USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Transformational leadership, leader-member exchange (LMX), and OCB

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Transformational leadership, leader-member exchange (LMX), and OCB the role of motives
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Connell, Patrick W
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Organizational concern
Prosocial values
Impression management
Altruism
Conscientiousness
Sportsmanship
Courtesy
Civic virtue
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of employee motives regarding select leadership-OCB relationships. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the relationships observed between transformational leadership and various dimensions of OCB would be mediated by subordinate Organizational Concern. In contrast, the relationship between LMX-quality and subordinate Altruism was predicted to be either mediated or moderated by subordinate Prosocial Values. Two hundred and one part-time and full-time employees (subordinates and supervisors) served as participants in this study, representing a total of 13 organizations in the Southeast United States. Results were based on a final sample of 131 supervisor-subordinate pairs. In general, participants responded to questionnaires that measured transformational leadership, LMX-quality, and OCB Motives (i.e., Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern, and Impression Management).Both subordinate and supervisor ratings of OCB were also collected. Analyses were based upon Baron and Kennys (1986) approach for mediation and moderation, as well as the Aroian version (1944/1947) of the Sobel test (1982). Across self- and supervisor-reports of OCB, results revealed that the Organizational Concern Motive significantly mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and various dimensions of OCB (Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue). Results also supported the Prosocial Values Motive as a partial mediator in the relationship between LMX-quality and self-reported Altruism. Surprisingly, a stronger mediating effect was consistently observed for the Organizational Concern Motive across both leadership styles and all five of Organs (1988) OCB dimensions. In contrast, no evidence was found for either motive with regard to moderation. Results also differed based on leadership perspective (subordinate versus supervisor).Taken as a whole, these results suggest that both transformational leadership and LMX-quality are strongly associated with an employees general concern for the organization. This motive is, in turn, associated with a variety of citizenship behaviors. In summary, this evidence addresses an important gap in the OCB literature by providing evidence for an indirect relationship between leadership perceptions and OCB.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Patrick W. Connell.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 130 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001709501
oclc - 68570614
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001383
usfldc handle - e14.1383
System ID:
SFS0025703:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Transformational Leadership, Leader-M ember Exchange (LMX), and OCB: The Role of Motives by Patrick W. Connell A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D. Michael T. Brannick, Ph.D. Marcia A. Finkelstein, Ph.D. Toru Shimizu, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 21, 2005 Keywords: organizational concern, prosocial values, impression management, altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmans hip, courtesy, civic virtue Copyright 2005, Patrick W. Connel1

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the help and support of certain individuals. First, I would lik e to thank the many employees who were willing to provide their feedback as part of this study, as well as the organizations who the saw value in this line of research. Second, I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Tammy Allen, Michael Brannick, Marcia Finkelstein, and Toru Shimizu, for the valuable insights and knowledge they provided throughout this en tire process. Finall y, I owe a wealth of gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Walter Borman. My graduate career would not have been a success without his continuous guidance and support. A special thank you is also owed to my family whose encouragement and support was invaluable throughout this process. Finall y, I would like to thank my partner, Jon, for his incredible spirit and constant encouragement to pursue my goals.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) 2 Leadership and OCB 12 Transformational Leadership 12 Leader-member Exchange 23 OCB Motives 31 Moderators and Mediators 34 The Current Study 35 Chapter 2: Method 41 Participants 41 Measures 45 Transformational Leadership 45 Leader-member Exchange 45 OCB 46 OCB Motives 46 Procedure 47 Chapter 3: Results 50 Preliminary Steps and Analyses 50 Variable Descriptives 51 Zero-order Correlations 51 Analysis Approach 58 Hypothesis 1 60 Hypothesis 2 60 Self-reports of OCB 60 Supervisor-reports of OCB 61 Hypothesis 3 64 Self-reports of OCB 64 Supervisor-reports of OCB 65

PAGE 4

ii Hypothesis 4 66 Self-reports of OCB 66 Supervisor-reports of OCB 66 Hypothesis 5 67 Self-reports of OCB 67 Supervisor-reports of OCB 68 Hypothesis 6 68 Hypothesis 7 68 Self-reports of OCB 68 Supervisor-reports of OCB 70 Hypothesis 8 71 Self-reports of OCB 71 Supervisor-reports of OCB 71 Additional Analyses 72 Transformational Leadership, Altruism, and the OC and PV Motives 72 LMX-quality, OCB, and Motives 73 Mediational Analyses from the S upervisors Leadership Perspective 76 Chapter 4: Discussion 78 Relationships Among Variables 79 Transformational Leadership, Motives, and OCB 85 LMX-quality, Motives, and OCB 86 Comparative Mediational Effects 89 Different Leadership Perspectives (Subordinate vers us Supervisor) 91 Limitations 92 Future Research 94 Conclusions 98 References 99 Appendices 108 Appendix A: Transformational L eadership Inventory (TLI), Subordinate Version 109 Appendix B: Transformational Leadersh ip Inventory (TLI), Supervisor Version 111 Appendix C: LMX7, Subordinate Version 113 Appendix D: LMX7, Supervisor Version 115 Appendix E: OCB Measure, Subordinate Version 117 Appendix F: OCB Measure, Supervisor Version 119 Appendix G: Citizenship Motives Scale 121

PAGE 5

iii List of Tables Table 1 TLI Transformational Leadership Dimensions 20 Table 2 Participant Demographics ( N = 186) 43 Table 3 Supervisor Survey Instructions 48 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for St udy Variables 52 Table 5 Variable Reliabilities and Intercor relations for Self Ratings of OCB ( N = 131) 53 Table 6 Variable Reliabilities and Intercorrelations for S upervisor Ratings of OCB ( N = 131) 54 Table 7 Variable Reliabilities and Intercorrelations for Se lf and Supervisor Ratings of OCB ( N = 131) 55 Table 8 Motives Me diator Analysis for Transformational Leadership and Self-reports of OCB 62 Table 9 Motives Me diator Analysis for Transformational Leadership and Supervisor-reports of OCB 63 Table 10 Motives Me diator Analysis for LMX-quality a nd Self-reports of Altruism 69 Table 11 Motives Me diator Analysis for LMX-quality a nd Supervisor-reports of Altruism 71 Table 12 Motives Medi ator Analysis for Transformational Leadership and Self-reports of Altruism 73 Table 13 Motives Me diator Analysis for LMX-quality a nd Self-reports of OCB 74 Table 14 Motives Medi ator Analysis for LMX-quality and Supervisor-reports of OCB 75 Table 15 Motives Mediat or Analysis Based on the Supervisors Perspective of LMX-quality and OCB 77

PAGE 6

iv List of Figures Figure 1 A Mediated Model of th e Effects of Transformational Leadership and LMX-quality on OCB 78 Figure 2 Penner et al. s (1997) Conceptual Model of OCB 93

PAGE 7

v Transformational Leadership, Leader-m ember Exchange (LMX), and OCB: The Role of Motives Patrick W. Connell ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to in vestigate the impact of employee motives regarding select leadership-OCB relations hips. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the relationships observed between transformati onal leadership and various dimensions of OCB would be medi ated by subordinate Organizational Concern. In contrast, the relationship between LM X-quality and subordinate Altruism was predicted to be either mediated or mo derated by subordinate Prosocial Values. Two hundred and one part-time and fu ll-time employees (subordinates and supervisors) served as participants in this study, representing a to tal of 13 organizations in the Southeast United States. Results were based on a final sample of 131 supervisorsubordinate pairs. In general, participants responded to questionna ires that measured transformational leadership, LMX-quality, and OCB Motives (i.e., Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern, and Impression Manage ment). Both subordinate and supervisor ratings of OCB were also collected. Analyses were based upon Baron and Kennys (1986) approach for mediation and moderation, as well as the Aroian version (1944/1947) of the Sobel test (1982). Across selfand supervisor-reports of OCB, result s revealed that the Organizational Concern

PAGE 8

vi Motive significantly mediated the relationshi p between transformati onal leadership and various dimensions of OCB (Conscientious ness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue). Results also supported the Prosocial Values Motive as a partial mediator in the relationship between LMX-quali ty and self-reported Altrui sm. Surprisingly, a stronger mediating effect was consistently observed for the Organizationa l Concern Motive across both leadership styles and all five of Organs (1988) OCB dimensions. In contrast, no evidence was found for either motive with re gard to moderation. Results also differed based on leadership perspective (sub ordinate versus supervisor). Taken as a whole, these results suggest that both transformational leadership and LMX-quality are strongly associated with an employees general concern for the organization. This motive is, in turn, associated with a variety of citi zenship behaviors. In summary, this evidence addresses an important gap in the OCB literature by providing evidence for an indirect relationship be tween leadership perceptions and OCB.

PAGE 9

1 Chapter One Introduction Research in the area of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has shown a dramatic increase in the last few years. This trend is illustrated by the rapid growth in publications dealing with OCB over recent decades, ranging from 13 occurring in the period from 1983 to 1988, to 122 in the period from 1993 to 1998 (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2001). A lthough research has been extensive in addressing the numerous antecedents of OC B (e.g., job satisfaction, perceptions of fairness, personality factors), less attenti on has been focused on other important areas related to the construct. One such area is the mechanisms by which certain antecedents influence citizenship performance, as well as the potential for a dditional dispositional variables to moderate antecedent-OCB relationships (Podsakoff et al., 2001). The purpose of this study is to address th is particular gap in the literature by further investigating the role of motives in relation to OCB. Building on the results of past research that has found evidence for motives as both moderators and mediators between certain antecedent variables (both attitudinal and dispositional) and select dimensions of OCB (Tillman, 1998; Connell & Penner, 2004), the current study explores whether the effects of certain leadership styles (e.g., tr ansformational leadership, leadermember exchange) on OCB reflect a similar tren d. That is, contingent upon the type of leadership style and OCB motive explored, it is expected that the relationship between

PAGE 10

2 leadership behaviors and OCB is either moderated or mediated by motives. The following introduction discusses f our major areas of research relevant to this hypothesis: (1) the nature of OCB and its antecedents, (2) transformational leadership theory, (3) leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, and (4) OCB motives. At the conclusion, these four streams of research are tied together to form the foundation of the current study. Organizational Citizens hip Behavior (OCB) Much of the work done on the conceptual framework of OCB is similar to research carried out by Borman and Motowi dlo (1993) and Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994). Specifically, these researchers distinguished between two types of job performance. The first of th ese is task performance, wh ich they defined as the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organizations technical core either direc tly by implementing a part of its technical process, or indirectly by providing it with needed materials or services (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997, p. 99). For example, for a sa les manager position, task performance activities would include keep ing track of inventory, sche duling employees, and aiding and assisting customers. The second type of performance is contextual performance. Contextual performance include s activities that shape the organizational, social, and psychological context that serv es as the catalyst for task activities and processes (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997, p. 100). Contextual activities are volitional, and include behaviors that may not be in an employees formal job description. Some examples of contextual performance include cooperating with other employees to accomplish tasks, working extra hours on a project even though it is not required, or volunteering to organize social events for the organiza tion. Borman and Motowidlo suggest that

