Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

Does the type of organizational culture and leadership style

affect organizational citizenship behaviors?

Executive Programme in Management Studies – Leadership

University of Amsterdam

Name author: Priscilla Vanessa van der Ploeg

Student number: 10499377

Date: June 2015

Name supervisor: D.N. Hartog

2

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Priscilla Vanessa van der Ploeg who declares to

take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the extend and the work

presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the

text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is

responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

3

Table of contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Theory and hypotheses ....................................................................................................................... 11

Organizational Citizenship Behavior ............................................................................................ 11

Culture and Organizational Citizenship Behavior ....................................................................... 14

Leadership style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior ........................................................ 18

Engagement ...................................................................................................................................... 24

Research Design ................................................................................................................................... 35

Organizational context .................................................................................................................... 35

Participants and procedure ............................................................................................................ 36

Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 36

Results .................................................................................................................................................. 40

Reliability of Constructs ................................................................................................................. 40

Descriptive statistics ........................................................................................................................ 41

Hypotheses testing ........................................................................................................................... 42

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 46

Limitations and future research .................................................................................................... 53

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 54

References ............................................................................................................................................ 56

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 62

4

Abstract

Organizational citizenship behavior (hereafter: OCB) has been an important

factor in determining individual and organization performance outcomes and

effectiveness of organizations. Therefore it is of interest to do research on which

factors influence OCB. Previous research has mainly been focused on the relationship

between personality traits and attitudes of employees and OCB. This study examines

the relationship of contextual factors that are imposed by the organization or sector

and where an individual has little or no influence on with OCB. The factors that were

used in this study are two culture types and two leadership styles. The culture types

that were examined are a hierarchical culture and a constructive culture. The

leadership styles that were examined are a transformational and transactional style.

Also is tested whether engagement of employees mediates between the antecedents

and OCB.

This study was conducted at a local bank in the Netherlands. Results, based on

164 completed surveys, indicated that a hierarchical culture did not have a direct

relationship with OCB. Also the two types of leadership styles, transformational and

transactional, did not affect OCB directly. In addition, engagement does not mediate

between the predicted relationship of a hierarchical culture, transformational

leadership and transactional leadership with OCB. However, results indicated that a

constructive culture was found to be related to OCB and engagement is a mediating

mechanism in this relationship.

5

Introduction

Extra-role behavior of employees has been an important factor in

determining the performance of an organization. Therefore extra-role behavior

has become of great interest in the research field of organizational behavior.

Much researchers refer to the term OCB to describe extra-role behavior (Katz

and Kahn, 1966, Organ, Podsakoff, and McKenzie, 2006; Sun, Chow, Chiu, and

Pan, 2013). OCB can be described as “voluntary behaviors of employees that

transcend an employee’s specified role requirements and are not formally

rewarded by the organization” (Organ, Podsakoff and McKenzie, 2006).

OCB has an effect on the performance of organizations (Podsakoff and

MacKenzie, 1994; Chen, Hui and Sego, 1998). The performance outcomes of an

organization can be distinguished in individual and organizational performance

outcomes. At the individual level OCB had a positive relationship with

performance evaluations of employees and manager’s reward allocation

decisions (Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting and Podsakoff, 2009). In addition, a

negative relationship was found between OCB and employees intentions to leave

the organization, the actual turnover rate, and absenteeism of employees

(Podsakoff et al., 2009). At the organizational level OCB had a positive

relationship with the productivity, profitability, efficiency and customer

satisfaction. However a negative relationship was found with costs and turnover

(Podsakoff et al., 2009). In addition to the effect that OCB has on the

performance outcomes of an organization it also promotes the social and

psychological environment of an organization, which improves the effectiveness

of an organization (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010).

6

Based on previous research findings OCB contributes to individual and

organizational performance outcomes and effectiveness of organizations.

Therefore it is of interest to determine which factors influence the behavior of

employees and what makes it that employees choose to show OCB. Previous

studies which have examined the factors that influence OCB have mainly been

focused on the relationship between attitudinal and personality character traits

with OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Farh, Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Konovsky

and Organ, 1995). In their meta-analysis Organ and Ryan (1995) found that

attitudinal factors such as satisfaction and commitment had a direct positive

relationship with OCB. Personality traits like conscientiousness and

agreeableness seem to have an indirect positive relationship with OCB. Organ

and Ryan (1995) found that personality traits affect the attitude of an employee

towards events that occur and relationships with colleagues, in turn attitudes

then affect whether an employee will show OCB. The purpose of this study is to

examine other factors than attitudinal and personality character traits that affect

OCB. This study examines the relationship of contextual factors where an

individual has limited influence on such as the organizational culture and type of

leadership style with OCB. Therefore as a first step this research will test the

direct relationship between two culture types and two leadership styles with

OCB.

It is of interest to test the relationship between organizational cultures and

OCB because the culture of an organization influence the behavior of employees

(Gregory, Harris, Armenakis and Shook, 2009). That is because the values that

are shared by employees determine which behavior is appropriated and accepted

in the organization. These appropriated and accepted behaviors come from

7

experiences with how work is done and how problems are solved. The types of

culture that have been used to examine the relationship with OCB are a

hierarchical and a constructive organizational culture. A hierarchical culture is

characterized by a focus on control over employees through rules and standard

procedures (Richard, McMillan-Capehart, Bhuian and Taylor, 2009). Where a

constructive organizational culture is characterized by cooperation and support

(Balthazard, Cooke and Potter, 2006). The reason that these types of cultures are

chosen to examine the relationship with OCB is because they differ in terms of

the appropriate and accepted behaviors. In a constructive culture employees are

allowed to dictate their own behaviors (Van Muijen, Koopman, and De Witte,

1996) whereas in a hierarchical culture behaviors are guided by strict guidelines

(Gregory et al., 2009).

Some organizations or sectors such as the organization where this research

is conducted have to deal with rules and regulations that are imposed. This

framework of rules and regulations determine how work should be done and

how problems are solved which ultimately determines the culture of the

organization (Schein, 1984). Employees who experience the culture of their

organization as hierarchical may have the feeling that they are bounded to do

their work and this can affect their willingness to show OCB. In contrast to a

hierarchical culture a constructive culture is characterized by allowing

employees to dictate their own behavior (Gregory et al., 2009). Employees can

decide how to do their work and they experience empowerment which can also

affect their willingness to show OCB. It is also of interest to test the relationship

between the organization culture and OCB because there is no research found

that examined this relationship.

8

Besides the organizational culture the type of leadership style has an

influence on the behavior of employees and therefore it is of interest to examine

the relationship between different leadership styles and OCB of employees. The

leadership styles that have been used to examine the relationship with OCB are

transformational and transactional leadership. These leadership styles are used

because both leadership styles motivate their employees but require different

behaviors of them. Transactional leaders motivate their employees to perform

only the task that the leader wishes them to do (Burns, 1978). Therefore the

behavior that a transactional leader requires of its employees can be described as

in-role behavior. In contrast a transformational leader motivates employees to go

beyond the behavior that is expected from them to do the task (Bass, 1985).

Transformational leaders therefore asks of its employees behavior that goes

beyond the in-role behavior. Previous research has indicated that a

transformational leadership style has a positive relationship with OCB

(Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010; Walumbwa, Hartnell and Oke, 2010).

Whereas a transactional leadership style has an indirect effect on OCB through

the level of trust in the manager as mediating mechanism (MacKenzie,

Podsakoff, and Rich, 2001).

After examining the impact of the above-mentioned factors with OCB this

study will look at the potential mechanism. The mechanism that is used in this

study is engagement. Employees are engaged in their work when they are

psychologically present when occupying an organizational role (Rich, LePine,

and Crawford, 2010). Engagement is used as mediator because employees that

are engaged in their work will show increased OCB, which can be explained by

how they make choices to allocate their physical, cognitive and emotional

9

energies into their work (Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010). When employees

are engagement in their work they show positive attitudes such as investing

effort in their work, they are enthusiastic, and challenge themselves (Schaufeli,

Salanova, Gonzales-Roma and Bakker, 2002). The organizational culture affects

positive attitudes of employees (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis, and Shook, 2009).

Therefore it is of interest to test whether engagement is a mechanism in the

possible relationship between a hierarchical and a constructive culture with

OCB.

The type of leadership style also has an effect on employees to engage in

their work. Transformational leaders energizes employees to lift themselves to

extraordinary heights and let employees do more than they are expected to do

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter, 1990). Employees who

experience their leader as transformational reported more engagement in their

work (Bono and Judge, 2003; Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010). Thus,

engagement is viewed as playing a potential mediating role in the relationship

between the leadership styles and OCB.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a hierarchical

culture, constructive culture, transformational leadership style, and transactional

leadership style on OCBs, and to test the potential mediating mechanism of

engagement. The research model is summarized below in figure 1. This study

makes a contribution from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. This

study aims to add knowledge to existing research by examining contextual

factors and their relationship with OCB. Finally, this study is practically relevant

for organizations because it is important for practicing managers and leaders

which organizational culture and leadership styles influence OCB. When

10

managers and leaders know which culture types and leadership styles have a

positive effect on OCB they can stimulate this culture type an leadership style.

FIGURE 1

Model of antecedents and their relationship with organizational citizenship behavior with engagement as mediator

11

Theory and hypotheses

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The term OCB is first described as supra-role behavior by Katz and Kahn

(1966). By this definition they refer to “behavior that cannot be prescribed or

required in advance for a given job.” In 1983 the authors Bateman and Organ

have changed this term into “citizenship behaviors” because they found this a

better term for these kind of behaviors. According to Bateman and Organ (1983)

behaviors that were not prescribed or required in advance for a given job were

helping co-workers with a job related problem; tolerating temporary impositions

without complaining; making timely and constructive statements; promoting a

work climate that is tolerable and minimizes the distractions created by

interpersonal conflict; protecting and conserving organizational resources and

helping to keep the work floor clean.

Later Organ introduced the term OCB and defined this as “performance

that supports the social and psychological environment in which task

performance takes place” (Organ, 1997 as cited in Podsakoff, Whiting,

Podsakoff and Blume, 2009). In more recent work the term OCB is described as

“voluntary behaviors that transcend an employee’s specified role requirements

and are not formally rewarded by the organization (Organ, Podsakoff and

McKenzie, 2006). These different terms that are used to describe OCB all have

in common that they describe work behavior that should lead to organizational

performance and behaviors that are separate from in-role behaviors also

described as extra-role behaviors. Although more recent research has indicated

12

that OCB is viewed as an aspect of in-role behaviors (Nahum-Shani and

Somech, 2011).

