TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER BEHAVIORS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON FOLLOWERS\' TRUST IN LEAD
ID: 398347 • Letter: T
Question
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER BEHAVIORS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON FOLLOWERS' TRUST IN LEADER, SATISFACTION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS
Article
"This study examines the impact of transformational leader behaviors on organizational citizenship behaviors, and the potential mediating role played by subordinates' trust and satisfaction in that process. Measures of six transformational leader behaviors (Articulating a Vision, Providing an Appropriate Model, Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals, High Performance Expectations, Individualized Support, and Intellectual Stimulation), one transactional leader behavior (Contingent Reward Behavior), employees' trust in their leader, and satisfaction were obtained from 988 exempt employees of a large petrochemical company. Matching evaluations of five citizenship behaviors of these employees (Altruism, Conscientiousness, Courtesy, Civic Virtue, and Sportsmanship) were obtained from their supervisors. In order to determine whether transformational behaviors augment the impact of transactional behaviors, their effects on followers' trust, satisfaction, and citizenship behaviors were examined in the context of the effect of transactional leader behaviors on these same
The search for and identification of those behaviors that increase a leader's effectiveness has been a major concern of practicing managers and leadership researchers alike for the past several decades (cf. Bass, 1981; House, 1971; 1988; House & Baetz, 1979; Stogdill, 1974; Yuki, 1989a; 1989b). Traditional views of leadership effectiveness have focused primarily, although not exclusively, on what Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) have called transactional leader behaviors. According to Burns (1978), transactional behaviors are founded on an exchange process in which the leader provides rewards in return for the subordinate's effort.
More recently, however, the focus of leadership research has shifted from one of examining the effects of transactional leadership to the identification and examination of those behaviors exhibited by the leader that make followers more aware of the importance and values of task outcomes, activate their higher-order needs, and induce them to transcend self-interests for the sake of the organization (Bass, 1985; Yuki, 1989a, 1989b). These transformational or charismatic behaviors1 are believed to augment the impact of transactional leader behaviors on employee outcome variables, because "followers feel trust and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do more than they are expected to do" (Yuki, 1989b, p. 272). Examples of this new focus on leadership include the work of House, Bass, and others (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987; Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boal & Bryson, 1988; House, 1977; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1989; House, Woycke, & Fodor, 1988; Howell & Frost, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1988; Tichy & DeVanna, 1986). While each of these approaches differs somewhat in the specific behaviors they associate with transformational leadership, all of them share the common perspective that effective leaders transform or change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization.
Preliminary research on transformational leadership has been rather promising. Some of this research (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boal & Bryson, 1988; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; House, Woycke, & Fodor, 1988; Howell & Frost 1989; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Tichy & DeVanna, 1986) has been primarily conceptual in nature, focusing on the identification of the key transformational behaviors, and the development of theories of their antecedents and consequences. The remainder of this research has focused on empirically testing these conceptual frameworks. Generally speaking, the empirical results have verified the impact of transformational leader behaviors on employee attitudes, effort, and "in-role" performance. For example, Bass ( 1985) cites a variety of field studies demonstrating that transformational leader behaviors are positively related to employees' satisfaction, self-reported effort, and job performance. Similar results have been reported by Howell and Frost (1989). They manipulated the behavior of leaders in a laboratory setting and found that charismatic leader behaviors produced better performance, greater satisfaction, and enhanced role perceptions (less role conflict) than directive leader behaviors. Despite these encouraging results, it is important to note that the majority of the empirical research in this area has focused on the impact of transformational leader behaviors on in-role performance and follower satisfaction, rather than "extra-role" performance. While the effects of transformational behaviors on employee in-role performance are interesting, they do not capture the most important effects of transformational leader behaviors. The real essence of transformational leadership is that these leaders "lift ordinary people to extraordinary heights" (Boal & Bryson, 1988, p. 11 ), and cause followers to "do more than they are expected to do" (Yukl, 1989a, p. 272), and "perform beyond the level of expectations" (Bass, 1985). In other words, as noted by Graham (1988), the most important effects of transformational leaders should be on extra-role performance, rather than in-role performance. Transformational leaders should motivate followers to perform at a level "over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization" (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 528).