PAGE 11

3 contextual performance makes a significant a nd valued contribution in organizations, and that in contrast to task performance that is specific to a particular job, contextual performance is more generalized and can cu t across numerous jobs or occupations. In addition, Borman and Motowidlo (1993) have identified five specific categories of contextual performance: (1) volunteering to car ry out task activities that are not formally part of the job, (2) persisting with extra ent husiasm when necessary to complete own task activities successfull y, (3) helping and cooperating with others, (4) following organizational rules and procedures even when its is personally inconvenient, and (5) endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives. The construct of OCB is similar to cont extual performance. Specifically, OCB was originally described by Organ (1988) as i ndividual behavior th at is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioni ng of the organization (p.4). Although Organ initially defined OCB as extra -role behavior (i.e., behavior that is beyond an individuals job requirements), he has since acknowledged that the distinction between in-role and extra-role performance is inhe rently muddy due to the role of supervisor expectations in the leader-member exchange dyad. More sp ecifically, leader expectations can range from beliefs that are far below formal job re quirements to those that go above and beyond them (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Thus, agreement on what is extra-role behavior can vary considerably depending on the source of inqui ry (i.e., supervisors, subordinates, or peers). As a result, Organ has redefined OCB to refer to contextual performance, or behavior that shapes the orga nizational, social, and psycholog ical context that serves as the catalyst for task activities and processes (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997, p. 100).

PAGE 12

4 Although the essential notions of OCB remain th e same, this new conceptualization shifts the focus from the dichotomy of in-role a nd extra-role performa nce to an emphasis on task and non-task behaviors. Earlier research investigating OCB identif ied two main dimensions, Altruism and Conscientiousness (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). Later efforts expanded this framework to include three additional dimensions: Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue (Organ & Ry an, 1995). This dimensional structure is conceptually similar to the five categories us ed to describe contextual performance, and is still widely used in re search investigating OCB. The Altruism dimension is used to de scribe OCB behaviors that are directed toward members of the organization (Org an, 1988; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). This type of helping behavior can be job-related, such as assisti ng a co-worker w ith a specific project or work task, or non-job-related, such as helping a co-worker or supervisor with a personal problem. Conscientiousness (Generalized Comp liance) refers to more impersonal contributions to the organization such as excellent attendance, and adherence to organizational rules and policies (Organ & Ryan, 1995, p.782). These contributions are not directed at any one person or co-worker, but are indirect ly helpful to other members of the organization (Smith et al., 1983). The dimension of Courtesy refers to beha viors that are intend ed to help prevent problems of coworkers (Organ & Ryan, 1995). These behaviors contribute most importantly to the smooth functioning of th e organization, and involve both formal and

PAGE 13

5 informal cooperation among employees (Org an, 1997; George & Brief, 1992; Konovsky & Organ, 1996). Sportsmanship refers to the inclinat ion to absorb minor inconveniences and impositions accruing from the job without compla ints or excessive demands for relief or redress (Konovsky & Organ, 1996, p. 255). Thus, a person high on this dimension would not complain about trivial aspects of the job, and would be inclined to think about others work problems in addition to his or her own (Konovsky & Organ, 1996). The last dimension, Civic Virtue, refers to behaviors that represent active involvement and interest regarding organizatio nal issues, as well as the governance of the organization as a whole (Organ & Ryan, 1995) This dimension includes behaviors such as attending meetings, reading and answer ing company email, keeping informed on organizational developments, and playing an active role in the overall running of the organization (Konovosky & Organ, 1996). In general, researchers have sugge sted (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983) that OCB can have a beneficial effect on the organization by lubricating such aspects as its social m achinery, increasing efficiency, and reducing friction among employees. As suggested ea rlier by Katz, organizational success is dependent upon more than just prescribed role behaviors, an d creative behavior, such as OCB, is vital to organizational survival and effectiveness (1964, p.132). One of the ways in which OCB may enhance efficiency is by improving coworker or managerial productivity (MacKenzie et al., 1993; Orga n, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). For example, Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) co mbined the results of four independent studies and found that OCB accounted for an average of approximately 19% of the

PAGE 14

6 variance in performance quantity, over 18% of the va riance in the quality of performance, about 25% of the variance in financial e fficiency indicators, and about 38% of the variance in customer service indicators (p. 142). These results provi de empirical support for the assumption that OCB is related to or ganizational effectiveness. Other suggested ways in which OCB can affect efficiency include freeing up company resources to be used for more productive purposes, aiding in the effective coordination of work teams, and enhancing the ability of organizations to adapt to change (Podaskoff & MacKenzie, 1997). OCB is also important at the level of the individual employee. This notion is illustrated through studies that showed that OCB contributed independently to overall evaluations of employee performance (Mot owidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). In a study by Orr, Sacke tt, and Mercer (1989), supervisors were shown to take both prescribed and discreti onary behaviors into account when evaluating employee job performance. Werner (1994) al so provided evidence for an interaction between in-role performance and OCB. Speci fically, when employee in-role performance was shown to be low, overall ratings of perf ormance were also low regardless of the level of OCB displayed. However, as in-role pe rformance increased, ratings of overall performance increased more sharply for high OCB employees than for those displaying average levels of OCB. A lthough using a somewhat outdated conceptualization of OCB (i.e. extra-role performance) these findings still strongl y suggest that supervisors consider discretionary behaviors during th e performance appraisal process (Werner, 1994). Thus, the notion that OCB is an importa nt component of eff ective performance, both at the organizational and employee le vel, is supported by the OCB literature.

PAGE 15

7 Other research has addre ssed the antecedents of OCB. These range from employee perceptions (e.g., Smith et al .,1983; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996) to the personal ity characteristics associated with this type of behavior (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001). In a meta-analysis that comb ined the results of 55 studies, Organ and Ryan (1995) identified a number of variables as antecedents of OCB. One of the primary variables identified was job at titudes. For example, Organ and Ryan (1995) found that employee job satisfaction correlated signifi cantly with both the Altruism (.28) and Generalized Compliance (.28) dimensions of OCB. Other notab le findings involved perceptions of organizational justice and organizational comm itment, both of which also correlated significantly with both the Altruism and Generalized Compliance dimensions. These results were further confirmed in a recent meta-analysis conducted by Podsakoff et al. (2001), which also reported significant re lationships between each of the antecedents and both OCB dimensions. According to the results de scribed above, employees who are satisfied with their jobs are more likely to engage in altruist ic and generalized comp liance behaviors than employees who are less satisfied. Similarly, those employees who possess high levels of perceived justice or high levels of organiza tional commitment also tend to perform more OCBs than employees who display lower leve ls of each of these antecedents. These results should be tempered with the fact that other research has reported additional findings that suggest a slightly less straightforward relations hip between these constructs. It has been suggested, for example, that perceptions of justice may account for the significant relationship found between j ob satisfaction and OCB (Moorman, 1991;

PAGE 16

8 Williams & Anderson, 1991). More specificall y, both Moorman (1991) and Williams and Anderson (1991) provided evidence that when perceptions of fairness were controlled, the relationship between job satisfaction a nd OCB was no longer significant. Evidence also suggests that the type of commitment experienced by the employee (e.g., affective, continuance, or normative) plays an important role in relation to the performance of citizenship behaviors. For example, Orga n and Ryan (1995) found significant average correlations between affective commitment (an emotional attachment to the organization) and the Altruism (.23) and Generalized Co mpliance (.30) dimensions of OCB. In contrast, continuance commitment (feeling committed to the organization because of the salary or benefits associated with it) s howed no significant correlation with either OCB dimension. Thus, although evidence is genera lly supportive of the relationship between job attitudes and OCB, additional research is needed to further refine and clarify the nature of these relationships. Some researchers have also suggested th at personality may play a role in OCB (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Borman et al., 20 01). Personality charac teristics will most likely be expressed in behavi ors that involve planful ac tions, occur over an extended period of time and a variety of situa tions, and which are not limited by formal requirements or characteristics of the situ ation (Funder, 1995). As described previously, OCB shares many of these characteristics. Research in this area has provided mixe d results. For example, in the metaanalysis conducted by Organ and Ryan (1995), relationships between certain personality characteristics and selected OCB dimens ions were examined. Specifically, these researchers addressed the personality tra its of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness

PAGE 17

9 taken from the Five-Factor Model of Pers onality (Costa & McCrae, 1992), as well as positive affectivity and negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1992). Results showed that among the personality variables examined, onl y the trait of cons cientiousness showed even moderate correlations with OCB. Mo re specifically, conscientiousness correlated .22 with the Altruism dimension and .30 w ith the Generalized Compliance dimension (these correlations were corrected for criter ion unreliability and restriction of range). Agreeableness was also shown to correlat e significantly with both the Altruism (uncorrected r = .13) and Generalized Comp liance dimensions (uncorrected r = .11). However, these relationships were genera lly not as strong as those observed for conscientiousness. Based on these results, Or gan and Ryan concluded that with the exception of conscientiousness, it is unlikely that personality plays a direct role in OCB. Borman et al. (2001) analyzed research findings since Organ and Ryans metaanalysis and reported more promising result s. For example, Neuman and Kickul (1998) found a significant relationship between consci entiousness and all five of Organs OCB dimensions. In addition, recent studies have found significant support for the relationship between agreeableness and OCB (e.g., Hens e, 2000; McManus & Kelly, 1999; Neuman & Kickul, 1998; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), and have even identified additional variables that may affect citizenship performa nce, such as locus of control (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Funderberg & Levy, 1997) collectivism (e.g., Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Lath am, & Cummings, 2000; Allen, 1999), and personal initiative (Facteau, Allen, Facteau, Bo rdas, & Tears, 2000). Fi nally, in a recent meta-analysis by Podsakoff et al. (2001), si gnificant relationships were found between the Altruism dimension and conscientious ness (r = .22), agreeableness (r = .13), and