The background of OCB can be referred to the “active citizenship

syndrome” described by Inkeles (1969 as cited in Van Dyne, Graham and

Dienesch, 1994). The “active citizenship syndrome” consists of three categories

where citizens are responsible for being associated with several beliefs and

behaviors. These three categories, associated beliefs and behaviors are Obedience,

which involves “respect for orderly structures and processes”. Obedient citizens

are responsible citizens that obey the law and respect “rational-legal” authority.

The second category of the “active citizenship syndrome” is Loyalty, which

means “serving the interest of the community as a whole and values that it

embodies”. Behaviors associated with Loyalty are promoting and protecting the

community and voluntarily make extra effort for the common good. The third

category is Participation, which contains “active and responsible involvement in

community self-governance in whatever ways are possible under the law.”

Citizens that participate behave responsible and keep themselves well-informed,

exchange information and ideas with other citizens and make a contribution to the

well-being of the community and encourage other citizens to participate (Van

Dyne, Graham and Dienesch, 1994).

Thus, the origin of OCB lies in the political philosophy. Graham (1991 as

cited in Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch 1994) has translated this political

philosophy of the “active citizenship syndrome” to organizational settings. The

categories Obedience, Loyalty and Participation are translated to organizational

settings whereby obedience reflects to employees that accept the need for rules

and regulations. Employees that are loyal can identify themselves with the

13

organization which reflects in behaviors such as defending the organization

against threats and cooperating with others and to serve the interest of the whole.

Employees that participate keep themselves informed, take their responsibility and

are involved in organizational governance.

OCB is also described as the “good soldier syndrome” (Organ, 1988).

Organ (1988) identified five types of behaviors as the dimensions of OCB also

known as the five-factor OCB model. This five type of behaviors are altruism,

conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Altruism can be

described as discretionary behavior that leads to helping others with an

organizational relevant task or problem; conscientiousness is discretionary

behavior that goes beyond the in-role requirements in the areas of attendance and

taking breaks and accepting and adhering to the rules, regulations, and procedures

of the organization; sportsmanship is the willingness of an employee to tolerate

less than ideal circumstances without complaining and making problems seem

bigger than they really are; courtesy is behavior that is aimed at preventing work-

related problems with others in the organization; civic virtue is behavior that

indicates that an employee participates, takes responsibility, and is involved in the

organization as a whole.

LePine and VanDyne (1998) have added an extra type of extra-role

behavior knowing voice behavior. LePine and Van Dyne (1998) defined voice

behavior as behavior that is not specified in normal job description and

emphasizes on “speaking out and challenging the status quo” with the intent to

improve rather than to criticize the situation. Employees with voice behavior

initiate communication with superiors. Examples of voice behavior are giving

cost-saving suggestions or telling that there are problems (Withey and Cooper,

14

1989). According to Organ (1988) voice is considered the most risky and costly

type of OCB. This is because when employees speak out they risk being seen as

troublemakers who criticize the organization and disrupt the status quo.

Most research on OCB has focussed primarily on individual factors such

as attitudinal and personality characteristics of an employee that predict an effect

on OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Farh, Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Konovsky

and Organ, 1995). There has been less attention to contextual factors of the

organization and what their effects are on OCB. This study aims to test the

relationship between contextual factors with OCB. One of these contextual factors

is the organizational culture.

Culture and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational culture is a complex phenomenon. Schein’s (1984)

defines organizational culture as “the patterns of basic assumptions that a given

group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its

problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked

well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members

as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to problems”.

There are three fundamental levels to analyse an organizational culture.

These different levels are visible artifacts, values and assumptions (Schein,

1990). Visible artifacts refers to that which you can observe in an organization

such as how the organization is constructed, office layout, and the way

employees dress. Visible artifacts can be described as behaviors that are

observable but does not explain the underlying logic why a group behaves like it

does. The level of why employees behave like they do are the values that direct

15

these behaviors. Values are difficult to observe and represent the espoused

values of an organizational culture. These values determine the decisions and

behaviors of employees (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis and Shook, 2009). The

third level, assumptions, gives an explanation of these values and behaviors.

These underlying assumptions are the unconscious of employees and define how

employees perceive, think, and feel. Assumptions arise by experiences of

employees on how problems are solved and which behavior is appropriate to

solve these problems. These assumptions manifest themselves in values (Schein,

1984, 1991).

There are different types of organizational cultures. Quinn and

Rohrbaugh (1983) developed a multidimensional framework to assess

organizational cultures. This competing values framework provides an overview

of different types of organizational cultures by focusing on two dimensions.

These dimensions describe how an organization is structured in terms of

flexibility and control and if the organizational has an internal or external focus.

This research focuses on how an organization is structured to appoint

organizational culture. The dimension structure conceptualizes the differences in

organizational cultures in terms of employee behaviors ranging from striving for

consistent patterns of behaviors to allowing employees to dictate their own

behaviors (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983).

Organizational cultures with consistent patterns of behaviors can be

defined as a rules oriented or hierarchical culture (Van Muijen, Koopman and

De Witte, 1996; Gregory et al., 2009). A hierarchical culture focus on internal

control and its characteristics are uniformity and coordination of internal

efficiency. Employee behaviors are guided by strict guidelines (Gregory et al.,

16

2009). The characteristics of a rules oriented culture are respect for authority,

rationality of procedures, and division of work. Organizations with a rules

oriented culture have a hierarchical structure and communication is often formal

and written. Decisions are made top-down and power is based on formal

authority (Van Muijen et al., 1999). A hierarchical or rules oriented culture can

be compared to a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracy can be defined as an

organizational structure that is characterized by regulated procedures and

policies, hierarchy, divisions of responsibility and impersonal relationships.

Employees in a bureaucratic organization are exposed to high levels of rules and

regulations. Stamper and Dyne (2001) found in their research that employees in

a less bureaucratic organization showed stronger OCB than employees in a more

bureaucratic organization. Their explanation for this effect is that organizations

in a more bureaucratic organization do not support or reward OCB in contrast

with less bureaucratic organizations.

To build further on this relationship between bureaucratic organizations

and OCB employees who perceive their culture as hierarchical or rules oriented

will show less OCB because their behavior should fit within a culture with

consistent patterns of behavior so there will be little room for discretionary

behavior (Gregory et al., 2009). Employees who perceive their culture as

hierarchical or rules oriented do their work according to the rules, regulations,

and procedures that are written down. Elements of a hierarchical or rules

oriented culture can lead to dysfunctional outcomes (Balthazard, Cooke and

Potter, 2006). Employees who do their work within a framework of rules and

procedures will not do their work differently which can be necessary in a certain

situation. The consequence of not adjusting to the situation can have

17

dysfunctional outcomes for the organization. A hierarchical or rules oriented

culture could limit employees to show behavior that is not included in their

formal job description such as OCB.

The culture of an organization that allows its employees to dictate their

own behavior can be defined as a supportive oriented or a constructive culture

(Van Muijen et al., 1996; Balthazard, Cooke and Potter, 2006). The

characteristics of a supportive oriented culture are participation, cooperation,

people-based, mutual trust, team spirit, and individual growth. Communication

is often verbal and informal. The style of leadership is people oriented and

employees are encouraged to express ideas about their work and feelings about

each other. The commitment of the individual towards work and the

organization are emphasized (Van Muijen et al., 1999). A constructive culture

can be characterized by strong norms that promote cooperative behaviors and is

achievement oriented which affects satisfaction and commitment of employees

(Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. and Potter, R.E. (2006). It can be stated that a

constructive culture promotes positive behaviors such as OCB.

As stated above organizational cultures that promote positive behaviors

can be defined as a constructive or supportive oriented culture. Balthazard,

Cooke and Potter (2006) found in their research that when an organization holds

constructive norms employees show achievement-oriented and cooperative

behaviors because they are more satisfied and motivated. This is related to OCB

because Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff and Blume (2009) argued that

satisfaction and motivation are indicators of OCB which means that satisfied and

motivated people are more likely to show OCB than people that are not.

Employees develop more positive behaviors in an organization where the culture

18

provides positive expectancies about how employees should behave (Gregory et

al., 2009) and thus are more willing to go beyond the formal job description.

Supportive oriented cultures allow their employees to dictate their own

behaviors (Gregory et al., 2009) and employees are encouraged to express ideas

about their work (Van Muijen et al., 1999). Employees that experience their

organizational culture as supportive oriented or constructive will have the

feeling that their organization supports and rewards them to show extra-role

behavior

Employees behaviors are influenced by how they perceive the

organizational culture (Schein, 1984). Based on the perceived organizational

culture, hierarchical or constructive, employees behave in ways that are

consistent with the type of organizational culture. Thus, the perceived type of

organizational culture has an influence on the willingness of an employee to

show OCB. Therefore the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between a hierarchical

culture and organizational citizenship behavior.

Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive relationship between a constructive

culture and organizational citizenship behavior.

The expectation is that the organizational culture perceived by an

employee has a relationship with OCB. Another important antecedent of OCB is

the type of leadership style evaluated by subordinates.

Leadership style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The leadership styles used in this study as antecedents of OCB are

transformational and transactional leadership. The reason that these two

19

leadership styles are tested is because these types desire different behaviors of

their subordinates. Where a transactional leader asks in-role behaviors to perform

a task, a transformational leader stimulates extra-role behaviors (Burns, 1978;

Bass, 1985). Burns (1978) defined transforming leadership as “a leader that

engages others in a way that the leader and follower raise one another to a higher

level of motivation and morality.” Burns (1978) distinguishes transactional

leaders from transforming leaders because according to him a transactional leader

initiates contact with subordinates in an effort to exchange valued outcomes which

can be economic, psychological or political also known as the cost-benefit

exchange.

