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
Prof. Muhammad Jahanzeb Khan, PhD
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.
_________________________________
Prof. Muhammad Jahanzeb Khan, PhD
Supervisor
Prof. Muhammad Jahanzeb Khan, PhD
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
Moderating Role of POP between Perceived
Leadership Styles And Affective Commitment.
38
Moderating Role of POP between Perceived
Leadership Styles and Job Involvement
41
Rationale 44
Chapter-II Methodology 49
Objectives 49
Hypotheses 49
Perceived Leadership Styles 50
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
Perceived Leadership Styles 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
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Affective Commitment and Job Involvement (N
= 494)
98
15 Multiple Regression Analysis of Perceived Organizational Politics Predicting
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Affective Commitment and Job Involvement (N
= 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
18 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics and
General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective
Commitment (N = 494)
112
19 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of go-along-to-get-ahead and pay and
promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective
Commitment (N = 494)
118
20 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics and
General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Job
125
13
Involvement (N = 494)
21 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of go-along-to-get-ahead and pay and
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
Figure 2. Conceptual model of POP as moderator between the relationship of leadership
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.
Figure 3. Conceptual model of POP as moderator between the relationship of leadership
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
citizenship behavior.
d. Intellectual stimulation will positively predict organizational citizenship behavior.
e. Individualized consideration will be positive predictor of organizational
citizenship behavior.
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
citizenship behavior.
a. Contingent reward will positively predict organizational citizenship behavior.
b. Management-by-exception active would positively predict organizational
citizenship behavior.
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
citizenship behavior.
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
citizenship behavior.
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.
18. Perceived organizational politics will moderate between perceived transformational
leadership and affective commitment by strengthening their positive relationship,
when perceived organizational politics would be high.
19. General political behavior will moderate between perceived transformational
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.
21. Pay-and-promotion-policies will moderate between perceived transformational
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.
23. General political behavior will moderate between perceived transactional leadership
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.
26. Perceived organizational politics will moderate between perceived transformational
leadership and job involvement by strengthening their positive relationship under the
condition of high perceived organizational politics.
27. General political behavior will moderate between perceived transformational
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.
29. Pay-and-promotion-policies will moderate between perceived transformational
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.
33. General political behavior will moderate between perceived transactional leadership
and job involvement such that high level of general political behavior will strengthen
their positive relationship.
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
Above 46Years of Age
22-35 Yearsof Age
36-45 Yearsof Age
Above 46Years of 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
Above 46Years of Age
25-35 Yearsof Age
36-45 Yearsof Age
Above 46Years of Age
25-35 Yearsof Age
36-45 Yearsof Age
Above 46Years of 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)
Variable M SD Items α Potential Actual Skew
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
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 = 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)
Variable M SD Items α Potential Actual Skew
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)
Models OCB Affective Commitment Job Involvement
Predictor
Variable β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2
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)
Models OCB Affective Commitment Job Involvement
Predictor
Variable β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2
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)
Models OCB Affective Commitment Job Involvement
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
Citizenship Behavior (N = 494)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
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
relation between transformational leadership (TRF) and organizational citizenship behavior
(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
Citizenship Behavior (N = 494)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Model 1 Predictor ∆R2 β
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
relation between transformational leadership (TRF) and organizational citizenship behavior
(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
Table 18 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics and
General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective
Commitment (N = 494)
Affective Commitment
Model 1 Predictor ∆R2 β
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.
Table 18 summarizes the results for moderating role of perceived organizational
politics (POP) and general political behavior (GPB) in relationship between leadership styles
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
interactive effect added significant change variance in 3rd step {∆R2 =.137, ∆F (1, 490) =
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
Figure 15. Interactive effect of perceived organizational politics and
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
Table 19 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of go-along-to-get-ahead and pay and
promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective Commitment (N
= 494)
Affective Commitment
Model 1 Predictor ∆R2 β
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.
Table 19 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 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,
moderated by PPP in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step is
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
Table 20 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics and
General Political Behavior in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Job Involvement
(N = 494)
Job Involvement
Model 1 Predictor ∆R2 β
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
Note. TRF = transformational leadership; TRS = transactional leadership; POP = perceived organizational
politics; GPB = general political behavior; JI = job involvement.
144
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 20 summarizes the results for moderating role of perceived organizational
politics (POP) and general political behavior (GPB) in relationship between leadership styles
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
Figure 21. Interactive effect of perceived organizational politics and
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
leadership on job involvement.
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
Table 21 Summary of the Results for Moderating Role of go-along-to-get-ahead and pay and
promotion policies in Relationship between Leadership Styles and Job Involvement (N =
494)
Job Involvement
Model 1 Predictor ∆R2 β
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.
Table 21 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 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
moderated by PPP in relation with transformational leadership (TRF). The first step is
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
interactive effect added significant change variance in 3rd step {∆R2 =.158, ∆F (1, 490) =
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
leadership on job involvement.
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
leadership on job involvement.
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
leadership on job involvement.
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
leadership on job involvement.
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
citizenship behavior.
Supported
e. Individualized consideration will be positive predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior.
Not
supported
2. Perceived transformational leadership styles will positively
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
affective commitment.
Supported
3. Perceived transformational leadership styles will positively
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
organizational citizenship behavior.
Supported
a. Contingent reward will positively predict organizational
citizenship behavior.
Supported
b. Management-by-exception active would positively predict
organizational citizenship behavior.
Not
supported
5. Perceived transactional leadership styles will positively predict
affective commitment.
Supported
a. Contingent reward will positively predict affective commitment. Supported
b. Management-by-exception active would be positive predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior.
Not
supported
6. Perceived transactional leadership styles will positively predict
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
organizational citizenship behavior.
a. General political behavior will be the negative predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior.
Supported
b. Go-along-to-get-ahead will be the negative predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior.
Supported
c. Pay and promotion policies would negatively predict
organizational citizenship behavior
Supported
8. Perceived organizational politics will be negative predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior.
Supported
a. General political behavior will be the negative predictor of
affective commitment.
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
organizational citizenship behavior.
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
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.
Supported
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.
Supported
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.
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
18. Perceived organizational politics will moderate between
perceived transformational leadership and affective commitment
by strengthening their positive relationship, when perceived
organizational politics would be high.
Supported
19. General political behavior will moderate between perceived
transformational leadership and affective commitment such as
high level of general political behavior will fortify their positive
relationship.
Not
Supported
20. High level of go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate between
perceived transformational leadership and affective commitment
Supported
158
by increasing their positive relationship.
21. Pay and promotion policies will moderate between perceived
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
23. General political behavior will moderate between perceived
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
26. Perceived organizational politics will moderate between
perceived transformational leadership and job involvement by
strengthening their positive relationship under the condition of
high perceived organizational politics.
Supported
27. General political behavior will moderate between perceived
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
29. Pay and promotion policies will moderate between perceived
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
33. General political behavior will moderate between perceived
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
citizenship behavior.
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
citizenship behavior.
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
citizenship behavior.
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.
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
Psychology, 1, 52–55.
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
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.
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
Psychology, 135, 301–12.
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!
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
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 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
Statements SD D N A SA
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)
Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about
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)
Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about
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