PAGE 18

10 positive affectivity (r = .15). In addition, c onscientiousness (r = .30), agreeableness (r = .11), and negative affectivity (r = -.12) all correlated signif icantly with the Generalized Compliance dimension. Taken together, these results suggest that personality may be more strongly related to OCB than or iginally reported by Organ and Ryan. As can be seen from the wealth of previ ous studies, research in the area of OCB has been extensive in covering a wide range of antecedents and outcomes associated with this construct. Looking across this res earch, however, certain theoretical and methodological issues have also surfaced wh ich deserve mention. For example, in a recent review of the OCB literature, Podsa koff et al. (2001) concluded that common method variance has had a significant impact on observed OCB relationships reported in studies where this artifact was not controlled. Specifically, in a review of 11 field studies dealing with OCB, results revealed th at when common method variance was not controlled, the proportion of performance va riance explained by objective performance averaged 9.5 percent, whereas the amount e xplained by OCBs averaged 42.9 percent. In contrast, when common method variance was co ntrolled, the averag e amount explained by objective performance averaged 11.3 per cent, while the amount explained by OCBs decreased to an averag e of 19.3 percent. In light of thes e results and others displaying the same general trend, Podsakoff et al. ( 2001) concluded that although common method variance can have a significant impact on th e relationship between OCB and managerial judgments, this bias generally weakens thes e relationships, it doe s not eliminate them (p. 543). On the same topic, two related methodologi cal issues include the need to obtain evidence for the direction of causality betw een OCB, its antecedents, and outcomes, as

PAGE 19

11 well as the need to conceptually disti nguish measures of OCB and contextual performance from other closely related cons tructs (Podsakoff et al., 2001). Because the majority of OCB research has been cross-s ectional in nature, it is currently not clear whether OCB is the cause in certain inves tigated relationships or the effect. Although certain studies (e.g., Koys, 2001) have provi ded longitudinal evidence that employee attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and be haviors (e.g., OCB) predict organizational effectiveness (rather than vice versa), there is still a significant need for longitudinal research in this area that further addresse s the impact of these relationships over time. Similarly, as a result of many overlapping definitions of OCB-like behavior, it is necessary to test the discriminant valid ity of each of these constructs. Although the majority of research has focused on the rela tionships between OCB and other constructs, these relationships may be misinterpreted if th e nature of the construct itself (i.e., OCB) is not truly understood. Finally, Podsakoff et al.( 2001) point out the need to investigate additional antecedents of OCB. A number of task variab les (e.g., task feedback, task routinization, and intrinsically satisfying tasks), for example, have shown consistent relationships with OCB across a small number of studies. In a ddition, certain leadership styles (mainly transformational leadership and leader-membe r exchange) have also shown consistent relationships across all five OCB dimensions Both of these variables remain grossly under investigated in the literature, despite their potential as an obvious predictor of citizenship performance. Similarly, personality variables alternative to the Big Five dimensions also deserve further consider ation in relation to OCB. Other-oriented Empathy (the tendency to experience empathy for, and to feel res ponsibility and concern

PAGE 20

12 about, the well-being of others) and Helpfulne ss (the self-reported hi story of engaging in helpful actions and an absence of egocentric physi cal reactions to ot hers distress), for example, have correlated significantly with both the Altruism and Generalized Compliance dimensions across several stud ies (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Connell & Penner, 2004). As cited in Podsako ff et al. (2001), Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks (1995) suggest th at the propensity to trust, need for affiliation, and empathic concern might also be worthwhile constructs to explore in the context of contextual perf ormance. Thus, although research on OCB and its related constructs is both expansive and compre hensive, certain areas deserve further clarification and refinement. As mentioned previously, one such area is the impact of different leadership behaviors on OCB, a s uggestion that is expanded upon in the current study. Leadership and OCB Research investigating predictors of employee performance has suggested that specific types of leadership behaviors are also important to employee task and contextual performance. Two primary theories of l eadership that have shown consistent relationships with employee performance ar e Transformational Leadership theory and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory. Alth ough certain elements are shared between the two theories, each are considered distin ct constructs, and have individually been shown to predict positive outcomes at both the individual and organizational level. Transformational Leadership. The origin of transformational leader theory lies with the work of Burns (1978) who originally proposed two distinct leadership styles based on his analysis of the be haviors displayed by various po litical leaders. The first of

PAGE 21

13 these, transactional leadership, characterized many of the traditional leadership theories existing at that time. According to Burns (1978) transactional leadersh ip was based on an exchange process between leaders and subordi nates where rewards were administered to employees based upon acceptable levels of disp layed effort and performance. This type of leadership was in contrast to transfor mational leadership, the goal of which was to encourage followers to transcend their own se lf-interests and move beyond simple leadermember transactions for the good of the group or organization (Burns 1978; Bass, 1985). Under this type of direction, followers were al so expected to gain increased awareness for valued outcomes as well as their own highe r level needs; the end result being a heightened desire to exceed trad itional performance expectations. Although Burns is credited with the origin al identification of these two types of leadership styles, much of the subsequent wo rk on transformational leadership has been done under the direction of Bass and colle agues (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass, 1997). Basss conception of transformational leadership is very similar to that of Burns. However, their perspectives diverge in three main respects. First, Basss (1985) conceptualization makes specific reference to the expansion of the followers portfolio of needs and wants which is absent in Bu rnss description of the construct (p. 20). Second, according to Burns, a necessary componen t of transformational leadership is that followers are elevated to a goal that is i nherently good or positive. Bass does not make this distinction, and consider s all cases where the needs a nd actions of followers are transformed, regardless of the nature of the intent (e.g., positive or negative), as examples of transformational leadership. Fi nally, the most notable distinction between these two researchers perspectives deals wi th the relationship between transformational

PAGE 22

14 and transactional leadership. Burns specifically views these leadership styles as polar constructs, with transac tional leadership on one e nd of the continuum, and transformational leadership on the other. In co ntrast, Basss view was that both constructs are complimentary in nature; a leader may display both transactional and transformational leadership behaviors to some degree. Overall, transformational leadership is proposed to augment the effect s of transactional lead ership in terms of subordinate performance, a theory no w labeled the augmentation hypothesis (Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990). In general, research supports Basss theory that transformational leadership enhances the effects of tran sactional leadership. For exam ple, based on a sample that included both U.S. Army officers and Fo rtune 500 managers, Bass (1985) found that transformational leadership behaviors accounted for significant vari ance in subordinate extra-effort and subordinate-rated leader effectiveness above and beyond what was accounted for by transactional leadership behavi ors. Similar results were also reported by Hater & Bass (1988) using managers at an ai r delivery service company, as well as by several additional studies that have inves tigated the augmentati on hypothesis (e.g., Bycio, Hacket, & Allen, 1995; Waldmen et al., 1990). In general, Bass (1985) conceptualizes the transactional leader as one who works within the existing culture and constraints of the organization, placing a higher emphasis on pr ocess (e.g., leader-member exchanges) as opposed to outcomes. The transactional lead er also places a premium on maintaining efficiency, and is most likely to be eff ective in environments that are stable and predictable. In contrast, Bass (1985) characterizes the transf ormational leader as one who challenges the organizations systems and culture rather than accepts them. More

PAGE 23

15 specifically, transformational leaders are more likely to challenge the status quo by seeking new and creative ways of accomplis hing goals. Transformational leaders also tend to be less risk avoidant than transactional leaders, and generally emphasize effectiveness over efficiency. As stated by Avolio and Bass (1988), transformational leaders attempt to create and shape their environments rather than simply react to the circumstances that are provided to them. At the time of Basss (1985) theoretical conceptualization of transformational leadership, no valid measure existed to m easure the construct. This led Bass and colleagues to develop their own measure of tr ansactional and transformational leadership which they labeled the Multifactor Leadersh ip Questionnaire (MLQ). The development of the MLQ was based on a review of the liter ature as well as survey responses provided by 70 senior executives who were asked to desc ribe the qualities of both transactional and transformational leaders (Ba ss, 1985; Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987). Factor analysis of the responses suggested a five-factor stru cture for the measure, which has also been demonstrated across additional studies (e.g., Hater & Bass, 1988). Three of the factors identified by the questionnaire were interp reted as transformational, whereas two were seen as transactional in nature. The first transformational factor was labeled Charisma, which describes leader behaviors that instil l pride, faith, and respect in subordinates, communicate important issues, and clearly arti culate a sense of mission and purpose. The second transformational factor, Individual Cons ideration, involves l eader behaviors such as delegating projects to s ubordinates, showing a concern for follower development by acting as a coach or mentor, and treating follo wers with respect and concern. Finally, the third transformational factor wa s labeled Intellectual Stimul ation, which describes leader

PAGE 24

16 behaviors that emphasize subordinate problem solving and the ability of followers to think creatively. In particular followers are encouraged to submit their own opinions, and are not criticized even if their ideas differ from their leader (Bass & Avolio, 1994). In addition to these transformational factor s, two transactional factors, Contingent Reward and Management-by-Exception, were also identified. The Contingent Reward factor describes the typical behaviors that embody a transact ional leader. That is, this factor identifies whether the leader rewa rds subordinate performance that is in accordance with previous leader expectati ons. Management-by-Exception, however, is somewhat more passive in nature. Specificall y, this factor describe s the leaders tendency to avoid giving direction to subordinates if th eir level of performan ce is satisfactory. In other words, a leader scoring high on this f actor would be likely to simply let his/her subordinates perform their jobs on their own as long as their level of performance was considered acceptable. The MLQ has been used in over 75 resear ch studies, and has been tested in a variety of organizational settings ranging from manufacturing and military settings to religious organizations. In a ddition, respondents have ranged fr om first-line supervisors to high-level managers (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Most studies involving the MLQ support the distinction between transa ctional and transformation behaviors. For example, Bass (1985) revealed that the three transformational factors (Charisma, Individual Consideration, and Intellectual Stimulation) were all highly correlated, and that 66 % of the variance in the transformational sc ale was accounted for by Charisma.

