.

Another logical explanation of current results is that the role of transformational

leaders has broadly been accredited in motivation, admiration, encouragement, and

development of desirable positive behaviors and attitudes among employees. They are

sufficiently equipped with behaviors and skills to change the perception of employees.

They need to use their skills more efficiently and vigilantly to change employees’

perception from negative to positive when there is existence of high politics at workplace.

199

In response to leader’s keen involvement to reduce ambiguity, uncertainty that is created

by high POP, the employees perceive their job as meaningful and they tend to increase

level of JI, thus high level of POP leads a stronger TRF-JI relationship. The study of

Ammeter et al. (2002) provide support to our point of view who projected that political

behavior of leaders may be influential in construction of shared meaning and decreasing

ambiguity about ill perceived organizational occurrences. This suggests that being able to

use political skills is also important for TRF not only to fulfill their role, but also in order

to enhance JI among employees when they perceive high level of politics around them.

Present results can also be justified by Blau’s social exchange theory (1964),

which endorsed that social exchange largely depends upon some return in the future. It

may be deduced that employees want some sort of return from TRF in exchange to their

contribution in favor of organization; therefore, it is not surprising that in an environment

marked by political activities of self-interest and ambiguity, TRF possibly brings more

positive results. Study of Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) reasonably support our findings

that employees’ social exchange relationships in an organization are based on their

perception. Their perception of high POP will lead them be affected by the positive

behavior of leader for social exchange and in return employees’ attitude like JI is likely to

be increased, if they evaluate leader’s behavior positive, motivating, inspiring, and

encouraging for them.

Moreover, as noted by McCook (2002) perceived organizational support and

perceived opportunity for reward cause an increase in employee’s job involvement. As

TRS is offering rewards in order to increase the likelihood of expected work outcomes,

when employees perceive their work environment as political, they are justified to think

that perceived opportunity for rewards is associated with politics in a sense that such

environments where politics’ perception is high, the employees may think that reward

opportunity is based on politics and that the transactions of reward allocation for the sake

of desired outcomes are based on politics rather than merit. Therefore, they tend to

increase their identification with job, which might result in even a stronger positive

association between TRS and JI.

200

As discussed earlier that POP has also been found negatively associated with

distributive justice (Miller & Nicols, 2008), trust (Poon, 2006), and employee’s

perception of fairness and justice in the organizational procedures (Andrews & Kacmar,

2001; Beugre & Liverpool, 2006), such a situation is fertile for development of high level

of POP. When the employees find their leader as transactional in such an environment,

their efforts for resources and rewards are increased and the employees tend to show

more involvement in job. They are perceived as more interested and psychologically

involved employees by the leaders; hence they may receive more favors from their

leaders.

Moreover, JI increases the likelihood of positive organizational variables. It has

been observed that JI contributes to organizational development by increasing work

engagement and decreasing psychological detachment from work during holidays, which

results in increased level of work engagement (Kuhnel, Sonnentag, & Westman, 2009). It

is therefore, transactional leadership (TRS) particularly concentrates more on increase of

JI when POP is high among them. When things do not go well as planned, the TRS

exercises behaviors of contingent rewards and management-by-exception-active in

employees’ work processes to enhance the level of JI and to mitigate the negative effect

of POP. These tactics are used by TRS following the well established principles of

operant conditioning (Field, 2005; Skinner, 1938). Thus employees strengthened their

positive behaviors and attitudes in order to get more and more rewards or to avoid

penalties.

While exchanging the benefits with their followers TRS also (through

maneuvering of rewards and punishments) clarifies the sense of duty among them to

reach goals. When there is high POP at workplace, TRS further assumes to be more

active to influence the behavior of employees by active monitoring of employees’

performance and use of corrective methods to ensure the standard and timely completion

of work. In an environment in which high politics is involved, the employees also incline

to respond towards TRS with more positive attitude and behaviors such as JI to ensure

their own interests as well. We can safely surmise, from all discussion, that high level of

POP effectively contributes in consolidation of TRS-JI relationship.

201

It is worth mentioning here that while considering leadership style, the results of

current study established somehow similar findings when both styles were used as

predictor variables or considered for interaction with POP as moderator. Existing

literature accumulate mixed findings in terms of the effect of TRF and TRS on criterion

variables. When TRS was taken into consideration as predictor of various organizational

outcomes Mester, et. al. (2003) found that TRS style did not correlate significantly with

job involvement; Yahchouchi (2009) observed non significant relation between TRS and

organizational commitment; Lian and Tui (2012), and Vigoda-Gadot (2007) elucidated

significant negative relationship between TRS and OCB. There may be certain

explanations to understand the closely similar pattern of TRF and TRS in prediction and

moderation results.

Firstly, both transformational and transactional leaders are considered distinct and

they may not essentially be mutually exclusive but Bass (1985) asserted that effective

leaders use combination of both styles. Bryman (1992) also viewed that a leader can be

both transformational and transactional. It was also evidenced in current study by the

strong positive correlation (r = .69) between these two styles of leadership. This is in

same fashion with previous findings in the literature (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1999; Hartog

& Van Muijen, 1997), and suggests that effective heads use a combination of these

distinct leadership styles, each at the right time in the right degree.

Secondly, for the current study TRS did not included management-by-exception-

passive (MBE-P) dimension as it was negatively correlated with both styles and their

other dimensions and confirmed positive relation with laissez-faire leadership (see Table

5). As MBE-P was not incorporated in TRS scores for present study, it was therefor, like

TRF, a relatively strong positive relation of TRS with outcome variables was anticipated.

Impact of Demographics

In addition to hypotheses testing, current study has also explored impact of certain

demographics of university teachers in relation to variables operationalized for present

study. Table 24 reflects the significant results of multivariate analyses for assessing the

influence of demographics on our study variables. Only marital status, among all the

202

factors, indicated a significant multivariate F whereas all other factors i.e. age, gender,

and job experience were found to be non-significant in relation to the combination of

variables of the present study. The significant main effect of marital status was further

followed by univariate analyses of variance, which showed significant differences in

TRS, TRF, POP and OCB where married individuals had significantly higher mean score

on TRS, TRF and OCB as compared to their counterparts. Unmarried yielded

significantly higher mean score on POP.

These differences might be attributed to the exposure to marital life of majority of

married individual serving as heads in various departments of Pakistani universities. The

marital life is not less than an institution. Spouses need to learn many tactics in order to

maintain a successful marital life. They particularly develop skills that when and how to

admire partner and how to encourage and motivate spouse in certain situation. Moreover,

in a collectivist culture married individuals involve various attributes like cooperation,

coordination, and negotiating to maintain poise in there marital life, Therefor, it can be

assumed that the experience of being married individual may add value to leadership

decisions and conflict management.

Married people can also bring much needed thought equilibrium to community

tasks; they are expected to show citizenship behavior in social life as there social

interaction is likely to be greater than those of unmarried ones. Their attitudes and

behavior they perform as mature and responsible married person may be useful to

influence them to perform extra role behaviors in professional life. Particularly a married

member of university teaching faculty in Pakistan is supposed to be stable and ambitious,

therefor if s/he has greater participation in OCBs, it is not much surprising.

Among the significant 2-way interactions, job experience and marital status had a

significant two-way interactive impact on POP and OCB. Slope lines in Figure 31 explain

that POP of unmarried teachers gradually increases subject to increase in their job

experience, whereas in the case of unmarried teachers the level of POP is increased with

job experience, however the most experienced teachers and those with 6 to 10 year of job

experience demonstrate almost no change in POP.

203

The results suggest that job experience with marital status yields across both POP

and OCB. With increasing age, job experience is enhanced and thinking pattern is also

changed due to interaction with diverse circumstances. Married employees are already

considered and treated as mature individuals and with increased job experience they

probably acquire more skills to maneuver the workplace politics.

Certainly every employee is concerned with career growth and development and

in some conditions in order to gain advantage it becomes essential to be involved

workplace politics. Liu, Liu, and Wu (2010) found in a study that political engagement

was positively related to career growth even among employees in non-managerial roles,

which suggests that engaging in politics is important not only for managers but also for

lower level employee in order to progress within the organization.

Steep lines in Figure 32 shows that OCB of married teachers gradually increases

that is subjected to enhancement in their job experience. However this increase is higher

between teachers with job experience 2 to 5 years and those with 6 to 10 and slightly

increases after that. In the case of the less experienced unmarried teachers the OCB is

higher.

Faculty members in university who are married and unmarried are having

different positions and status. Generally early years of employees are considered the time

of establishing and settling down, therefore they tend to increase OCB so that to acquire

benefits reasonably from the leadership. There development of OCB in context is logical,

on the other hand it also seems reasonable that older married individuals raise their OCB

because they might have learn through their job experience that prestige, honor, respect

and some sort of informal rewards are designated to involvement in extra role behaviors.

This may also be surmised by the reason that employees who have been serving the

organization for a long time may know better how to behave with others in order to help

them and to solve their problems.

Current results also unveil that age, job experience and marital status produce three way

interaction effects on TRF and OCB. Graphic display (Figure 33) illustrates that for married

university teachers of all job experience groups, TRF increases with advancement in age in first

204

two groups and declines for the group with age of 46 years and above. In age groups with 36 to

45 year and 46 and above year TRF remain almost stable. In case of unmarried teachers the

trend is increase in experience with advanced age and younger age group of unmarried teachers

having minimum job experience have lowest mean score on TRF. In the case of OCB pattern

suggests that married university teachers with lowest job experience and age group found to be

highest on OCB (see Figure 34). Teachers with 6 to 10 year job experience demonstrate high

score among all age groups and in case of teachers with highest job experience the highest mean

score on OCB is demonstrated by youngest age group.