Transactional leaders engage in a transaction with their subordinates. An

effective transactional leader rewards subordinates for good performance and

punishes them for poor performance (Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders can be

characterized as leaders who have a preference for avoiding risks and operate

within the existing culture. For transactional leaders, efficiency and time

constraints are important and they are focused on the process when maintaining

control (Bass, 1985 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Transactional leadership has three dimensions: contingent reward,

management by exception-active and management by exception-passive (Judge

and Piccolo, 2004). Contingent reward is when the leader sets up the exchange

with subordinates. The leader communicates the expectations and establishes the

rewards for meeting these expectations or consequences if they are not met. The

dimension management by exception can be described as letting subordinates do

their jobs as always as long as the transaction is met (Bass, Avolio and Goodheim,

1987) and the degree to which the leader takes corrective action when the

20

transaction is not met (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). A distinction can be made

between active and passive management by exception. According to Howell and

Avolio (1993) active transactional leaders take corrective actions in order to

prevent undesirable behaviors by monitoring the behavior of subordinates and

anticipate problems. As opposed to active management by exception passive

transactional leaders wait with taking actions until behavior of subordinates have

caused problems. Passive management by exception is not included in this study

because this dimension has some resemblance to laissez-faire leadership which

represents the absence of any leadership (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

In contrast, transformational leaders go beyond the cost-benefit exchange

by motivating and inspiring followers to perform better and to give more of

themselves than only what the leader asks of them (Bass, 1985). A

transformational leader is a leader with whom followers want to identify with,

want to share a vision with and where one is willing to commit themselves not

only for self-interest (Hater and Bass, 1988). The characteristics of

transformational leaders are that they take risks in seeking opportunities, approach

work in a new way, have a preference for effective rather than efficient solutions

and do not support the status quo (Lowe, Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Another characteristic of a transformational leader is that this type of leader does

not solely respond to environmental circumstances. Instead they shape and create

the environment (Avolio and Bass, 1988 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck and

Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Transformational leadership has four dimensions, which are idealized

influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized

consideration (Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1999). Idealized influence (also known as

21

charisma) is the degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways such as

instilling pride to its subordinates, behaving respectfully and keeping faith. By

this behavior subordinates want to identify with the leader. Transformational

leaders articulate a vision and with this vision they inspire and motivate their

subordinates also known as inspirational motivation. Leaders with inspirational

motivation are optimistic about future goals and challenge subordinates to have

higher standards to achieve these goals. The dimension intellectual stimulation is

the degree to which the leader stimulates and encourages their subordinates to

think in new ways of doing their job by taking risks, challenging assumptions and

encourage subordinates to come with ideas. Individualized consideration is when

the leader behaves in a way that each subordinates needs and concerns are

respected. The leader acts as a mentor or coach and stimulates learning

experiences (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Transformational and transactional leaders have different characteristics

and relationships with their subordinates. Whereas a transformational leader

wants empowerment of subordinates and provides a new strategy or vision to do

the job the transactional leader wants dependence of subordinates and jobs are

done in “the right way” like they always are done (Lowe, Kroeck and

Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Even though the leadership styles differ from each other

both leadership styles have goals and objectives which must be achieved.

Therefore transformational and transactional leadership are complementary, that is

transformational leadership is ineffective in the absence of transactional

leadership. (Bass, Avolio and Goodheim, 1987).

The type of leadership style affects the behavior of employees in a certain

direction. Transformational leaders affect positive behaviors by transforming

22

basic values, beliefs, and attitudes (Jung and Avolio, 1999). Employees who

experience their leader as transformational are more willing to go beyond what

is expected of them and therefore are more likely to show OCB (Jung and

Avolio, 1999). Whereas a transactional leaders affect the behavior primarily

through conditional reward-based exchange (Nahum-Shani and Somech, 2011).

Transactional leaders are focused on setting goals and clarifying the link

between performance and rewards. Behaviors need to be quantitatively measured

so they can be accurately rewarded and therefore transactional leaders are less

likely to have influence on OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001).

As suggested there is a positive relationship between transformational

leadership and OCB. Babcock and Strickland, 2010 found a direct link between

transformational leadership and OCB where others found an indirect link with

trust as a mediating mechanism (Podsakoff et al., 1990). An explanation given

by Walumbwa et al. 2010 about the positive relationship is that leaders with

transformational behaviors act in the best interest of their employees by

developing their skills, knowledge and abilities and they express genuine care

and concern. With this behavior they create a social context were employees

reciprocate in extra-role behavior. Den Hartog, De Hoogh and Keegan (2007)

confirm these findings as the results of their research shown that employees

shown more OCB when they perceive there leader as charismatic.

As opposed to transformational leader as antecedent of OCB, research

has found different results regarding the relationship between transactional

leadership and OCB. Walumbwa, Wu, and Orwa (2008) found in their research

that the dimension contingent reward had a positive effect on the behavior of

employees. Their explanation of this positive relationship between transactional

23

leadership and OCB is that transactional leaders contingent rewards both on task

performance and OCB. Also when employees experience that they are been

rewarded fairly, they will be more willing to show OCB. Other research has

found no significant relationship between the dimensions of transactional

leadership and OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001). Because of the

contradicting research findings it is of interest to examine whether this study

finds a relationship with the antecedent transactional leadership and OCB.

The type of leadership style affects the behavior of employees in a certain

direction. OCB is more likely to be promoted by transformational leaders who

can motivate employees to show behavior that goes beyond their formal job

description. Because OCB is not directly recognized and rewarded by the formal

appraisal system, OCB is less likely to be promoted by transactional leaders.

Employees that see their leaders as transactional think they are only rewarded for

accomplishing the task and in-role behaviors. Therefore it is possible that

employees do not see the need to show extra-role behaviors because they are not

rewarded and motivated to show these behaviors.

Thus, the type of leadership style has influence on the willingness of an

employee to show OCB. Therefore the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive relationship between transformational

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.

Hypothesis 4: There will be a negative relationship between transactional

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.

24

Engagement

Given that the above mentioned antecedents have a positive or negative

relationship with OCB it is being proposed that engagement will be a mediating

mechanism between these relationships. That is, engagement has an important

role in explaining the relationship between a hierarchical-, a constructive culture

and transformational-, and transactional leadership with OCB.

Employees are engaged when they are psychologically present when

occupying and performing an organizational role (Rich, LePine and Crawford,

2010). Personal engagement is originally defined by Kahn (1990), who has

developed a theoretical framework that illustrates how psychological

experiences of work and work contexts shape the processes of people presenting

and absenting themselves during task performances in an organizational role.

Kahn (1990) defined personal engagement as the “simultaneous employment

and expression of a person’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote

connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and

emotional), and active, full role performances”. Personal engagement refers to

the degree that people are themselves, psychically, cognitively, and emotionally,

when performing their work.

According to Kahn (1990) there are three psychological conditions that

affect employees to personally engage in their work. These three psychological

conditions are psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and

psychological availability. Employees experience psychological meaningfulness

when they feel worthwhile, useful, and valuable as though they make a

difference and are not been taken for granted. Psychological safety is when

employees feel that they can be themselves without the fear of negative

25

consequences to their self-image, career or status. And the third psychological

availability is the individual’s readiness to personally engage at a particular

moment. Employees that have psychological availability have the physical,

emotional or psychological resource to put their physical, cognitive and

emotional energies into their work and therefore they tend to exhibit higher

engagement in their work role. The three psychological conditions stated by

Kahn (1990) that affect employees to engage in their work have an influence on

OCB. This study argues that the psychological conditions meaningfulness,

psychological safety, and psychological availability affect the six dimensions of

OCB (altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue, and

voice).

For example when employees experience that they are meaningful to the

organization they more likely will tolerate less than ideal circumstance

(sportsmanship). Also, employees that have the feeling that they are worthwhile

and useful will participate and take their responsibilities because they have the

feeling that their participation and involvement is valuable to the organization

and can make a difference (civic virtue behavior). Another dimension of OCB

that will be affected by psychological meaningfulness is voice behavior. When

employees experience that they are not been taken for granted they probably will

speak out and challenge the status quo because they feel that their voice matters

and can make a difference. Employees that experience psychological safety are

also more likely to initiate communication with superiors themselves and do

suggestions to improve the organization. In safe environments employees may

feel that they can be themselves and can speak out without the fear of negative

consequence for their self-image, career or status.

26

Psychological meaningfulness has an influence on the OCB of employees

because when employees put their psychical, cognitive, and emotional energies

into their work they get a sense of energetic and effective connection with their

work and will show organizationally valued behaviors which contributes to

accomplishing organizational goals (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and

Bakker, 2002). When employees experience this energetic and effective

connection to their work they see themselves able to deal completely with the

demands of their job and will accept and adhere to the rules, regulations, and

procedures of the organization (conscientiousness). Employees that invest in

their psychical, cognitive, and emotional energy will prevent work related

problems with co-workers (courtesy) and are more focused on discretionary

behaviors that leads to helping others with an organizational relevant task or

problem (altruism).

As summarized employees that are engaged in their work put their

psychical, cognitive, and emotional energies into their work to pursuit

organizational goals. Employees that invest in their psychical, cognitive and

emotional energy are more likely to show behaviors that go beyond the in-role

behaviors such as working harder, taking no extra breaks or helping others. This

is confirmed by Babcock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) that found in their

research that job engagement was significantly positively related to OCB. Other

research also found a positive relationship between job engagement and OCB

(Rich, LePine and Crawford, 2010) and their explanation for this positive

relation is that employees that are engaged in their work invest in themselves

and are more willing to go the extra mile and engage in acts that constitute OCB.

27

Thus, employees that are engaged in their work have physical, emotional,

and cognitive energies to invest in themselves and others while performing their

work and this has an effect on their extra-role behaviors. Therefore the

following is proposed:

Hypothesis 5: There will be a positive relationship between engagement and

organizational citizenship behavior.

One of the antecedents in this study that predicts a relationship with OCB is the

organizational culture where a distinction is made between a hierarchical and

constructive culture. Engagement is a mediating mechanism in the predicted negative

relationship between a hierarchical culture and OCB because employees that

experience the organizational culture as hierarchical will be less engaged with the

consequence that they will show less OCB.

Engagement is about being your preferred self in task behaviors, which

promotes connections to others, personal presence, and active, full role performance

(Kahn, 1990). In an organization where the culture is hierarchical it is expected of

employees that they behave in consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines

(Gregory et al., 2009). Communication is formal and written down and decisions are

made top-down (Van Muijen et al., 1999). When employees need to behave in

consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines they can have the feeling that

they are bounded by these imposed behaviors and they may experience that they

cannot be their preferred self in task behaviors because they fear that this has

consequences for their career, self-image, or status. When employees cannot be their

self in task behaviors this will have a negative effect on the psychological safety of

employees which is a condition for employees to engage in their work (Kahn, 1990).

