TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS: THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION __________ A Thesis Defense Presented to the Department of Psychology EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY __________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science __________ by Amber M. Humphrey September 2012 ii _______________________________________ Approved by the Department of Psychology _______________________________________ Approved by the Dean of the Graduate School and Distance Education iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to extend my deepest thank you to Dr. George Yancey, my thesis chair. His guidance and, most especially, patience during this time were invaluable. Also, sincere thanks go to my committee members Dr. Brian Schrader and Dr. Gregory Ruark. Their time and assistance during the preparation of this thesis was greatly appreciated. My utmost gratitude and love go out to my cousin, Danielle, for without her constant encouragement, support, and even resources at times, the completion of this thesis would not have been possible. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………..... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………... iv LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………............... vi LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………................. vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………….……………………………………………………… 1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ………………………………………………. 3 Transformational Leadership ……………………………………………………. 3 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors ………………………………………….. 6 Organizational Identification …………………………………………………... 13 Identification as a Mediator ……………………………………………………. 22 Summary……………………………………………………………………….. 24 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………… 25 3 METHOD…..........................................................................................…………. 30 Participants……………………………………………………………………… 30 Instruments……………………………………………………………………… 30 Procedure………………………………………………………………............. 34 4 RESULTS………………………………………………………………………… 36 Hypothesis 1…………………………………………………………………….. 36 Hypothesis 2…………………………………………………………………….. 38 Hypothesis 3…………………………………………………………………….. 38 Hypothesis 4…………………………………………………………………….. 41 v Exploratory Analyses…………………………………………………............... 41 5 DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………………………. 50 Practical implications ………………………………………………….............. 59 Limitations …………………………………………………………….............. 61 Future Research ……………………………………………………….............. 62 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………................... 64 APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………. 77 Appendix A: Demographics Instrument ……………………………………….. 77 Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire…..…………………......... 79 Appendix C: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale ……………………… 83 Appendix D: Organizational Identification Scale..…………………….............. 86 Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Approval…………………………….. 88 Appendix F: Informed Consent Form ………………………………………….. 90 vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Correlations between Organizational Identification and Leadership Variables………………………………………………………….. 39 2 Correlations between Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Variables………………………………. 40 3 How Organizational Identification Moderates Leadership – OCB Relationships………………………………………………………………….. 48 vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Zero-order Correlational Model for Transformational Leadership, Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors………………………………………………………...................... 42 2 Results for the Causal Model for the Mediating Role of Organizational Identification………………………………………………….. 43 3 Zero-order Correlation Model for Laissez-faire Leadership, Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors………………………………………………………………………. 47 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Amber M. Humphrey for the Master of Science in Psychology presented September 13, 2012 Title: Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Role of Organizational Identification Abstract approved: This study investigated the role of organizational identification as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors. Participants were 128 employees from organizations in Kansas and Missouri that varied in size and industry. Employees were given Bass and Avolio’s Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5x-Short, Podsakoff and colleagues’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale, and Mael and Ashforth’s Organizational Identification Scale. Results indicated transformational leadership did predict organizational citizenship behaviors, but organizational identification did not mediate the relationship. Organizational identification was negatively related to both transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors. However, laissez-faire leadership was positively related to organizational identification and negatively related to organizational citizenship behaviors. These findings have practical implications for organizations seeking to establish and maintain effective leadership and positive employee behaviors. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Some people are born to be leaders, but some people are made into leaders. Leadership is defined as the ability to influence the motivation or competence of other individuals in a group (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1991). Finding the right people who will be good leaders is important since effective leadership provides more benefits to an organization than any other human factor (Gibson et al., 1991). Perhaps, equally important is identifying and understanding the underlying mechanics that allow the right people to be good leaders. Organization science research is often interested in studying the individual- organization relationship. Employee behavior is linked to the effectiveness of the organization. For example, job performance (i.e., how well employees perform on the job) can greatly impact the success of the organization. In a sense, the employees are the organization. One work behavior that is increasingly researched is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). OCBs are activities employees complete outside the formally recognized job requirements (Organ, 1988) and have been linked to organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Leaders, as the definition implies, have their most direct and greatest effect on their followers. Hence, it stands to reason that, in the workplace, what partially makes for a good leader is the ability to effectively motivate followers to engage in behaviors known to have positive outcomes for the organization. Of particular interest to this study are leaders who influence the OCBs of their followers. However, it is not enough to solely examine the direct relationship between the two. Such a relationship is already 2 well documented, so it now becomes relevant to learn how leaders influence follower OCBs. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is necessary to place more effort on identifying the processes by which transformational leadership influences followers (Bass, 1998; Yukl, 1999) because this is not done much in a systematic way (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Notwithstanding the lack of research, a few mediators of the transformational leadership - follower outcomes relationship have been identified (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, & Shi, 2004). A variable that may account for the transformational leadership and OCB link is organizational identification (OI), which is an employee’s perception of belonging to or being attached to the organization. This has yet to be empirically tested. Organizational identification, however, is an important variable that should be studied because organizations are a social category with which employees may identify (Gautam, van Dick, & Wagner, 2004). In fact, it is advocated that organizations may be the most important social category for individuals (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Furthermore, OI is related to both transformational leadership (Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008) and OCBs (Riketta, 2005; van Dick et al., 2006). Thus, I expect that organizational identification mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. Research of this manner will aid in the understanding of how organizations can increase the effectiveness and success of its leaders, and thereby, potentially, the organization as well. In order to fully comprehend the hypothesized relationship, and the underlying rationale, it is necessary to first examine the variables and related research in greater depth. 3 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There exist multiple theories and models of leadership. Some are trait theories in which certain characteristics associated with leadership are identified. There are also personal-behavioral theories that focus on the personal and behavioral characteristics of leaders, and situational theories that involve a best fit between leader and subordinate behavior and the situation (Gibson et al., 1991). Throughout the years, the various theories and models have stimulated criticisms, so over time more progressive explanations of leadership have arisen. One such concept is the transformational versus transactional theory of leadership (Gibson et al., 1991). Certainly, it has become the most popular means of understanding leader effectiveness (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Transformational Leadership Burns (1978) developed the first conceptualization of transformational and transactional leadership. He considered both styles to be interactions between people with similar objectives; however, each has different motivations and levels of power affecting the interactions. The form of interactions is what differentiates transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership has been characterized as simply an exchange that takes place between a leader and a follower. Once the interaction is completed there is no longer a shared purpose or a relationship between the two people (Burns, 1978). On the other hand, Burns described transformational leadership as an engagement between leader and follower that changes certain aspects of both people and joins their purposes. 4 Since the initial conceptualization of transformational and transactional leadership, these concepts have been expanded and elaborated upon by various authors. Bass (1998), one of the primary researchers on this model of leadership, has more fully developed Burn’s (1978) initial concepts. Bass and Avolio (1994) agreed that transactional leadership is based upon exchanges between individuals, but those exchanges consist of leaders discussing requirements and giving rewards or punishments based upon the followers performance. Two components of transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR) and management-by-exception (MBE) (Bass, 1998). Contingent reward is a positive transaction that occurs when leaders agree to reward or do reward others based upon satisfactory performance. Management-by-exception is a more negative transaction that consisting of a passive (MBE-P) and an active (MBE-A) form. MBE is meant to be a corrective method such that when individuals make mistakes or performance declines, action can be taken to correct the situation. When leaders use MBE-P, they generally wait passively for any slip in performance before taking corrective action. In contrast, leaders use MBE-A when they are actively monitoring performance and then taking action when it becomes necessary (Bass, 1994). Transformational leadership motivates and encourages others to perform above the minimum requirements and often times to perform beyond their own expectations (Podsakoff et al., 1990). As with transactional leadership, transformational leadership may be broken down into several components. The four components Bass (1998) identified were charismatic leadership (CL), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC). Bass suggested when leaders behave in a CL way, they are seen as role models who not only are trusted and respected, 5 but are also capable and determined. These leaders take risks and have high ethical and moral standards. According to Bass, employing IM signifies that the leadership is motivating and it inspires others to become involved by challenging them and giving meaning and understanding to expectations. Bass also thought by providing IS, leaders allow others to develop their abilities by allowing and encouraging innovation and creativity without public criticism of mistakes. Lastly, when engaging in IC, leaders are effective listeners and act as mentors who focus on each individual follower’s needs providing them with learning opportunities and acceptance of individual differences (Bass, 1998). An accumulating amount of evidence provides support that transformational leadership is positively associated with work outcomes. Meta-analytic reviews have reached consistent conclusions on the validity of the relationships between transformational leadership and work attitudes and behaviors. Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis with 22 published studies and 19 unpublished studies, in which they all used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). They found a composite corrected correlation of r = .73 across the dimensions of CL, IC, and IS. Additionally, they reported stronger associations with leader effectiveness and the dimensions of transformational leadership than transactional leadership dimensions, specifically .71, .61, .60 respectively for CL, IC, and IS. Thus, transformational leadership was shown to have a positive relationship with leader effectiveness. Similarly, a meta-analytic review of charismatic leadership, using Bass’ (1998) conceptualization of charisma, found a corrected correlation of r = .78 between 6 charismatic leadership and perceived leader effectiveness (Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996). Fuller et al. also found significant correlations of r = .45 and r = .80 between charismatic leadership and overall job performance and satisfaction with the leaders, respectively. A more recent meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership found transformational leadership had a significant overall predictive validity of .44, but it did not significantly predict leader job performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). However, what transformational leadership did significantly predict was follower-leader satisfaction, follower motivation, and rated leader effectiveness. Other research has documented the positive associations between transformational leadership and the work attitudes of organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004; Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang, & Lawler, 2005) and job satisfaction (Walumbwa et al., 2005). Alongside job performance, both on the individual level (Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005) and the group level (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007), organizational citizenship behaviors have been found to be positively influenced by transformational leadership (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Wang et al., 2005). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Katz (1964) theorized there were three types of behavior required for organizations to function properly. First, he stated people had to be persuaded to join and remain with the organization. Second, they had to dependably perform their assigned tasks. Lastly, there should be “innovative and spontaneous behavior” helpful in achieving work objectives, but go beyond tasks that are formally required. Bateman and Organ 7 (1983) termed such spontaneous acts “citizenship” behaviors and from there OCB research grew. Organ (1988) originally defined OCB as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). Thus, these behaviors are not required of the individuals by the organization, neither are they rewarded, rather the individuals choose to perform such acts on their own. Throughout the years, research has produced similar constructs that overlap and are sometimes used interchangeably with OCB, namely extra-role behavior (van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Organizational citizenship behavior, extra-role behavior, and organizational spontaneity describe acts that are voluntarily performed by the individual because the acts are not part of formal role descriptions: Organizational spontaneity includes rewarded behaviors (George & Brief, 1992), but OCB and extra-role behaviors are generally not rewarded. Prosocial behavior, on the other hand, is made up of behaviors that are intended to promote the welfare of the entity towards which it is directed (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). In this regard, prosocial behavior differs from the other constructs because it is the only one to specify a motive for the behavior (Penny & Borman, 2005). Additionally, prosocial behavior makes distinctions between functional and dysfunctional behaviors and includes both role prescribed and extra-role behaviors (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). 8 Borman and Motowidlo (1993, 1997) introduced contextual performance as activities, outside of task performance, that promote effectiveness within the organization’s core through organizational, social, and psychological contexts. Thus, contextual performance consists of behaviors that support the environment in which task performance takes place (Penny & Borman, 2005). Contextual performance also differs from OCB in that it does not require the behavior to be extra-role, and it may include those behaviors recognized formally through rewards. Van Dyne et al. (1995) noted the overlap among the similar extra-role behaviors muddled the research field. Similarly, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) mentioned research on OCBs and related behaviors failed to distinguish between similarities and differences among conceptualizations of constructs. To further complicate matters, a survey by Morrison (1994) demonstrated the boundaries between in-role and extra-role behaviors may at times be ill defined. Her results indicated employees who performed OCBs broadly defined their job responsibilities, such that the OCBs were often classified as in-role behaviors. Such criticisms and research prompted Organ (1997) to reconsider his original conceptualization of organizational citizenship behavior. As a consequence, his new definition is nearly synonymous with contextual performance (Organ, 1997). Organizational citizenship behavior dimensions. OCB is comprised of several different dimensions. Organ (1988) originally identified the following seven OCB components: altruism, courtesy, peacemaking, cheerleading, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue. Growing interest in the citizenship behavior field has resulted in an increase in the dimensionalities of the construct. Podsakoff et al. (2000) 9 organized the nearly 30 different OCB forms into seven common dimensions: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and self development. Helping behavior is identified as an important form of OCB by nearly all researchers in the field. Helping behavior consists of voluntarily helping others with work related problems or preventing problems from occurring (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Sportsmanship is defined as not complaining when faced with inconveniences or impositions (Organ, 1990). Organizational loyalty consists of promoting, protecting, and defending the organization and staying committed to it through tough times (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; George & Brief, 1992; Graham, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Organizational compliance captures those behaviors that are in line with following the rules, regulations, and procedures of the organization regardless of whether someone is watching or not (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Graham, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Podsakoff et al. (2000) labeled behaviors that involve voluntarily going “above and beyond” what is required for the completion of task-related behaviors as individual initiative. Civic virtue is taking interest in and participating in organizational process, thereby accepting the responsibilities that being a part of the organization entail (Graham, 1991; Organ, 1988). Leadership and OCBs. Several meta-analyses and reviews document the positive relationship between leadership behaviors and organizational behaviors (e.g., Fuller et al.,1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). Unfortunately, the majority of that research has focused on the behavior of job performance that is “in-role” or task performance (e.g., Bass et al., 2003; Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2008). 10 In regards to OCB, less leadership research has been performed, but that which has been done reveals a positive relationship between leader behaviors and OCBs. Smith et al. (1983) theorized leader supportiveness (i.e., individualized support) would be related to OCB because employees might perceive such behavior as an act of assistance which employees may reciprocate in the form of OCB. Indeed, they found leader supportiveness was directly related to compliance (i.e., conscientiousness) and indirectly related to altruism. Similarly, Fahr, Podsakoff, and Organ’s (1990) study of the leadership behaviors contingent reward behavior, supportiveness, and participativeness found that they, along with task scope, predicted altruism better than job satisfaction. Lastly, research has revealed that traditional leadership (initiating structure and consideration) predicted the OCB dimensions of altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Schnake, Dumler, & Cochran, 1993). As other leadership concepts are related to OCB, transformational leadership should also demonstrate this relationship. Taking into account that effective transformational leaders are able to change or transform followers’ work mentalities and values in such a way they become willing to perform above the standards required by the organization (Podsakoff et al., 1990), it makes sense that these followers will engage in OCBs. In attempting to investigate the leadership and OCB relationship, researchers have begun to focus on the processes by which transformational leadership affects followers’ work behaviors and performance. One of the most cited theories behind the motivational processes of transformational leadership is the self-concept based theory proposed by Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993). While that theory is centered on charismatic leadership, the authors 11 referenced both transformational and charismatic theory and research in the development of their model. The theory identified various aspects of individuals’ self-concept which charismatic/transformational leaders alter, and this change in turn produces positive work behaviors. Shamir and colleagues proposed that an individual’s self-concept is composed of the individual’s self-expression, self-esteem, self-worth, and individual and social identity. Additionally, transformational leaders engage in behaviors that link effort and goals to the motivational aspects of followers’ self-concepts (i.e., self-expression, self- esteem). Accordingly, OCBs are one such visible demonstration of the transformational effects of charismatic leadership (Shamir et al., 1993). The self-concept theory has been expanded upon by Bono and Judge (2003) by incorporating self-concordance, which is the extent individuals’ interests and values are actually being expressed through job related activities. They linked elements of the self- concept theory with the self-concordance model in order to understand why followers of transformational leadership portray such positive work outcomes. The self-concordance model suggests that people will be more motivated and perform better if their interests, values, and goals are congruent with their work. Bono and Judge investigated that model in a field study and a laboratory study in relation to follower satisfaction with leader, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance. They found the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction and organizational commitment was partially mediated by self-concordance. There was no relationship between self-concordance and performance in the field study, but there was a link with performance dimensions in the lab setting. 12 Other processes behind the leader behavior and organizational behavior linkage involve mediation. In fact, most of the literature specifically examining transformational leadership and OCB have studied this relationship indirectly by investigating the role of various mediators. For example, one mediator of the leadership and OCB relationship was followers’ trust in the leader (Podsakoff et al., 1990). In particular, it was found that transformational leader behaviors only affected OCB indirectly through followers’ trust in the leader; however, a direct effect was found between transactional leader behaviors and OCB. Contrary to those results, Jung and Avolio (2000) found transformational leaders had both direct and indirect influences on followers’ performance. The indirect pathway was mediated by both trust in leader and value congruence. Similarly, transactional leadership had an indirect effect mediated through trust and value congruence. Furthermore, leader-member exchange (LMX) and certain core job characteristics have been found to mediate the relationship of leadership and performance and leadership and OCBs. Leader behaviors led to an increase in task performance and OCBs but only when LMX mediated the relationships, thus the quality of the leader-follower relationship influenced follower performance (Wang et al., 2005). In fact, transformational leadership relationships were stronger when followers perceived a high quality LMX (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Additionally, Piccolo and Colquitt found that leaders who framed followers’ job experiences so that they (followers) perceived their work as containing more core job characteristics were able to positively influence task performance and OCBs. 13 The motivational influence that transformational leaders have upon followers not only increases performance but influences work behaviors like OCBs. These transformational processes are mediated by such constructs as trust, LMX, self-efficacy, and value congruence. Another construct worth studying in a mediational capacity is organizational identification because people spend such a large amount of time at their jobs, how they feel towards their organizations influences many of their behaviors and attitudes. Organizational Identification The organizational identification concept appears early in the literature. Foote (1951) purposed a theory of motivation based upon an individual’s identification with the organization. He stated that people tend to identify with others in groups, and after categorizing the social world around them, these categorizations help form commitment resulting in motivating behavior. Thus, when individuals categorize themselves as members of an organization, these self-categorizations motivate the individuals to behave in ways that support the organization. Years later after Foote, Brown (1969) also examined identification in organizations. In Brown’s conceptualization of OI, he used a definition that characterizes identification as being a relationship between the employee and the organization. This relationship not only defines the employee’s self-concept but allows for the organization to have influential sway over the individual in order to preserve the relationship (Edwards, 2005). Furthermore, Brown suggested that the most fundamental aspects of OI were attraction to the organization, loyalty, congruence of goals between the organization and individuals, and reference of self to organizational membership. 14 At around the same time as Brown, Patchen (1970) and Lee (1971) proposed two similar conceptualizations of OI. Patchen’s approach involved three components: a perception of shared characteristics, feelings of solidarity, and support for the organization. He uses shared characteristics to describe the perception an individual has about similarities between his/her own goals and interests and those of other organizational members. Patchen defined solidarity as a sense of belongingness the individual feels to that organization, while he defined support as having loyalty towards and defending the organizational goals and policies. Lee (1971) proposed a different approach but one that used similar concepts as Patchen (1970). Lee stated that identification could take one of three forms, either as a sense of belongingness, loyalty, or shared characteristics. He suggested that sense of belongingness may result from a perception of shared goals amongst organizational members or the belief an employee has that his/her role within the organization fulfills personal needs. According to Lee, loyalty involved those attitudes and behaviors that support or defend the organization. He also suggested that identification in the form of shared characteristics involves “a similarity in quality” between organizational members (Lee, 1971, p. 215). The social identity approach. The earlier conceptualizations of OI are thought to span a wide range of psychological perceptions (Edwards, 2005). However, within the past 20 years, the most influential approach comes from social identity theory (SIT) and self-categorization theory (SCT) (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). The integration of these two theories is known as the social identity approach (e.g., van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, Christ, & Tissington, 2005). While social identity theory was developed to 15 explain intergroup hostility and in-group favoritism (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), it was later applied to the organizational context (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Combining organizational identification with social identity theory helps uncover the processes involved by which individuals identify with organizations (Pratt, 1998). Tajfel (1978) defined social identity as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (p. 63). The three assumptions of SIT are as follows (Tajfel & Turner, 1979): 1. People strive for the establishment or enhancement of positive self-esteem. 2. A part of the person’s self-concept- his or her social identity- is based on the person’s group memberships. 