Also surprising, given the theoretical discussions of Bennis and Nan us ( 1985), Boal and Bryson (1988), and Yuki (1989a, 1989b), is that a follower's trust in his or her leader has not been given more attention in empirical research as a potential mediator of the effects of transformational leader behaviors on criterion variables. Bennis and Nanus (1985), for example, have suggested that effective leaders are ones that earn the trust of their followers. Similarly, trust in and loyalty to the leader play a critical role in the transformational leadership model of Boal and Bryson ( 1988). Finally, as noted by Yuki (1989b), one of the key reasons why followers are motivated by transformational leaders to perform beyond expectations is that followers trust and respect them. Indeed, Kouzes and Posner (1987) cite several studies, all of which indicate that the leader characteristics most valued by followers are honesty, integrity, and truthfulness. Thus, trust is viewed as playing an important mediating role in the transformational leadership process. Another potential mediator of the impact of transformational leader behaviors on extra-role performance, in addition to trust, is employee satisfaction. Organ (1988a, 1988b, in press) has reviewed empirical research which demonstrates that employee job satisfaction is an important determinant of extra-role (e.g., "organizational citizenship") behavior. Moreover, virtually all models of transformational leadership postulate that transformational leaders enhance followers' work attitudes and satisfaction. Thus, when Organ's research on the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) is combined with models of the effects of transformational leadership, satisfaction emerges as a potential mediator of the impact of transformational leader behavior on the extra-role performance of followers.
In summary, previous theoretical and empirical research suggests that there is good reason to believe that transformational leader behaviors influence extra-role or organizational citizenship behaviors. There are, however, several potential ways in which this might happen. As shown in Figure 1, one way is for transformational leader behaviors to directly influence organizational citizenship behaviors, much in the same way that transactional leader behaviors have been shown to influence in-role performance (e.g., Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1982; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984; Sims & Szilagyi, 1975). This is consistent with Smith, Organ, and Near's (1983) finding that a leader's individualized support behavior, one of the transformational leader behaviors identified by Bass (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985), has a direct effect on some forms of employee citizenship behavior (i.e., conscientiousness).
Another possibility, is that transformational leader behaviors influence organizational citizenship behaviors only indirectly, through their effects on mediators like followers' trust in their leaders and satisfaction. For example, in addition to documenting the direct effects of leader supportiveness on conscientiousness, Smith et al. (1983) also found that employee satisfaction mediated the impact of leader supportiveness on employee altruism. Followers' trust in and loyalty to the leader also has been accorded a similar role in several recent discussions of the transformational leadership process (e.g., Boal & Bryson, 1988; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Yuki, 1989b ). Thus, both followers' trust and satisfaction have been identified as potential mediators of the impact of transformational leader behaviors on followers' citizenship behaviors.
Finally, it is possible that transformational leader behaviors influence followers' citizenship behaviors both directly and indirectly. Their total effects may, in other words, be due to a combination of direct (unmediated) effects, and indirect effects working through mediators like trust and satisfaction.
The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to examine the effects of transformational leader behaviors on organizational citizenship behaviors, and the potential mediating roles of trust and satisfaction in that process. Measures of transformational leader behaviors, trust, and satisfaction were obtained from 988 exempt employees of a large petrochemical company, and measures of these employees' citizenship behaviors were obtained from their leaders. Structural equation modeling then was used to examine the direct and indirect effects of these behaviors on trust, satisfaction, and citizenship behavior. Moreover, because Bass (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985) argues that the effects of transformational leadership behaviors augment or supplement the effects of transactional leadership behaviors, we examined the effects of the transformational behaviors in the empirical context of the effects of the principal transactional leader behavior identified by him-contingent reward behavior.
transformational leader Behaviors
Although broadly speaking, the topic of transformational leadership has received a great deal of attention in recent years, our understanding of what is involved in transformational leadership still is somewhat unclear. The one thing that is clear, however, is that transformational leadership is multidimensional in nature. Our review of the extant literature suggests that there are at least six key behaviors associated with transformational leaders:
• Identifying and Articulating a Vision-Behavior on the part of the leader aimed at identifying new opportunities for his or her unit/division/company, and developing, articulating, and inspiring others with his or her vision of the future.