28

When employees experience the organizational culture as hierarchical they can

have the feeling that they cannot make a difference because tasks are done uniformly

according to rules, regulations and procedures that are written down. When employees

do not have the feeling they can make a difference this will have a negative effect on

their psychological meaningfulness which is also a condition that affect employees to

engage in their work (Kahn, 1990).

Job enrichment also affects the psychological meaningfulness of employees

(May, Gilson, and Harter, 2004; Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, and Fuller, 2001; Saks,

2006). An enriched job has variety, identity, autonomy, and feedback (Niehoff et al.,

2001). In a hierarchical culture employees can experience that their work has no

variety and autonomy because tasks are done according to rules, regulations, and

procedures that are written down so there is no opportunity to make important

contributions on how things are getting done. Employees that experience their

organizational culture as hierarchical may have the feeling that their jobs are not

enriched and this has a negative effect on their psychological meaningfulness which

ultimately affects their engagement in their work.

Another reason why a hierarchical culture has a negative relationship with

engagement of employees is the way how decisions are made. In a hierarchical culture

decisions are made top down (Van Muijen et al., 1999). Employees do not participate

in decisions that are made within the organization and this can give employees the

feeling that their voice is not useful or worth it. When employees have the feeling that

they are not useful or worth it they will experience less or no psychological

meaningfulness and therefore are less likely to engage in their work (Schaufeli and

Bakker, 2004; Saks, 2006).

29

Thus, the characteristics of a hierarchical culture do not stimulate the

psychological meaningfulness and psychological safety of employees which are

conditions for employees to engage in their work. Therefore the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 6a: Engagement mediates the relationship between a hierarchical

culture and organizational citizenship behavior.

In contrast to a hierarchical culture where it is expected of employees that they

behave in consistent patterns which are guided by strict guidelines, in a constructive

culture employees are allowed to dictate their own behavior (Van Muijen, Koopmand

and De Witte, 1996). When employees are allowed to dictate their own behavior

during task performances they can be themselves, psychically, cognitively, and

emotionally when performing their work. Therefore in a constructive culture

employees will more likely personally engage in their work.

When employees experience the organizational culture as constructive they

have the feeling that they have the support of the organization and their co-workers to

participate without the fear of negative consequences for their self-image, career, or

status. When employees experience that they are allowed to participate and dictate

their own behavior they can get the feeling that they are valuable and useful to the

organization and can make a difference with their behavior. Therefore a constructive

culture has a positive effect on the psychological meaningfulness of employees which

affects employees to engage in their work.

Employees feel save in organizations that are characterized by supportiveness

(Saks, 2006). A characteristic of a constructive culture is that employees feel that they

are supported by the organization and their co-workers. In a culture where employees

experience supportiveness, employees have the feeling that they are allowed to

experiment and try new things without the fear of negative consequences for their self-

30

image, career, or status. Also, in a constructive culture relationships with co-workers

are based on mutual trust. Supportive and trusting interpersonal relationships promote

the psychological safety of employees (Saks, 2006). When employees experience

their organizational culture as constructive they are more likely to experience

psychological safety and this has a positive effect on their engagement.

Employees that are engaged in their work are motivated to invest in their

physical, cognitive, and emotional energy when they believe to have control over what

happens to them, when they feel they can trust others in the organization, and when

they can decide to how to do their work (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, 2010). In a

constructive culture employees can dictate their own behavior when performing a task.

Employees have control over their own career because in a constructive culture there

is room for individual growth. And interpersonal relationships are based on mutual

trust. Therefore employees that experience their organizational culture as constructive

will have the physical, emotional, and psychological resources to put their physical,

cognitive, and emotional energies into their work and exhibit higher engagement in

their work.

The perception of an employee of what the organizational culture is like

reflects the cognitive framework (Sparrow and Gaston, 1996). An organizational

culture that provides behavioral expectancies related to a positive culture will give

employees the support and cognitive framework that is necessary to develop positive

attitudes (Gregory et al., 2009). When employees see their organization as

constructive they experience psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and

psychological availability and therefore they exhibit higher engagement in their work.

Hypothesis 6b: Engagement mediates the relationship between a constructive

culture and organizational citizenship behavior.

31

Besides the organizational culture the type of leadership style has a relationship

with OCB. The types of leadership styles that are examined are transformational and

transactional leadership. Expected is that engagement mediates in the relationships

between transactional and transformational leadership and OCB. Employees will be

engaged in their work when there is a social system where they feel safe. The

relationship between the leader and employee supports this social system (Rich,

LePine and Crawford, 2010). The leader should affect their followers by providing the

tools and motivate them to accomplish goals (Babcock-Roberson and Strickland,

2010). Therefore, the type of leadership style has an important impact on the social

system and engagement of employees.

When employees see their leader as transformational they will be more likely

to engage in their work and this will have a positive effect on their OCB.

Transforming leaders engages employees to raise to a higher level of motivation

(Burns, 1978). They motivate and inspire employees to perform better and to give

more of themselves than only what the leader asks them (Bass, 1985). When

employees are challenged they invest in themselves and are likely to feel more

confident when a task is completed successfully. Transformational leaders challenges

employees to higher standards to achieve goals which increases their self-confidence

and therefore they will experience higher levels of engagement (Rich, LePine, and

Crawford, 2010). When employees are confident they appraise tasks more positively

and have greater ability to cope with the demands of a task effectively, and therefore

have more resources available to invest in the performance of their work (Judge and

Hurst, 2007). Transformational leaders increase the confidence of employees so

employees are more likely to perceive a higher level of psychological availability.

When employees have psychological availability they have the psychical, emotional,

32

and psychological resources to put their physical, cognitive, and emotional energy into

their work and therefore exhibit higher engagement in their work role.

Transformational leaders also stimulate the psychological meaningfulness of

employees which is a condition for employees to engage in their work. They do this

by stimulating and encouraging employees to think in new ways of doing their job by

taking risks, challenging assumptions, and encourage subordinates to come with new

ideas (Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1999). When employees experience their leader as

transformational they may have the feeling that their ideas and input of doing their job

in new ways are worthwhile, useful, and valuable. They have the feeling that they are

respected and they are inspired to make a difference.

The support of supervisors promotes the psychological safety of employees

which affect their engagement (May et al., 2004; Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006). When

employees experience their leader as transformational they will have the feeling that

they are supported in trying new things and will take risks without the fear that this

will have consequences for their career, status or self-image. Transformational leaders

create supportive environments and they act as a mentor and coach and stimulate

learning experiences (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Employees experience psychological

safety in supportive environments which are created by transformational leaders.

Thus, transformational leaders have a positive effect on the psychological

meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability of employees

which are conditions for employees to engage in their work. Therefore the following is

proposed:

Hypothesis 6c: Engagement mediates the relationship between transformational

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.

33

Where a transformational leader has a positive effect on engagement a

transactional leader has a negative effect on engagement of employees. Transactional

leaders reward subordinates for good performance and punish them for poor

performance (Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders are focused on the process when

maintaining control (Bass, 1985 as cited in Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam,

1996). These characteristics of a transactional leader can give employees the feeling

that the leader wants to have control over how work is done and that employees have

no control over their job and job control is associated with disengagement of

employees (Shaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

The relationship between subordinates and a transactional leader is about

meeting expectations and establishing rewards for meeting these expectations (Bass,

Avolio, and Goodheim, 1987). Employees can experience that when a leader initiates

contact with them in an effort to only exchange valued outcomes that they cannot

make a difference and that their opinion about how work is done is not valued so

employees do not have the feeling that they are worthwhile. The job should be done

as always and according to the process. When employees are not allowed to perform

their jobs how they want to, they less likely will experience that they can be

themselves. Transactional leaders do not stimulate the feeling of psychological

meaningfulness because they are focused on meeting the transaction and less on

employee’s feelings of being worth it. Work should be done according to their

expectations which can give employees the feeling that they cannot make a difference

and that they are taken for granted.

Transactional leaders reward subordinates for good performance and punish

them for poor performance (Bass, 1990). When employees do not meet the

expectations of their leader they are punished. So when employees perform poorly

34

they are punished which can give them the feeling of not being safe. Transactional

leaders can promote a unsafe environment by punishing poor performance which has a

negative effect on the psychological safety of employees. Punishing employees for

poor performance can have a negative effect on their self-confidence while performing

a task. When employees have low confidence they may have difficulty to perform a

task because they do not experience that they have the emotional or psychological

resources available to invest in their work (Judge and Hurst, 2007). The consequence

of not having the emotional or psychological resources to put physical, emotional and

cognitive energies into work is that employees tend to be less engaged in their work

role.

Based on the characteristics of a transactional leader a transactional leader does

not stimulate the psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and

psychological availability of employees. Therefore employees that experience their

leader as transactional tend to be less engaged in their work.

Hypothesis 6d: Engagement mediates the relationship between transactional

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.

35

Research Design

Organizational context

This study is conducted at a local bank established in Amsterdam. The main

reason that this local bank fits this study is of the organizational context. Financial

institutions such as banks are required to comply with the legal regulations within the

Act of Financial Supervision. The Dutch Central Bank (DNB) and Authority for the

Financial Markets (AFM) conduct supervision on the financial sector and review how

thee banks comply to these external regulations.

Employees need to do their work according to imposed rules and regulations so

employees may view the organizational culture as hierarchical. In contrast of the

hierarchical culture the antecedent constructive culture will be tested. Recently the

organizational culture of this organization is discussed by their supervisor DNB and

has obligated this local bank to change its culture. This local bank is in search of

which culture will fit the organization. This local bank wants to have a culture that

complies with the characteristics of a constructive culture although they have to

consider the rules and regulations that are imposed. A culture that should fit the

organization is a culture that increases the extra-role behavior of employees but also

work has to be done according to imposed rules and regulations.

This organization fits this study because of its organizational culture. Some

employees experience the organizational culture as hierarchical where other

employees experience that the culture is changed in a more constructive culture. This

explanatory research examines the relationship between a hierarchical culture, a

constructive culture, transformational and transactional leadership with OCB. This

study is cross-sectional.