3. To maintain a positive social identity, the person strives for positive differentiation between his or her ingroup and relevant outgroups. (p. 16) Almost 10 years after SIT, Tuner and colleagues developed self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). The focus of SCT is self- categorization meaning individuals categorize people into groups as a way of simplifying their social world and assign themselves as a member of a particular group (Edwards, 2005). Van Dick et al. (2006) proposed three levels of abstraction by which individuals can categorize themselves: a subordinate level (as individual people who compare themselves with other people), an intermediate level (as members of a particular group which are compared with relevant outgroups), or a superordinate level (as human beings). Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) pioneering work brought attention to the applicability and noteworthy influence that social identity approach brings to organizational research 16 (van Dick et al., 2005). Ashforth and Mael defined organizational identification as “the perception of oneness or belongingness to some human aggregate” (p. 21). They considered OI a form of social identification in which individuals categorize themselves into a social category. According to them, the social category is derived from the organization for which the individual works, but it may also be the work group, department, and so forth. Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994) also applied SIT to organizational identification. Their model of OI is based upon Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) premise that identification is a process of self-categorization; however, they extended it by suggesting that identification occurs when members begin defining their self-concepts with the same characteristics for which they use to define the organization. In addition, Dutton et al. (1994) proposed the more a person’s self-concept incorporates attributes of the organization and the more central and salient the individual’s identity as an organizational member is then the stronger that individual’s OI is. Two conditions that must be met before self-categorization emerges are identification and category salience (van Dick et al., 2005). Identification means an individual identifies with and can be identified as being a member of a certain category, and it is connected to situational influences through category salience (van Dick & Wagner, 2002). In other words, individuals can identify as members of a certain category when the context makes that particular category salient. In this sense, identification should be considered a flexible belief pattern rather than a fixed or given trait (van Dick et al., 2005). However, Rousseau (1998) distinguished between two forms of 17 identification that allows for a transient, situation-specific identification and one in which self-definitions are more stable. According to Rousseau (1998), situated identification occurs when individuals feel a sense of belongingness to the group due to a perception of shared interests elicited by situational cues. This type of identification can form quickly and is often temporary (Edwards, 2005). On the other hand, deep structured identification involves the individual creating a link with the organization, such that the organization is incorporated into the individual’s self-concept (Rousseau, 1998). Because an individual must first be aware of social categories and self-categorize before deeper associations can be made, it is natural that deep structured identification follows situated identification (Meyer, Becker, & van Dick, 2006; Rousseau, 1998). Thus, contrary to SIT/SCT, this difference between situated and deep structured identification suggests that identification is not solely situation specific but may be a more enduring quality (Ashforth et al., 2008). Expanding OI. Van Dick (2001) and colleagues (2004, 2005), developed the OI concept even further within the area of SIT/SCT. Extending SCT to the organizational context, van Dick et al. (2004) proposed that just as individuals can categorize themselves on subordinate, intermediate, and superordinate levels, so to can OI be differentiated into different foci of identification. According to them, individuals can identify with their own careers (the personal/subordinate level) or on group levels either with different subunits within their organizations (i.e., work groups, departments) or with the organization as a whole. Furthermore, van Dick and colleagues (2004) proposed that identification could also be differentiated into four dimensions. They presented the work of Pratt (1998), 18 Tajfel (1978), Ellemers, de Gilder, and Haslam (2004), and Jackson (2002) as theoretical evidence that the following dimensions of social identity can be distinguished: a) a cognitive component, which is the knowledge an individual has of belonging to a social group, b) an affective dimension, which is the emotional significance attached to being a member, c) an evaluate aspect, which is the value assigned to that group through comparisons of relevant others, and d) a behavioral component. Indeed, Ashforth et al. (2008) pointed out that identification is reciprocally reinforced through cognition and affect, but they do not regard the behavioral component as being necessary, rather it is a “probabilistic outcome” (p. 331) . In fact, individuals may come to identify with an organization specifically through his/her thoughts, feelings, and/or actions (Ashforth, 2001). Following this classification of dimensions for social identity, van Dick (2001) posited that the first step in identifying with a specific group involves the cognitive component which is then followed by an experience of affect towards the group, an evaluation of the group’s characteristics, and then individuals will begin to behave in ways that support the group. Answering a call for expanded models of OI, Kreiner and Ashforth (2004) provided evidence that there are multiple ways individuals may identify with an organization: identification, disidentification, ambivalent identification, and neutral identification. When an individual defines his or her self-concept as not having those attributes by which one defines the organization, then disidentification has occurred (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001). Disidentification involves actively separating oneself from the organization, rather than an unintentional mismatch of attributes (Elsbach, 1999). Generally, disidentification is considered undesirable, but it might provide helpful 19 behaviors like whistle-blowing, innovation, and conscientious dissent (Kreiner & Asforth, 2004). Kreiner and Ashforth (2004) classified ambivalent identification as an individual identifying and disidentifying simultaneously with the organization (or the same aspects within). Ashforth (2001) and Elsbach (1999) speculated that this type of ambivalence may occur due to the complexities of organizations and those values, beliefs, and goals of individuals that are not imbedded deeply. Neutral identification occurs when neither identification nor disidentification is occurring; however, such an absence is intentional (Elsbach, 1999). This form of identification is itself a psychological state and not just an absence of forming a link with the organization (Kriener & Ashforth, 2004). To date, there has not been much research conducted on neutral identification. Distinctions between commitment. Identification may happen across various dimensions but at its basic level there are comments about its resemblance to organizational commitment (OC). Organizational identification researchers have taken the stance that OI is a separate construct worthy of its own research (Gautam et al., 2004). It is said that both constructs describe similar psychological states, so much so, that identification is sometimes part of OC’s conceptualization (Edwards, 2005). For example, one of the first definitions of OC given by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) stated that organizational commitment “is the strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (p. 226). Additionally, Meyer and Allen’s (1991) more recent conceptualization of OC involved a three component model 20 in which there is affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Affective commitment is the one that most closely resembles identification (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Affective commitment is defined as the “emotional attachment to identification with, and involvement in, the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 1). Perhaps the most distinguishing fact among the constructs is that OI is rooted in SIT/SCT while commitment is not. Thus, identification is self-referential, or self- definitional, so it reflects an individual’s sense of “oneness” with the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Commitment consists of a separation between the individual and the organization (Ashforth et al., 2004) and it is more generally a reflection of a positive attitude towards the organization (Ashforth et al., 2004; van Dick et al., 2006). A second distinction focuses on the source of OI and organizational commitment (Pratt, 1998). Whether or not identification develops depends on if the individual perceives similarities and/or a shared fate with the organization or group (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). In contrast, Tyler and Blader stated that commitment primarily forms on the basis of exchange-based factors (i.e., the material relationship) between the two entities (as cited in Gautam et al., 2004). Gautam and colleagues (2004) speculated because there are differences in the development of the two constructs, the origin of possible outcomes will differ as well. They suggested highly identified members engage in behaviors that support the organization, not because they are forced to do so formally (i.e., job requirement, control mechanisms), but because the values and goals of the group have become part of members’ own self-concept. Conversely, Gautam et al. (2004) 21 further proposed commitment guides members’ behaviors more formally through work contracts, supervisor’s control, and such. Another difference between OI and commitment resides, once again, in the SIT/SCT conceptualization of OI. Predictions of the two theories suggest identification is flexible and situation specific, such that behavior will depend upon the context and salience of the group (Wagner & Ward, 1993). Commitment, on the other hand, is more likely to be stable and enduring once formed (Gautam et al., 2004; van Dick et al., 2006). Mael and Ashforth (1995) claimed that identification is organization specific, while commitment is less so. They suggested that given a specific organization, in which a member identifies, and another organization that shares the same values and goals as the first, a member may score high on commitment for both organizations but only perceive a shared fate with the one. Furthermore, they concluded a member could easily transfer his or her commitment to the similar organization; however, an identified member would experience “psychic loss” if s/he were to leave (Mael & Ashforth, 1995, p. 312). Outcomes. At the center of SIT/SCT, which organizational identification is based upon, is the concept of self-enhancement. Individuals want to see themselves in a positive manner (Ashforth et al., 2008). People identify as a means of enhancing their collective self-esteem. Researchers have found that organization-based self-esteem was linked to organizational identification (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Other individual outcomes concern other self-related motives. For example, Ashforth (2001) identified self- knowledge, self-expression, self-coherence, self-continuity, and self-distinctiveness as motives for identification. Furthermore, Ashforth et al. (2008) asserted that, according to 22 the literature, identification helps people meet the basic human needs for affiliation, safety, and uncertainty reduction. Alongside the individual outcomes, there are organizational outcomes associated with identification that make it relevant to researchers. Popular outcomes include intrinsic motivation (van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), cooperation (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Kramer, 2006), and task performance (van Knippenber, 2000). Additional outcomes often referenced are organizational citizenship behaviors (Dutton et al., 1994; van Dick et al., 2006), turnover and turnover intentions (Mael & Ashforth, 1995; van Dick et al., 2004), job satisfaction (Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007), and improved processes in virtual teams (Fio & O’Connor, 2005). In addition, an increasing amount of research has begun to focus on negative outcomes, or the so called “darkside,” of organizational identification. Evidence shows that identification is associated with anti-social behaviors (Aquino & Douglas, 2003), decreased creativity (Rotondi, 1975), resistance to organizational change (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003), and a continued commitment to failing organizational projects (Haslam et al., 2006). Moreover, if an organization encouraged harmful and unlawful behaviors, such as discrimination and/or unethical practices, it could lead to highly identified members engaging in detrimental behaviors that could ultimately harm the organization (Ashforth et al., 2008). Organizational Identification as a Mediator Organizational identification, organizational citizenship behavior, and transformational leadership have been shown to be related, separately, to each other in 23 such a way that it is possible to suggest that identification would mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. It has already briefly been mentioned that OCB is an outcome of identification. Employees’ positive contributions within the organization stem from how much of their self concepts are defined in terms of organizational attributes. Organizational identification aligns the actions of members with behavior that benefits the organization (Dutton et al., 1994). Therefore, more effort on behalf of the organization is likely to occur because it also entails more effort on behalf of the individual (Shamir et al., 1993). Additionally, identification may be a frame of reference, such that employees engage in certain behaviors according to the nature of their attachment with the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Such rationale has led researchers to propose that organizational identification is related to OCB (e.g., Dutton et al., 1994). Empirical evidence supports that proposition. In a recent comprehensive meta- analysis of organizational identification, Riketta (2005) noted a corrected correlation of r = .35 between overall OI and “extra-role” behaviors. In addition, van Dick et al. (2006) conducted several studies examining the OI and OCB relationship. Their first study was a multi-sample one that investigated the generalizability of the relationship across cultures and occupational groups. The two variables were related in all the samples, and the average corrected correlation was r = .36. Their second study utilized a longitudinal design to investigate the causal relationship between identification and OCB. Their results supported the assumption that it is largely OI that impacts OCB instead of the reverse. 