PAGE 25

17 Recent research has further explored th e psychometric structure of the MLQ and has found somewhat more mixed results. Bycio, Hackett, and Allen (1995), for example, tested the fit of alternative twoand five-fact or MLQ models using a sample of registered nurses. Based on the confirmatory factor analys is fit indices, they concluded that Basss (1985) five-factor structure was most appropria te to describe the nature of the MLQ. However, strong correlations observed be tween the three tran sformational factors suggested that a two-factor interpretation may also be plausible. Additional research has also revealed a high positive correlation between the transformational factors and Contingent Reward (Lowe et al., 1996), and other studies have shown that Managementby-Exception sometimes loads on its own unique factor rather than on transactional leadership. These results are inconsistent with Basss original conceptualization of transformational and transactional leadershi p. Thus, although the MLQ remains the most widely used measure of transformational leadership, additional work is warranted regarding the psychometrics of the measure. In terms of outcome variables, st udies have shown that many of the transformational leadership f acets are associated with a num ber of positive leader and subordinate outcomes. For example, in a study by Bycio et al. (1995) each of the transformational dimensions showed high posi tive correlations with subordinate extraeffort, satisfaction with the leader, affective commitment, and ratings of leader effectiveness. In addition, signi ficant negative relationships were also observed between each of the transformational fact ors and the intent to leave the profession, and intent to leave the job. In general, although the transa ctional leadership facets showed significant relationships with a number of outcome variables, these effects were augmented with the

PAGE 26

18 presence of transformational leadership be haviors. These results have also been supported by other independent and meta-ana lytic studies which have addressed the relationship between transformational leadersh ip and subordinate outcomes (e.g., Lowe et al. 1996). In addition to transformational factors, results have also been supportive of the contingent reward factor across a number of studies. In general, however, these findings have been weaker and less consistent (Yukl, 1999). In the most general sense, the above resu lts can be interpreted as evidence for a positive effect of transformational leadership behaviors on subordinate outcomes. Although this relationship appears relativel y straightforward, other research has suggested that additional variables may moderate th e relationship between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness. In a recent meta-analysis by Lowe et al. (1996) including 39 st udies involving the MLQ, it was found that the type of organization (public versus priv ate) and type of criterion (s ubordinate perceptions versus organizational measures) moderated the tr ansformational leadership-effectiveness relationship. Contrary to prediction, a str onger positive relationship was found between transformational leadership behaviors and l eader effectiveness in public as opposed to private organizations. In addition, significan tly higher positive relationships were found for subordinate perceptions as compared with organizational measures of effectiveness. Although results did not support the level of the leader (low ve rsus high) as a moderator, the mean incidence of transformational leader ship behavior was signi ficantly higher for low level as opposed to high level leaders. In addition, transformational leadership behaviors were more commonly observed in public as opposed to private organizations. These results are significant because they suggest that the relationship between

PAGE 27

19 transformational leadership and leader effectiveness is contingent upon additional factors. In addition, these findings contradict pr econceived notions about transformational leadership, specifically that the incidence of these behaviors is more prevalent in private organizations and within uppe r levels of management. Another important performance variable found in past studies to be related to transformational leadership is OCB. Although a number of researchers have investigated the relationship between transf ormational leadership and OCB, the majority of the work in this area is credited to Podsako ff and colleagues (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer; 1996; Pods akoff et al., 2001). As an alternative to the MLQ, Podsakoff developed his own meas ure of transformationa l and transactional leadership labeled the Transformational Lead ership Inventory (TLI). Based on a review of the transformational leadership literature, this measure consists of four first-order transformational factors (see Table 1): high performance expectations, individualized support, intellectual stimulati on, and a core transformationa l behavior construct. In addition, one first-order transact ional leadership factor, con tingent reward behavior, was also identified. Each of thes e factors uses individual it ems as indicators. The only exception is the core transformational construct, which uses individual factor scores for three separate constructs as indicators: (1) articulati ng a vision; (2) providing an appropriate model; and (3) fostering the accep tance of group goals. In itial confirmatory factor analysis results support the existence of an overall six-factor structure for the measure (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996). However, other studies have provided support for six first-or der transformational behavior dimensions as opposed to combining three of the constructs into the core transformational leadership factor

PAGE 28

20 (Podsakoff et al., 1996). Based on these fi ndings, additional research addressing the dimensional nature of the measure is still warranted using different research samples. Table 1. TLI Transformational Leadership Dimensions High Performance Expectations Behavior that demonstrates the leaders expectation for excelle nce, quality, and/or high performance expectations. Individualized Support Behavior on the part of the leader that indicates that he/she respects followers and is concerned about their personal feelings and needs. Intellectual Stimulation Behavior on the part of the leader that challenges followers to re-examine some of their assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed. Articulating a vision Behavior on the part of the leader aimed at identifying new opportunities for his/her unit/division/company, and developing, articulating, and inspiring others with his or her vision of the future. Providing an Appropriate Model Behavior on the part of the leader that sets an example for employees to follow that is consistent with the values the leader espouses. Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals Behavi or on the part of the leader aimed at promoting cooperation among employees and getting them to work together toward a common goal. Using the TLI, Podsakoff has found significant support for the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors and OCB. For example, in an independent study using employees of a petrochemical company, Podsakoff et al. (1990) found a number of significant relati onships between the TLIs tr ansformational factors and Organs (1988) five OCB dimensions. Mo st notably, the core transformational

PAGE 29

21 behavior dimension was found to correlate si gnificantly with Conscientiousness (.27), Sportsmanship (.20), Courtesy (.23), and Altruism (.22). Sim ilar relationships were also found with the individualized support dimension, that also correlated significantly across all OCB dimensions except Civic Virtue. Thes e results were later confirmed in a more recent study involving corporate employees in both the U.S. and Canada (Podsakoff et al., 1996). In this study, the subdimensions comprising the core transformational construct were also examined separately, and revealed that each of the three constructs (articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering the acceptance of group goals) correlated significantly with al l OCB dimensions except Civic Virtue. Since the discovery of these promising results, Podsakoff et al. (2001) have conducted a meta-analysis examining the eff ects of transformational leadership on OCB across studies. Results of this study again rev ealed significant relationships between each of the TLI factors (including contingent re ward behavior) and OCB. Most notable was the finding that all TLI factors correlat ed significantly with the Altruism, Conscientiousness, Courtesy, and Sportsma nship dimensions, with the majority of correlations within the .20 to .25 range. In addition, significant (albeit smaller) relationships were also observed between each of the core transformational constructs and Civic Virtue, as well as between continge nt reward behavior and the Civic Virtue dimension. Taken together, these results s how that transformational leaders have a consistent positive impact on every form of citizenship behavior. These behaviors range from OCBs directed at individual members of the organization, to t hose that are intended to benefit the organization as a whole. As suggested by Podsakoff and colleagues (2001), these results should not come as a shock, as the central notion of transformational

PAGE 30

22 leadership is to encourage employees to perform above and beyond expectations. Although studies have provided relative ly strong support for the link between transformational leadership and OCB, little re search has provided insight regarding the actual nature of these effects. That is, the is sue of whether the effect of transformational leadership on citizenship behavi or is more direct or indire ct in nature has yet to be determined. Although transformational le adership has shown impressi ve validities regarding a number of positive performance-related outcomes, researchers have also criticized certain aspects of the theory. In his evaluation of some of the conceptual weaknesses of transformational leadership theo ry, Yukl (1999) pointed out th at one major flaw has been the lack of theoretical rational for labeling certain behaviors as transformational. For example, the MLQs individualized consider ation scale includes both supporting and developing behaviors as key c onstructs. Although there is si gnificant evidence to support such developmental constructs as coaching a nd mentoring as predictors of subordinate performance and self-efficacy, the effect of supporting behaviors on subordinate motivation and performance has generally b een weak (Bass, 1990, Yukl, 1998). Thus, the rational for the inclusion of supporting behavior s as a core transfor mational construct is somewhat unclear. Along similar lines, the high inter-correlation found between transformational behavior dimensions raises additional concerns about construct validity. Are these dimensions really distinct, or, in contrast to the theory, does evidence suggest that they are all measuring the same behaviors? In addition to doubts about construct valid ity, Yukl (1999) has also raised a few other concerns in relation to the theory. One complaint was that there is an over-emphasis

PAGE 31

23 on the dyadic process between leader and subor dinate. In other words, the emphasis of transformational leadership th eory is too narrow, and shoul d be broadened to include both group and organizational infl uence processes. In addition, the theory includes what Yukl (1999) labels a heroic leadership bias . That is, the theo ry devotes significant attention to how the actions of the leader impact those of th e followers. These theories are explained without mention of how the influence process may be reciprocal in nature, with subordinate actions conjointly influencing leader behavior. Finally, Yukl (1999) also makes specific reference to the theorys significant ambiguity in its description of the influence process. Based on the current rese arch, it is still unclear how transformational leadership behaviors influence subordinate ou tcomes. According to Yukl (1999), what is needed is systematic study of how certa in mediating variables relevant to task performance, such as arousal of motives, are related to transformational leadership behaviors and subordinate perf ormance (p. 287). In his opini on, the theory would be stronger if the essential influen ce processes were identified mo re clearly, a criticism that is addressed by the current study (p. 287). Leader-member Exchange In addition to transforma tional leadership, the leadermember exchange model of leadership (LMX ) has also received increasing amounts of attention by researchers in recent decades. Born from the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model of leadership, LMX is unique from other leadership theories in that its focus is on the dyadic relationship between the leader and the subordinate (Gernster & Day, 1997). In contrast to more traditional th eories, which are con cerned with identifying effective leader traits and behaviors, LMX focuses on how the quality of the relationship

PAGE 32

24 between a leader and a subordinate can have positive effects at the individual, group, and organizational level (Gernster & Day, 1997). Although certain aspects of LMX theory ha ve been altered si nce its original conception, the general focus of the theo ry has remained the same throughout the decades. In a summary of the evolution of LMX, Graen and UhlBien (1995) described the history of the theory as occurring in four distinct stages. In the first stage, the major discovery was that leaders develop different re lationships with each of their subordinates. This finding was somewhat revolutionary, as it was predominantly assumed by most leadership scholars of the time that leaders e ngaged in similar leadership behaviors across all of their subordinates (an approach know n as the Average Leadership Style) (Schrisheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Building on the notion of individualized relationships, the second stage of LMX devel opment focused primarily on the specific relationship constructs invol ved in the leader-subordi nate dyad. In addition, the relationships between these constructs and those that were similar/dissimilar to LMX were also explored. In the th ird stage, these efforts were expanded to address the specific leader behaviors that were used to de velop individualized partnerships with subordinates (Graen &Uhl-Bien, 1995). Finally, in the fourth stage of evolution, sole attention on the leader -subordinate dyad was widened to include inves tigation of how networks of dyads are organized both inside and beyond organizational boundaries. According to LMX theory, dyadic relations hips are developed th rough a series of exchanges that occur between the leader and the subordinate over time. For example, the leader may offer increased job responsibilit y and flexibility to the subordinate, while the subordinate may respond by showing increas ed effort, commitment, or performance