Younger married individuals (ranging from 25 to 35 years of age) in contrast to

older ones are usually perceived more flexible, therefor they can coordinate their needs

better with organization and employees and their high level on TRF and OCB is justified.

Hence, the older leaders are prone to rigidity and inflexibility in adjustment of their needs

and coordination. Although there is dearth of literature exploring the interactive effect of

age, job experience and marital status on TRF and OCB, yet scant evidence indicating

that age and job experience relate with OCB and TRF (e.g. Avolio, et al., 2004; Banu, et

al., 2012; Jahangir, Akbar, & Haq, 2004).

Mahnaz, Mehdi, Jafar, and Abbolghasem, (2013) in a descriptive study explored

the association between OCB and demographic characteristics in 333 randomly selected

teaching employees from hospitals in Tehran. Their study provides support to the idea

that married employees have a higher level of commitment to OCB. They further found

that employees with older age and greater job experience demonstrated more assurance to

OCB. This notion can be justified by the idea that, commonly, married people show more

devotion towards life and work. Therefor, it can carefully be assumed that differences

between younger and older married with increasing job experience may vary in their

orientations towards employee. These differences may lead them their changed

perspective towards TRF and OCB.

Conclusions

Findings of the present study are an empirical evidence for testing a model that

manifested moderating role of POP and its constructs in relationship to perceived

205

leadership styles and behavioral outcomes for university teachers of Pakistan. Model was

based on review of theoretical literature discussing the role of POP in positive

relationship of perceived leadership styles and outcomes. Results of the study depicted

that both TRF and TRS found to be significant positive predictors of OCB, AC and, JI.

Among facets of TRF idealized influence behavior proved to be non-significant predictor

of AC, and individualized consideration did not predict OCB and JI, whereas

management-by-exception-active factor of TRS also found to be non-significant predictor

of OCB and AC.

POP and its sub constructs included general political behavior (GPB), go-along-

to-get-ahead (GATGA), and pay-and-promotion-policies (PPP) were analyzed as

important key moderators of main relationship between perceived leadership styles (TRS

and TRF) and outcomes i.e. OCB, AC, and JI, proposed in model. Results of the present

study revealed that POP, GPB, and PPP significantly moderated between perceived

leadership styles and OCB by strengthening the positive effect of these leadership styles

on OCB, on the other hand GATGA proved to be non-significant moderator in

relationship of both leadership styles and OCB.

Current findings further revealed that POP, GPB, and PPP significantly

moderated between perceived leadership styles and AC such that the positive association

of these leadership styles and AC was enhanced, on the other hand GPB was found to be

non significant moderator between TRF and AC.

Finally findings of present study revealed that POP, GPB, and PPP served as

significant moderators between perceived leadership styles and JI such that the

interactive effect of these political behaviors and both leadership styles (transformational

and transactional) consolidated the positive relation of these leadership styles and JI,

however GPB found to be non significant moderator between TRF and JI.

Practical Implications

The present study is instituted for the first time in Pakistan that has extensively

explored the role of POP and leadership styles in determining pertinent behavioral

206

outcomes among university teachers. As an exploratory study within the context of

population and public sector, current research has hatched certain vital implications that

can envisage more efficient and effective management vision in institution of higher

education. Following is description of certain potential implications:

Importance of leadership has been a well established fact and current findings also

endorsed that university heads with both transformational and transactional styles have

key role in leading OCBs among faculty members. Moreover many other positive

attitudes e.g. teachers’ satisfaction (Bogler, 2001), organizational commitment,

increasing satisfaction with compensation (Mosadegh, Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006)

are associated with transformational academic institutional heads. In case high POP,

university’s heads of departments (HODs) depending upon their own qualities, values,

characteristics, skills and attributes, directly and vigilantly attempt to influence the

behavior of teachers, therefor leadership development and training is also suggested as an

aid that could help them to cultivate and ensure more effective delivery of OCB, AC, JI

and other positive work outcomes in university teachers even in the presence of high

POP.

Leadership has also been well recognized as a crucial solution, in organizations

including educational institutions like schools, colleges and universities, for most of the

problems (Boateng, 2012). This is because, there are leaders in the form of HODs in

university settings, who are capable to formulating the goals and communicate them to

teachers in the academic setting. They are competent to influence teachers to believe in

the goals and commit to achieve them for the improvement of academic department.

Current findings recommend that universities too like other organizations need TRF and

TRS for certain faculties who are supposed to persistently explore ways of improving

behavioral outcomes among teachers to implement quality teaching and learning

programs in an encouraging environment to move the academic programs successfully

according to the market trends.

Findings suggest that POP has been inversely associated with OCB, affective

commitment (AC), and job involvement (JI) and that may possibly hinder the effective

207

role of university teachers but this situation can be encountered by the timely intervention

of more responsive, vigilant and active role of HODs. Heads can overcome the negative

effect of POP and thus they can create desirable and effective behaviors like OCB, AC

and, JI in teaching staff.

It is also suggested that TRF not only reduces the adverse impacts of POP on

teaching faculty but also can create atmosphere encouraging to positive behavioral

outcomes like extra role behaviors AC and JI among them.

Moreover, cognitive learning, perceptions of heads credibility, affective learning,

and communication satisfaction are associated with transactional leadership, so the

results of this study suggest that public sector university’s HODs need to use sheer

leadership style to enhance effectiveness in universities.

Results of the present research pertaining to chairperson-teacher relationship also

entail that that in the case of high POP teaching faculty largely relies on perception of

social exchange; it is therefore chairperson having transformational of transactional style

needs to retaliate teachers with some return in exchange to their contribution. These

rewards may be in the form the acknowledgement of teachers’ work, thanks giving,

nomination of awards allocated by higher education commission, or positive evaluation

of their performance. This will cultivate the sense of increase in OCB, AC and staunch

involvement in job among teachers. HODs can also favorably alter teachers’ perception

of social exchange through provision of necessary resources like spacious offices,

internet connected computers, and access to paid databases of articles.

HODs with TRF must involve the teaching faculty in decision making pertaining

to departmental policies like agenda of board of studies, inception of new programs,

finalizing exam schedules etc. This will motivate them to be more involved in their jobs

and to elucidate feeling of attachment towards heads and their respective university. On

the other hand heads with TRS should offer choice to teachers, while allocating courses,

assigning duties other than teaching, nominating for examination duties or study tours,

along with moderate monitoring of their performance.

208

When these conditions are met, the reliance of teachers on their HODs in the

presence of high POP is justified that will give them confidence and provocation to

perform OCBs, identify themselves with the organization in such a way that they get

involved in the goal-seeking process of the organization, emotional attachment,

identification and involvement with the university.

Findings of this research also postulated that more strict and active monitoring of

university teachers’ job may produce negative sense of feeling towards their heads and

that can likely results in decrease of their OCB and job involvement. Usually university

teachers are considered highly qualified and academic elite, it is therefor they demand

autonomy and freedom to perform their duties so a moderate level of monitoring is

recommended for heads in order to ensure teachers’ OCB, emotional attachment,

identification, and involvement with the university.

Final implication of the present study pertains to gender of university’s HODs and

teachers that current findings meant for both. Irrespective of gender heads should focus

more on treating their subordinates as prestigious colleagues and encourage their

participation in certain extra role behaviors especially in the case of high POP it this

becomes also substantial for heads to establish trust with teachers.

Limitations and Suggestions

The current results are supposed to be taken into consideration with caution while

considering certain limitations stated below.

Like most of the organizational phenomena POP is also context dependent,

particularly the organizational context is a determining factor of the degree of politics

within organizations. Present study incorporated sample from public sector universities,

which entails different organizational context as compare to typical organizations.

Therefor current results should be seen and interpreted cautiously when generalized.

The sample of this study was confined to the public sector universities of the

Punjab and KPK provinces of Pakistan, which may truly be the representative of the

universities of other provinces i.e. Sindh, Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan such as they

209

may have somewhat different organizational climate. There are many conspicuous

managerial, administrative, and structural difference in Pakistan between public and

private sector institutions of higher education, hence current findings may not outline the

true relationships among the constructs in case of the universities of these sectors. The

external validity of the proposed model of the present research can be determined by

empirical research on these constructs that incorporate with national sample of both

public and private sector university teachers.

It is also noticeable that universities, in general, comprise teaching staff of various

job statuses i.e. part time, contractual, visiting, ad hoc, tenure track, and permanent or

regular. The finding of this research may also be considered with caution because it

included only those regular teachers who were having at least two year of experience.

Furthermore, majority of the teachers were lecturers or assistant professors and there was

very few associate and full professors. Future research can further explore the present

model on a large heterogeneous, probability sample composed of all categories of

university teachers’ jobs or other samples may individually be taken into consideration in

order to have an extensive insight into comparison and to enhance validation across

various groups.

The use of self-report measures to collect data is potential threat of common

method variance, which may inflate the relationship among various constructs of the

study or does not assure finding the significant results, even with rather large sample.

Moreover, most of the teachers and the heads were not familiar with the constructs and

even after the briefing about topic they were reluctant to participate in the study. In such

a condition self-report measure are vulnerable to social desirability effect whereby

respondents may try to manage their impression by responding in a socially desirable

manner. Specifically social desirability effect may be reflected in OCB and POP in terms

of the responses of the participants. A multimethod approach combining semi structured

interviews with self-report measures in future exploration of these variables may reflect a

picture of relationship pattern with more precision.