24 Organizational identification may predict OCB, but an important predictor of OI is transformational leadership (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Identification is a key component to Shamir et al.’s (1993) self-concept based theory of charismatic leadership. Shamir and colleagues claimed charismatic/transformational leaders engage in behaviors that increase followers’ identification which influences their self-concepts, thus leading to the transformational effects seen (i.e., transcending own self-interests for the sake of the organization). Kark and Shamir (2002) also proposed that transformational leadership would positively influence followers’ social identification through the priming of their collective identities and the joining of their self-concept with the goals and mission of the organization. Van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, de Cremer, and Hogg (2004) argued generating identification with the collective is partly why transformational and charismatic leadership are effective. It would appear that transformational leadership, at its core, is the ability to transform self-interest into collective interest (Burns, 1978; Shamir et al., 1993; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). This is probably why research focused on transformational leadership and organizational identification typically investigates organizational identification as mediating the relationship between transformational leadership and various work attitudes and behaviors. Indeed, Shamir et al. (1993) proposed that identification would be a mediator of charismatic/transformational leadership and follower outcomes. Summary In summary, transformational leaders motivate others to move beyond their own self interest and place the organization first (Silverthorne, 2005), whereas transactional 25 leaders interact with followers on a reciprocal basis. It has become necessary to study the processes by which transformational leadership influences followers’ work outcomes. Because transformational leadership deals with shifting followers’ interest from their own to the interests of the organization, one way to do this may be by engaging followers’ identification with the organization. Researchers have proposed that transformational leadership increases followers’ organizational identification (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Shamir et al., 2003; van Knippenberg et al, 2004), so they begin to see themselves as “one” with the organization (Asforth & Mael, 1989) and it motivates them to contribute to the collective. These contributions are often recognized as exerting extra effort, performing above the minimum requirements and performing beyond expectations (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Such behaviors closely resemble organizational citizenship behaviors, and not surprisingly, transformational leadership is positively related to OCBs. Organizational identification also has a positive relationship with OCB. Thus, based on the research and theoretical grounding offered, transformational leadership may be indirectly related to followers’ OCBs through organizational identification; however, no study has investigated this specific relationship. Consequently, the goal of the proposed study is to expand the research on transformational leadership by investigating the role organizational identification has in the transformational leadership and OCB relationship. Hypotheses Several relationships must exist in order to test whether or not organizational identification is a mediating variable. The literature suggests a positive relationship 26 between transformational leadership and OCB. Leadership behaviors have predicted the various OCB dimensions of altruism (Fahr et al., 1990; Schnake, Dumler, & Cochran, 1993), conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Schnake et al., 1993). Furthermore, transformational leaders motivate followers to exceed expectations, their own and others (Bass, 1998). Resulting behaviors could be considered OCBs. Transformational leadership and OCB are both composed of several components. In order to examine the relationship between these two variables there are a multitude of relationships that could be hypothesized. Specifically, 25 correlations will be examined, so the following hypothesis is given: H1a: The number of positive correlations will exceed the chance level. However, I will be particularly interested in transformational leadership-OCB overall measures; therefore, I hypothesize the following. H1b: Transformational leadership is positively related to follower’s OCB. Besides increasing followers’ work effort, transformational leaders who are innovative and who inspire, build trust, empower followers, and communicate a vision for the future may also increase followers’ identification (Hogg, 2001). Also, Kark and Shamir (2002), Shamir et al. (1993), and van Knippenberg et al. (2004) have proposed a positive link between transformational leadership and identification. H2a: The perceived idealized influence (behavior) of leaders is positively related to follower’s organizational identification. H2b: The perceived idealized influence (attributes) of leaders is positively related to follower’s organizational identification. 27 H2c: The perceived individualized consideration of leaders is positively related to follower’s organizational identification. H2d: The perceived inspirational motivation of leaders is positively related to follower’s organizational identification. H2e: The perceived intellectual stimulation of leaders is positively related to follower’s organizational identification. H2f: Overall perceived transformational leadership is positively related to follower’s organizational identification. Organizational identification is also theorized to have an association with OCB. Since identification creates a sense of oneness with the organization, individuals will take on the goals and missions of the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992); thereby, increasing work motivation and performance (van Knippenberg, 2000). Performance typically considered in-role often encompasses uncontrollable factors, thus effects of identification on performance will more likely be seen for extra-role performance or citizenship behaviors (van Dick et al., 2006). In fact, research has found that individuals who identify with their organization are more likely to exhibit extra-role behavior (Riketta, 2005). Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed. H3a: Follower’s organizational identification is positively related to follower’s conscientiousness. H3b: Follower’s organizational identification is positively related to follower’s sportsmanship. H3c: Follower’s organizational identification is positively related to follower’s civic virtue. 28 H3d: Follower’s organizational identification is positively related to follower’s courtesy. H3e: Follower’s organizational identification is positively related to follower’s altruism. H3f: Follower’s organizational identification is positively related to follower’s overall OCB. Several researchers have proposed an indirect relationship between transformational leadership and OCB with organizational identification as the mediator (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Shamir et al., 1993). Transformational leaders provide followers with a sense of purpose and higher vision (Bass, 1998), and this essentially changes the way followers define themselves. The followers become members of a social category (i.e., the organization) and begin thinking collectively, thus forsaking their own interests for those of the organization. Followers are then willing to engage in activities that contribute to the collective and the organization (Shamir, 1990). This may occur because followers begin defining themselves according to the organization and come to see the two entities as one (i.e., identification). Based on past research and theoretical grounding, I expect the following hypothesis to be true: H4: Follower’s organizational identification will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and follower’s OCB. Identifying the underlying processes that allow transformational leadership to influence work outcomes may ultimately contribute to leader effectiveness. With such knowledge, organizations can potentially identify areas within the employee-organization 29 relationship that may be impeding positive work outcomes but that leaders, engaging in appropriate behaviors, may improve. 30 CHAPTER 3 METHOD The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between transformational leadership, organizational identification, and OCB. Specifically, the study investigated whether or not organizational identification mediated the transformational leadership and OCB relationship. Participants’ self-ratings where analyzed to assess all hypotheses. The data collected adds to the literature on transformational leadership by revealing the process through which this leadership style influences followers’ work behaviors. Participants Approximately 150 surveys were administered to employed individuals. The response rate was 86% as 128 surveys were returned. Female respondents accounted for 62.5% of the sample. The average age was 33.05 years (SD = 12.06), ranging from 18 to 65 years. Participants included 81 whites, 25 African Americans, 2 Asians, 8 Hispanics, 1 Pacific Islander, 2 other, and 8 who identified with more than one race. The mean organizational tenure was 64.12 months, and the mean job tenure was 47.69 months. Also, 17.2% of participants held a supervisory/managerial position, and 78.9% were working full-time while 20.3% were part-time. The organizations sampled for this study were small (37), medium (39), and large (50). Most participants worked in either Kansas or Missouri. Instruments Demographic instrument. A short demographics section was included (Appendix A). Demographic items were included for exploratory purposes. In total, there 31 were 9 items used to collect information regarding the following: gender, age, race, organization and job tenure, supervisory status, organization size, full-time or part-time status, and supervisor’s job title. Transformational leadership. Leadership was measured using the 36-item Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5x-Short (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 2004; Appendix B). The MLQ assessed nine subscales of leadership that identified three leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. For this study, transformational leadership was the main focus. It is the most used measure of transformational leadership (Bono & Judge, 2003). There were five subscales measuring the four components of transformational leadership: idealized influence (behaviors), idealized influence (attributes), individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Participants were asked to mark the frequency with which their supervisors engage in each of the behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). In this study, the four components were combined to create a composite measure of transformational leadership. Such a combination is consistent with prior research on transformational leadership (i.e., Bono & Judge 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004), and several researchers have done second-order confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) in order to establish added justification for using a single construct of transformational leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2005). Idealized influence was captured in items 6, 10, 14, 18, 21, 23, 25, and 34. Individualized consideration was measured with items 15, 19, 29, and 31. Item numbers 2, 8, 30, and 32 captured intellectual stimulation. Lastly, inspirational motivation was 32 measured with the remaining items 9, 13, 26, and 36. None of the items were reversed scored. Higher scores indicated participants thought their supervisors demonstrated greater displays of each component. For exploratory purposes, the three subscales measuring transactional leadership and the one remaining subscale measuring laissez-faire leadership were also examined. The three components of transactional leadership were contingent reward, management- by-exception (passive) and management-by-exception (active). As with transformational leadership, the three components of transactional leadership were combined to create a composite score. Higher scores indicated participants thought their supervisors demonstrated greater transactional behaviors. Bass and Avolio’s (2004) latest version of the MLQ has been refined to address prior criticisms concerning the discriminate validity among the factors. An intercorrelation of r = .46 was found between average leaders self-rating and the transformational leadership subscales. Additionally, confirmatory factor analyses were done to establish validation. Leadership self-ratings achieved a Goodness of Fit index of r = .93. Furthermore, a parallel analysis using a normative data set of leader’s self-ratings yielded intercorrelation reliability scores ranging from r = .62 to .79 for the transformational leadership subscales. The internal consistency reliabilities were computed for each leadership style measured. The internal consistency reliabilities for transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership were 0.95, 0.56, and 0.69, respectively. Finally, all subscales within the MLQ received a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80 for overall consistency reliability. 33 Organizational citizenship behavior. Follower’s OCB was measured using the 24-item Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale created by Podsakoff and colleagues (1990; Appendix C). It captured the five most recognized OCB dimensions: conscientiousness (e.g., My attendance at work is above the norm), sportsmanship (e.g., I always find fault with what the organization is doing-reverse scored), civic virtue (e.g., I keep abreast of changes in the organization), courtesy (e.g., I try to avoid creating problems), and altruism (e.g., I help others who have heavy workloads). Participants were asked to mark the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements concerning their behavior on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The computed internal consistency reliability for this measure was .76 using coefficient alpha. Items 1, 10, 13, 15, and 23 represented the altruism dimension. Sportsmanship was captured by items 2, 4, 7, 16, and 19. All sportsmanship items were reversed scored meaning lower scores indicated participants engaged in more sportsmanship behaviors. Conscientiousness was measured with items 3, 18, 21, 22, and 24. Items 5, 8, 14, 17, and 20 assessed the courtesy dimension. The remaining dimension, civic virtue, was captured with items 6, 9, 11, and 12. Higher scores for components, other than sportsmanship, indicated participants engaged in more of the measured behavior. Organizational identification. To measure follower’s organizational identification, Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) 6-item organizational identification scale was administered (Appendix D). Participants were asked to mark the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements concerning their identification on a 5-point Likert 34 scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores will indicate greater identification. Coefficient alphas ranging from .81 to .83 have been reported (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The internal consistency reliability computed for this measure was .87 using coefficient alpha. This scale has also been shown to be empirically distinguishable from the popular Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; see Mael & Tetrick, 1992). Procedure Approval to proceed with the study was granted from the university’s Institutional Review Board for the treatment of Human Subjects (Appendix E). A snowball approach was used to gather participants. Nine family members and friends were recruited to help administer the survey. The surveys consisted of an informed consent form (Appendix F), a demographic scale, the MLQ, the OCB scale, Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) organizational identification scale. Envelopes were also handed out along with surveys so participants could confidentially return them. Each recruiter was trained on how to administer the surveys. Recruiters were prohibited from administering a survey to any of their subordinates. Recruiters were instructed to approach 25 random individuals from the general population and ask if they would be willing to complete a short survey that would aid in the completion of a thesis about leadership and behavior in the workplace and inform them that all responses were confidential. Individuals who declined to participant were thanked for their time. Once individuals agreed to participate, the recruiters had them read the informed consent document, then sign and detach the bottom portion of the consent form. Next, recruiters gave participants a survey to complete. Then, recruiters 35 instructed participants to return the survey, along with the signed portion of the consent form, in a sealed envelope back to the recruiter. Once all surveys were completed and returned the recruiters, in turn, handed the sealed envelopes back to the researcher. The researcher used the same method to administer surveys to participants. 