36

Participants and procedure

This bank has 631,2 FTE working of which 72% of the workforce work

fulltime. The workforce consists of 47% men and 53% women. Data were

collected using a survey. A self-completed questionnaire was send to the

respondents using the program Questback. Participants received an e-mail which

explained the purpose of the study and indicated that the study is voluntary and

anonymous. In the e-mail (see appendix 1) a hyperlink lead the participant to the

questionnaire.

The survey (see appendix 2) was distributed among all employees (N=717)

working in this organization. The survey was distributed among all business units

(retail, business advice, private banking, wholesale and business management)

because this ruled out the possibility that results might be unique to a particular

business unit and this supports generalization to the organization. For the current study

164 complete surveys were obtained and these responses are used to conduct the

analyses. The average age of the respondents is 40 years and 43,4% were employed by

the organization for less than 5 years. Women made up for 51% of the sample and

51% had at least a higher education degree. From the respondents 87% worked

fulltime and 65% worked less than one year for their current supervisor.

Measures

Each variable was measured by using different developed scales. To measure

OCB the five-factor, OCB scale developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and

Fetter (1990) was used. These five-factor scale includes the five types of OCB

identified by Organ (1988). These five types of behaviors are Altruism,

37

Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy and Civic Virtue. To make an addition to

existing research a sixth type of behavior was added to the five-factor scale which is

Voice Behavior. To measure Voice Behavior additional questions were added to the

five-factor scale. These questions are based on the 6-item scale developed by Van

Dyne and LePine (1998). OCB is measured on the individual level by the respondent

themselves using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7)

strongly agree.

Transformational leadership behavior is measured using the 6-factor scale

developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990). This model measures six key behaviors that are

associated with transformational leadership. These six behaviors are identifying and

articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of

group goals, high performance expectations, providing individual support and

intellectual stimulation. The respondents are asked to evaluate their

supervisor/manager on transformational behavior using a 7 point Likert scale ranging

from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

The contingent reward behavior scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1984) is

used to measure this factor of transactional leadership behavior. This scale consist of

five items that capture the behaviors that are fundamental to a transactional leader

which are providing rewards in exchange for an employee’s effort. To measure the

dimension management-by-expectation the Multifactor Questionnaire was used

(Avolio, Bass, Jung, 1999). The respondents are asked to evaluate their

supervisor/manager on transactional behavior using a 7 point Likert scale ranging

from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

Work engagement is measured using the 9-factor version of the Utrecht Work

Engagement scale (UWES-9) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). The UWES 9-

38

factor scale is recommend by other researchers because of its validity (Seppällä et al.

2009). The UWES-9 measures the three underlying dimensions of work engagement

Vigor, Dedication and Absorption. Work engagement is measured at the individual

level of the employee using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from (1) never to (7)

always.

To measure constructive and hierarchical culture two scales were used from the

FOCUS questionnaire, developed by Van Muijen et al. (1999). The FOCUS

questionnaire is developed by researchers from twelve different countries. This

questionnaire is based on Quinn’s (1988) competing values model. The FOCUS

questionnaire describes four culture orientations namely support, innovation, rules

and goal orientation. This study examined two of the four culture orientations. To

measure constructive culture the 4-items that measure a support oriented culture were

used. The 4-items that measure a rules oriented culture were used to measure a

hierarchical culture.

Constructive culture is comparable with the culture orientation support.

This is because a constructive culture is characterized by strong norms that

promote cooperative behaviors and is achievement oriented which affects

satisfaction and commitment of employees (Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. and

Potter, R.E. 2006) and the culture orientation support in the FOCUS

questionnaire is characterized by participation, cooperation and is based on

people, mutual trust (Van Muijen et al. 1999). So the characteristics of

constructive culture are comparable with the culture orientation support. The

respondents are asked to answer the questions from their own perspective on the

organizational culture using a 7-point Likert scale (1) strongly disagree to (7)

strongly agree.

39

Hierarchical culture is also measured using the FOCUS questionnaire.

An organization that is characterized by rules and regulations is comparable with

a culture that is focused on rules. The variable hierarchical culture is comparable

with the characteristics of the culture orientation rules. In a rules orientated

culture there is respect for authority, procedures are based on rationality, there is

a hierarchical structure and communication is mostly top-down (Van Muijen et

al. 1999). This is comparable with the characteristics of the variable hierarchical

culture because procedures are imposed by the internal organization and external

supervision and communication about how an employee should do their job is

mostly top-down. The respondents are asked to answer the questions from their

own perspective on the organizational culture (rules) using a 7-point Likert scale

(1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

40

Results

The data is entered in the statistical program SPSS. Items that are phrased such that an

agreement with the item represents a low level of construct were recoded to assure

there were no counter-indicative items. The items that measured sportsmanship in the

construct OCB are counter-indicative items and therefore were recoded such that a

high score represents higher OCB. In the construct transformational leadership there

are two items that needed to be recoded (LEIDERis1 and LEIDERis2) and in the

construct transactional leadership there are 5 items recoded (LEIDERcr5,

LEIDERmbe1, LEIDERmbe2, LEIDERmbe3, and LEIDERmbe5).

The first step in analysing the data is to look for errors in the scores and

missing data. This was done by analysing the frequency of the distribution. There are

no errors found in the data. Some respondents have not completed the survey. The

missing data range from 1 to 3 items that were not answered by a respondent, therefore

the number of missing data is negligible. The missing responses are handled by

excluding cases Listwise which means that only cases without any missing data in a

variable are analysed.

Reliability of Constructs

To test whether the measures of the scales and items in the scales are

reliable a reliability analysis was carried out on all items of the variables OCB,

transformational and transactional leadership, constructive and hierarchical

culture, and on engagement.

The Cronbach’s alpha of OCB is α=.852. The values of the items

OCBcons1, OCBcons2, OCBcons3, and OCBcons4 in the Corrected Item-Total

Correlation are < .30 which means that these items do not correlate with the

41

overall score from the scale OCB. Therefore these items are deleted from the

scale. After deleting these items the Cronbach’s alpha is α= .872.

The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale transformational leadership is α= .925.

The Corrected Item-Total gives a value < .30 for the items LEIDERpam1 and

LEIDERhpe3. Because of the already high Cronbach’s alpha α= .925 and the

content of the items these items are not deleted from the scale. The scale of

transactional leadership has a Cronbach’s alpha of α= .762. After deleting the

items recodeLEIDERmbe1, recodeLEIDERmbe3, and recodeLEIDERmbe4 the

Cronbach’s alpha is α= .847 and all items have a Corrected Item-Total of > .30.

The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale hierarchical culture is α= .589. The item

Culturerules4 has a Corrected Item-Total value of .137 therefore this item do not

correlate with the overall score from the scale and is removed. The Cronbach’s

alpha, after removing the item is α= .719 which supports deleting the item. The

scales of constructive culture and engagement are > .80 respectively α= .803 and

α= .856. All items in these scales have a Corrected Item-Total value > .30 so the

items correlate with the scales and no items are deleted. After deleting some

items in the scales all Cronbach’s alpha’s are > .70 and there can be concluded

that the measures reflect the construct that it is measuring.

Descriptive statistics

The means, standard deviation, and inter correlations of the study

variables are presented in table 1. Results indicate that on average respondents

perceived themselves to show quite a lot of OCB (M=5,52) and that they are

usually engaged in their work (M=4,74). Employees perceived the leadership

style within the organization both transformational (M=4,89) as transactional

(M=4,96). The respondents experience the organizational culture more

42

hierarchical (M=4,54) than constructive (M=3,80). The difference between the

means is significant (p < .01).

It is worth nothing that there are weak positive correlations of OCB with

the variables transactional leadership (r = .21, p < 0.01), transformational

leadership (r = .28, p < 0.01), a hierarchical culture (r = .22, p < 0.01). Results

indicate a moderate correlation of OCB with a constructive culture (r = .33, p <

0.01). As expected the independent variables are significant related to

engagement with the exception of a hierarchical culture (r = .09). Engagement is

also significant related to OCB (r = .41, p < 0.01).

Hypotheses testing

In order to test the hypotheses a multiple regression analyse was conducted.

First I tested if the control variables had an influence on OCB. The reason that the

control variables are tested is that previous research has indicated that age and years of

experience had a significant positive effect on OCB (Murphy, Athanasou, and King,

2002). Because this study is conducted in a single organization there is also the

possibility that other variables have an effect on OCB. In order to exclude that other

43

variables have an effect on OCB the control variables age, gender, years of experience,

gender leader and years of having that leader were entered. This model was not

significant F (5,158) = 1.77; p > .05. The control variables do not have a significant

effect on OCB.

After entering the independent culture and leadership variables, the model as a

whole was significant F (9,154) = 3.49; p < .001. Table 2 gives an overview of model

1. The results indicate that the antecedent’s variables explained 17% of the variance in

OCB, after controlling for the control variables. Only a constructive culture has a

significant effect of OCB (β = .212, p < .05). The other antecedent variables were not

significant predictors of OCB. These results provide support for H2 and do not

support H1, H3, and H4.

The next step is to test whether the independent variables have an indirect

relationship with OCB. In order to test this I first tested if engagement had an effect on

OCB. Model 2 was significant F (6,158) = 7.44; p < .01 and 22% of the variance in

OCB can be explained by the control variables and engagement. Table 3 reports the

44

results of model 2. Results showed that engagement had a significant positive effect on

OCB (β = .412, p < .01) and therefore H5 is supported.

Secondly, I tested if the independent variables are correlated with engagement.

Model 3 was significant F (9,154) = 3.43; p < .01 after controlling for the control

variables. The results of model 3 are reported in table 4. Constructive culture showed a

significant positive effect on engagement (β = .307, p <.01) which supports H6b.

Results indicate that a hierarchical culture, transformational and transactional

leadership are not significant predictors of engagement. Based on these results H6a,

H6c, and H6d are not supported.

45

In order to test whether engagement mediates in the relationship between the

independent variables and OCB, an additional regression analysis was conducted. The

model was significant F (10,153) = 5,491; p < .001. The antecedents and mediator

explained 26,4% of the variance in OCB. The regression analyse of model 5 showed

that the effect size of the constructive culture in relation to OCB decreased (Δ .103)

and became insignificant when engagement was added to the regression equation.