• Providing an Appropriate Model-Behavior on the part of the leader that sets an example for employees to follow that is consistent with the values the leader espouses.
• Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals-Behavior on the part of the leader aimed at promoting cooperation among employees and getting them to work together toward a common goal.
• High Performance Expectations-Behavior that demonstrates the leader's expectations for excellence, quality, and/or high performance on the part of followers.
• Providing Individualized Support-Behavior on the part of the leader that indicates that he/she respects followers and is concerned about their personal feelings and needs.
• Intellectual Stimulation-Behavior on the part of the leader that challenges followers to re-examine some of their assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed.
As shown in each of these behaviors has been identified as an important element of the transformational leadership process. There is a great deal of consensus among the researchers on some of these behaviors, but not on others. For example, Identifying and Articulating a Vision has been identified by virtually all of the authors as an important component of the transformational leadership process. Similarly, Facilitating the Acceptance of Group Goals and Providing an Appropriate Model were identified by at least four different authors as elements of transformational leadership. In contrast, only Bass and his colleagues (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985) argue that Intellectual Stimulation should be considered an aspect of transformational leadership. However, in order to make certain that the domain of transformational leader behaviors was adequately tapped, and that our test of the impact of these behaviors was comprehensive, we chose to include all six of the categories identified above in the present study.
Following the recommendations of Schwab (1980) and Churchill (1979), the development of the measures to assess the six transformational leadership behaviors progressed through several stages. In the first step, a pool of approximately 100 items, consistent with the construct definitions described above, was developed. This was done by searching the literature for previous operationalizations of the transformational leadership constructs (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1987), and comparing the items from previous operationalizations to our construct definitions. Where prior operationalizations were deficient in wholly tapping the domain of each transformational leadership construct, we developed additional items.
Next, we conducted a Q-Sort of the list of items using a panel of twelve content experts. These colleagues were given definitions for the six dimensions of transformational leadership behaviors. They were then instructed to evaluate each of the items and place them in the most appropriate transformational leadership category, or a seventh "other" category for any item which did not fit any of the conceptual definitions. The final scale consisted of only those items on which at least 80% of the judges agreed on the item's coding. Following the Q-Sort process, the final set of items was arranged in random order on the questionnaire.
Transactional leader Behavior
Five items taken from Podsakoff et al. 's (1984) contingent reward behavior scale were used to measure transactional leader behavior. Contingent reward behavior captures the exchange notions fundamental to transactional leader behavior, and is the principal behavior identified by Bass (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985) to represent this category. The specific items chosen from this scale were the following: "Always gives me positive feedback when I perform well"; "Gives me special recognition when my work is very good"; "Commends me when I do a better than average job"; "Personally compliments me when I do outstanding work"; and "Frequently does not acknowledge my good performance" (reverse coded). All of these items tap the extent to which a leader provides rewards in exchange for a follower's effort.
Trust In/loyalty To the leader
Although a number of current conceptualizations of trust exist (e.g., Cook & Wall, 1980; Giffin, 1967; Rotter, 1967), at present there is no clear consensus as to which one of these is best. In our study, trust was conceptualized as faith in and loyalty to the leader. Six items were used to tap these dimensions. Two of the items-"! feel quite confident that my leader will always try to treat me fairly"; "My manager would never try to gain an advantage by deceiving workers"-were derived from the scale of Interpersonal Trust at Work developed by Cook and Wall (1980), and along with a third item-"I have complete faith in the integrity of my manager/supervisor"-were used to reflect the followers' faith in the intentions of their leaders. The remaining three items-"! feel a strong loyalty to my leader"; "I would support my leader in almost any emergency"; "I have a strong sense of loyalty toward my leader"-were used to reflect the followers' sense of loyalty and allegiance to their leaders.