36 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The current study used survey research to investigate whether employees’ organizational identification mediates the relationship between the leadership style of their supervisors and their own OCBs. The study variables included the leadership styles of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire, OCBs, organizational identification and demographic variables. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 was interested in examining the transformational–OCB relationship. Hypothesis 1a used the Binomial test to examine the twenty-five different correlations produced by five transformational leadership components and the five OCB components. Of the twenty-five correlations twenty-three of them were positive. If the null hypothesis was true (p = .00), I would expect only 50% of the correlations to be positive. The odds of getting twenty-three positive correlations if the null is true would be p < .0001. Therefore, I reject the null hypothesis and accept the hypothesis that the transformational leadership components are related to the OCB components. The first subscale of transformational leadership is intellectual stimulation. The mean value of intellectual stimulation was 2.66 (SD = .92) of a 5-point scale, signifying supervisors encourage creative problem solving. The second subscale of transformational leadership is idealized influence (behaviors). The mean value for idealized influence (behaviors) was 2.57 (SD = .89), suggesting participants believe the behaviors of their supervisors reflect a sense of purpose and they emphasize important values and beliefs. The mean value for the third subscale, idealized influence (attributes) was 2.68 (SD = 37 .89), suggesting supervisors come across as strong role models. The fourth subscale of transformational leadership is inspirational motivation. The mean value for inspirational motivation was 2.85 (SD = .94), signifying that supervisors, in an effort to inspire, provide meaning and understanding. The fifth subscale, individualized consideration, had a mean value of 2.79 (SD = .91), indicating that their supervisors effectively listened to them and focused on their individual needs. The first subscale of OCB is altruism. The mean value for altruism was 6.03 on a 7-point scale (SD = .75), indicating that participants voluntarily help co-workers with work issues. The second subscale of OCB is conscientiousness. The mean value for conscientiousness was 5.80 (SD = .90), indicating that participants consistently demonstrate good attendance, punctuality, and make productive use of their time at work. The third subscale of OCB is courtesy. The mean value for courtesy was 5.97 (SD = .77), indicating that participants take action to prevent problems for fellow associates. The fourth subscale of OCB is civic virtue. The mean value for civic virtue was 5.30 (SD = 1.03), indicating participants are responsibly involved in the issues of the organization. The fifth subscale of OCB is sportsmanship. The mean value of sportsmanship was 5.59 (SD = 1.01), indicating participants are willing to ignore minor personal inconveniences in order to accomplish tasks at hand. Hypothesis 1b predicted that overall transformational leadership will be positively related to the overall OCBs of employees. Pearson’s r was computed to test this hypothesis. Results showed a significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and overall OCB (r = .29, p < .01), which supports the hypothesis. This finding suggests employees who have transformational leaders tend to exhibit OCBs. 38 Hypothesis 2 It was also hypothesized that there would be a positive link between transformational leadership and organizational identification. Each component of transformational leadership was hypothesized to be related to identification (Hypotheses 2a through 2e). In order to test these hypotheses, Pearson’s r was computed. None of the hypotheses were supported (see Table 1). In fact, all correlations were negative. Furthermore, Hypothesis 2f examined the overall variable of transformational leadership and identification. As with the previous findings, results of a Pearson’s r found a negative relationship between the two variables (r = -0.19, p < .05). Thus, the hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 3 It was further hypothesized that OCB, both overall and for each of its components, would be related to organizational identification. Hypotheses 3a through 3e predicted that identification would be related to followers’ conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism. Pearson’s r was computed to determine whether a positive relationship existed between the variables. Results of the correlation analysis revealed that although there is a significant relationship between OCB and altruism and OCB and civic virtue, none of the relationships were in the hypothesized direction (see Table 2). Additionally, Hypothesis 3f investigated the link between overall OCB and followers’ identification. Pearson’s r revealed that this relationship was also not supported, as a negative relationship was found (r = -0.29, p < .01). These findings indicate that the identification followers have with their organizations are not linked to 39 Table 1 Correlations between Organizational Identification and Leadership Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Org Identification — - 0.16 - 0.15 - 0.17 - 0.16 - 0.22* - 0.19* - 0.01 0.19* 2. Ideal influence A — 0.81** 0.76** 0.78** 0.68** 0.90** 0.37** - 0.37** 3. Ideal influence B — 0.75** 0.75** 0.73** 0.90** 0.38** - 0.34** 4. Individual Consider — 0.77** 0.77** 0.91** 0.29** - 0.40** 5. Inspirational Motiv — 0.71** 0.90** 0.28** - 0.36** 6. Intellectual Stim — 0.87** 0.32** - 0.35** 7. Transformational — 0.37** - 0.41** 8. Overall Trans L — 0.10 9. Laissez-faire L — Note. Org = organizational; Ideal = idealized; A = attributes; B = behaviors; Consider = consideration; Motiv = motivation; Stim = stimulation; Trans = transactional; L = leadership. * p < .05 ** p < .01 40 Table 2 Correlations between Organizational Identification and OCB Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Org Identification — - 0.20* - 0.14 - 0.12 - 0.24** - 0.13 - 0.29** 2. Altruism — 0.60** 0.61** 0.42** 0.29** 0.84** 3. Conscientiousness — 0.45** 0.34** 0.26** 0.75** 4. Courtesy — 0.36** 0.27** 0.75** 5. Civic virtue — 0.13 0.62** 6. Sportsmanship — 0.60** 7. OCB- overall — Note. Org = organizational; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. * p < .05 ** p < .01 41 whether or not they perform OCBs. Even more so it suggests those employees who have greater identification with organizations tend to exhibit less citizenship behaviors. Hypothesis 4 Finally, Hypothesis 4 predicated that followers’ organizational identification would mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ OCB. Because the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational identification is the weakest of the three correlations (see Figure 1), the transformational leadership-OCB relationship is not being driven by organizational identification. Instead, identification and leadership seem to be having independent impacts on OCB. This can be seen in the regression analysis. To test the hypothesis, a multiple hierarchical regression analysis was performed. I first regressed organizational identification and OCB and the ensuing beta weight was significant (t = -2.50, p < .05). If the relationship between leadership and citizenship behaviors were mediated by identification, I would expect leadership to not add any additional explanatory variance to the regression equation. However, this was not the case. When transformational leadership was entered as the second variable into the equation, the beta weight for transformational leadership was also significant (t = 2.43, p < .05). The mediation results can be seen in Figure 2. Exploratory Analyses The relationships between demographic variables and the three main variables of organizational identification, transformational leadership and OCB were further explored. Specifically, gender, age, race, organizational tenure, job tenure, managerial status, employee status, and organizational size were examined. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether gender was related to transformational leadership, 42 Figure 1. Zero order correlation model for transformational leadership, organizational identification and OCBs. *p < .05 **p < .01 Organizational identification Organizational citizenship behaviors Transformational leadership -0.19* -0.29** .29** 43 Figure 2. Results of the casual model for the mediating role of organizational identification. * p < .05 Organizational identification Organizational citizenship behaviors Transformational leadership -0.19* - 0.29* .23*(.29*) 44 organizational identification, or overall OCB. Gender was not significantly related to transformational leadership [t (126) = 1.68, p > .05], organizational identification [t (125) = 1.40, p > .05], or OCB [t (110) = -0.99, p > .05]. On average though, men reported greater organizational identification (M = 2.47, SE = .14) than women (M = 2.25, SE = .09) and experienced more transformational leadership (M = 2.86, SE = .11) than women (M = 2.62, SE = .09). Although, women did report more overall OCB (M = 5.81, SE = .06) than men (M = 5.69, SE = .12). Pearson’s rs were computed to examine the relationships between age and the three main variables. Results of the analyses revealed a significant negative correlation between age and transformational leadership (r = -0.24, p < .01). This finding suggests younger employees perceive leaders in the workplace as more transformational compared to older workers. Also, a significant positive correlation was revealed between older employees and OCB (r = .21, p < .05) suggesting the older workers engage in more citizenship behaviors. Due to these findings, additional correlations were conducted examining the transformational leadership-OCB link controlling for age, and a partial correlation was found. This suggests that older workers partly engage more in OCBs due to the influence of transformational leaders’ style. No significant relationship was found between age and organizational identification. In order to explore the race variable, all of the non-whites were combined into a single designation since 63.3% of participants self-identified as white. Independent- samples t-tests were utilized to compare race among the organizational identification, transformational leadership, and OCB variables. All t-tests were non-significant. Two other exploratory variables considered were organizational tenure and job tenure. In order 45 to test whether either variable was influenced by identification, leadership, or OCB, Pearson’s rs were computed. All correlations were non-significant as well. Independent-samples t-tests were once again used to investigate whether a difference existed between participants who are managers and those who are not managers in regards to organizational identification, transformational leadership, and OCB. There was a significant difference between managers’ (M = 6.12) and non- managers’ scores (M = 5.68) for OCB; t (108) = 3.01, p < 0.01. These results imply that managers are more apt to participate in citizenship behaviors compared to non-managers. The other t-tests were non-significant, however, it is worth noting that managers’ organizational identification (M = 2.11) was less than the non-managers’ identification (M = 2.38). Another exploratory hypothesis that was considered was employee status — whether they work part-time or full-time. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to examine the links between employee status and the main variables. Overall, there were less part-time employees (n = 26) and all t-tests were non-significant, but part-timers’ organizational identification (M = 2.40) was greater than full-timers’ identification (M = 2.32). Perhaps because part-timers spend less time around the organization, they experience less of the negative aspects associated with working for the organization that may be decreasing the identification for the full-timers. Additional Pearson’s rs were computed to examine organizational size and transformational leadership, organizational identification, and OCB. The study included a nice mix of different organizational sizes. Out of the sampled population, 28.9% of organizations had 100 employees or less, 30.5% had between 101 and 500 employees, 46 and 39.1% had over 500 employees (and missing data captures the remaining 1.6%). None of the results were significant. Finally, exploratory analyses investigated two other forms of leadership: transactional and laissez-faire. Pearson’s rs were used to examine the relationships between both transactional and laissez-faire leadership with organizational identification and OCB. Transactional leadership was not significantly related to either organizational identification (r = -0.01, p > .05) or OCB (r = -0.05, p > .05). However, laissez-faire leadership was significantly related to both variables and in the opposite direction of transformational leadership, as a comparison of Figures 1 and 3 illustrate. Thus, employees who reported having laissez-faire leaders experience greater organizational identification. Furthermore, the findings suggest that subordinates of laissez-faire leaders tend to engage in less OCBs. Because organizational identification did not mediate the transformational leadership – OCB relationship, I explored the possibility that identification might moderate the relationship instead. Organizational identification was split into high and low dimensions and then examined how these two dimensions differed on (a) the transformational – OCB relationship, (b) the transactional – OCB relationship, and (c) the laissez-faire – OCB relationship. Some interesting results emerged, as can be seen in Table 3. There was almost no difference in the transformational leadership and OCB relationship between employees with high identification and employees with low identification. Whereas, there is a noticeable (albeit, non-significant) difference