Therefore the results showed that engagement forms a mediating mechanism in the

relationship between a constructive culture and OCB. The results of model 4 are

presented in table 5.

46

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between

contextual factors that are imposed by the organization or sector and where an

individual employee has limited or no influence on with OCB. The factors that

were used to examine this relationship were two culture types (hierarchical an

constructive) and two leadership styles (transactional and transformational).

Furthermore, this study examined to what extent engagement was a mediating

mechanism of the proposed relationships between the above-mentioned

antecedents and OCB. The results indicated that a constructive culture had a

significant positive relationship with OCB and engagement did form a mediating

mechanism in this relationship. However a hierarchical culture, transformational

leadership and transactional leadership were not predictors of OCB. Also,

engagement did not appear to be a mediating mechanism in the relationship

between the two types of leadership styles, a hierarchical culture and OCB.

Although these antecedents have no direct or indirect relationship the

respondents in this study did evaluated themselves high on OCB (M=5,52).

Therefore it can be concluded that there are other factor(s) that affect the OCB of

employees.

So, the study results supported the hypothesis that a constructive culture

has a direct relationship with OCB. A culture that is characterized by

cooperation, participation, mutual trust, team spirit, and individual growth

promotes positive behaviors such as OCB. Employees who experience the

organizational culture as constructive are more likely to show OCB because they

are allowed to dictate their own behavior (Gregory et al.,2009) are encouraged to

express ideas about their work (Van Muijen et al., 1999) and have the feeling

47

that the organization supports and rewards them to show extra-role behavior.

Thus, the characteristics of a constructive culture (cooperation, people based,

and team spirit) have a positive effect on the OCB of employees. That is, in a

constructive culture employees are more likely to help others (altruism), accept

rules, regulations, and procedures (conscientiousness), tolerate less than ideal

circumstances (sportsmanship), prevent work related problems (courtesy),

participate and take responsibility (civic virtue), and speak out (voice). This

finding is in line with previous research that found that the characteristics of a

constructive culture promotes positive behaviors such as OCB (Cooke and

Potter, 2006; Balthazard, Cooke, and Potter, 2006).

Also results supported the hypothesis that engagement mediates between

the relationship of a constructive culture and OCB. When employees have the

feeling that the organization supports them to participate without the fear of

negative consequences for their self-image, career, or status likely has a positive

effect on their psychological safety, which is a condition for employees to

engage in their work. Also in a constructive culture employees feel that they are

valuable and useful because they are allowed to participate and speak out which

has a positive effect on their psychological meaningfulness, also a condition for

employees to engage in their work. When employees are engaged in their work

they have the physical, emotional, and cognitive energies to go beyond in-role

behaviors (Babcock-Roberson and Crawford, 2010). Engagement explained 17%

of the variance in OCB. When employees are engaged in their work this is likely

to have a positive effect on the dimensions of OCB. Therefore there can be

concluded that when employees are engaged in their work, work harder, take no

extra breaks, participate, tolerate less than ideal circumstances, prevent work-

48

related problems, and are willing to help others. This finding is in line with

previous research that found that employees who are engaged in their work are

more likely to show OCB (Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010; Rich,

LePine and Crawford, 2010). Thus, employees who experience the

organizational culture as constructive will be more engaged in their work and

this will increase their OCB.

Employees at this local bank experienced their organizational culture as

more hierarchical than constructive which means that work is done according to

rules, regulations, and procedures. For this organization to increase OCB they

should stimulate a constructive culture so employees are more willing to show

OCB such as accepting and adhering to these rules, regulations, and procedures.

This organization should stimulate a constructive culture so employees feel that

they are supported by the organization, are valuable and useful so they are more

likely to engage in their work. And when employees are engaged in their work

they have psychical, emotional, and cognitive energies to invest in themselves

and others while performing their work and this has an positive effect on their

extra-role behaviors.

In contrast to a constructive culture results did not find support for the

hypothesis that a hierarchical culture has a direct effect on OCB. Expected was

that when employees perceive their organizational culture as hierarchical will

show less OCB because their behaviors should fit within a culture with

consistent patterns of behaviors and in a hierarchical culture there will be little

room for discretionary behaviors such as OCB (Gregory et al., 2009). An

explanation that a hierarchical culture has no direct or indirect relationship with

OCB may be found in the role of perceived organizational support which is a

49

construct of the social exchange theory (Tekleab and Chiaburu, 2011). Perceived

organizational supports refers to employees global beliefs regarding how much

the organization cares about their well-being and values their contribution

(Eisenberg et al., 2001). When employees experience that the organization

values their contribution and cares about their well-being employees feel

obligate to increase their extra-role behavior (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005;

Lynch, Eisenberger and Armeli, 1999). Perhaps employees can still experience

sufficient organizational support in hierarchical cultures. Although in this study

the organizational culture is experienced as hierarchical employees evaluated

their OCB as high. Therefore, perhaps despite the hierarchical culture,

employees do perceive organizational support which they reciprocate with OCB.

It was expected that a hierarchical culture would limit employees to show OCB

because this type of culture is oriented on doing work according to rules,

regulations, and procedures. Building on the social exchange theory, however,

perhaps the characteristics of a hierarchical culture do not affect OCB as long as

employees experience that the organization values their contributions and cares

about their well-being. This needs further testing.

Another possible explanation that this study did not find support for the

hypothesis that a hierarchical culture would have a negative effect on OCB is

that the employees in this study may experience a strong fit with the values and

beliefs of the organization and because of this person-organization fit the

hierarchical culture has no negative effect on employees’ willingness to show

OCB. Person-organization fit theory refers to the level of compatibility in terms

of values, beliefs, personality and/or goals between employees and an

organization (Andrews, Baker and Hunt, 2011). The attitudes and behaviors of

50

employees are influenced by the congruence between employees and the

organization. For example a strong fit between employees and the organization

has a positive effect on the OCB of employees (Hoffman and Woehr, 2006). The

employees in this study evaluated themselves high on OCB despite that they

experienced the organization culture as hierarchical which is in contrast with the

hypothesis. It is possible that the employees that work at this local bank

experience a fit with the values of the organization that represent a hierarchical

culture and this fit has an effect on their willingness to show OCB.

Expected was that the type of leadership style had an influence on the

extra-role behavior of employees. Results did not find support that the type of

leadership style had a direct or indirect effect on OCB. Perhaps this is due to the

role of leader member exchange (Tekleab and Chiaburu, 2011). Leader member

exchange refers to the relationship between the employee and leader which is

based on the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources

(Tekleab and Chiabur, 2011). When employees experience emotional support

from their supervisor and when they can trust the supervisor to exchange their

obligations employees will reciprocate by displaying behaviors such as OCB

(Tekleab and Chiabur, 2011).

Expected was that a transactional leader had a negative effect on OCB

because a transactional leader only rewards in-role behaviors therefore

employees are less likely to show extra-role behaviors. Results found no support

for a direct or indirect relationship between a transactional leader and OCB. This

is in line with previous research findings that also did not found a significant

relationship with OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich, 2001). An explanation

that the characteristics of a transactional leader has no effect on OCB is that it is

51

not the behavior of the leader that influence OCB, but the relationship between

the leader and employee. In this relationship it is important that the employee is

not a “passive role recipient” but have some control over the transaction (Wang,

Law, Hackett, Wang and Chen, 2005). When an employee can reject, embrace,

or negotiate about the transaction this will more likely reciprocate in positive

behavior such as OCB. Whereas an employee has no control over the transaction

the employee is less likely to show positive behaviors such as OCB. This is in

line with previous research findings (Wang et al., 2005).

Also this study did not find support for the hypothesis that a

transformational leadership style has a positive effect on OCB. This finding is

not in line with previous findings that found a positive relationship between

transformational leadership and OCB (Babcock and Strickland, 2010; Podsakoff

et al., 1990). This study did not find a significant relationship between the

characteristics of a transformational leader and OCB. Engagement did also not

mediates between the predicted relationship. The reason that there is no direct

and indirect relationship found, perhaps is also due to the leader member

exchange theory. That is, the relationship between the leader and employee

determines if an employee will show OCB and not the behavior of the leader.

Although the behaviors of a transformational leader do not have a direct positive

effect on OCB these behaviors have an important role in the quality of the

relationship. Transformational leaders foster the relationship between them and

their employees, therefore their behaviors are more likely to have a positive

effect on the relationship. When there is a high-quality relation between the

leader and employee the employee is more likely to show OCB. Wang et al.

(2005) have found in their research that transformational leadership has a

52

positive relationship with OCB and leader member exchange is a mediating

mechanism in this relationship. Building on the leader member exchange theory,

perhaps the behaviors of a transactional leader and transformational leader do

not affect the extra-role behaviors of employees, rather the quality of the

relationship between the employee and supervisor, regardless of leader behavior,

determines if an employee reciprocates in OCB (Tekleab and Chiaburu, 2011).

Another possible explanation that this study did not find support for the

hypotheses on leadership styles is that previous research indicates that

employees often view OCB as an aspect of their in-role performance (Nahum-

Shani and Somech, 2011). It was expected that OCB would be more likely to be

promoted by transformational leaders because they motivate employees to show

behavior that goes beyond the formal job description. When OCB is viewed as

an aspect of in-role behavior transformational leaders are less likely to promote

OCB because these behaviors are part of the formal job description and

employees already show OCB. In contrast it was expected that a transactional

leader would be less likely to promote OCB because this leadership style only

rewards the in-role behavior of employees. When OCB is viewed as an aspect of

in-role behavior transactional leaders reward employees for showing OCB and

therefore transactional leaders do not have a negative effect on OCB.

Also this study expected that engagement would be a mediating

mechanism between the two leadership styles, a hierarchical culture and OCB.

There was no evidence found that engagement mediates between these

antecedents. These findings suggest that the characteristics of a hierarchical

culture, transactional leader and transformational leader do not affect the

engagement of employees. A possible explanation for these findings can again

53

be found in social exchange theory. It is perhaps not the characteristics of a

hierarchical culture, transformational or transactional leader that influence

psychological safety, psychological meaningfulness and psychological ability of

employees but rather the perceived organizational support and leader member

exchange stimulates these psychological conditions.