Follower Satisfaction
Satisfaction was measured by the short-form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), developed by Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1967). This 20-item scale measures three dimensions of employee satisfaction-(!) intrinsic, (2) extrinsic, and (3) general satisfaction. Prior research on the MSQ has demonstrated the scale's psychometric properties are quite acceptable (Gillet & Schwab, 1975; Weiss et al., 1967). In the present study, scale scores of each of the three dimensions of the MSQ were used as multiple indicators of the employee satisfaction latent construct.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Recently, Organ (1988a) has identified five major types of behavior that he calls "organizational citizenship behaviors" (OCBs). According to Organ, OCBs are "behavior[s] of a discretionary nature that are not part of employees' formal [role] requirements, but nevertheless promote the effective functioning of the organization" (1988a, p.4). Thus, "citizenship behaviors" are prime examples of the kind of extra-role behavior that transformational leadership is believed to encourage. The following five types of citizenship behavior identified by Organ (1988a, in press) were included in the present study.
• Altruism-Discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an organizationally relevant task or problem.
• Conscientiousness-Discretionary behaviors on the part of the employee that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization, in the areas of attendance, obeying rules and regulations, taking breaks, and so forth.
• Sportsmanship-Willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining-to "avoid complaining, petty grievances, railing against real or imagined slights, and making federal cases out of small potatoes" (Organ, 1988, p. 11).
• Courtesy-Discretionary behavior on the part of an individual aimed at preventing work-related problems with others from occurring.
• Civic Virtue-Behavior on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company.
The scales used to measure the five organizational citizenship behaviors were developed in a manner similar to the development of the transformational leader behavior scales. The definitions provided above were used to generate items for each of the constructs. 2 These items were then given to a group of ten colleagues in order to conduct a Q-Sort. These colleagues were given definitions for the five dimensions and were asked to place each item in the most appropriate citizenship behavior category, or a sixth "other" category for any item which, in their judgment, did not fit any of the conceptual definitions. The final scale consisted of only those items on which at least 80% of the judges agreed on the item's coding.
Seven-point Likert scales ranging from (1) "Strongly Disagree" to (7) "Strongly Agree" were utilized to assess all of the constructs measured in the present study, with the exception of the 20 MSQ items, which were assessed with the traditional 5-point scales ranging from (1) "Very Dissatisfied" to (5) "Very Satisfied" used in previous research (Weiss et al., 1967).
Analytical Procedures
Prior to evaluating the impact of the transformational leader behaviors on the organizational citizenship behaviors, we first examined the psychometric properties of the scales developed for our study. As a first step, we conducted separate confirmatory factor analyses for the leader behavior, trust in leader, and OCB scales. The goal of these preliminary analyses was to evaluate the factor structure of these scales.3 Next, we conducted an overall confirmatory factor analysis (including all of the leader behaviors, trust, satisfaction, and OCB measures) to simultaneously assess the convergent and discriminant validities of all of the constructs used in this study. Following this, we used covariance structure analysis procedures (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986) to determine whether transformational behaviors augment the impact of transactional behaviors on organizational citizenship behaviors, and to examine the potential mediating role of trust and satisfaction in that process.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
leader Behaviors
The initial confirmatory factor analysis of the leader behavior measures (both transformational and transactional) indicated that all of the items used to assess the seven leader behavior dimensions had significant and substantial loadings on their hypothesized factors. However, an examination of the factor intercorrelations indicated that, although all of the constructs met the criterion for discriminant validity (all correlations were significantly less than 1.00),4 the correlations among three of the transformational leadership constructs-articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering the acceptance of group goals factors-were very large (all approaching or exceeding .90). This suggested that these three transformational leader behaviors might be multiple indicators of an underlying "core" transformational leader behavior dimension. To examine this possibility, we included a second-order latent factor in our analysis along with the first-order factors initially specified. The second-order latent construct had three first-order factors as indicators (articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering the acceptance of group goals). The results of this factor analysis are reported in the Table 3. As shown in the table, all of the items had significant loadings on their hypothesized first-order factors, and the articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering the acceptance of group goals first-order factors had significant loadings on the second-order "core" transformational leader behavior construct. The chi-square for this model is 877.07 (df = 337), and the Tucker-Lewis (1973) goodness-of-fit index (TLI), which is a measure of how well the model accounts for the sample variances and covariances, is .97.