210

The cross-sectional design of the present research does not necessarily explain the

causal inferences about the relationships among various predictor and the criterion

variables. Another limitation instituted in this study is that survey research considered

vulnerable to serious threats of confounding, latent, and extraneous variable that can not

be controlled exclusively. For instance work family conflicts among employees, there

socio economic background, and extra workloads and experiencing physical fatigue

caused by delivery of two or more consecutive lectures in a day. An extensive study may

also be conducted to examine the impact of demographics e.g. sex, race, ethnicity, job

tenure, salary of employee, age, academic qualification, and work family conflicts on

current study variables. Future research can also integrate longitudinal research design to

ascertain the causal inferences about the relationships among various variables of study.

The current study operationalized variables through the rating of teachers only,

whereas future studies are recommended to operationalize various constructs on multiple

levels e.g. organizational citizenship behavior, affective commitment, and job

involvement may also be supervisor and student rated.

It is also suggested that the mediated role of POP and its facets in proposed model

of current study or the moderated role of POP and its facets in relationship of leadership

styles and organizational work outcomes should also be examined in future studies. As

mentioned earlier that present study particularly focused on public sector universities,

therefore current model should be tested while incorporating professionals of other public

or private sector organizations, for instance banking, heath department,

telecommunication, schools, health insurance companies, and secondary schools.

211

References

Abdi, H., Kianzadeh, A., Talebpour, M., Emami, F., Bahmanpour, H., & Nasiri, M.

(2012). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and job burnout

in the faculty members of physical education. Advances in Environmental Biology,

6(5), 1858–1861.

Adams, G. L., Ammeter, A. P., Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., &

Kolodinsky, R. W. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Additional

thoughts, reactions, and multi-level issues. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 1, 287-

294.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic

Press.

Adnan, I. (2009). Perceived managerial styles and their effects on organizational climate: The

case of Pakistani industry. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(5),

289-298.

Afshardoust, M., Feizabadi, M. S., Zakizadeh, B., & Abdolhoseyni, M. (2013).

Relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and organizational

perceived politic among the sport organization experts of Tehran municipality.

International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(4), 870–873.

Ahmad, H., & Gelaidan, H. M. (2011). Organizational culture, leadership styles and

employee’s affective commitment to change. A case of Yemen public sector.

Journal of Organizational Management Studies.

Ahmad, R. U. (2010). Direct and indirect effects of organizational justice and

perceptions of politics on personal and organizational outcomes (Unpublished

doctoral thesis), International Islamic University, Islamabad: Pakistan.

Albert, S. (2008). Perceived leadership styles of a mayor and its impact on organizational

commitment of municipal employees; dissertation, Capella University. Minneapolis.

212

Alexandrov, A., Babakus, E., & Yavas, U. (2007). The effects of perceived management

concern for frontline employees and customers on turnover intentions: moderating

role of employment status. Journal of Service Research, 9(4), 356–371.

Alison, M. B. (2007). The relationship of transformational and transactional leader to

job satisfaction and organizational commitment within for-profit organizations on

Long Island, New York (Unpublished dissertation). Dowling College, New York.

Alizadeh, Z., Darvishi, S., Nazari, K., & Emami, M. (2012). Antecdents and

consequences of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Interdisciplinary

Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9), 494–505.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979).

Organizational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California

Management Review, 22(1), 77-83.

Alsayed, A. K., Motaghi, M. H., & Osman, I. B. (2012). The use of the multifactor

leadership questionnaire and communication satisfaction questionnaire in

Palestine: A research note. International Journal of Scientific and Research

Publications, 2(11), 1-9.

Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Gardner, W. L, Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2002).

Toward a political theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 751–796.

Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among organizational politics,

justice, and support, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 347-66.

Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., & Harris, K. J. (2009). Got political skill? The impact

of justice on the importance of political skill for job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94, 1427—1437.

213

Antonakis, J. (2002). Convincing Support for the 9-factor MLQ model. In 360 degree

Feedback: Newsletter of the accredited MLQ network. Melbourne: MLQ Leadership

Services Pty Ltd.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasurbramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor

leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.

Arnold, K. A., Barling, K., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership or

the iron cage: Which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy? Leadership

and Organizational Development Journal, 22, 315-320.

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Samah, B. A. (2008). The relationship between

transformational leadership behaviors, organizational justice, LMX, perceived

organizational support, trust in management and organizational citizenship

behaviors. European Journal of Scientific Research, 23(2), 227-242.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The Full-Range of Leadership Development.

Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies.

Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational

and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal

of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 72(4), 441-463.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development; Building the vital forces in

organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The Full-Range of Leadership Development, Center

for Leadership Studies, Binghamton, NY.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of

leadership cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Retrieved on May

31, 2013 from http:www.netLibrary.com/urlapi.asp?

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of

transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

214

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-

462.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and

moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-

968.

Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current Teories,

Research, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421–449.

Azeem, M. U., Mahmood. B., & Haq. I, (2010). Perception of Organizational Politics

Leads to Job Stress: An evidence from banking sector of Pakistan. European Journal

of Social Sciences, 18(2),

Azeem, S. M. (2010). Personality hardiness, job involvement and burnout among

teachers. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 2(3), 36–40.

Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010).The relationship between

charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–326.

Bano, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-confidence at work: Toward understanding the

motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal,

46(5), 554-571.

Banu, C. V., Amudha, R., & Surulivel, S. T. (2012). A pragmatic study on organization

citizenship behavior in an indian private leisure travels organization using factor

analysis. European Journal of Social Sciences, 28(4), 581–589.

Bashir, S., Nasir, Z. M., Saeed, S., & Ahmed, M. (2011). Breach of psychological

contract, perception of politics and organizational cynicism: Evidence from Pakistan.

African Journal of Business, 5, 844–888

215

Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.), Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional/transformational leadership paradigm

transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–

139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The multifactor leadership questionnaire for

research. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for

the multifactor leadership questionnaire, CA, Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (eds.) (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness

through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. (2nd ed.) Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J.,Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting Unit Performance

by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.

Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial applications. New York, NJ: Free Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130

216

Bass, M. B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1998). Ethics, character and authentic transformational

leadership. Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The

relationship between affect and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4),

587–595.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of

Sociology,

66, 33–42.

Bennis, W. (1984). The 4 competencies of leadership. Training and Development

Journal,

38, 14–19.

Bhal, K. T., & Ansari, M. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange-subordinate outcomes

relationship: role of voice and justice. Leadership and Organization Development

Journal 28(1), 20–35.

Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational

commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. Academy of Management Review,

12(2), 288–300.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Boateng, C. (2012). Evolving conceptualization of leadership and its implication for

vocational technical education. World Journal of Education, 2(4), 45-54.

Bodla, M. A., & Danish, R. Q. (2011). Moderating role of social exchange perceptions

between perceived organizational politics and antisocial behavior. Journal of

Economics and Behavioral Studies, 3(5), 279–286.

Bodla, M. A., & Danish, R. Q. (June, 2013). Intervening role of social exchange

perceptions between perceived organizational politics and employee morale. Paper

217

presented at Proceedings of 21st International Business Research Conference,

Canada.

Bodla, M. A., & Nawaz, M. M. (2010). Comparative study of full range leadership model

among faculty members in public and private sector higher education institutes and

universities. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 208–214.

Bodla, M. A., Danish, R. Q, & Nawaz. M. M. (2012). Mediating role of perceived

organizational politics in relating job characteristics to morale. African Journal of

Business Management, 6(15), 5185–5192.

Boehman, J. (2006). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment among student

affairs professionals (unpublished doctoral dissertation), North Carolina State

University, USA.

Boerner, S., Dutschke, E. and Wied, S. (2008), Charismatic leadership and organizational

citizenship behaviour: examining the role of stressors and strain. Human Resource

Development International, 11(5), 507–521.

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership

theory and competency frameworks. Report for Chase Consulting and the

Management Standards Centre, Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter,

UK.

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The

relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work–

family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual

performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance,

10, 99–109.

218

Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship

behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 70–

82.

Brouer, R. L., Duke, A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). The moderating effect

of political skill on the demographic dissimilarity—Leader–member exchange

quality relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 61–69.

Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational

leadership: The role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 245–272.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its

relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 358–368.

Buchanan, D. A. (2007). You stab my back, I’ll stab yours: Management experience and

perceptions of organization political behaviour. British Journal of Management,

19(1), 49–64.

Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2007). Power, politics and organizational change:

Winning the turf game. London: Sage Publications.

Bukhari, Z., & Ali, U. (2009). Relationship between organizational citizenship behavior

& counterproductive work behavior in the geographical context of Pakistan.

International Journal of Business and Management, 4(1), 85–92.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin., S. M. (2006).

What types of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The

Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.

Burns, J. (2003). Transformational leadership: New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

219

Butt, M. R., Imran, A., Shah, F. T., & Jabbar, A. (2013). Perception of organizational

politics and job outcomes in a public sector organization: The moderating role of

teamwork. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 18 (9), 1268-1276.

Cemaloğlu, N., Sezgin, F., & Kilinç, A. C. (2012, June). Okul yönetġcġlerġnġn

dönüġümcü ve etkġleġġmcġ lġderlġk stġllerġ ġle öğretmenlerġn örgütsel bağliliklari

arasindakġ ġlġġkġ. Paper presented at International Conference on New Horizons in

Education, Guarda, Portugal.

Chandna, P., & Krishnan, V. R. (2009). Organizational commitment of information

technology professionals: Role of transformational leadership and work-related

beliefs. Journal of Management Studies, 4(1), 1-13.

Chaudhry, A. Q., Javed, H., & Sabir, M. (2012). The impact of transformational and

transactional leadership styles on the motivation of employees in Pakistan.

Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 50(2), 223–231.

Cherry, B. L. (2007). Transformational versus transactional leadership.