PAGE 33

25 (Diensesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Graen, 1980; Scandura & Graen, 1984). Both parties invest each of their own resources into the relationship, which serves to shape the overall quality of the relationship ove r time (Bauer & Green, 1996). In a formal effort to describe the evolution of leader-s ubordinate exchange relationships, Graen and Scandura (1987) provided a three-phase model of LMX development. In the first phase, Role-taking, a key component is perspective taking. That is, both the leader and subordina te learn to view work-related issues from the perspective of both parties. In the next phase, Role-maki ng, the focus is shifted to the development of trust between leader and subordinate. Special emphasis is also given to how leader and subordinate actions influence th eir own attitudes and behaviors. Finally, in the last stage of Role-routinization, efforts are made to in corporate the behaviors learned in the first two phases (e.g., perspective taki ng, trust-building) into the routine of the relationship between leader and subordinate. In this last stage, the goal is that these behaviors should become automatic during exchanges between the two parties, leading to an overall highquality leader-subordinate relationship. Because the resources available to both leaders and subordinates are limited, it is inevitable that a leaders relationships with his or he r subordinates will range on a continuum from low to high quality (Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden et al., 1993). Those subordinates who engage in higher quality exch anges with their superv isor are termed the in-group, and usually receive sp ecial benefits and opportunities from the leader such as specialized attention, favorable assignments, and career planning support (Deluga, 1998). In contrast, those subordinates classified in the out-group tend to have lower quality relationships with their supervisors, typi cally characterized by less attention and

PAGE 34

26 restricted levels of recipr ocal influence and support (Deluga, 1998, p. 190). Although LMX theory emphasizes the existence of diffe rential relationships between leaders and subordinates, there is still some disagreement as to what elements actually c onstitutes a high and low quality relationship. In one of the earliest attempts at describing the theory of LMX, Graen (1976) proposed that LMX was an exchange relationship consisting of three dimensions: competence, interpersonal skill, and trust. In contrast, Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1976) argued that LMX was based solely on two constructs: attention and sensitivity. Mirrori ng the initial disagreem ent characterizing the early development of LMX, later efforts to describe the dimensionality of the construct was plagued by a similar lack of consensu s among researchers. Dienesch and Liden (1986), for example, proposed that LMX was comprised of three dimensions: perceived contribution, loyalty, and affect. In cont rast, Graen and Uhl-Bien argued that a combination of respect, trust, and mutual obligation comprise the LMX construct. Although the dimensionality of LMX is st ill somewhat in question, six content subdomains have surfaced as the most prom inent across studies (Schriesheim et al., 1999). These include: mutual support, trust, liking, latitude, attention, and loyalty. In general, high levels of support, trust, liki ng, latitude, attention, and loyalty characterize high-quality LMX relationships, whereas low quality exchanges are typified by lower levels of each of these subdimensions. A driving force behind the major interest in LMX theory has been the numerous significant relationships found between LMX and both performance-related and attitudinal outcomes. For example, results of several independent studies have shown that higher quality exchanges between leaders a nd subordinates are predictive of higher

PAGE 35

27 performance ratings (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwe ll, 1993), increased objective performance (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982), highe r organizational commitment (Nystrom, 1990), and higher overall job satisfaction (Grae n, et al., 1982). In a ddition, meta-analytic studies have found similar results. In a recen t meta-analysis by Gernester and Day (1997) summarizing the results of 79 independent stud ies, the quality of th e relationship between the leader and subordinate was found to be significantly correlat ed with objective performance (.11), supervisor ratings of perf ormance (.30), satisfact ion with supervision (.71), overall job satisfaction (.50), organiza tional commitment (.42), role conflict (.31), role clarity (.43), and member competen ce (.28). In addition, although LMX was not found to significantly correlate with turnover (.04), a significan t relationship was found with turnover intention (-.31). In addition to the large number of positive task-related performance outcomes (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987), high quality leader-member exchanges have also been associated with increased non-task related activities such as OCB (e.g., Deluga, 1994; Se ttoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne & Green, 1993). Specifically, a number of studies have found that the quality of the relationship between leader and subordinate is predictive of subordinate OCB, at both the aggregate and subdimensional level. Fo r example, in a study by Wayne and Green (1993) involving 73 nurses and th eir supervisors, results show ed that the nurses who had higher quality relationships with their supervis ors engaged in significan tly more altruistic OCBs (e.g., assisting a supervisor or co-worke r with their work, helping others who have been absent) than those with lower quality relationships with their supervisors. In contrast, no significant rela tionship was found between LM X-quality and Generalized

PAGE 36

28 Compliance behaviors (e.g., not ta king undeserved breaks or time-off, being punctual). In another study by Tansky (1993), employee perceptions of the quality of the supervisory/subordinate relationship were significantly correlated to all five OCB dimensions. In addition, after controlling fo r a number of demographic variables (e.g., years of education, sex, supervisory position, and age), the quality of the supervisory/subordinate relationship accounted for an additional 13% of the variance in the Altruism dimension, 14% in Conscien tiousness, 9% in Sportsmanship, 9% in Courtesy, and 13% in Civic Virtue. Finall y, the results of Organ and Ryans metaanalysis (1995) support the sugge stion that the quality of l eader-subordinate relationships influence OCB. In their review of OCB studies dealing with leader supportiveness, they found an average correlation of .32 between leader supportiveness and the Altruism dimension, as well as an average correlat ion of .35 with the Generalized Compliance dimension. Although these results are encouraging, rese arch has most consistently supported the relationship between perceptions of LMX-quality and both Altruism and overall OCB. In a recent meta-analysis summarizing the empirical correlates of OCB, Podsakoff et al. (2001) found a .36 correct ed correlation between percep tions of LMX-quality and Altruism, and a .30 corrected correlation with overall OCB. Taken together, these results suggest that one by-product of high quality exchanges betwee n leader and subordinate is altruistic behaviors aimed toward both th e supervisor and other co-workers. These findings precipitate the question, howeve r, of why these behaviors occur? The primary explanation for the rela tionship found between LMX-quality and OCB lies in the framework of social excha nge and reciprocity. As suggested by Blau

PAGE 37

29 (1964), social exchanges are based on a foundation of trust, with the expectation that acts of goodwill from one party will be reciprocated by the other. When certain gestures made on behalf of the supervisor are percei ved positively by the recipient (i.e., the subordinate), these actions evoke feelings of subordinate obligation. In response, the subordinate engages in increas ed functional behavior (e.g., ta sk performance, OCB) as a means of fulfilling the perceived obligation. Rese arch has shown that individuals seek to reciprocate in ways that will be clearly rec ognized by the other party in the relationship (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). In addition, it has been found that employees view both task and contextual performance as appropriate forms of reciprocati on within the context of a work environment (e.g., Katz & Ka hn, 1966; Levinson, 1965; Foa & Foa, 1980; Moorman, 1991). Based on this framework, it seems appropriate to assume that high quality relationships between leader and s ubordinate are characterized by gestures of goodwill that are perceived positively by the subordinate (e.g., favorable job assignments, increased responsibility). In return for thes e benefits, the subordinate is motivated to respond in kind, and does so by engaging in altr uistic behaviors aimed at benefiting the supervisor and/or other em ployees of the organization. Although research has consis tently been supportive of the relationships between LMX and both performance and attitudinal out comes, researchers have also raised significant theoretical and me thodological concerns in relation to LMX. One of the primary criticisms is that the evolution of the theory has included multiple iterations of LMX definitions that have been confusing a nd sometimes appear to be contradictory (Schrisheim, et al., 1999). More importantly is the fact that there have been no explanations for why the theory has evolved over the years, or why particular changes in

PAGE 38

30 the nature of the construct have been adopted. Although it is important for a theory to evolve, it is critical to have adequate th eoretical justification accompanying any changes that are made. Unfortunately, this latter point was not strictly observed during the development of LMX theory. A related theoretical issue is the leve l of analysis adopted by LMX theory. Although the VDL model (the premise of LM X) and early LMX frameworks focused on both leader and subordinate be haviors within the relations hip dyad, later research has shown a departure from this level of analysis As reviewed by Schrisheim et al. (1999), Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) argue that the relationship itself should be the primary focus, as opposed to either the leader or the s ubordinate. Taking an opposing perspective, Dansereau et al. (1995) suggest that this a pproach introduces ambigu ity into LMX theory by deeming any level of analys is appropriate, as long as th e relationship between the two parties remains the focus. In general, it is important for a theory to specify upfront the level of analysis at which a phenomenon is expected to exist so that the theory, measurement, and data-analytic techniques ma y be aligned and accurate results may be acquired (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). Thus based on these two criticisms, it seems that more theoretical work is needed to further clarify both the foundation and focus of LMX theory. One final criticism of LMX theory deals with the variety of scales that been developed to measure the construct. Overall, many different measures have been used to operationalize LMX, with various scales ranging from 2 to 25 items (Schrisheim, et al., 1999). In addition, as noted by Schrisheim et al. (1999), the rationale for choosing these measures was frequently not provided, and so me were modified from existing measures

PAGE 39

31 without adequate psychometric testing (p. 94). Because different st udies used different scales, it has also been unclear whether mixed results are due to the construct itself or the method by which it was measured (Ger nster & Day, 1997). Although psychometric evidence is supportive of the seven-item LMX7 (the predominantly used LMX measure), future LMX research should focus on increased scale validation as well as efforts to increase the content validity of exis ting measures (Schri sheim et al., 1999). OCB Motives In addition to leadership variables, it ha s also been suggested that in order to understand the causes of OCB, one must identi fy the motives that underlie these actions (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Although othe r researchers have previous ly investigated the role of motives in relation to OCB (e.g., Bolino, 1999), Penner and his colleagues were the first to address the area from a functional perspective. The basic idea behind the functional approach is that people engage in certain behaviors (e.g., OCB) because these actions serve some need or purpose for them (Borman & Penner, 2001). However, different people may engage in the same behavi or for different reasons. For example, one employee may stay late after work to help a co-worker because he/s he generally enjoys helping other people. Another employee may en gage in the same type of behavior, not because he/she enjoys helping others, but because of concern for the welfare of the organization. In each case, the persons behavior is the same. However, the motives behind these behaviors are different depending upon the needs of the individual. A large portion of the support for taki ng a functional approach to OCB comes from research on a related phenomenon, vol unteerism. Volunteering is defined by Hanson (1991) as a form of formal planned he lping that involves aiding others usually

PAGE 40

32 through organizations such as churches, sc hools, hospitals, and se rvice organizations (also see Allen, 1982). This type of behavior is similar to OCB in that both kinds of behavior: (1) are considered to be long -term phenomenon; (2) are preceded by thought and planning; (3) occur in an organizational context; and (4) involve a choice to help made on behalf of the individua l. In general, researchers applying a functional approach to volunteerism (Clary & Snyder, 1991; Omoto and Snyder, 1995; Omoto, Snyder, & Berghuis, 1993; Penner and Finkelstein, 1998; Clary & Orenstein, 1991) have found strong support for the view that the reasons for volunteering can vary based on the needs of the individual. As a result, this research has served as a springboard for work on OCB motives. Recently, Rioux and Penner (2001) applied a functional explanation to OCB. Specifically, they identified three primary OCB dimensions or motives. The first of these was called Prosocial Values, that describes O CB that is motivated by a desire to help others and be accepted by them. As suggested by Rioux (1998) this motive is especially important to those who have a need to be liked by their co-workers, and who place a heavy emphasis on maintaining relationships. The second motive is Organizational Concern, or engaging in OCB out of a need to show commitment to the organization. This motive also allows an employee to in crease and expand his/her knowledge of the organization as well as gain increased work experience (Tillman, 1998). Finally, the third motive is called Impression Management, and describes OCB that is motivated by a desire to avoid negative evalua tion by others or to gain mate rial rewards. As suggested by Rioux (1998), certain individuals are greatly concerned with how they are perceived by