between low identifying and high identifying employees in regards to both the transactional – 47 Figure 3. Zero-order correlation model for laissez-faire leadership, organizational identification, and organizational citizenship behaviors. *p < .05 **p < .01 Organizational identification Organizational citizenship behaviors Laissez-faire leadership .19* - 0.29** - 0.30** 48 Table 3 Organizational Identification as a Moderator of Leadership – OCBs Relationships Low Organizational Identification High Organizational Identification Transformational Leadership – OCBs .27 .19 Transactional Leadership – OCBs .20 -.15 Laissez-Faire Leadership – OCBs -.05 -.37 49 OCB relationship and the laissez-faire – OCB relationship. Transactional leadership had a positive relationship with employee OCBs for the employees with low organizational identification, but transactional leadership had a negative relationship with employee OCBs for the employees with high organizational identification. Similarly, laissez-faire leadership had almost no relationship with employee OCBs for the employees with low organizational identification, but laissez-faire leadership had a strong negative relationship with employee OCBs for the employees with high organizational identification 50 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This study examined the relationship between transformational leadership, the organizational identification of employees, and the organizational citizenship behaviors employees demonstrate. Specifically, it analyzed whether transformational leaders’ influence on employees’ citizenship behavior was being mediated by employees’ identification with the organization. Results supported only the first hypothesis, which predicted transformational leadership would be positively related to employees’ OCBs. Overall, the results suggest that employees’ motivation to perform OCBs is being impacted separately by the behaviors leadership demonstrates and by the identification the employees have for the organization. This study does coincide with previous research (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Wang et al., 2005) in finding that transformational leadership is a significant predictor of employees’ reported OCBs. Transformational leaders, through role modeling, trust building, motivating, and exhibiting genuine concern for followers’ needs, are able to transform employees’ work mentalities in such a way they are willing to perform above and beyond the traditional formal job roles. However, the results of the current research imply such transformation is not occurring by way of an establishment of a deeper sense of identification among followers with respect to the values and vision of the organization. Contrary to prediction, transformational leadership had a negative relationship with an employee’s organizational identification. An interesting discovery was that laissez-faire leadership had the positive relationship with an employee’s organizational 51 identification. Thus, employees with transformational leaders were less likely to identify with the organization, while employees with laissez-faire leaders were more likely to identify with the organization. A possible explanation for these findings could be the idea that leadership is often defined as being vertical, such that leadership is influencing the behavior and attitudes of the employees. Although, it is just as likely that the emergence of leadership is dependent upon the situation and/or subordinates rather than vice versa. Hersey and Blanchard’s (1984) situational leadership model posits that leadership effectiveness is maximized by employing leadership styles based upon an employee’s maturity (i.e., readiness). As employees progress from low levels of maturity to higher levels of maturity, the associated leadership style should change accordingly. Perhaps, the employees with greater organizational identification are more “mature,” therefore they require leaders who are less involved. Employee maturity could be seen as a substitute for leadership. The substitute for leadership model (Kerr, 1977; Kerr & Jehmier, 1978) proposes that there are situational variables that can replace (i.e., substitute for) or neutralize leader influences. A meta- analysis conducted by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) reported that on average, leadership substitutes accounted for more unique variance than leadership behaviors with regards to employee attitudes and behaviors. Thus, not only could the maturity level of employees make leadership less necessary, but other variables such as employee’s need for independence, routine of tasks, and group cohesiveness could do the same. Another substitute for leadership was the ability, experience, and knowledge of employees. Results of exploratory analyses in this study found older workers perceived leaders as being less transformational than younger workers. Older workers have more 52 knowledge and job experience as they have been in the workforce for a longer time than younger workers. This leads one to conclude that employees with greater experience and knowledge do not require leaders who actively try to motivate or mentor. A different leadership theory that could explain the results found in this study is centered on social identity theory. Organizational identification is firmly grounded in the social identity theory, thus the concept of social identity could be influencing the way leadership is perceived. The social identity perspective is central in explaining group phenomena and intergroup process, thus, organizational identification emerges through collective mental processes associated with being part of a group. Hogg (2001) proposed that leadership is also oriented around group membership and is “embedded within a social system bounded by common group or category membership” (p. 186). Transformational leadership, however, is perceived through individual characteristics rather than established by group membership. If leadership occurs within group processes as well but it is not being captured in this manner, this could explain why organizational identification was not found to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and OCBs and why, contrary to previous research, transformational leadership was not positively related to organizational identification. Hogg (2001) introduced the social identity theory of leadership. He proposed that social identity saliency within groups causes members to prescribe degrees of prototypicality to each member and those who are more prototypical of the group are more influential and given more power, thus, leadership emerges. Hogg further suggested 53 that prototypicality, social attraction, and attribution and information processing are three processes that, together, make prototypicality so influential in the leadership process. The more strongly members identify with a group, the more they will rely on prototypicality as a foundation for leadership (Hogg, 2001). Thus, perceptions of leadership traits among employees with greater organizational identification are being influenced by the extent to which they view their direct supervisor as being prototypical of the organizational group. Conversely, those employees who report less organizational identification are less likely to conform to, or be influenced by, the prototype. An organization’s established leaders may be transformational, but that does not necessarily make them the most prototypical of the group. Additionally, according to social attraction, members who are more prototypical are liked more and, therefore, receive more compliance with their requests or suggestions, while the inverse also holds true (Hogg, 2001). Employees with greater organizational identification do not solely rely upon ascribed traits to identify effective leadership, but instead bestow individuals demonstrating prototypical group behaviors with power and influence. Thus, the most perceived prototypical member of the group has his or her ideas more readily and widely accepted, thereby being able to more easily assume the responsibility of leadership as compared to others. Accordingly, transformational leaders will not have the same influence on highly identified employees as they will on less identified employees. Therefore, when transformational leaders are able to influence employees to achieve high performance and engage in citizenship behaviors, they have less sway on the behaviors in which employees with greater organizational identification engage. The same can also be said for the transactional and 54 laissez-fair leaders, because they might not be prototypical members either. However, one can conceive that of the three leadership styles, laissez-fair leaders have a greater opportunity for behaving in a more prototypical fashion. According to Hogg’s (2001) social identity theory of leadership, individuals more prototypical of the group will exhibit more group behaviors, behave more on behalf of the group, and will act as “one of us”. Transformational leaders are more concerned with organizational standards and policies, while laissez-fair leaders are less so. Due to their position and concern for their responsibilities, transformational leaders may feel more confined in the range of behaviors someone with their authority can exhibit. Whereas laissez-faire leaders, who essentially practice non-leadership, may not feel the same behavioral restrictions and would be able to act in a more normative manner that might be seen as more reflective of group behaviors. Consequently, laissez-faire leaders may be able to behave in ways more prototypical of the group. If laissez-faire leaders act more prototypical of the group, then they will probably have more influence on follower behavior than those with other leadership styles. Additionally, because transformational leaders may be seen as less prototypical of the group, there might appear to be a noticeable difference between subordinates and supervisors. Such a difference can translate into an “us” versus “them” environment within the organization. Subsequently, there would be an increase in subordinate level saliency (i.e., team or work group), which in turn could increase employees’ identification with that group rather than an increase in organizational level identification. Conversely, there is less of a difference between supervisor and subordinates with a laissez-faire leadership style, so it is easier for saliency at the organizational level to 55 emerge creating an in-group, with the organization, versus an out-group. Ultimately, having an established leader might create an in-group/out-group mentality within the organization causing employees to identify at a more subordinate level rather than a superordinate level, such as the organization. If goals at the subordinate and superordinate levels are inconsistent, problems and discrepancies in behavior may arise, which will be discussed further. Another theory of leadership that is centered on group processes is that of shared leadership. Shared leadership is the distribution of leadership influences across multiple individuals in a team (Yukl, 1998). Employees with organizational identification may look to their peers for guidance in order to meet team objectives. In this manner, shared leadership may also serve as a substitute for leadership. For example, if team members promote a vision, along with motivating and inspiring one another, then it is likely an inspiring and visionary leader is not necessary. A word of caution, if leadership influence is occurring among team members, it is likely that greater identification will happen at the team level rather than the organizational level. It is vital to discuss in greater depth the influence that self-categorization and category salience might further have had on the results found. There are various levels into which individuals can categorize themselves, and even within a single organization individuals may categorize themselves into different levels, or foci, as van Dick et al. (2004) described. This research focused solely on identification at the organizational level. However, employees may also claim group membership at more subordinate levels, such as at the unit, the department, or the team level. Before employees identify with a particular category, the context (i.e., the environment) must make the category salient for 56 the employee. The current research did not manipulate or control for category saliency, thus, one cannot be sure that it is organizational identification, specifically, that is being captured, which may account for some of the results. Identification only motivates employees to put forth effort on behalf of the group to the extent that such identification is salient (van Knippenberg, 2000). In other words, if organizational identification is not salient for employees, then they will not exert effort for the organization, and the same is true for other foci. Also, even if employees are willing to put in more work, it does not necessarily translate into high performance because such work motivation is dependent on what the goals and interests of the group are (van Knippenberg, 2000). There may be different goals and interests at different levels. For example, at the organizational level high performance may be expected of employees, but at the departmental or work group level there may be less stringent standards of performance. While the organizational goal may be to promote high performance, including participation of OCBs, at a lower level, for which work group norms may be more salient on a day to day basis, there might be less focus on such behaviors. Additionally, certain goals, such as performance standards, are not always made clear or salient for the employees. Work environments may not have made it clear that OCBs are desired or not have made such behaviors salient to the employees. Thus, while this study is capturing identification at the organizational level, the citizenship behaviors employees perform might be at a subunit level. For example, van Dick et al. (2005) found identification on the team level was a better predictor for OCBs performed on behalf of team colleagues. 