Chiang, C., & Wang, Y. (2012). The effects of transactional and transformational

leadership on organizational commitment in hotels: The mediating effect of trust.

Hotel and Business Management, 1(1), 1-11.

Chiun M. L, Ramayah, T., & Min, H. W. (2009). Leadership styles and organizational

commitment: A test on Malaysia manufacturing industry. African Journal of

Marketing Management, 1(6), 133–139.

Chivakidakarn, Y., Dastoor, B., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2009). Political Behavior of Thai

Managers and Their Perceptions of Politicking. The IUP Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 8(3), 22–33.

Cleveland, J., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and Men in

Organizations. London: Lawrence Elbaum Associates.

220

Coole, D. R. (2003). The effects of citizenship performance, task performance, and rating

format on performance judgments. Retrieved from

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2347&context=etd

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of

organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159–180.

Dalal, R. S., Brummel, B. J., Wee, S., & Thomas, L. L. (2008). Defining employee

engagement for productive research and practice. Industrial and Organizational


Danaaefard, H., Balutbzeh, A., & Kashi, K. H. (2010). Good soldiers' perceptions of

organizational politics understanding the relation between organizational citizenship

behaviors and perceptions of organizational politics: Evidence from Iran. European

Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 18, 146–162.

Danish, R. Q. (2000). Differences in public and private sector in Organizational Politics

Perceptions and Work Performance Relationship: An Empirical Evidence from

Pakistan. COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore.

Davenport, & John. (2010). Leadership style and organizational commitment: The

moderating effect of locus of control. ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas,

17(1), 277-290.

Davis, W., & Gardner, W. (2004). Perceptions of Politics and Organizational Cynicism: An

Attributional and Leader-Member Exchange Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 439-

465.

De Hoogh, A., den Hartog, D., Koopman, P., Thierry, H., van den Berg, P., van der

Weide, J., & Wilderom, C. (2004). Charismatic leadership, environmental

221

dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work & Organizational

Psychology, 13(4), 447–471.

Delle, W. (2013). The influence of perception of organizational politics on employee job

involvement and turnover intentions: Empirical evidence from Ghanaian

organizations. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(9), 151-160.

Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating

roles of collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasian Journal of

Educational Research, 33, 93–112.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus

transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-34.

DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. (1984). A cognitive view of the

performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360–396.

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and

behavioural theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their

relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.

DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in

schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11,

424–447.

Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional

leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 99-119,

Dubin R (1956). A study of the ‘central life interests” of industrial workers. Social

Problems,

3, 131–142.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of

transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and

222

satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),

Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35-66).

Oxford, UK:JAL/Elsevier.

Duta, C. (2011). Leadership styles. Paper presented at The 6th international scientific

conference of “defence resources management in the 21st centuary”. Braşov:

Romania.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational

leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment .

Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735-744.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

Elankumaran, S. (2004). Personality, organizational climate and job involvement: An

empirical study. Journal of Human Values, 10, 117 – 130.

Emery, C., College, E., Barker, K., & Fredonia, S. (2007). The effect of transactional and

transformational leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job

satisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture,

Communications and Conflict, 11(1), 77–90.

European Social Survey (2012). ESS Round 6 Translation Guidelines. Mannheim,

European Social Survey GESIS. Retrieved from

http://www2.unil.ch/fors/IMG/pdf/ESS_R6_Translation_Guidelines_FINAL-2.pdf

Farahbod, F., Azadehdel, M., Rezaei-Dizgah, M., & Nezhadi-Jirdehi, M. (2012).

Organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organizational justice and leader–

member exchange. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,

3(9), 893–903.

Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in

the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241–253.

223

Farooqui (2012). Measuring organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as a consequence

of organizational climate (OC). Asian Journal of Business Management 4(3), 294-

302.

Farrell, D., & Petersen, J. C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. The

Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 403–412.

Fedor, D., G. R. Ferris, G. Harrell-Cook, & G. S. Russ. (1998). The Dimensions of

Politics Perceptions and Their Organizational and Individual Predictors. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1760-1797.

Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of

Management, 18, 93–116.

Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. (1991). Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on the

dark side. Organizational Dynamics, 20, 59–71

Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002).

Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. J.

Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp.179–

254). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., Chachere, J. G., & Pondy, L. R. (1989). Myths and politics in

organizational context. Group Organizational Studies, 14, 83–103.

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L.

(1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications,

and outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 233–266.

Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A.

Giacolone, & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression Management in the Organization, (pp.

143–170). Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill

Education.

224

Fiedler, F. E. (1970). Leadership experience and leader performance: Another hypothesis

shot to hell. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 1–14.

Field, A. P. (2005) in Wills, A.J. (Ed.) New directions in human associative learning.

Mahwah, New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Finkelstein, M. A., & Pennner, L. A. (2004). Predicting organizational citizenship

behavior integrating the functional and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and

Personality, 32(4), 383–398.

Finklestein, L., Protolipac, D., & Stiles, P. (2006). Personality and organizational

commitment: Mediational role of job characteristics perceptions. Paper presented at

the 21st annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Dallas, TX.

Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J, Levin, K. Y, Korotkin, A. L., Hein, M.

B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and

functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245–287.

Forster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory

focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631–636.

Gandz, J., & Murray, V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of

Management Journal, 23, 237–251.

Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of

democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25, 384–410.

Gbadamosi, L., & Chinaka, N. J. (2011). Organizational politics, turnover intention and

organizational commitment as predictors of employees’ efficiency and effectiveness

in academia. Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference

(InSITE). Ogun State, Nigeria.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior.

Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479—5 14.

225

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and

reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Goo, W., Lee, J. S., & Brekashvili, P. (2009). The study of factors influencing

organizational citizenship behaviors: Regression analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.indMed.com/view.asp?type=pdf&ID=1009579&l=en

Gore, N. (2001). What’s all this mobilizing about. Canadian HR Reporter, 14, 17–19.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member

exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment

model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109–131.

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job

satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational

Administration, 42(3), 333–356.

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., Field, S. (1960). Americans view their mental health. New York:

Basic Books.

Hackney, C. W. (2012). Personality, organizational commitment and job search

behaviour: A field study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of

Tennessee, Tennessee.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data

Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7 ed. NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

Hakwoo, K. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership of athletic directors

and their impact on organizational outcomes perceived by head coaches at NCAA

division II intercollegiate institutions (Unpublished Doctoral thesis). Graduate

School of the Ohio State University, Ohio.

Hales, C. P. (1986). What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence. Journal of

http://www.indmed.com/view.asp?type=pdf&ID=1009579&l=en

226

Hambley, L., Neill, T., & Kline, T. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of

leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and

outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1-20.

Harris, K. J., James, M., & Boonthanom, R. (2005). Perceptions of organizational politics

and cooperation as moderators of the relationship between job strains and intent to

turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 26-42.

Hartog, D. N. & Van Muijen, J. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership:

An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

70(1), 19-35

Hawkins, W. D. (1998). Predictors of affective organizational commitment among high

school principals (Unpublished doctoral thesis) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University, Virginia.

Hayward, Q., Goss, M., & Tolmay, R. (2004). The relationship between

transformational and transactional leadership and employee commitment.

Grahams town: Rhodes University, Business Report.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of

transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A

multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346–357.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behaviour.

Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hetland, H., & Sandal, G. M. (2003). Transformational leadership in Norway: Outcomes

and personality correlates. European Journal of work and Organizational

Psychology, 12(2) 140–170

Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work–family conflict in the dual-

career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 51–75.

227

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., Taylor, A.

(2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion

pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23.

Hirschfeld, R. R., & Field, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct

aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

21(7), 789–800.

Ho, C. (2006). A study of the relationships between job involvement and organizational

commitment among Taiwanese nurses (unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Queensland University of Technology: Australia.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. Asian Journal of Sociology, 63,

597–606.

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and

changing times. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Huey, L. Y., & Kamarul, Z. B. A. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational

culture on the relationships between leadership behavior and organizational

commitment and between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and

performance. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 30(1), 53-86.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2008). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons

of experience. (6th Ed.). McGraw-Hill:Irwin.

Iacobucci, D., & Duhachek, A. (2003). Advancing alpha: Measuring reliability with

confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 478–487.

Islam, S., Rehman, S., & Ahmed, I. (2013). Investigating the mediating role of

organizational politics between leadership style and followers' behavioral

outcomes. Business Strategy Series, 14(2/3), 80 – 96.

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2008). Organizational behavior

and management. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

228

Jacqueline A. M., Shapiro, C., Kessler, L. & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring

organizationally directed citizenship behaviour: Reciprocity or “It’s my

job?”.Journal of Management studies, 41(1), 85–106.

Jafari, H., Shaarbafchizadeh, N., Yaghoubi, M., Zahmatkesh, H., & Azami, R. (2013).

Spiritual leadership and job involvement of employees in selected hospitals of

Isfahan: 2010. Iranian Journal of Health Sciences , 1(2), 35-42.

Jahangir, N., Akbar, M. M., & Haq, M. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its

nature and antecedents. BRAC University Journal, 1(2), 75-85.

Jam, F. A., Khan, T. I., Zaidi, B. H., & Muzaffar, (2011). Political skills moderates the

relationship between perception of organizational politics and job outcomes. Journal

of Educational and Social Research, 1(4), 57–70.

Jam, F. A., Sheikh, R. A., Iqbal, H., Zaidi, B. H., Anis, Y., & Muzaffar, M. (2011).

Combined effects of perception of politics and political skill on employee job

outcomes. African Journal of Business Management, 5(23), 9896-9904.