PAGE 41

33 others. Thus, engaging in OCB is a way to avoi d being perceived as la zy or irresponsible, which can even lead to certain monetary rewards such as raises or promotions. In their study of OCB, Rioux and Penner ad ministered a scale that measured each of these three motives to a group of municipa l employees. In addition, they obtained self, peer-, and supervisor-ratings of two dime nsions of OCB: Altruism and Generalized Compliance. Results showed that motives correlated significantly across all three types of ratings. More specifically, the Prosocial Va lues Motive was shown to correlate most strongly with the Altruism dimension, wh ile the Organizationa l Concern Motive was shown to correlate most strongly with th e Generalized Compliance dimension. Results also showed significant corre lations between the Organi zational Concern Motive and procedural justice (.44), mood (.49), and Ot her-Oriented Empathy (.27). Similarly, the Prosocial Values Motive was found to signifi cantly correlate with procedural justice (.24), mood (.21), Other-Oriented Empathy (.46 ), and Helpfulness (. 31). Independent evidence of these relationships was provided by Forde (2000), using a sample of working college students. Taken together, these results show that motives are, in fact, related to certain aspects of OCB and its antecedents. T hus, it is possible that motives may play an important role in the prediction of this type of prosocial behavior. Building on the results of Rioux and Penner, recent research has investigated the role of motives in relation to some of th e antecedents of OCB. For example, Tillman (1998) found that both the Prosocial Values Motive and Organizational Concern Motive moderated the relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and OCB. More specifically, the relationship be tween procedural justice a nd OCB was the strongest for those individuals high on these two motives and weakest for those scoring low. In

PAGE 42

34 addition, the Organizational Concern Motive was shown to moderate the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB. That is the relationship betw een conscientiousness and OCB was the strongest for those indivi duals high on this motive, and weakest for those scoring low. Expanding on these efforts, Connell & Penner (2004) investigated whether motives could perhaps mediate the relati onship between certain antecedents and dimensions of OCB. Across both selfand p eer-reports of OCB, results provided strong evidence for the Organizational Concern Moti ve as the primary mediator between the Generalized Compliance dimension of OC B and three antecedents: affective commitment, procedural justice, and cons cientiousness. In addition, the relationship between Other-oriented Empathy and the Altr uism dimension was partially mediated by both the Organizational Concern and Prosoc ial Values motives. These results were important from both a theoretical and practical perspective because they revealed that the influence of certain antecedent variables on se lect dimensions of OCB were, at least in part, accounted for by motives. Most notable however, was the finding that different motives mediated different antecedent-OCB relationships. Moderators and Mediators Because moderator and mediator variab les are sometimes confused, a brief discussion of the differences between them ma y be in order. As described by Baron and Kenny (1986), moderators can be described as qualitative or quantitative variables that affect the direction and/or strength of the re lationship between a predictor (independent) variable and a criterion (dependent) variab le. That is, the relationship between an independent and dependent vari able differs based on the level of the moderator variable.

PAGE 43

35 In contrast, a variable functions as a me diator when its presence accounts for the relationship between the predictor and the crite rion. More simply, the mediator serves as the general mechanism through which the pr edictor influences the criterion (Baron, & Kenny, 1986, p. 1173). Thus, the primary distincti on between these two variables is that moderators specify when certain effects will be observed between variables, while mediators indicate how or why such effects are observed. The Current Study The purpose of the current study is to furt her investigate the role of motives in relation to both transformational leadersh ip and LMX behaviors and OCB. Various researchers (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2001; Yukl, 1999) have suggested that future studies should address possible mediators in the leader influence process. In addition, two other streams of research provide th e foundation for the current st udy. The first steam includes those studies that have found a positive relationship between both transformational leadership and LMX behaviors and vari ous dimensions of OCB (e.g., Altruism, Conscientiousness). In general, this research suggests that increased levels of either transformational or LMX behaviors is associat ed with increased citizenship performance among subordinates. In addition, evidence implie s that the effects of certain leadership behaviors (e.g., transformational leadership ) may indirectly affect OCB via other constructs (e.g., trust) (Podsakoff et al., 1990), and that certain variables may also moderate the relationship between leadersh ip behavior and OCB. The second stream suggests that motives play an important role in relation to OCB, sp ecifically serving as both moderators and mediators of antecedent-OCB relationships. Based on these results,

PAGE 44

36 we contend that it may be worthwhile to investigate whether addi tional variables (e.g., motives) moderate or mediate the relationshi p between leadership behaviors and OCB. The specific goal on the current study is to expand on previous studies (e.g., Tillman, 1998; Connell & Penner, 2004) that have found evidence for motives as both moderators and mediators between select ante cedent variables and both the Altruism and Generalized Compliance dimensi ons of OCB. Similar to the previous studies, positive relationships are predicted to exist between additiona l antecedent variables (e.g., transformational and LMX behaviors) and O CB motives. In addition, the Organizational Concern motive is expected to mediate th e relationship between transformational leadership and OCB, while the Prosocial Values Motive is predicted to either mediate or moderate the relationship betw een LMX-quality and OCB. Hypothesis 1. There will be a positive relations hip observed between supervisor transformational leadership behavior and subordinate Organizational Concern. One of the basic tenets of transformational leadership is to encourage followers to transcend their own self-inter ests and move beyond simple leader-member transactions for the good of the organization (Bass, 1985). Th is aspect of transformational leadership seems synonymous with the promotion of organizational concern among employees. Due to the conceptual overlap observed between th ese two constructs, it is expected that increases in transformational leadership behavi or will be associated with increases in the Organizational Concern Motiv e among subordinates. Hypothesis 2. Subordinate Organizational Concer n will mediate the relationship between supervisor transformational l eadership behavior and subordinate Conscientiousness (i.e., Generalized Compliance).

PAGE 45

37 Previous research has shown that transformational leadership is positively related to the Conscientiousness dimension of OCB (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 2001). Other research has also revealed a link between the Organizational Concern Motive and the Conscientiousness dimension (Rioux & Penner, 2001). On the basis of these relationships, we propose that leaders who engage in tr ansformational leadership behaviors will have subordinates who participat e in behaviors that are indirectly helpful to other members of the organization. Assuming support for Hypothesis 1, this relationship will be mediated by the subordi nates concern for the welfare of the organization. More specifically, the performa nce of transformational leadership behaviors will be associated with subordi nate Organizational Concern, which, in turn, will be linked to OCB that is beneficial to the organization as whole. Hypothesis 3. Subordinate Organizational Concer n will mediate the relationship between supervisor transformational leadersh ip behavior and subor dinate Civic Virtue. In addition to the Generalized Complian ce dimension, transformational leadership has correlated positively with the Civic Virtue dimension in past studies. Other research has also revealed a positive relationship between the Orga nizational Concern Motive and the Civic Virtue dimension (Rioux & Penner, 2001). We propose that leaders who engage in transformational leadership behavior s will have subordinates who show active involvement and interest regarding organizatio nal issues, as well as the governance of the organization as a whole (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Assuming support for Hypothesis 1, we also predict that this relationship will be mediated by the employees concern for the welfare of the organization. That is, the pe rformance of transformational leadership

PAGE 46

38 behaviors will be associated with a ge neral concern for the organization among subordinates, which, in turn, will be linked to subordinate Civic Virtue. Hypothesis 4. Subordinate Organizational Concer n will mediate the relationship between supervisor transformational leader ship behaviors and subordinate Courtesy. Evidence has shown that transformati onal leadership behaviors correlate positively with the Courtesy dimension of OC B. Other research has also revealed a positive relationship between a generalized concern for the organization and the Courtesy dimension (Rioux & Penner, 2001). It is pr edicted that leaders who engage in transformational leadership behaviors will ha ve subordinates who actively help prevent problems among coworkers by engaging in both formal and informal cooperation with other employees (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Orga n, 1997; George & Brief, 1992; Konovsky & Organ, 1996). Assuming support for Hypothesis 1, this relationship is expected to be mediated by employees concern for the welfare of the organization. That is, the performance of transformational leadership beha viors will be associat ed with subordinate Organizational Concern, which, in tur n, will be linked with cooperation among employees. Hypothesis 5. Subordinate Organizational Concer n will mediate the relationship between supervisor transformational l eadership behaviors and subordinate Sportsmanship. Previous research has shown that transf ormational leadership behaviors correlate positively with subordinate Sportsmanship. In addition, other research has revealed a positive relationship between the Organizational Concern Motive and the Sportsmanship dimension (Rioux & Penner, 2001). We propose that leaders who engage in

PAGE 47

39 transformational leadership behaviors will ha ve subordinates who tend to absorb minor inconveniences about their jobs without complaint, and who also tend to consider other employees work problems in addition to their own (Konovsky & Organ, 1996). Assuming support for Hypothesis 1, this relations hip is predicted to be mediated by the subordinates concern for the welfare of th e organization. That is, the performance of transformational leadership behaviors will be associated with subordinate Organizational Concern, which, in turn, will be linked to Sportsmanship behaviors among subordinates. Hypothesis 6. There will be a positive relatio nship between LMX-quality and subordinate Prosocial Values. As explained previously, LMX theory is based on the existence of beneficial exchange relationships between leaders and th eir followers. In theory, high levels of support, trust, liking, and loyalty characteri ze a high quality relationship, whereas lower levels of each of these variables typify a low-quality relationship. Based on these characteristics, we propose that LMX-qua lity will be positively associated with subordinate Prosocial Values. That is, a highquality relationship be tween a leader and a subordinate will be positively re lated with the subordinates de sire to help others within the organization and to be accepted by them. In contrast, the desire to help others within the organization will not be salient among subordinates who hold lower quality relationships with their supervisor. Conceptually, it is possible to conceive of the Prosoc ial Values Motive as both a moderator and mediator of the relationship between LMX-quality and the Altruism dimension of OCB. As such, the remaining two hypotheses address th e role of Prosocial Values from both a moderating and mediating perspective.