57 Ordinarily, organizational identification is positively related to OCB (van Dick et al., 2006; Riketta, 2005). However, this study found organizational identification was negatively related to OCB. This finding suggests that employees’ with greater identification with the organization tended to engage in less citizenship behaviors. One possible explanation for these results is a phenomenon that occurs often when people engage in activities collectively— social loafing. Social loafing is the loss in motivation individuals experience when working collectively, as opposed to working individually or coactively (Karau & Williams, 1993). According to Karau and Williams, when working collectively an individual’s inputs are combined with the inputs of others’ with whom they consider themselves to be working; whereas, when working coactively, an individual’s inputs are not combined with others with whom they believe themselves to be working. Employees who experience identification at the organizational level may see the behavior of all employees as a collective whole, making a greater impact on organizational goals than their individual contributions alone, thus, they may imagine themselves as working collectively rather than coactively. If employees feel their contributions are being pooled with those other employees, they might experience a loss in motivation to participate in citizenship behaviors. The social loafing literature posits several different theoretical explanations behind this construct (see Harkin & Szymanski, 1987; Karau & Williams, 1993; Shepperd, 1993). By definition OCBs are not tasks required of employees, and so there are often no rewards or punishments accompanying employees’ extra-role activities. Indeed, social loafing is more likely to occur when there is no potential for evaluation 58 (Karau & Williams, 1993). Hence, one likely explanation for the negative relationship between organizational identification and OCBs is that employees might see their extra work contributions as getting lost in the crowd of other employees, and it unlikely that people outside of direct management would be aware of the amount of (or lack thereof) OCBs in which an employee is engaging. Employees are not held accountable for the tasks they perform outside their required roles. They might also be thinking that meeting organizational goals is a collective effort, and their individual effort is tiny in comparison so the whole will not be greatly impacted if he/she is not putting in extra effort, especially if everyone’s contributions are the same. Indeed, previous research has demonstrated that individuals work less when their inputs are the same as others, instead of being unique, different, and seemingly indispensable (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Kerr, 1983). While this study focused primarily on transformational leadership, it was interesting to find that the relationship between transactional leadership and OCBs and the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and OCBs were more negative when employees had high organizational identification. While transformational leadership had a positive relationship with OCBs regardless of one’s organizational identification, employees who strongly identify with their organizations engaged in fewer OCBs when they had transactional or the laissez-faire leaders. We have already seen that employees with higher organizational identification are less likely to engage in OCBs. Perhaps they need a transformational leader to push them out of this lethargy, as the transactional and laissez-faire leaders seem unable to do so. 59 Practical Implications The current study has shown that transformational leadership and organizational identification have independent effects on the organizational citizenship behaviors that employees will demonstrate. It is crucial for organizations to gain a clear understanding of factors that affect motivation and performance. OCBs play a role in a company’s overall productiveness and success. By identifying the processes that lead to changes in valued behaviors, a company can establish initiatives that help produce desired outcomes. One such initiative can be to increase leaders’ use of transformational behaviors because they may lead to an increase in contextual performance. Such behaviors can be incorporated into the leadership training that is often required. Although the transformational leadership – organizational identification relationship was not in the expected direction, it was nonetheless significant and shows that leadership in the workplace has an effect on the way employees feel about their organization. As the research suggests (Epitropaki & Martin, 20025; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Shamir et al., 2003), leader behaviors actively influence the identities of employees, and/or vice versa. Recognizing the ways in which leader and employee attributes relate, management gains a better understanding about how employees comprehend their work environment and leadership. This research also has practical implications for leadership research. The fact that the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational identification was not in the expected direction should give pause to those who are responsible for developing leaders. Perhaps transformational leadership is not the best approach for every situation. For example, Hersey and Blanchard (1984) recommended laissez-faire 60 leadership for leading subordinates who are highly competent and highly motivated. The context may elevate the importance of the role laissez-faire leadership plays in contributing to effective leadership. Such non-leadership can create an environment for self-direction. If employees feel they have greater control of the work they do, this could lead to enhanced intrinsic motivation through increased feelings of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Greater autonomy, in turn, increases one’s self-esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1995). Enhancing one’s self-esteem is a foundation behind identifying with social groups. Thus, an autonomous work environment may foster organizational identification through increases in self-esteem. If employees are intrinsically motivated to work for an organization, and have high organizational identification, they might not believe they need to do more (i.e., OCBs). Furthermore, intrinsically motivated employees might view extra work, traditionally classified as OCBs, as being part of their formal job roles. To recapitulate, Morrison (1994) found that employees who performed OCBs broadly defined their job responsibilities, such that the OCBs were often classified as in-role behaviors. On the other hand, employees who have transformational leaders may experience less autonomy thus identifying less with the organization. Those experiencing less autonomy may be more extrinsically motivated, rather than intrinsically, to perform OCBs due to requests made by transformational leaders or due to promises of certain rewards (i.e., raises or promotions) or other promised consequences (Deci & Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000). 61 Limitations As with most research, this study has limitations that should be noted. The first limitation pertains to the generalizability of the study. Using a snowball sampling technique decreases one’s certainty that the sample is representative of the population. The selected recruiters could have only recruited participants that were similar to themselves, thus excluding participants who differed on significant traits. A second limitation is the cross-sectional research design. Conclusions about causality cannot conclusively be drawn. Although the study demonstrates the relevance of leadership and organizational identification to the study of OCBs, it does not take into account a host of other variables that could influence the results reported. Therefore, future research should incorporate experimental and longitudinal designs to establish further inferences on direction of causality. A third limitation is the reliability for the measures, specifically that of transactional leadership. Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of transactional leadership was .56. This low reliability could account for the findings that transactional leadership was not significantly related at all to identification or OCBs, even though prior research has shown otherwise. A better measurement of transactional leadership might produce different results. A final limitation is that all data were self-reported by participants from a single questionnaire. Thus, some of the results might be subject to common method bias. It would be beneficial to include some ratings collected from independent and multiple sources. However, some researchers have suggested the common method variance may not be as severe as often claimed (Crampton & Wagner, 1994). Furthermore, with regards 62 to organizational identification, it would be difficult for outside sources, such as supervisors and co-workers, to accurately assess an individual’s identification. Future Research The current study set out to explore how the social identity process influences the working environment. Although some questions were answered, there is still much ground to be uncovered. One direction for future research would be the exploration into situational and contextual impacts on identification. The work of van Dick and colleagues (2002; 2005) demonstrated that identification is linked to the situational context. Saliency should be examined as a possible mediating or moderating variable in the social identity process. Thus, in the future, identification can be studied at various levels, or foci, to see how the effects influence the identification process in relation to work variables. For example, identification at the organizational level was negatively related to OCB and it was not a mediating variable, but perhaps studying identification at the team or career level would produce different results. Furthermore, future research should take into account the different dimensions of identification that have been theorized. As reviewed earlier, identification has been separated into affective, cognitive, evaluative and behavioral components at times (van Dick et. al., 2004). Different dimensions have been shown to be specifically and separately related to different work variables (van Dick & Wagner, 2002). Perhaps transformational leaders may be able to positively influence the affective component of identification more so than the other dimensions. It would be interesting to discover how certain aspects of identification impact various work variable relationships in different ways. 63 It would also be prudent to examine whether or not there was a difference in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for those with high organizational identification. It would be interesting to investigate these variables with respect to a non-leadership environment as opposed to a more established leadership environment. The mediating effect of organizational identification on transformational leadership and employees’ OCB was not supported in the present study; however, future research should investigate the mediating effect of organizational identification in other settings. Also, future study should examine in greater depth how employees’ identification influences perceptions of leadership and the role this has on leadership’s impact in the workplace. Lastly, researchers should study and be aware of phenomena such as social loafing in hopes of controlling the impact it has on future identification research. 64 REFERENCES 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. Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 195-208. Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325- 374. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316059 Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. 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. doi: 10.1002/job.283 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. 65 Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness: Through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. 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, 207-218. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” The Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555-577. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554-571. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 66 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109. Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. R. (2003). Escaping the identity trap. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 20-26. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725. Brown, M. E. (1969). Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 346-355. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 972-992. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 6486.2007.00691.x Crampton, S. M., & Wagner III, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept in micro organization research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, Agency, and Self-Esteem (pp. 31-49). New York: Plenum. Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507- 533. 67 Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263. Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identification: A conceptual and operational review. International Journal of Management Review, 7, 207-230. Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478. Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21,163-200. Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12, 393-413. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 569-589. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.005 Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management. 16, 705-721. Fiol, C. M., & O'Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16, 19-32. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0101 68 Foote, N. N. (1951). Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. Journal of Sociological Review, 16, 14-21. Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271-287. Gautam, T., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational Identification and organizational commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 301-315. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329. Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H., Jr. (1991). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (7th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin. Graham. J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 4, 249-270. Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214-1229. Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934-941. Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. YL, Postmes, T., Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P. (2006). Sticking to our guns: Social identity as it basis for the maintenance of commitment to faltering organizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 607-628. 69 Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1984). The management of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140. Jackson, J. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and perceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 1, 11-33. Kerr, S. (1977). Substitutes for leadership: Some implications for organizational design. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 8, 135-146. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755 Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust on value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964. 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 67-91). Amsterdam: JAI Press. 70 Karau, S., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 65, 681- 706. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-146. Kerr, N. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819-828. Kramer, R. M. (2006). Social capital and cooperative behavior in the workplace: A social identity perspective. Advances in Group Processes, 23, 1-30. Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-27. doi: 10.1002/job.234 Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 213-226. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425. Mael, F. A., & Asforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123. Mael, F. A., & Asforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309- 333. 71 Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 813-824. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665- 683. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. 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 citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97. Patchen, M. (1970). Participation, achievement, and involvement on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Penney, L. M., & Borman, W. C. (2005). The prediction of contextual performance. In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 376-396). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 72 Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133-151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Meta-Analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380-399. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. 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. 73 Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten and P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations (pp. 171- 208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005 Rotondi, T., Jr. (1975). Organizational identification: Issues and implications. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 95-109. Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 217-233. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68- 78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68 Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.92.4.1020 Schnake, M., Dumler, M. P., & Cochran, D. S. (1993). The relationship between “traditional” leadership, “super” leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organization Management, 18, 352-365. Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313-332. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594. 74 Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67-81. Silverthorne, C. P. (2005). Organizational psychology in cross-cultural perspective. New York: University Press. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worehel (Eds.), The social psychology of group relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. Oxford: Blackwell. Tyler, T. R. (1991). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 201-246. van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 265-283. van Dick, R., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17, 283-301. 75 van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among schoolteachers: Dimensions, foci, and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 129–149. van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 171-191. van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., Christ, O., Tissington, P. A. (2005). To be(long) or not to be(long): Social identification in organizational contexts. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131, 189-218. van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 17, 215-285. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357-371. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., de Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825-856. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002 van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137- 147. Wagner, U., & Ward, P. L. (1993). Variation of out-group presence and evaluation of the in group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 241-251. 76 Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793-825. Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. J. (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 235-256. Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 17, 1-16. 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 behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420-432. Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305. 77 Appendix A Demographics Instrument 78 Instructions: Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. Individual responses will not be used. Only the aggregate, or sum, of all responses will be used. 1. What is your gender? (Circle one) Male Female Transgendered 2. What is your age? ___________________________ 3. What is your race? (Circle all that apply) American Indian or Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Asian White or Caucasian Black or African American Other (Please describe): _______________ Hispanic or Latino 4. What is your supervisor’s/manager’s (or the person whom you report to) job title? ________________________________ 5. How many years have you been with your current organization? ____________ 6. How many years have you been in your current job position? _____________ 7. Are you a supervisor/manager? (Circle one) Yes No 8. Do you work part time or full time? (Circle one) Part time Full time 9. What size is your organization? (Circle one) 100 employees or less 101-500 500+ 79 Appendix B Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 80 Instructions: This section wants you to describe your immediate supervisor’s/manager’s leadership style as you perceive it. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank. Please use the given scale to judge how frequently each statement fits the person you are describing. The word “others” may mean your peers, clients, direct reports, and/or all of these individuals. 4 = Frequently or always 3 = Fairly often 2 = Sometimes 1 = Once in a while 0 = Not at all The person I am rating: 1. Provides others with assistance in exchange for their efforts……….. 0 1 2 3 4 2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate……………………………………………………...…… 0 1 2 3 4 3. Fails to interfere until problems become serious……………………. 0 1 2 3 4 4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards…………………………………………… 0 1 2 3 4 5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise……………….. 0 1 2 3 4 6. Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs……………… 0 1 2 3 4 7. Is absent when needed………………………………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 8. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems……………….. 0 1 2 3 4 9. Talks optimistically about the future………………………………... 0 1 2 3 4 10. Instills pride in others for being associated with him/her…………… 0 1 2 3 4 11. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets………………………………………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 81 12. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 13. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished……… 0 1 2 3 4 14. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose…….. 0 1 2 3 4 15. Spends time teaching and coaching………………………………… 0 1 2 3 4 16. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved…………………………………………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 17. Shows that he/she is a firm believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”……………………………………………………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 18. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group………………… 0 1 2 3 4 19. Treats others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group.. 0 1 2 3 4 20. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before he/she takes action…………………………………………………………... 0 1 2 3 4 21. Acts in ways that build others’ respect for him/her…………………. 0 1 2 3 4 22. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures……………………………………………... 0 1 2 3 4 23. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions………… 0 1 2 3 4 24. Keeps track of all mistakes…………………………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 25. Displays a sense of power and confidence………………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 26. Articulates a compelling vision of the future……………………….. 0 1 2 3 4 27. Directs his/her attention towards failures to meet standards………... 0 1 2 3 4 28. Avoids making decisions……………………………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 29. Considers an individual as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others………………………………………………. 0 1 2 3 4 30. Gets others to look at problems from many different angles……….. 0 1 2 3 4 31. Helps others to develop their strengths……………………………… 0 1 2 3 4 32. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments……. 0 1 2 3 4 33. Delays responding to urgent questions……………………………… 0 1 2 3 4 82 34. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission... 0 1 2 3 4 35. Express satisfaction when others meet expectations………………... 0 1 2 3 4 36. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved…………………... 0 1 2 3 4 83 Appendix C Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale 84 Instructions: The statements below are concerned with current behaviors you might demonstrate in the workplace. Please use the given scale to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. 7 = Strongly Agree 6 = Agree 5 = Slightly Agree 4 = Neither Disagree nor Agree 3 = Slightly Disagree 2 = Disagree 1 = Strongly Disagree 1. I help others who have heavy workloads…………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I am the classic “squeaky wheel” that always needs greasing.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay……………………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters…... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I try to avoid creating problems for coworkers…………........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I keep abreast of changes in the organization………………... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I tend to make “mountains out of molehills”………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I consider the impact of my actions on coworkers…………... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I attend meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered important…………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. I attend functions that are not required, but help the company image…………………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I read and keep up with organization announcements, memos, and so on……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. I help others who have been absent…………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. I do not abuse the rights of others…………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. I willingly help others who have work related problems……. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. I always focus on what’s wrong, rather than focusing on the positive………………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 85 17. I take steps to prevent problems with other coworkers……… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. My attendance at work is above the norm…………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. I always find fault with what the organization is doing……… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I am mindful of how my behavior affects other people’s job.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. I do not take extra breaks…………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching……………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. I help orient new people even though it is not required……... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. I am one of the most conscientiousness people in this organization………………………………………………...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 86 Appendix D Organizational Identification Scale 87 Instructions: The statements below are concerned with the level of identification you have towards the organization you currently work for. Please use the given scale to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement, in regards to the organization you currently work for. 5 = Strongly Disagree 4 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 = Agree 1 = Strongly Agree 1. When someone criticizes the organization, it feels like a personal insult…………………………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I am very interested in what others think about the organization…… 1 2 3 4 5 3. When I talk about this organization, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’………………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 4. This organization’s successes are my successes…………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 5. When someone praises this organization, it feels like a personal compliment………………………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6. If a story in the media criticized the organization, I would feel embarrassed…………………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 88 Appendix E Institutional Review Board Approval 89 90 Appendix F Informed Consent Form 91 The Department of Psychology, Art Therapy, Rehabilitation and Mental Health Counseling at Emporia State University supports the practice of protection for human subjects participating in research and related activities. The following information is provided so that you can decide whether you wish to participate in the present study. You should be aware that even if you agree to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time, and that if you do withdraw from the study, you will not be subjected to reprimand or any other form of reproach. The purpose of this study is to investigate the processes by which leaders with a transformational leadership style influence their followers in the workplace. As part of the study you are requested to complete a survey that should take no longer than 30 minutes to complete. If you choose to participate please fill out the following survey completely and return it, along with the bottom signed portion of this form, to the same person from whom you received it. By returning the signed portion you are giving the researcher consent to use the information you are providing. To ensure confidentially, no names are requested and only the principle investigator, Amber Humphrey, will have access to the information. Additionally, all information will be kept in a locked box for three years and then destroyed. Only the aggregated results will be reported at the end. This consent form may be kept for your own records. No harm or discomfort will be experience as a result of participating in this study. Your participation will be beneficial in understanding how organizations can increase the effectiveness and success of its leaders, and thereby, potentially, the organization as well. Your participation is greatly appreciated and without it this research could not be completed. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the procedures of this study please do not hesitate to contact the researcher at ahumphre@emporia.edu or 785-760-0464. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, Amber Humphrey Institutional Review Board Principle Investigator 620-341-5351 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "/ have read the above statement and have been fully advised of the procedures to be used in this project. I have been given sufficient opportunity to ask any questions I had concerning the procedures and possible risks involved. I understand the potential risks involved and I assume them voluntarily. I likewise understand that I can withdraw from the study at any time without being subjected to reproach. " _______________________________ _____________________ Participant Signature Date 92 I, Amber Humphrey, hereby submit this thesis/report to Emporia State University as partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree. I agree that the Library of the University may make it available for use in accordance with its regulations governing materials of this type. I further agree that quoting, photocopying, or other reproduction of this document is allowed for private study, scholarship (including teaching) and research purposes of a nonprofit nature. No copying which involves potential financial gain will be allowed without written permission of the author. I also agree to permit the Graduate School at Emporia State University to digitize and place this thesis in the ESU institutional repository. ________________________________________ Signature of Author ________________________________________ Date Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Role of Organizational Identification Title of Thesis ________________________________________ Signature of Graduate Office Staff Member ________________________________________ Date Received