Jamil, A., & Naseer, S. (). Percieved organizational politics as a moderator in leadership-

outcome relationship. Retrieved from:

http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings55th/article/viewFile/1583/582

Jansen, J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and

exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership

Quarterly, 20, 5-18.

Johnson, S. K. (2008). I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect at

work on leader and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 19,1−19.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M. (2004).The effect of physical height on workplace success and

income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,

428–441.

http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings55th/article/viewFile/1583/582

229

Kacmar, K. M., Bozeman D. P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An

examination of the perceptions of organizational politics model: Replication and

extension. Human Relations, 52, 383–416.

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of

organizational politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of

Management, 23(5), 627–658.

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics

scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23(5), 627-658.

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perception of organizational politics scale

(POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 51, 193–205.

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politic Scale

(POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 51, 193–205.

Kacmar, K. M., Bozeman, D. P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An

examination of the perceptions of organizational politics model: Replication and

extension. Human Relations, 52, 383–416.

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem

structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system

environment. Personnel Psychology, 50,121–146.

Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace

social exchange relation-ships in predicting task performance and citizenship

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286–1298.

Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67(3), 341-349.

230

Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming,

relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B.J. Avolio, &

F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road

ahead (pp. 67-91). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations, Oxford: Wiley.

Kaur, P. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior: Changing employees into citizens.

International Journal of Management and Business Studies, 1(4), 87-89.

Kent, A., Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational

commitment and citizenship behavior: A case study in intercollegiate athletics.

Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 135–159.

Khalid, S. A., Jusoff, H. K., Ali, H., Ismail, M., Kasim, K. M., & Rahman, N. A. (2009).

Gender as a moderator between OCB and turnover intention. Asian Social Science,

5(6), 108–117.

Khan, N. R., Ghouri, A. M., & Awang, M. (2013). Leadership and organizational

citizenship behavior in small and medium scale firms. Journal of Arts, Science

and Commerce, 4(2), 144-154.

Kim, H. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership of athletic directors and

their impact on organizational outcomes perceived by head coaches at ncaa division

ii intercollegiate institutions (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The Ohio State

University, Ohio.

Kim, H. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership of athletic directors and

their impact on organizational outcomes perceived by head coaches at NCAA

Division II intercollegiate institutions. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). The Ohio

State University. USA.

Kimura, T. (2012). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating

effects of perceptions of politics and market orientation in the Japanese context.

International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 7(1), 29-42.

231

Konovsky, M. A., Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Journal

of Academic Management Acad Manage J 37: 656-669.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting

extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why

people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kucukbayrak, R. (2010). An integrative model of transformational leadership,

organizational commitment, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship

behavior. (Unpublished MS thesis). Middle East Technical University. Turkey.

Kuhnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Westman, M. (2009). Does work engagement increase after

a short respite? The role of job involvement as a double-edged sword. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 575–594.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A

constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648–

657.

Lee J (2004). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment.

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26, 655–672.

Lee, J. (2004). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment.

Leadership and Organizational Development, 26, 655-672.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace

deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,

131-142.

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370–390.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw- Hill.

232

Lian, H., Brown, D.,Tanzer, N., & Che, H. (2011). Distal charismatic leadership and

follower effects: An examination of Conger and Kanungo's conceptualization of

charisma in China. Leadership, 7(3), 251-273.

Lian, L. K., & Tui, L. G. (2012). Leadership styles and organizational citizenship

behavior: The mediating effect of subordinates’ competence and downward

influence tactics. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 13(2), 59-96.

Liao, C. S., & Lee, C. W. (2009). An Empirical Study of Employee Job Involvement

and Personality Traits: The Case of Taiwan. International Journal of

Economics and Management, 3(1), 22–36.

Lien-Tung, C. (2005). Exploring the relationship among transformational and

transactional leadership behavior, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

turnover on the it department of research and development in shanghai, china

(Unpublished dissertation). Nova southern university, Florida.

Liu, Y. M., Liu, J., & Wu, L. Z. (2010). Are you willing and able? Roles of motivation,

power, and politics in career growth. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1432-1460.

Lo, M. C., Ramayah, T., & Min, H. W. (2009). Leadership styles and organizational

commitment: a test on Malaysia manufacturing industry. African Journal of

Marketing Management, 1(6), 133–139.

Locke, E.A., Kirkpatrick, S., Wheeler, J.K., Schneider, J., Niles, K., Goldstein, H.,

Welsh, K. & Chah, D. (1999). The essence of leadership: the four keys to leading

successfully. New York: Lexington Books.

Lodah Loi, R., Hang-yue, N., & Foley, S. (2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions

to organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of

perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 79(1), 101–120.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship

behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of

233

salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 123–150.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational

citizenship behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57,

70–80.

Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001).Transformational and

transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science,29(2), 115–134.

Mahnaz, M. A., Mehdi, M., Jafar, K. M., & Abbolghasem, P. (2013). The effect of

demographic characteristics on organizational citizenship behavior in the selected

teaching hospitals in Tehran. African Journal of Business Management, 7(34), 3324-

3331.

Makhdoom, I. F. (2013). Moderating role of perceived organizational politics between

the relationship of organizational citizenship behavior and work outcomes

(Unpublished MPhil thesis). University of Sargodha, Sargodha.

Malik, M. E., Danish, R. Q., & Munir, Y. (2011). Employees’ turnover intention: Is this

HR failure or employee’s better employment opportunity? International Proceedings

of Economics Development and Research, 14, 326–331.

Masi, R. J., & Cooke, R. A. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate

motivation, empowering norms, and organizational productivity. International

Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8, 16–47.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition- based trust as foundations for

interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38,

24–59.

McCook, K. D. (2002). Organizational perceptions and their relationships to job

attitudes, effort, performance, and organizational citizenship behaviours

234

(Unpublished Doctoral thesis), Louisiana State University and Agricultural and

Mechanical College, Louisiana.

McCroskey, & Stacy (2007). The relationship between leadership practices and three-

component model of organizational commitment: An empirical analysis

(unpublished PhD dissertation). Capella University.

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

Mckelvey, B., & Sekaran, U. (1977). Toward a career-based theory of job involvement:

A study of scientist and engineers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2), 281–

305.

Mehboob, F., & Bhutto, N. A. (2012). Job satisfaction as a predictor of organizational

citizenship behavior: A study of faculty members at business institutes.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9), 1447–1455.

Mester, C., Visser, D., Roodt, G. & Kellerman, R. (2003). Leadership style and its

relation to employee attitudes and behaviour. SA Journal of Industrial

Psychology, 29(2), 72-82.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general

model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of

antecedents, correlates, and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-

52.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,

continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of

antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1),

20–52.

235

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and

Application. Sage Publications.

Meyer, J., Becker, T., & Dick, R. V. (2006). Social Identities and commitments at work:

Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665-683.

Meyer, J., Becker, T., & Van Dick., R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at

work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665–

683.

Miller, B. K., & Nicols, K. M. (2008). Politics and justice: A mediated moderation

model. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(2), 214–237.

Mine, S. (2008). Leadership behaviors of school principals in relation to teacher job

satisfaction in North Cyprus. A Paper presented at the World Conference on

Educational Sciences 2009.

Mitonga-Monga, J., Coetzee, M., & Cilliers, F. V. N. (2012). Perceived leadership style

and employee participation in a manufacturing company in the democratic

republic of Congo. African Journal of Business Management, 6(15), 5389-5398.

Mitonga-Monga, J., Coetzee, M., & Cilliers, F. V. N. (2012). Perceived leadership style

and employee participation in a manufacturing company in the Democratic Republic

of Congo. African Journal of Business Management, 6(15), 5389–5398. doi:

10.5897/AJBM11.2443.

Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction

on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior.

Human Relations, 46, 759–776.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an individual

difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.

Mosadegh-Rad, A. M., & Yarmohammadian, M. H. 2006. A study of relationship

between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership

in Health Services, 19(2), 11-28.

236

Mowday, R.. T., Steers, R. M.., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

Munaf, S. (December, 2011). Relationship of Transformational, Transactional and

Passive/Avoidant Management Style with Achievement Motivation of Teaching

Faculties of Selected Educational Institutions of Pakistan. Paper presented at

International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics, Hong Kong.

Nasiripour, A. S. (2011). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior

and basic trauma life support in pre-hospital emergency services. Scientific

Research and Essays, 6(20), 4290-4294.

Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of helping behavior in

work groups. Group and Organization Management, 30(5), 514–540.

Nguni, S. I., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006),.Transformational and transactional

leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case.

School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.

Nicholson II, W. D. (2007). Leading where it counts: An investigation of the leadership

styles and behaviours that define college and university presidents as successful

fundraisers. International Journal of educational advancement, 7(4), 256-270.

Noor, A. (2009, November). Examining organizational citizenship behavior as the

outcome of organizational commitment: A study of university teachers of Pakistan .

Paper presented at 2nd COMSATS Business Review Conference (CBRC), Lahore:

Pakistan.

Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership, theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership, theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.

237

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

O'Connor, W. E., & Morrison, T. G. (2001). A comparison of situational and

dispositional predictors of perceptions of organizational politics. The Journal of


Omolayo, B. O., & Ajila, C. K. (2012). Leadership styles and organizational climate as

determinants of job involvement and job satisfaction of workers in tertiary

institutions. Business and Management Research, 1(3), 28–36.

Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction–causes–

performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 46–53.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The subtle significance of job satisfaction. Clinical Laboratory

Management Review, 4, 94 –98.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenships behavior: It’s construct cleanup time.