This study contributes to the research field of organizational behavior

firstly because it found contradictions with other studies that did found support

for the relationship between a transactional and transformational leader with

OCB. Secondly, no study has examined the relationship with the organizational

culture and OCB. This study found that a constructive culture has a positive

effect on OCB. Therefore this study is also practically relevant for organizations

because according to the findings organizations that want to increase OCB of

employees should stimulate a constructive culture.

Limitations and future research

This study has limitations. Firstly, this study was conducted within a single

industry and one local bank which could question generalizability of the results.

Secondly, because this study was conducted within the banking industry person-

organization fit could have affected some of the results. Person-organization fit could

have affected the hypothesis that a hierarchical culture has a negative effect on OCB.

That is, the banking industry has to confirm to rules, regulations, and procedures. This

framework of rules and regulations has an influence on the organizational culture.

People may choose to work at a bank because the values and beliefs of the

organization fit with their personal values and beliefs. That is, people are attracted to

and select organizations that have the same values and beliefs as their own (Schneider,

1987). Further research should extend these findings to non-financial firms to enhance

54

generalizability. It is also interesting to test whether these result findings differ when

the values and beliefs of an organization are not clear.

A third limitation is that respondents were asked to evaluated their own OCB

which could give a social-desirable effect. Further research should examine whether

results differ when OCB of employees is rated by their supervisors and/or peers.

Engagement did not mediate between a hierarchical culture and the two leadership

styles. There are possible other mediating mechanisms in the relationship with these

antecedent and OCB. Further research should test whether perceived organizational

support, leader member exchange and person-organization fit is a mediating

mechanism between the examined antecedents and OCB.

Conclusion

OCB has been an important factor in determining the performance of an

organization. Previous research has found that OCB has a positive effect on individual

and organizational outcomes (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994). Therefore it is of

interest for organizations to understand which factors affect OCB. This study

examined the relationship of factors that are imposed by the organization or sector and

where an employee has limited or no influence on with OCB. This results supports the

hypothesis that a constructive culture has a positive effect on OCB. Engagement

seems to be a mediating mechanism in this positive relationship. Therefore,

organizations that wants to increase the OCB of employees should look at their

organizational culture. A culture that is focused on participation, cooperation, people-

based, mutual trust, team spirit, and individual growth stimulates employees to engage

in their work which has a positive effect on their OCB. However, this research did not

find support for the hypotheses that a hierarchical culture and the two type of

55

leadership styles have an effect on OCB. Also engagement was not a mediator

between the studied antecedents and OCB. Further research should investigate

whether the constructs of the social exchange theory and the person-organization fit

theory are mediating mechanisms between the relationships of the antecedents

examined in this study and OCB.

56

References

Andrews, M.C., Baker, T. and Hunt, T.G. (2011). Values and person-organization fit. Does moral intensity strengthen outcomes? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, (32), 5-19.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Babcock-Roberson, M.E. and Strickland, O.J. (2010). The relationship between Charismatic Leadership, Work Engagement, and OCBs. The Journal of Psychology, (144), 313-326.

Balthazard, P.A, Cooke, R.A. and Potter, R.E. (2006). Dysfunctional Culture, dysfunctional organization. Capturing the behavioral norms that form organizational culture and drive performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (21), 709-732.

Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, (26), 587-595.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-19.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational behavior. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, (18), 19-31.

Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal,(46), 554-571.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Chen, X.-P., Hui, C. and Sego, D.J. (1998). The role of OCB in turnover: conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, (83), 922-931.

Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, (31), 874-900.

Dunlop, P.D. and Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, OCB, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Joural of Organizational Behavior, (25), 67-80.

Den Hartog, D.N. and Koopman, P.L. (2001). Leadership in Organizations. Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, (2), 166-187.

Den Hartog, D.N., De Hoogh A.H. and Keegan, A.E. (2007). The interactive effects of belogingness and charisma on heling and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology, (92), 1131-1139.

57

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, (86), 42-51.

Farh, J, Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W. (1990). Accounting for OCB: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, (16),705-722.

Garcia-Morales, V.J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M.M. and Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, (65), 1040-1050.

Gregory, B.T., Harris, S.G., Armenakis, A.A. and Shook, C.L. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research, (62), 673-679.

Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources. European Journal of Oral Sciences, (113), 487-497.

Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.. Journal of Applied Psychology, (73), 695-702.

Hoffman, B.J. and Woehr, D.J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, (68), 389-399.

Howell, J.P. and Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, (78), 891-902.

Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A Meta-Analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, (89), 755-768.

Judge, T.A. and Hurst, C. (2007). The benefits and possible costs of positive core self-evaluations: A review and agenda for future research. In D.L. Nelson and C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive Organizational Behavior, 159-174. London: Sage.

Jung, D.J. and Avolio, B.J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, (42), 208-218.

Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, (33), 692-724.

Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, (45), 321-349.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1966) The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Konovsky, M.A. and Organ, D.W. (1995). Dispositional and contextual determinants of OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (17), 253-266.

58

Kwantes, C.T. and Boglarsky, C.A. (2007). Perceptions of organizational culture, leadership effectiveness and personal effectiveness across six countries. Journal of International Management, (13), 204-230.

LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, (83), 853-868.

Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Ledership Quarterly, (7), 385-425.

Lynch, P.D., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, (84), 467-483.

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., and Rich, G. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, (29), 115-134.

Maslach, C. and Leiter, M. (1997). The Truth About Burnout. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Murphy, G., Athanasou, J. and King, N. (2002). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour. A study of Australian human-service professionals. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (17), 287-297.

Nahum-Shani, I. and Somech, A. (2011). Leadership, OCB and individual differences: Idiocentrism and allocentrism as moderators of the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and OCB. The Leadership Quarterly, (22), 353-366.

O’Reilly III, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, 1991. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, (34), 487-516.

Organ, D.W. (1988). OCB: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of OCB. Personnel Psychology, (48), 775-800.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and McKenzie, S.B. (2006). OCB: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). OCBs and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, (3), 351-363.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R.B. and Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and OCBs. Leadership Quarterly, (1), 107-142.

Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of OCBs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, (94), 122-141.

59

Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J.A. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, (29), 363-377.

Rich, B.L., LePine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, (53), 617-635.

Richard, O.C., McMillan-Capehart, A, Bhuian, S.N., and Taylor, E.C. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of psychological contract: Does organizational culture really matter? Journal of Business Research, (62), 818-825.

Richardsen, A.M., Burke, R.J. and Martinussen, M. (2006). Work and health outcomes among police officers: The mediating role of cynicism and engagement. International Journal of Stress Management, (13), 555-574.

Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (21), 2006.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior, (25), 293-315.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma and V., Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, (3), 71-92.

Schein, E.H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, (25), 3-16.

Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist Association Inc.,2, 109-119.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psycholgy, (40), 437-453.

Sparrow, P.R. and Gaston, K. (1996). Generic climate maps: A strategic application of climate survey data. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (17), 679-698.

Stamper, C.L. and Van Dyne, L. .(2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behaviour: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (22), 517-536.

Sun, L.Y., Chow, I., Chiu, R.K., Pan, W. (2013). Outcome favorability in the link between leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: Procedural fairness climate matters. The Leadership Quarterly, (24), 215-226.

Tekleab, A.G. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2011). Social exchange theory: Empirical examination of form and focus. Journal of Business Research, (64), 460-466.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, (37), 765-802.

60

Van Muijen, J.J., Koopman, P. and De Witte, K. (1996). The competing value model and the measurement and changing of organization culture. Academic Service: Schoonhoven, NL.

Van Muijen J.J., Koopman, P., De Witte, K., De Cock, G., Susan Z., Lemoine, C., Bourantas, D., Papalexandris, N., Branyicski, I., Spaltro, E., Gonzalves Das Neves, J.J.J., Pitariu, H., Konrad, E., Peiró, J., González-Romá, V. and Turnipseed, D. (1999). Organizational Culture: The Focus Questionnaire. European Journal of Work and organizational psychology, (4), 551-568.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, (40), 82-111.

Walumbwa, F.O., Wu, C. and Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and OCB: The role of procedural justice climate percepetions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, (19), 251-265.

Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnelln, C.A. and Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and OCB: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, (95), 517-529.

Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D., and Chen, Z.X. (2005). Leader-Member Exchange as a mediator of the relationship between tansformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, (48), 420-432.

Withey, M.J. and Cooper, W.H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, (34), 521-539.

61

Appendix 1

Best collega, Mijn naam is Priscilla van der Ploeg en ik ben werkzaam bij de afdeling financiële logistiek. Naast mijn werk volg ik een studie bedrijfskunde aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Voor mijn eindopdracht doe ik onderzoek naar een aantal factoren die van invloed kunnen zijn op het gedrag van medewerkers.

Als medewerker wordt bepaald gedrag van je verwacht om je functie uit te oefenen. Naast gedrag om je functie uit te oefenen kan je ook gedrag laten zien dat niet van je gevraagd wordt om je functie uit te oefenen wat ook wel “extra-role behavior” wordt genoemd. Hierbij kan je denken aan het helpen van collega’s of het geven van je mening om de organisatie beter te maken.

Verschillende factoren kunnen invloed hebben op dit gedrag. Ik ga onderzoeken of de factoren leiderschap en cultuur invloed hebben op het extra-role behavior van medewerkers en waar deze mogelijke relatie door veroorzaakt wordt.

Om dit te onderzoeken wil ik jou vragen een vragenlijst in te vullen. zal ongeveer 10 minuten in beslag nemen. Jouw antwoorden worden anoniem behandeld. De vragenlijst kan tot uiterlijk vrijdag 24 april ingevuld worden.

Jouw antwoorden dragen bij aan het succesvol afronden van mijn studie! Bij voorbaat dank voor je medewerking!

Met vriendelijke groet,

Priscilla van der Ploeg

Klik hier om deel te nemen

62

Appendix 2

Factoren die van invloed zijn op het gedrag van medewerkers.

Allereerst worden enkele persoonlijke vragen gesteld. Vervolgens worden een aantal

stellingen gegeven. Deze stellingen hebben betrekking op de volgende onderwerpen:

• Jouw gedrag binnen de organisatie.

• Wat jij vindt van het gedrag van je direct leidinggevende.

• Hoe je denkt over de cultuur binnen de organisatie.

• Hoe jij je voelt op het werk.