PAGE 48

40 Hypothesis 7. Subordinate Prosocial Values will mediate the relationship between LMX-quality and subordinate Altruism. It is predicted that a po ssible mechanism through which LMX impacts Altrusim is the Prosocial Values Motive. More specifica lly, it is proposed th at high LMX-quality arouses among subordinates the motivation to help others and be accepted by them (Hypothesis 6), which, in tur n, is associated with OCB directed toward individual members of the organization. This prediction is supported by research that has shown a positive link between the Altruism dimension and both LMX-quality (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2001) and the Prosocial Valu es Motive (Rioux & Penner 2001). Hypothesis 8. Subordinate Prosocial Values wi ll moderate the relationship between LMX-quality an d subordinate Altruism In addition to Hypothesis 7, it is predic ted that the relationship between LMXquality and Altruism is contingent upon the extent that the Prosocial Values Motive is possessed by the subordinate. In other words, a relatively strong positive relationship between LMX-quality and subordi nate Altruism is proposed to exist when the level of subordinate Prosocial Values is high. In contrast, when the level of subordinate Prosocial Values is low, a much smaller relationshi p is predicted to exist between these two variables. This research is again contingent upon Hypothesi s 6, but is also based on the positive relationships observed between the Altruism dimension and both LMX-quality (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2001) and the Prosoc ial Values Motive (R ioux & Penner 2001).

PAGE 49

41 Chapter Two Method Participants This study included responses from 201 em ployees working eith er part-time or full-time at one of 13 organiza tions located in the Southeaste rn United States. In total, 62 employees who completed the survey responded as a supervisor while 139 responded as a subordinate. The surveys were distributed to a total of 306 employees (118 supervisors, 188 subordinates) yielding an overall respons e rate of 66 percent. In addition, the individual response rates we re 53 percent for the supervisors and 74 percent for the subordinates. The initial sample of 201 employees wa s screened using a number of criteria. First, because the objective of this study was to include the perspective of both supervisors and their subordinates, both par ties were asked to submit responses to the survey. This approach allowed for the eventual collection of supervis or-subordinate pairs. After submitting their responses, if a given supervisor could not be paired with a subordinate response, the supervisor was elim inated from the sample. This was also the case for any subordinates who could not be paired with a supervisor. Employees were also eliminated if they fa iled to answer more than ten percent of the items included in a scale, or if their responses to the surv ey appeared questionable. In order to identify questionabl e responders, the standard deviation for each of the

PAGE 50

42 measures (with the exception of the LMX7) wa s calculated for each of the participants (supervisors and subordinates). If a partic ipant provided the same response for every question in a particular meas ure (SD = 0), that participan ts responses were further examined to determine if they should be eliminated from the sample. Based on this criterion, a participant was only eliminated if their re sponses appeared reasonably suspect. Finally, supervisors were instructed to rate only those subordinates whom they had supervised for at least four months. Thus if a supervisor indicated that they had supervised a particular subordinate for less than 4 months, that supervisor-subordinate pair was eliminated from the sample. Using the above criteria, 7 supervisors a nd 9 subordinates were eliminated from the initial sample. Thus, the final sample was comprised of 55 supervisors and 131 subordinates (i.e., 131 superviso r-subordinate pairs). The dem ographic characteristics of the final sample are displayed in Table 2. Overall, the final sample contained sligh tly less males than females (43 % versus 57 %, respectively). In addition, most of the employees were of White ethnicity (82 %). Sixty-five percent reported th at they had been employed w ith their organization for at least 3 years, while only 11 per cent reported that they had be en with the organization for 6 months or less. It should be noted that no employees were included in the final sample who reported less than 4 mont hs experience with their cu rrent place of employment. Finally, this sample consisted mostly of fu ll-time employees (88 %), and over half (55 %) described their position as managerial/professional.

PAGE 51

43 Table 2. Participant Demographics ( N = 186) Supervisors Subordinates Total (%) (%) (%) N = 55 N = 131 N = 186 Gender Male 53 39 43 Female 47 61 57 Not specified 0 0 0 Race/National Origin American Indian/ 0 0 0 Alaska Native Asian 0 5 3 Hispanic/Latino 2 3 3 Black/African American 9 7 8 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 1 1 White 86 82 82 Other Ethnicity 2 3 3 Not Specified 2 1 1 Months employed with the organization Less than 6 months 6 13 11 Between 6 and 11 months 6 6 6 Between 12 and 35 months 6 24 18 36 months or longer 84 57 65 Not Specified 0 1 1

PAGE 52

44 Table 2. Continued Supervisors Subordinates Total (%) (%) (%) N = 55 N = 131 N = 186 Position Description Managerial/Professional 87 41 55 Administrative 6 11 9 Clerical 2 3 3 Technical 6 19 15 Other 0 25 18 Not Specified 0 1 1 Employment Status Part-time 4 20 15 Full-time 96 80 88 Not specified 0 0 0 Overall, responses were collected from a total of 13 organizations. In general, each of these organizations could be classi fied as a small businesses (less than 500 employees). The breakdown of responses across industries was as follows: Public Administration (17 %), Professional, Scie ntific, and Technica l Services (50 %), Educational Services (17 %), Utilities (2 %), Health Care/Social Assistance (3 %), Retail Trade (2 %), and Food Service (8 %). As seen by these statistics, this sample is slightly biased in favor of Professiona l, Scientific, and Technical Se rvice organizations. Given the variety of different industries that participate d, however, it can be argued that this sample is still reasonably representative of the current work force.

PAGE 53

45 Measures A number of accepted measures were used to evaluate the constructs relevant to this study. Each of these measures is briefl y described below. In addition, the means, standard deviations, and reliabilities observed for each scale are also displayed in Tables 4 -7. Transformational Leadership. Podsakoff et al.s (1990) Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI) was used to meas ure transformational leadership behaviors in this study. This scale consisted of 22 ite ms, and measured six dimensions of transformational leadership: articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, hi gh performance expectations, providing individualized support, and in tellectual stimulation. Although pr evious research supports the hypothesized six-factor structure (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1996), three of the dimensions have been found to be highly co rrelated (articulati ng a vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering the accepta nce of group goals). As such, these three factors are sometimes combined to repres ent a core transformational leadership construct. Internal consistenc y reliabilities for each of the dimensions range from .82 to .87. In addition, the TLI has shown impressive validities with relate d constructs across several studies (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 2001). For the purposes of this study, each of the TLI dimensions were combined to create an overall index of transformationa l leadership. Specifically, this index was created by summing the individual dime nsion scores for each participant. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) LMX-quality was assessed using a modified version of the LMX7 (Graen, Novak, & So mmerkamp, 1982). This measure is by far the

PAGE 54

46 most frequently used LMX measure, and is recommended by Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) as the standard measure of LMX. The LMX7 consisted of seven items, and asked the respondent to indicate their answer to each item using a five-point Likert scale. Psychometric evidence for the measure provi ded by Gerstner & Day (1997) indicates internal consistency reliabil ities are in the range of .79 to .89. In addition, acceptable validities for the measure have also been observed across multiple studies (e.g., Gernster & Day, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2001). OCB A modified version of the scales developed by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1989) was used to measure OCB. This meas ure consisted of 24 items, and measured all five OCB dimensions identified by Organ (1988): Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed w ith each item using a seven-poin t Likert scale. This scale ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) s trongly agree. Numer ous studies using the scale have shown that the measure possesses goo d validity as well as acceptable internal consistency reliability (e.g., MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993). Confirmatory factor analysis re sults also provide evidence for the five-factor structure of the measure (Podsakoff et al., 1990). OCB Motives. Participant motives for engaging in OCB was measured using Rioux and Penners (2001) Citizen ship Motives Scale (CMS). Th is scale consisted of 30 items, and measured all three of the motives for engaging in OCB: (1) Prosocial Values, (2) Organizational Concern, a nd (3) Impression Management. Respondents were asked to rate on a scale ranging from not at a ll important to extremely important how influential each item was in their decision to engage in OCB. Psychometric evidence

PAGE 55

47 provided by Rioux and Penner (2001) reports inte rnal consistency reliabilities above .80, and test-retest reliabilities for each of the 2 factors above .70. In addition, the same threefactor structure for the measure has b een replicated across 3 diverse samples. Procedure The majority of survey responses were collected and maintained via an online survey system. Approximately one week pr ior to the study, each pa rticipant received a brief introduction email that provided: (1) a short description of the study; (2) the time required to complete the survey (i.e., appr oximately 20 minutes); (3) a statement of assurance that each of their responses w ould be held confiden tial; and (4) contact information for the primary researcher. On the scheduled date of administration, each supervisor was sent an a dditional email containing the link to the online survey. After accessing the survey, each supervisor was asked to enter a unique six-digit code of their own choosing. Next, they were in structed to enter the email addresseses of up to four of their subordinates using the criteria presented in Table 3. After this information had been entered, the supervisors were directed to the rest of the survey which included items taken from the TLI, LMX7, and Podsakoffs OCB measure. Thus, each supervisor provided: (1) ratings of thei r own transformational leadership behaviors; (2) an estimate of the quality of their rela tionship with each of the subordinates they listed; and (3) ratings of each subordinate s OCB behaviors. Each supervisor was required to rate their subordinat es using the same order that was used on the first page of the survey. The online survey system was de signed such that after th e supervisor entered the email addresses of his/her subordinates, an email containing a link to the subordinate

PAGE 56

48 Table 3. Supervisor Survey Instructions 1. Please select subordinates that you have supervised at least 4 months 2. Please select subordinates th at feel you can provide accurate information about. For example, if you have supervised a particular subordinate for more than 4 months, but feel that you are not familiar enough with thei r behavior to provide accurate feedback, please do not include them in your final selection. 3. Please try to select employees that, as a group, represent a range of performance (e.g., excellent, fair, and poor) In other words, try not to select all high performers or all low performers. 4. Finally, please select only those subordinates that work at least 20 hours per week. version of the survey was imme diately sent to each of the subordinates that were listed. The subordinate version included the TLI, th e LMX7, Podsakoffs OCB measure, and the CMS. Thus, each subordinate provided: (1) rati ngs of their supervisors transformational leadership behaviors; (2) an estimate of the quality of their relationship with their supervisor; (3) ratings of their own OCB beha viors; and (4) their own responses to the CMS. The six-digit code created by each subordinates respective supervisor also appeared with the subordinates final set of responses. In addition, a random code of 3 numbers ending with 1, 2, 3, or 4 automatically appeared immediately after this six-digit code. Taken together, these numbers served as the mechanism by which the subordinates responses were matched-up with their supervisors.

PAGE 57

49 After each survey was completed, responses were sent to a secure database that was only accessible to the princi pal investigator. A reminder em ail was also distributed to all participants encouraging them to complete the survey if they had not already done so by the specified date. Because not all employees who we re willing to participat e in the study had access to the Internet at thei r place of employment, paper and penc il versions of the survey were also distributed. As a result, 27 percent of the sample completed the survey using this method. The procedure for these participants wa s basically the same as the one used for the online survey partic ipants. In most cases, however, th e supervisor was responsible for distributing surveys to each of his/her subordinates. Each pa rticipant was also provided with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, and was instructed to mail completed versions of the survey back to the Psychology Departme nt at the University of South Florida.