Human Performance, 10, 85–97.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–

802.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship

behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

238

Ouyang, Y. (2009). The mediating effects of job stress and job involvement under job

instability : Banking service personnel of Taiwan as an example. Journal of Money,

Investment and Banking, 11, 16–26.

Ouyang, Y., Cheng, C. H., & Hsieh, C. J. (2010). Does LMX enhance the job

involvement of financial service personnel by the mediating roles? Problems and

Perspectives in Management, 8(1), 174–181.

Paillé, P. (2010). Citizenship in the workplace: Examining work attitudes as predictors

among French employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(4),

53–64.

Pan, Y., & de la Puente, M. (2005). Census bureau guideline for the translation of data

collection instruments and supporting materials: Documentation on how the

guideline was developed (Statistical Research Division Research Report Series,

Survey Methodology #2005-06). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Paracha, M. U., Qamar, A., Mirza, A., Inam-ul-Hassan., & Waqas, H. (2012). Impact of

leadership style (transformational & transactional leadership) on employee

performance & mediating role of job satisfaction: Study of private school (educator)

in Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(4), 55–64.

Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources

practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors

on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization

Management, 32(3), 326–357.

Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources

practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors

on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group and

Organization Management, 32(3), 326-357.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman.

239

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors:

The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal,

49(2), 327–340.

Piliai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E. S. (1999), Fairness Perceptions and Trust

as Mediators for Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Two-Sample

Study. Journal of Management, 25(6), 897–933.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-

and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A

Meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader,

satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2),

107 – 142.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, B. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).

Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and

empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26,

513–563.

Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. P., MacKenzie, S. B., & Williams, M. L. (1993). Do

substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination

of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership model. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 54, 1–44.

Poon, M. L. (2006). Trust-in-Supervisor and helping coworkers: Moderating effect of

perceived politics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 518–532.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational

commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.

240

Porter, L.W., & McLaughlin, G. B. (2006). Leadership and the organizational context:

Like the weather? The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 559–76.

Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006).Transformational leadership,

job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human

Performance, 19(1), 1–22.

Rabcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between

charismatic ledership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313-326.

Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D. T. (1981). Changing correlates of job involvement in three

career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 138–144.

Ramachandran, S., Krishnan, V. R., (2009). Effect of transformational leadership on

followers' affective and normative commitment: Culture as moderator. Great Lakes

Herald, 3(1), 23–38.

Ramsey, R., Lassk, F.G., & Marshall, G.W. (1995). A critical evaluation of a measure of

job involvement: The use of the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) scale with salespeople.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(3), 65–74.

Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational

politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance,

and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20,

159–174.

Rashid, U., Saleem, Z., & Rashid, S. (2012). Perception of organizational politics and

workplace deviance: Mediating effect of job stress and low job satisfaction. Asian

Journal of Business Management, 4(4), 396–406.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the

literature. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.

241

Riaz, A. & Haider, M. H. (2010). Role of transformational and transactional leadership

on job satisfaction and career satisfaction. Business and Economic Horizons, 1(1),

29-38.

Riaz, T., Akram, M. U., & Ijaz, H. (2011). Impact of transformational leadership style on

affective employees’ commitment: An empirical study of banking sector in

Islamabad (Pakistan). The Journal of Commerce, 3(1), 43–51.

Rifai, H. A. (2005). A Test of The Relationships Among Perceptions Of Justice, Job

Satisfaction, Affective Commitment And Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 7(2), 131–154.

Rioux, S. M., & dan Penner, L.A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship

behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306–

1314.

Rizwan, M. Khan, D. J., & Saboor, F. (2011). Relationship of job involvement with

employee performance: Moderating role of attitude. European Journal of Business

and Management, 3(8), 77–85.

Robbins, S. P., & Coultar, M. (2005). Management (8th Edition). New Jersey: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Organizational Behaviour (12th Edition).

Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rosen, C. C. (2006). Politics, stress, and exchange perceptions: A dual process model

relating organizational politics to employee outcomes (unpublished PhD thesis),

University of Akron, Akron.

Rosen, C. C., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). The emotional implications of

organizational politics: A process model. Human Relations, 62(1), 27-57.

Rowold, J., & Schlotz, W. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership and

followers’ chronic stress. Leadership Review, 9, 35–48.

242

Rubin, R. B., Bommer, W. H., & Bachrach, D. G. (2010). Operant leadership and

employee citizenship: A question of trust? Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 400-408.

Saeed, A., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Perceived transformational leadership style and

organizational citizenship behavior: A case study of administrative staff of university

of Punjab. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(21), 150-158.

Schleicher, D. J., Hansen, S. D., & Fox, K. E. (2011). APA handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization

In S. Zedeck (Ed.) APA Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology:

Maintaining expanding and contracting the organization (Vol 3, pp. 1-89).

American Psychological Association.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Seng, G. C., Xin, H. W., Tong, K. Y., & Chin, T. Y. (2012). Factors affecting employees’

job involvement in fast food industry (Unpublished bachelors thesis), Universiti

Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia.

Shaffer, M., Joplin, j., & Hsu, Y. (2011). Expanding the boundaries of work-family

research: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management, 11(2), 221–268.

Shams-Ur-Rehman, Shareef, A., Mahmood, A., & Ishaque, A. (2012). Perceived

leadership styles and organizational commitment. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Contemporary Research in Business, 4(1), 616-626.

Sharma, P., Bajpai, N., & Holani, U. (2011). Organisational citizenship behaviour in

public and private sector and its impact on job satisfaction: A comparative study in

Indian perspective, International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 67-75.

Shirbagi. N, (2007) Exploring organizational commitment and leadership frames within

Indian and Iranian higher education institution. Bulletin of Education & Research,

29(1), 17–32.

243

Shirbagi. N, (2007) Exploring organizational commitment and leadership frames within

Indian and Iranian higher education institution. Bulletin of Education & Research,

29(1), 17-32.

Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived Organizational Support and

Organizational Justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational

politics, justice, and support: Managing the Social Climate of the workplace

(pp.149-164). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Shukui, H. E., Xiaomin, Y. U. (2009). The impact of transformational leadership on

organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment: A meta-

analytical explanation. Retrieved from

http://www.seiofbluemountain.com/upload/product/200910/2008glhy04a5.pdf

Singh, A. K., & Singh, A. P. (2010). Role of stress and organizational support in

predicting organizational citizenship behavior. The IUP Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 9(4), 7–25.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behaviour of organisms. New York: Appleton.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:

Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 655–663.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in

management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239–1251.

Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through

theworks of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational

Administration and Policy, 1–29.

Stogdill, R., (1974). Handbook of Leadership (1st Ed.), New York: Free Press.

Stoner, J. A., Freeman, F. E., Gilbert, D. R, (1996). Management (translation). Jakarta:

Prenhallindo.

244

Suliman, A., & Iles, P. (2000). Is continuance commitment beneficial to organizations?

Commitment-performance relationship: A new look. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 15(5), 407 –426.

Suresh, S., & Venkatammal, P. (2010). Antecedents of organizational citizenship

behavior. Journal of the Indian Academy of the Applied Psychology, 36(2), 276–286.

Suvara, J. H. (2002). Executive leadership in local government. Encyclopedia of Public

Administration and Public Policy, 474–479.

Todd, S. Y., & Kent, A. (2006). Direct and Indirect Effects of Task Characteristics on

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, North American Journal of Psychology, 8(2),

253–268.

Tseng, H-C., & Kang, L-M., (2008). How does regulatory focus affect organizational

commitment? Transformational leadership as a mediator. AIMS International

Conference on Management, Germany .

Tumwesigye, G. (2010). The relationship between perceived organizational support and

turnover intentions in a developing country: The mediating role of organizational

commitment. African Journal of Business Management: 4(6), 942–952.

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M.

(2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66.

Twigg, N. W. & Kang, B. (2012). The effect of leadership, perceived support, idealism,

and self esteem on burnout. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 4, 98–116.

Ucho, A., Mkavga, T., & Onyishi, I. E. (2012). Job satisfaction, gender, tenure, and

turnover intentions among civil servants in Benue state. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Contemporary Research in Business, 3(11), 378–387.

245

Ugboro, I. O. (2006). Organizational commitment, job redesign, employee empowerment

and intent to quit among survivors of restructuring and downsizing. Journal of

Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), 232–253.

Uygur, A., and Kilic, G. (2009). A Study into Organizational Commitment and Job

Involvement: An Application towards the Personnel in the Central Organization for

Ministry of Health in Turkey. Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences, 2(1), 113–125.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit

of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L.

Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp.

215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship

behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement and validation. Academy of

Management Journal, 37, 765–802.

Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the

organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 47–71.

Van-Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L. & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of

construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L.L. Cummings

& B.M. Staw, (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (pp. 215-285).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitudes and work outcomes:

Exploration and implication for the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

57, 326-347.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitude, and work outcomes:

Exploration and the implication for the public sector. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 57, 326–347.

246

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2001). Reactions to organizational politics: A cross cultural

examination in Israel and Britain. Human Relations, 54, 1483–1517.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2003). Developments in organizational politics. Edward Elgar

Publishing, Cheltenham.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’

performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personal review,

36(5), 661-683. doi: 10.1108/00483480710773981

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’

performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personal review,

36(5), 661-683.

Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Drory, A. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of organizational politics.

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Talmud, I. (2010). Organizational politics and job outcomes: The

moderating effect of trust and social support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

40(11), 2829–2861.

Voon, M. L., Lo, M. C., Ngui, K. A., & Ayob, N. B. (2011). The influence of leadership

styles on employees’ job satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia.

International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24–32.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations:

Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and

withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. Journal of Human Resource

Management, 14, 1083-1101.

Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional

leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of

procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3),

251- 265.

247

Wan, H. L. (2012). Organizational justice as a determinant of organizational citizenship

behavior. Paper presente at Business and Information, Sapporo.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member

exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and

followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behaviour. Academy of

Management Journal.48, 420–32.

Wasti, S. (2002). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Test of an

integrated model in the Turkish Context, International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 26, 525-550.

Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment

forms and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 290–308.

Watrous, K. M., & Bergman, M.E. (2004). Organizational commitment, organizational

identification, and personality: An examination of interrelationships among three

related constructs. Paper presented at the Symposium presented at the 19th annual

meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Wegge, J., Schmidt, K., Parkes, C., & van Dick, R. (2007). ‘Taking a sickie’: Job

satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of absenteeism in a public

organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 77– 89.

Westgeest, E. (2011). Employee empowerment and its relation to affective commitment

(Unpublished master’s thesis). RSM Erasmus University, Netherlands.

Williams, L. (1988). Effective and noneffective components of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment as determinants of organizational citizenship behavior

and in-role behaviors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University,

Bloomington, IN.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational

commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.

Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617.

248

Wong, Y. T., Ngo, H. Y., & Wong, C. S. (2006). Perceived organizational justice, trust,

and OCB: A study of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises.

Journal of World Business, 41(4), 344–355.

Yahchouchi, G. (2009). Employees’ perception of Lebanese managers’ leadership styles

and organizational commitment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(2),

127-140.

Yilmaz K., Cokluk-Bokeoglu O. (2008). Organizational Citizenship behavior and

Organizational commitment in Turkish Primary Schools. Journal of World Applied

Sciences, 3(5), 775–780.

Ying-Ni, C., Chih-Long, Y., & Hung, C. L. (2012). Transformational leadership and job

involvement: The moderation of emotional contagion. Military Psychology, 24(4),

382-396.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:

Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 9, 15–32.

Yun, S., Cox, J. F., Sims, H. P., & Salam, S. (2007). Leadership and teamwork: The

effects of leadership and job satisfaction on team citizenship. International Journal

of Leadership Studies, 2(3), 171-193.

Zabihi, M., & Hashemzehi, R. (2012). The relationship between leadership styles and

organizational citizenship behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 6(9),

3310-3319.

Zanzi, A., & O'Neill, R. M. (2001). Sanctioned Versus Non-sanctioned Political Tactics.

Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 245–262.

249

Zarea, H. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their relationship to social

capital in public organizations of Qom province. Iranian Journal of Management

Studies, 5(1), 79–96.

Zohrabi, M., Ahmadi, F., & Ahmadi, S. A. K. (2012). Effect of the leadership styles on

the organizational commitment given the staff personality traits (The case study:

Iran’s State Retirement Organization). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary

Research in Business, 4(1), 247-264.

250

Appendix-A

Informed Consent, Introduction and Demographic Sheet

I am a PhD scholar at Department of Psychology, University of Peshawar and

doing research in the area of Organizational Psychology. I am conducting the present

research to find out the role of organizational politics in relationship between leadership

styles and behavioral outcomes among university teachers. For this purpose, I am

collecting data from HODs/Chairpersons and university teachers as well. In this regards,

your voluntary and kind participation is highly appreciable and valuable.

I assure that your identity and information obtained from you during this research

will remain confidential and the data will be analyzed or used anonymously. The data

obtained from you will be used only for academic purposes.

Completion of survey questionnaires, which you will rate, would not expose you

to any anticipated risk that may affect any aspect of your job. You have also the right to

withdraw your all or any information during the course of study.

You will have to complete/rate questionnaire/s attached herewith. This process

will take about 20 to 30 minutes.

If you are willing to participate in this study and have no objection on above

mentioned process, please sign below as your consent to be the part of study.

__________________

__

(Signature)

Thanks for your participation and cooperation for this study.

Mohsin Atta, PhD Scholar, Dept. of Psychology, University of Peshawer!

[email protected]

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Age in year ___________ Gender ______________ Designation ___________

Department _______________ Experience (In years) ______________

Marital Status (Tick the relevant): Single / Married

Nature of Job (Tick the relevant): Full Time / Part Time / Contractual

251

Appendix-B-1

MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (Original)

Sr.

No

Statements SD D N A SA

1 I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts. 1 2 3 4 5

2 I reexamine critical assumptions to question whether they

are appropriate.

1 2 3 4 5

3 I fail to interfere until problems become serious. 1 2 3 4 5

4 I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and

deviations from standards.

1 2 3 4 5

5 I avoid getting involved when important issues arise. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I talk about my most important values and beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5

7 I am absent when needed. 1 2 3 4 5

8 I seek differing perspectives when solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5

9 I talk optimistically about the future. 1 2 3 4 5

10 I instill pride in others for being associated with me. 1 2 3 4 5

11 I discuss in specific terms that who is responsible for

achieving performance targets.

1 2 3 4 5

12 I wait for things to go wrong before taking action. 1 2 3 4 5

13 I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 1 2 3 4 5

14 I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5

15 I spend time teaching and coaching. 1 2 3 4 5

16 I make clear what one can expect to receive when

performance goals are achieved.

1 2 3 4 5

17 I show that I am a firm believer in, if some method doesn’t

work then don't apply it.

1 2 3 4 5

252

18 I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group. 1 2 3 4 5

19 I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a

group.

1 2 3 4 5

20 I demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I

take action.

1 2 3 4 5

21 I act in ways that build other's respect for me. 1 2 3 4 5

22 I concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes,

complaints, and failures.

1 2 3 4 5

23 I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

24 I keep track of a11 mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5

25 I display a sense of power and confidence. 1 2 3 4 5

26 I articulate a compelling vision of the future. 1 2 3 4 5

27 I direct my attention toward failures to meet standards. 1 2 3 4 5

28 I avoid making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

29 I consider an individual as having different needs, abilities,

and aspirations from others.

1 2 3 4 5

30 I get others to look at problems from many different angels. 1 2 3 4 5

31 I help others to develop their strengths. 1 2 3 4 5

32 I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete

assignments.

1 2 3 4 5

33 I delay responding to urgent questions. 1 2 3 4 5

34 I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of

mission.

1 2 3 4 5

35 I express satisfaction when others meet expectations. 1 2 3 4 5

36 I express confidence that goals will be achieved. 1 2 3 4 5

253

Appendix-B-2

MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (Adapted for HODs)

Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have.

Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement

by selecting the appropriate option that best represents your point of view:

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Not decided, A = Agree, SA =

Strongly Agree

Sr.

No


1 I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts. 1 2 3 4 5

2 I reexamine critical assumptions to question whether they

are appropriate.

1 2 3 4 5

3 I fail to interfere until problems become serious. 1 2 3 4 5

4 I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and

deviations from standards.

1 2 3 4 5

5 I avoid getting involved when important issues arise. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I talk about my most important values and beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5

7 I am absent when needed. 1 2 3 4 5

8 I look for different perspectives when solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5

9 I talk optimistically about the future. 1 2 3 4 5

10 I promote pride in others for being associated with me. 1 2 3 4 5

11 I discuss in specific terms that who is responsible for

achieving performance targets.

1 2 3 4 5

12 I wait for things to go wrong before taking action. 1 2 3 4 5

13 I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 1 2 3 4 5

254

14 I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5

15 I spend time teaching and coaching. 1 2 3 4 5

16 I make clear what one can expect to receive when

performance goals are achieved.

1 2 3 4 5

17 I show that I am a firm believer in, “if some method doesn’t

work then don't apply it”.

1 2 3 4 5

18 I go beyond self-interest for the welfare of the group. 1 2 3 4 5

19 I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a

group.

1 2 3 4 5

20 I demonstrate that problems must become severe before I

take action.

1 2 3 4 5

21 I act in ways that build other's respect for me. 1 2 3 4 5

22 I concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes,

complaints, and failures.

1 2 3 4 5

23 I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

24 I keep track of all mistakes of subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5

25 I display a sense of power and confidence. 1 2 3 4 5

26 I express a compelling vision of the future. 1 2 3 4 5

27 I direct my attention toward failures to meet standards. 1 2 3 4 5

28 I avoid making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

29 I consider an individual as having different needs, abilities,

and aspirations from others.

1 2 3 4 5

30 I get others to look at problems from many different angels. 1 2 3 4 5

31 I help others to develop their strengths. 1 2 3 4 5

32 I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete

assignments.

1 2 3 4 5

255

33 I delay responding to urgent questions. 1 2 3 4 5

34 I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of

aim.

1 2 3 4 5

35 I express satisfaction when others meet expectations. 1 2 3 4 5

36 I express confidence that goals will be achieved. 1 2 3 4 5

256

Appendix-B-3

MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (Adapted for Teachers)

Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about

your Chairperson/HOD. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement

with each statement by selecting the appropriate option that best represents your point of

view:

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Not decided, A = Agree, SA =

Strongly Agree

Sr.