Wanneer in de vragenlijst gesproken wordt over de organisatie wordt bedoeld Rabobank

Amsterdam. Wil je per stelling aangeven in welke mate je het met de stelling eens of

oneens bent of in welke mate een situatie zich volgens jou voordoet?

Ik benadruk nogmaals, dat de antwoorden volstrekt anoniem worden behandeld.

Alvast bedankt voor het invullen van de vragenlijst!

63

Algemene gegevens

Hoelang bent u werkzaam bij Rabobank Amsterdam?

korter dan 5 jaar

5 - 10 jaar

10 - 15 jaar

15 - 20 jaar

20 jaar of langer

Bent u fulltime of parttime werkzaam?

Fulltime (32 uur of meer)

Parttime (8 tot 32 uur)

Binnen welke Formule bent u werkzaam?

Particulieren (PA & FA)

Bedrijven Advies

Private Banking

Zakelijk (GZ & ZR)

Bedrijfsmanagement

Bent u vrouw of man?

Vrouw

Man

Wat is uw leeftijd?

…………………..

Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?

Basisonderwijs

Lager / voorbereidend beroepsonderwijs (VBO/LBO)

Middelbaar algemeen vormend onderwijs (MAVO/MULO)

64

Hoger algemeen vormend onderwijs (HAVO)

Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO)

Voorbereidend wetenschappelijke onderwijs (VWO)

Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO/HEAO/HBS)

Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (Universiteit)

Anders

Hoe lang werkt u voor uw huidig leidinggevende?

…………………..

Is uw leidinggevende een man of vrouw?

Man

Vrouw

65

De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op uw gedrag binnen de organisatie. Het is de

bedoeling dat u het antwoord kiest dat het best bij u past.

Helemaal Helemaal mee oneens mee eens

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.Ik help collega's die een hoge werkdruk hebben □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Door te klagen en te protesteren probeer ik □ □ □ □ □ □ □ aandacht te krijgen 3. Ik vind dat ik eerlijk betaald wordt voor de werkzaamheden die ik doe □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 4. Ik doe vanuit mezelf aanbevelingen om de organisatie te verbeteren □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 5. Ik verbruik veel tijd met het klagen over onbelangrijke zaken □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 6. Ik probeer te voorkomen dat collega’s in problemen komen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7. Ik geef mijn mening over onderwerpen die voor mij en mijn afdeling van □ □ □ □ □ □ □ belang zijn en moedig mijn collega’s aan ook hun mening te geven 8. Ik blijf op de hoogte van veranderingen binnen de organisatie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 9. Ik heb de neiging om dingen groter te maken dan ze zijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 10. Ik denk na over de impact die mijn acties kunnen hebben op mijn collega’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 11. Ik neem deel aan overleggen die niet verplicht zijn, maar wel belangrijk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ gevonden worden 12. Ik ben altijd bereid om mijn collega’s te helpen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 13. Ik geef mijn eigen mening ook al hebben mijn collega’s een □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 14. Ik oefen taken uit die niet opgenomen zijn in mijn functie profiel, maar in □ □ □ □ □ □ □ het belang zijn voor de reputatie van de organisatie 15. Ik lees en hou de aankondigingen en berichten over de organisatie bij □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 16. Ik help andere met hun werkzaamheden wanneer zij afwezig zijn geweest □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 17. Ik kom uit mezelf met ideeën voor projecten of om processen anders in □ □ □ □ □ □ □ te richten 18. Ik maak geen misbruik van de rechten van mijn collega’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 19. Ik help vrijwillig mijn collega’s met werk gerelateerde problemen □ □ □ □ □ □ □

66

20. Ik ben betrokken bij onderwerpen die invloed hebben op de kwaliteit van □ □ □ □ □ □ □ de werkomgeving 21. Ik kijk altijd naar het negatieve in plaats van het van de positieve kant te □ □ □ □ □ □ □ bekijken (glas is altijd half leeg) 22. Ik onderneem stappen om problemen met collega’s te voorkomen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 23. Gemiddeld ben ik meer dan 8 uur per dag aan het werk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 24. Ik vind altijd fouten in dingen waar de organisatie mee bezig is □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 25. Ik ben mij ervan bewust welke invloed mijn gedrag heeft op mijn collega’s □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 26. Ik neem geen extra pauzes □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 27. Ik zorg dat ik op de hoogte blijf van onderwerpen waar mijn mening van □ □ □ □ □ □ □ belang kan zijn 28. Ik gehoorzaam de regels van de organisatie zelfs wanneer niemand kijkt □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 29. Ik werk nieuwe medewerkers in zonder dat dit van mij gevraagd wordt □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 30. Ik voer mijn werkzaamheden nauwkeurig uit □ □ □ □ □ □ □ De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op wat jij van het gedrag van je direct

leidinggevende vindt bij het uitvoeren van uw dagelijkse werk.

Helemaal Helemaal mee oneens mee eens

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Mijn direct leiding gevende laat zien dat hij/zij veel van mij verwacht □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft mij altijd positieve feedback wanneer □ □ □ □ □ □ □ ik goed presteer 3. Mijn direct leidinggevende handelt zonder hierbij rekening te houden met □ □ □ □ □ □ □ mijn gevoelens 4. Mijn direct leidinggevende schetst een mooi toekomst perspectief voor onze □ □ □ □ □ □ □ afdeling 5. Mijn direct leidinggevende vraagt niet meer van mij dan noodzakelijk is om □ □ □ □ □ □ □ mijn werkzaamheden uit te voeren

67

6. Mijn direct leidinggevende leidt de afdeling door te doen in plaats van door □ □ □ □ □ □ □ te vertellen waar hij/mee bezig is 7. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft mij erkenning wanneer ik goed werk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ geleverd heb 8. Mijn direct leidinggevende respecteert mijn gevoelens □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 9. Mijn direct leidinggevende is een rolmodel die ik wil volgen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 10. Mijn direct leidinggevende gedraagt zich attent ten aanzien van mijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ persoonlijke behoeften 11. Mijn direct leidinggevende dringt aan op de beste prestatie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 12. Mijn direct leidinggevende gaat met mij om zonder rekening te houden □ □ □ □ □ □ □ met mijn gevoelens 13. Mijn direct leidinggevende vertelt mij alleen wat noodzakelijk is om mijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ werk te kunnen doen 14. Mijn direct leidinggevende heeft een helder beeld waar we naar toe gaan □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 15. Mijn direct leidinggevende complementeert mij wanneer ik mijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ werkzaamheden beter dan gemiddeld uitvoer 16. Mijn direct leidinggevende gaat niet akkoord met second best □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 17. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft mij persoonlijk een compliment wanneer □ □ □ □ □ □ □ ik uitstekend werk heb verricht 18. Mijn direct leidinggevende moedigt samenwerking aan tussen verschillende □ □ □ □ □ □ □ afdelingen 19. Mijn direct leidinggevende verandert niets zolang ik mijn werk goed doe □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 20. Mijn direct leidinggevende erkent vaak mijn goede prestaties niet □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 21. Mijn direct leidinggevende inspireert andere met zijn/haar plannen voor □ □ □ □ □ □ □ de toekomst 22. Mijn direct leidinggevende daagt mij uit om op een andere manier over □ □ □ □ □ □ □ problemen na te denken 23. Mijn direct leidinggevende is in staat andere aan zich te verbinden met □ □ □ □ □ □ □ zijn/haar visie 24. Mijn direct leidinggevende is tevreden met mijn werk wanneer ik volgens □ □ □ □ □ □ □ het huidige proces werk

68

25. Mijn direct leidinggevende stelt vragen die mij laten nadenken □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 26. Mijn direct leidinggevende moedigt medewerkers aan om “team players” □ □ □ □ □ □ □ te zijn 27. Mijn direct leidinggevende stimuleert mij om dingen anders aan te pakken □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 28. Mijn direct leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar kansen voor de organisatie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 29. Mijn direct leidinggevende zorgt dat de groep samenwerkt om het □ □ □ □ □ □ □ gezamenlijke doel te behalen 30. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft het goede voorbeeld □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 31. Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft ideeën die mij uitdagen anders □ □ □ □ □ □ □ te denken over mijn werkzaamheden 32. Mijn direct leidinggevende ontwikkelt teamspirit tussen mij en mijn □ □ □ □ □ □ □ collega’s 33. Mijn direct leidinggevende moedigt mij niet aan om initiatieven te nemen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ werkzaamheden anders te doen voorgeschreven staat

De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op de cultuur binnen de organisatie. Geef bij de

stellingen aan hoevaak een situatie volgens u voorkomt in de organisatie.

Nooit Altijd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Hoe vaak worden mensen met persoonlijke problemen geholpen? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Hoe vaak worden mensen die vooruit willen komen door de □ □ □ □ □ □ □ leidinggevende gesteund? 3. Hoe vaak zijn instructies schriftelijk vastgelegd? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 4. Hoe vaak wordt het komen met nieuwe ideeën voor de organisatie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ aangemoedigd? 5. Hoe vaak tonen de leidinggevenden belangstelling voor de □ □ □ □ □ □ □ persoonlijke problemen van werknemers? 6. Hoe vaak wordt het werk volgens vaste procedures verricht? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7. Hoe vaak volgen leidinggevenden de regels zelf op? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8. Hoe vaak laat de stijl van leiding geven vrijheid in het werk toe? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op hoe u uw werk beleeft en hoe u zich daarbij

voelt. Wilt u aangeven hoe vaak de stelling op u van toepassing is.

69

Nooit Altijd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Op mijn werk bruis ik van energie □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Ik vind het werk dat ik doe nuttig en zinvol □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 3. Als ik aan het werk ben, dan vliegt de tijd voorbij □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 4. Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 5. Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 6. Als ik werk vergeet ik alle andere dingen om me heen □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7. Mijn werk inspireert mij □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8. Als ik ’s ochtend opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 9. Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, dan voel ik mij gelukkig □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 10. Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 11. Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 12. Als ik aan het werk ben, dan kan ik heel lang doorgaan □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 13. Mijn werk is voor mij een uitdaging □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 14. Mijn werk brengt mij in vervoering □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 15. Op mijn werk beschik ik over een grote mentale (geestelijke) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ veerkracht 16. Ik kan me moeilijk van mijn werk losmaken □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 17. Op mijn werk zet ik altijd door, ook als het tegenzit □ □ □ □ □ □ □