At first glance, it appears that the x2 and TLI lead to conflicting conclusions regarding the overall fit of this model. The x2 statistic is significant, which is indicative of a poor fit, while the TLI is considerably above .90, which is generally regarded as evidence of a excellent fit. The reason for the discrepancy, however, is the well documented dependence of the chi-square statistic on sample size (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986; Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Marsh et al.'s (1988) recent Monte Carlo simulation study of the impact of sample size on 30 widely used goodness-of-fit indices, including Joreskog and Sorbom's (1986) GFI, Bentler and Bonett's (1980) NF/, and the traditional chi-square statistic, indicated that the TLI and others derived from it are the only goodness-of-fit indices that are relatively independent of sample size. Based on their findings, we relied on the TLI as the primary index of model fit throughout this paper.
Consequently, in our subsequent analyses the leader behaviors were represented by four first-order transformational leader behavior constructs-high performance expectations, individualized- support, intellectual stimulation, and a "core" transformational behavior construct-as well as one first-order transactional leader behavior constructcontingent reward behavior. All of these constructs were modelled as having the items shown in Table 3 as indicators, while the "core" transformational construct (CTB) was modeled as having three factor scores as indicators-one for articulating a vision first-order construct, one for providing an appropriate model first-order construct, and one for fostering the acceptance of group goals construct.
Trust in leader
Table 4 reports the results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the trust in leader scale. The overall pattern of results clearly indicates that all of the items load on the intended factor, the construct is unidimensional, and this one-factor model fits the data very well in an absolute sense (TLI = .96).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Table 5 reports the results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the organizational citizenship behavior scale. As shown in this table, the overall fit of the 5-factor model hypothesized by Organ (1988a, in press) to the data was quite good (TLI = .94), with all of the items used to assess the five OCB factors loading significantly on their intended factors.
Overall Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Up to this point, the analysis has focused on the convergent validity of the constructs used in the study. However, little attention has been given to their discriminant validity. Thus, the next step was to examine the discriminant validity of the complete set of constructs by conducting an overall confirmatory factor analysis, and examining the factor intercorrelations. The complete set of constructs is shown in Figure 2.
This figure includes two sets of relationships: measurement relationships and structural relationships. The measurement portion of the model specifies the relationships between the underlying (latent) constructs, which are represented in the figure by circles, and the measures listed in Tables 3, 4, and 5, which are represented by boxes. The influence of the latent constructs on these indicators is represented by the lines from the ris to the individual indicators. The structural component of the model specifies the hypothesized theoretical relationships among the transformational and transactional leader behaviors, trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. These "causal" relationships are represented by ys and {3s.
The results of the overall confirmatory factor analysis are reported in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 shows the unstandardized factor loadings for the twelve-factor confirmatory analysis. Consistent with the results of our previous analyses, this table shows that all of the items loaded significantly on their hypothesized factors. Moreover, the fit of this overall model to the data was quite respectable (TLI = .92). Thus, even when all of the measures are examined simultaneously, the hypothesized 12-factor solution is supported.
Individual Relationships
The model comparisons discussed above were conducted to test the aggregate-not individual-relationships depicted in Figure 2. These tests are conceptually analogous to overall F-tests for sets of effects (e.g., MANOV As). As a result, it is possible that even though the overall chi-square difference test for one set of effects is not significant, individual variables within the set could have significant effects. Conversely, in instances where the aggregate effects are significant, it is possible that some of the individual effects for variables within that set are not. In order to examine the individual effects of each variable, the statistical significance of the parameter estimates for the full (saturated) model were examined.
The first two columns of estimates for the full model are shown in Table 9. The direct effects of the transformational and transactional leader behaviors on the organizational citizenship behaviors are shown in the first section of this table. Remember that the overall test of these effects was non-significant, indicating that the leader behaviors as a group do not directly influence the OCBs as a group. Although as shown in the table this appears to be true of the transformational leader behaviors, it is not true of the transactional leader behavior examined in this study. Indeed, as indicated in Table 9, contingent reward behavior actually had a significant positive impact ( p < .01) on both sportsmanship (Psict. = .143) and altruism (Pstd = .147). Note that this effect is over and above the effects of trust on these two forms of OCB.