No


1 My Chairperson/HOD provides others with assistance in

exchange for their efforts

1 2 3 4 5

2 My Chairperson/HOD reexamines critical assumptions to

question whether they are appropriate

1 2 3 4 5

3 My Chairperson/HOD fails to interfere until problems

become serious

1 2 3 4 5

4 My Chairperson/HOD focuses attention on irregularities,

mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards

1 2 3 4 5

5 My Chairperson/HOD avoids getting involved when

important issues arise

1 2 3 4 5

6 My Chairperson/HOD talks about his most important values

and beliefs

1 2 3 4 5

7 My Chairperson/HOD is absent when needed 1 2 3 4 5

8 My Chairperson/HOD looks for different perspectives when

solving problems

1 2 3 4 5

257

9 My Chairperson/HOD talks optimistically about the future 1 2 3 4 5

10 My Chairperson/HOD promotes pride in others for being

associated with him

1 2 3 4 5

11 My Chairperson/HOD discusses in specific terms that who is

responsible for achieving performance targets

1 2 3 4 5

12 My Chairperson/HOD waits for things to go wrong before

taking action

1 2 3 4 5

13 My Chairperson/HOD talks enthusiastically about what

needs to be accomplished

1 2 3 4 5

14 My Chairperson/HOD specify the importance of having a

strong sense of purpose

1 2 3 4 5

15 My Chairperson/HOD spends time in teaching and coaching

(staff)

1 2 3 4 5

16 My Chairperson/HOD makes clear what one can expect to

receive when performance goals are achieved

1 2 3 4 5

17 My Chairperson/HOD shows that he is a firm believer in, “if

some method doesn’t work then don't apply it”.

1 2 3 4 5

18 My Chairperson/HOD goes beyond self-interest for the

welfare of the subordinates

1 2 3 4 5

19 My Chairperson/HOD treats others as individuals rather than

just as staff members

1 2 3 4 5

20 My Chairperson/HOD demonstrates that problems must

become severe before he takes action

1 2 3 4 5

21 My Chairperson/HOD acts in ways that build others’ respect

for him

1 2 3 4 5

22 My Chairperson/HOD concentrates his full attention on 1 2 3 4 5

258

dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures

23 My Chairperson/HOD considers the moral and ethical

consequences of decisions

1 2 3 4 5

24 My Chairperson/HOD keeps track of all mistakes of

subordinates

1 2 3 4 5

25 My Chairperson/HOD displays a sense of power and

confidence

1 2 3 4 5

26 My Chairperson/HOD expresses a compelling vision of the

future.

1 2 3 4 5

27 My Chairperson/HOD directs his attention toward failures to

meet standards

1 2 3 4 5

28 My Chairperson/HOD avoids making decisions 1 2 3 4 5

29 My Chairperson/HOD considers an individual as having

different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.

1 2 3 4 5

30 My Chairperson/HOD gets others to look at problems from

many different angels

1 2 3 4 5

31 My Chairperson/HOD helps the staff to develop their

strengths

1 2 3 4 5

32 My Chairperson/HOD suggests new ways of looking at how

to complete tasks

1 2 3 4 5

33 My Chairperson/HOD delays responding to urgent questions 1 2 3 4 5

34 My Chairperson/HOD emphasizes the importance of having

a collective sense of aim

1 2 3 4 5

35 My Chairperson/HOD expresses satisfaction when others

meet expectations

1 2 3 4 5

36 My Chairperson/HOD expresses confidence that goals will 1 2 3 4 5

259

be achieved

260

Appendix-C-1

Perceived Organizational Politics Scale (Original)


working in your organization. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or

disagreement with each statement by selecting the appropriate option that best represents

your point of view about your organization.

Seria

l #

Statements

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

Neit

her

Ag

ree n

or

Dis

ag

ree

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1 People in this organization attempt to build

themselves up by tearing others down

2 There has always been an influential group

in this organization that no one ever crosses

3 Employees are encouraged to speak out

frankly even when they are critical of well

established ideas

4 There is no place for yes-men and yes-

women in this organization; good ideas are

desired even if it means disagreeing with

superiors

5 Agreeing with powerful others is the best

alternative in this organization

6 It is best not to rock the boats in this

organization

261

7 Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet than

to fight the system

8 Telling others what they want to hear is

sometimes better than telling the truth

9 It is safer to think what you are told than to

make up your own mind

10 Since I have worked for this organization, I

have never seen the pay and promotion

policies applied politically

11 I can’t remember when a person received a

pay increase or promotion that was

inconsistent with the published policies

12 None of the raises I have received are

consistent with the policies on how raises

should be determined

13 The stated pay and promotion policies have

nothing to do with how pay and promotions

are determined

14 When it comes to pay raise and promotion

decisions, policies are irrelevant

15 Promotions around here are not valued

much because how they are determined are

so political

262

Appendix-C-2

Perceived Organizational Politics Scale (Adapted for Teachers)


working in your organization. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or

disagreement with each statement by selecting the appropriate option that best represents

your point of view about your organization.

Seria

l #

Statements

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

Neit

her

Ag

ree n

or

Dis

ag

ree

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1 People in this organization attempt to

build themselves up by letting others

down

2 There has always been an influential

group in this organization that no one

ever crosses

3 Employees are encouraged to speak out

frankly even when they are critical of

well established ideas

4 There is no place for yes-men and yes-

women in this organization; good ideas

are desired even if it means disagreeing

with superiors

5 Agreeing with powerful others is the

best alternative in this organization

6 It is best not to disturb the situation in

this organization

7 Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet

than to fight the system

263

8 Telling others what they want to hear is

sometimes better than telling the truth

9 It is safer to think what you are told

than to make up your own mind

10 Since I have worked for this

organization, I have never seen the pay

and promotion policies applied

politically

11 I can’t remember when a person

received a pay increase or promotion

that was inconsistent with the published

policies

12 None of the raises I have received are

consistent with the policies on how

raises should be determined

13 The stated pay and promotion policies

have nothing to do with how pay and

promotions are determined

14 When it comes to pay raise and

promotion decisions, policies are

irrelevant

15 Promotions around here are not valued

much because how they are determined

are so political

264

Appendix-D-1

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Original)

Seria

l.#

.

Statements

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

Neu

tra

l

Dis

ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

1 I help others who have heavy workloads

2 I am the one who always need to be pushed to do things

3 I believe in giving honest day’s work for an honest day’s

pay

4 I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters

5 I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers

6 I keep abreast of changes in the organization

7 I tend to exaggerate petty matters

8 I consider the impact of my actions on co-workers

9 I attend meetings that are not mandatory, but are

considered important

10 I am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around

me

11 I attend functions that are not required, but help the

company image

12 I read and keep up with organizational announcements,

memos, and so on

13 I help others who have been absent

265

14 I do not abuse the rights of others

15 I willingly help others who have related problems

16 I always focus on what is wrong rather than the positive

side

17 I take steps to try to prevent problems with other workers

18 I have a better attendance than others

19 I always find fault with what the organization is doing

20 I am conscious about how my behavior affects the

people’s job

21 I do not take extra breaks

22 I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is

watching

23 I help to familiarize people even though it is not required

24 I am one of the honest employees of organization

266

Appendix-D-2

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Adapted for Teachers)

Seria

l.#

.

Statements

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

Neu

tra

l

Dis

ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

1 I help others who have heavy workloads

2 I am the one who always need to be pushed to do

things

3 I believe in giving honest day’s work for an honest

day’s pay

4 I consume a lot of time complaining about ordinary

matters

5 I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers

6 I remain aware of changes in the organization

7 I tend to exaggerate petty matters

8 I consider the impact of my actions on co-workers

9 I attend meetings that are not mandatory, but are

considered important

10 I am always ready to lend a helping hand to those

around me

11 I attend functions that are not required, but help the

company image

12 I read and keep in touch with organizational

267

announcements, memos, and so on

13 I help others who have been absent

14 I do not abuse the rights of others

15 I willingly help others who have related problems

16 I always focus on what is wrong rather than the

positive side

17 I take steps to try to prevent problems with other

workers

18 I have a better attendance than others

19 I always find fault with what the organization is

doing

20 I am conscious about how my behavior affects the

people’s job

21 I do not take extra breaks

22 I obey company rules and regulations even when no

one is watching

23 I help to familiarize people even though it is not

required

24 I am one of the honest employees of organization

268

Appendix-E

Affective Commitment Scale (Original)

Seria

l.#

.

Statements

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

Un

decid

ed

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1 I would be very happy to spend the

rest of my career with this

organization

2 I really feel as if this organization's

problems are my own

3 I do not feel a strong sense of

"belonging" to my organization

4 I do not feel "emotionally attached"

to this organization

5 I do not feel like "part of the family"

at my organization

6 This organization has a great deal of

personal meaning for me

269

Appendix-F-1

Job Involvement Scale (Original)

Sr. N

o.

Statements

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Neu

tra

l

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

1 The most important things that happen to me involve my

present job.

1 2 3 4 5

2 To me, my job is only a small part of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5

3 I am very much involved personally in my job. 1 2 3 4 5

4 I live, eat and breathe my job. 1 2 3 4 5

5 Most of my interests are centered around my job. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I have very strong ties with my present job which would

be very difficult to break.

1 2 3 4 5

7 Usually I feel detached from my job. 1 2 3 4 5

8 Most of my personal life goals are job-oriented. 1 2 3 4 5

9 I consider my job to be very central to my life. 1 2 3 4 5

10 I like to be really involved in my job most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5

270

Appendix-F-2

Job Involvement Scale (Adapted for Teachers)

Sr. N

o.

Statements

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Neu

tra

l

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

1 The most important things that happen to me involve my

present job.

1 2 3 4 5

2 To me, my job is only a small part of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5

3 I am very much involved personally in my job. 1 2 3 4 5

4 I live, eat and breathe my job. 1 2 3 4 5

5 Most of my interests are centered around my job. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I have very strong ties with my present job which would

be very difficult to break.

1 2 3 4 5

7 Usually I feel separated from my job. 1 2 3 4 5

8 Most of my personal life goals are job-oriented. 1 2 3 4 5

9 I consider my job to be very central to my life. 1 2 3 4 5

10 I like to be really involved in my job most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5

THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS IN RELATIONSHIP...

Documents

Transcript of THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS IN RELATIONSHIP...