The effects of leader behaviors on both Trust and Follower Satisfaction are shown in the first two columns of the second section of Table 9. The aggregate effects indicated that leader behaviors had a significant impact on both of these constructs, explaining 85% of the variance in trust and 64 percent of the variance in satisfaction. As shown in Table 9, trust was significantly influenced by all of the transformational leader behaviors. It was positively influenced by the "core" transformational leader behaviors CPstd. = .800) and individualized support (Pstd. = .320), but was negatively influenced by high performance expectations (Pstct. = - .078) and intellectual stimulation (Psict. = . - .130). However, contrary to what was suggested by the aggregate effects, trust was not significantly influenced by transactional leader behavior (i.e., contingent reward behavior). Similarly, although satisfaction was significantly influenced by the core transformational behaviors (Psict. = . 700), individualized support (Pstct = .165), and intellectual stimulation (P,ict. = - .164), it was not influenced by contingent reward behavior, either.
One final thing a leader can do to enhance employee trust is to be more careful of
selecting employees in the first place. Some people may just be more likely to trust their
supervisors than others. McCrae and Costa (1987), for example, have identified two
personality characteristics, neuroticism and antagonism, which could describe a person
who is seldom trusting. According to their model, a person high in neuroticism is
insecure, anxious, and often has irrational beliefs, while a person high in antagonism
sets himself against others and is suspicious and skeptical. Whether due to their
insecurity and anxiety, or because they are suspicious and skeptical, it seems unlikely
that neurotic or antagonistic people will be very trusting. Therefore, future research is
needed to determine how these and other personality characteristics may influence
followers' trust."
1) Define, discuss, and explain the dependent variables that were used in this study and in your words:
A) Organizational citizenship behaviors
1) Altruism
2) Conscientiousness
3) Courtesy
4) Civic virtue
5) Sportsmanship
2) Define, discuss, and explain the independent variables used in this study.
A) Transformational Leader Behaviors
3) Define, discuss, and explain the mediating variables used in this study.
A) Trust
B) Satisfaction
Please help. Thank you so much. I greatly appreciate it :)
Explanation / Answer
1) Define, discuss, and explain the dependent variables that were used in this study and in your words:
This study examines the effects of transformation leader on (employees) on Organizational citizenship behavior of employees
Dependent variable - Organizational citizenship behavior
Independent variable – Qualities of a transformation leader
Organizational citizenship behaviors
These are behaviors of employees in an organization that are not formally put like duties, roles, and responsibilities, but are very useful and effective in the success and effective functioning of organisation. These are virtues generally expected from any socially responsible man. They are extra-role behaviors. The transformational leader focuses on encouraging these behaviours in his followers
1) Altruism – Refers to selfless concern for the well being of all. In an organization context, this has been defined as helping others with an organizational problem/ Task, though this action may not give any direct benefit to the helper
2) Conscientiousness – Essentially refers to behaving more than correctly even if not being watched. This refers to working beyond minimum role requirements
3) Courtesy - Generally this refers to respect, politeness, and consideration for others. In an organizational context, this refers to how an individual behaves so that to avoid problems with others from occurring
4) Civic virtue – this is about being concerned with, and participation in the life of the company
5) Sportsmanship – This refers to coping up with less than ideal circumstances and petty issues without cribbing
2) Define, discuss, and explain the independent variables used in this study.
This study examines the effects of transformation leader on (employees) on Organizational citizenship behavior of employees
Transformational Leaders help followers understand the importance of their tasks and work towards satisfying their higher order needs like self-esteem, self - actualization (Maslow). They inspire work beyond requirements and induce selflessness. They inspire them emotionally and change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers.
The important criteria for being of a transformational leader are
3) Define, discuss, and explain the mediating variables used in this study.
This study examines the effects of transformation leader on (employees) on Organizational citizenship behaviour of employees. The mediating variables are followers trust in leader and satisfaction. The mediating variables help to augment the impact of transformation leader on OCB
This is basically the faith in and loyalty to the leader. This is about having a belief in the leader's integrity, having a sense of loyalty towards the leaders and confidence in their leader. Trust is also about going beyond roles to support during emergencies
Employee Satisfaction in organization shows his attitude towards the job, the organization, and the leader. This can be general, intrinsic and extrinsic.
When followers feel trust and respect toward the leader, their motivation level increase and they do more than what they are expected to do. These mediating variables play a critical role in the transformational leadership model.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.