PAGE 58

50 Chapter Three Results Preliminary Steps and Analyses Before formal testing of the hypotheses, further examination of the final sample was conducted. Specifically, if a respondent failed to answer an item included in a scale, the missing value was replaced with the median value of the scale. This procedure was used when the proportion of missing items for the scale was not above ten percent. As a whole, this procedure was applied to appr oximately one percent of the sample. In addition, no participants include d in the final sample failed to respond to more than ten percent of the items for any given scale. Further analyses were also conducted to determine if it was appropriate to pool the responses from those part icipants who completed the onl ine version of the survey with those who took the paper and pencil ve rsion. Specifically, a Boxs M test was performed to assess if varia tion between each of the variables were the same for the different groups. Results of this test were significant ( 2 = 197.99, p < .01), suggesting that caution should be taken when pooling the covariance matrices a ssociated with each group. Although this is a cause for concern, it should be noted that the number of participants who completed the paper-andpencil version of the survey (35) was significantly smaller in comparison to those who completed the online version (96). In addition, Stevens (2002) provides statistical evidence that Box s M is extremely sensitive to normality. Therefore, it is possible that a l ack of normality may have caused this result,

PAGE 59

51 as opposed to unequal covariance matrices in the population. Combined with the fact that both groups underwent almost identical procedur es, it was determined that the results of the Boxs M test alone did not merit pr eventing the pooling of these two groups. Variable Descriptives The means, standard deviations, and re liabilities for each of the measures included in this study are displayed in Tables 4 7. Internal consistency estimates ranged from a low of .66 (self-reported Conscienti ousness) to a high of .96 (subordinate rated transformational leadership). In general, these estimates indicate that adequate reliability was observed for each of the measures. In addition, ratings were similar across measures for both subordinates and supervisors. That is responses tended to occur toward the high end of the scale for both groups. Finally, although some variat ion was observed, the standard deviations tended to be somewhat small for the majority of the measures. It was also observed that each superv isor provided feedback on an average on 2.24 subordinates. The only exception was one supervisor, who provided feedback on ten subordinates. In addition, the median amount of time that a supervisor reported supervising a subordinate was 24 months. Zero-order Correlations As shown in Tables 5 -7, a number of significant relationshi ps were observed between the variables included in this study. Beginning with transformational leadership, subordinate reports of transf ormational leadership correlate d significantly w ith all five self-report dimensions of OCB. These corr elations ranged from .27 (p < .01) for the Courtesy dimension to .33 (p < .01) for th e Altruism dimension. A similar trend was observed using supervisor-reports of OCB, although these correlations were somewhat

PAGE 60

52 Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables Subordinate Supervisor Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Transformational Leadership 123.05 21.85 48.00 154.00 126.91 13.61 88.00 151.00 LMX-quality 28.11 5.35 13.00 35.00 29.15 3.79 21.00 35.00 Prosocial Values 37.34 7.84 13.00 50.00 ----Organizational Concern 39.03 8.36 13.00 50.00 ----Impression Management 31.50 8.64 10.00 50.00 ----Altruism 29.68 3.50 19.00 35.00 28.69 5.20 9.00 35.00 Conscientiousness 29.65 3.90 19.00 35.00 29.15 5.22 9.00 35.00 Sportsmanship 28.64 5.15 8.00 35.00 27.15 6.70 8.00 35.00 Courtesy 30.10 3.20 20.00 35.00 28.66 4.96 13.00 35.00 Civic Virtue 21.98 3.94 7.00 28.00 21.20 4.15 11.00 28.00 smaller in magnitude. Specifically, subordinate reports of transformational leadership correlated significantly with four of the five superv isor-reported dimensions: Conscientiousness (.20, p <.05), Sportsmans hip (.21, p < .05), Courtesy (.19, p < .05), and Civic Virtue (.18, p <.05). With regard to OCB motives, signif icant relationships were found between subordinate reports of transf ormational leadership and bot h Organizational Concern (.44, p < .01) and Prosocial Values (.24, p < .01). Although both of these relationships were significant, transformational leadership show ed a significantly stronger association with the Organizational Concern Motive [t(130) = 3.16, p < .01)]. In contrast, no relationship was observed between subordinate reporte d transformational leadership and the Impression Management Motive (.05, p > .05).

PAGE 61

53 Table 5. Variable Reliabilities and Intercorrelations for Self Ratings of OCB ( N = 131) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Transformational Leadership (subordinate) (.96) 2. Transformational Leadership (supervisor) .16 (.92) 3. LMX-quality (subordinate) .77** .05 (.90) 4. LMX-quality (supervisor) .19* .37** .26** (.79) 5. Prosocial Values Motive .24** .01 .28** -.08 (.92) 6. Organizational Concern Motive .44** .15 .39** .18* .70** (.94) 7. Impression Management Motive .05 .06 .08 -.20* .52** .39** (.89) 8. Altruism .33** -.06 .34** .04 .56** .68** .16 (.76) 9. Conscientiousness .31** .02 .24** .16 .32** .55** .10 .54** (.66) 10. Sportsmanship .29** -.01 .21* .04 .27** .36** -.07 .36 ** .44** (.81) 11. Courtesy .27** .00 .20* -.09 .54** .55** -.13 .63** .48** .47** (.73) 12. Civic Virtue .32** .05 .37* .10 .49** .61** .16 .57** .49** .35** .53** (.71) Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level. ** Statistically significant at the .01 alpha level.

PAGE 62

54 Table 6. Variable Reliabilities and Intercorrelations for Supervisor Ratings of OCB ( N = 131) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Transformational Leadership (subordinate) (.96) 2. Transformational Leadership (supervisor) .16 (.92) 3. LMX-quality (subordinate) .77** .05 (.90) 4. LMX-quality (supervisor) .19* .37** .26** (.79) 5. Prosocial Values Motive .24** .01 .28** -.08 (.92) 6. Organizational Concern Motive .44** .15 .39** .18* .70** (.94) 7. Impression Management Motive .05 .06 .08 -.20* .52** .39** (.89) 8. Altruism .14 .27** .22* .50** .18* .34** -.08 (.85) 9. Conscientiousness .20* .32** .14 .44** .07 .24** -.05 .80* (.83) 10. Sportsmanship .21* -.01 .19* .19* .09 .17 -.06 .42** .53** (.88) 11. Courtesy .19* .10 .23** .32** .14 .25** -.06 .71** .73** .72** (.86) 12. Civic Virtue .18* .24** .23** .36** .29** .43** .01 .62* .53** .49** .55** (.75) Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level. ** Statistically significant at the .01 alpha level.

PAGE 63

55 Table 7. Variable Reliabilities and Intercorrelati ons for Self and Supervisor Ratings of OCB ( N = 131) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Altruism (self) (.76) 2. Conscientiousness (self) .54** (.66) 3. Sportsmanship (self) .36** .44** (.81) 4. Courtesy (self) .63** .48** .47** (.73) 5. Civic Virtue (self) .57** .49** .35** .53** (.71) 6. Altruism (supervisor) .29** .33** .21** .19* .33** (.85) 7. Conscientiousness (supervisor) .14 .37** .19* .17 .25** .80** (.83) 8. Sportsmanship (supervisor) .08 .19* .29** .18* .16 .42** .53** (.88 ) 9. Courtesy (supervisor) .18* .25** .26** .18* .24** .71** .73** .73 ** (.86) 10. Civic Virtue (supervisor) .32** .28** .22* .32** .44** .62** .53** .49** .55** (.75) Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level. ** Statistically significant at the .01 alpha level.

PAGE 64

56 Surprisingly, results revealed that subordinate reports of transformational leadership were not significantly related to supervisor reports (.16, p >.05). Supervisor reports of transformational leader ship also failed to correlate significantly with any of the three OCB Motives. In contrast, signifi cant relationships were observed between supervisor reports of transformational leadersh ip and three of the fi ve supervisor-reported OCB dimensions: Altruism (.27, p <.01), C onscientiousness (.32, p < .01), and Civic Virtue (.24, p < .05). In general, similar findings were obser ved with regard to perceptions of LMXquality. Specifically, subordi nate perceptions of LMX-qua lity correlated significantly with all five self-re ported OCB dimensions. These corre lations ranged from .20 (p < .05) for the Courtesy dimension to .37 (p < .01) for the Civic Virtue dimension. In addition, significant relationships were also observed between subor dinate LMX perceptions and four of the five supervisor-reported OCB dimensions: Altruism (.22, p < .05), Sportsmanship (.19, p < .05), Courtesy (.23, p < .01), and Civic Virtue (.23, p < .01). Similar to transformational lead ership, subordinate perception s of LMX-quality were also significantly related to both the Organizat ional Concern (.39, p < .01) and Prosocial Values Motives (.28, p < .01). However, al though slightly higher in magnitude, the association between LMX-qua lity and the Organizationa l Concern Motive was not significantly stronger in comp arison to the Prosocial Values Motive. Finally, no significant relationship was found between subo rdinate perceptions of LMX-quality and the Impression Management Motive (.08, p > .05). Unlike perceptions of transformational leadership, subordina te reports of LMXquality were significantly re lated to supervisor reports (.26, p < .01). In addition,

PAGE 65

57 supervisor reports of LMX correlated signifi cantly with both the Organizational Concern (.18, p < .05) and Impression Management Mo tives (-.20, p < .05), as well as the five supervisor reported dimensions of OCB: A ltruism (.50, p < .01), Conscientiousness (.44, p < .01), Sportsmanship (.19, p < .05), Courtesy (.32, p < .01), and Civic Virtue (.36, p < .01). Finally, perceptions of LMX-quality and transforma tional leadership correlated significantly across both sources subordinate (.77, p < .01) and supervisor (.37, p < .01). Similar to previous research, a str ong association was observed between the Organizational Concern Motive and Prosocial Values Motive (.70, p < .01). In addition, the Impression Management Motive showed significant correlations with both the Organizational Concern (.39, p < .01) and Prosocial Valu es (.52, p < .01) Motives. Significant relationships were also observed between all fi ve subordinate reported OCB dimensions and both Prosocial Values and Organizational Concern. Specifically, these correlations ranged from .36 (p < .01) to .68 (p < .01) for the Or ganizational Concern Motive, and from .27 (p < .01) to .56 (p < .01) for the Prosocial Values Motive. Regarding supervisor reports of OCB, th e Organizational Concern Motive correlated significantly with four of the five dimens ions: Altruism (.34, p < .01), Conscientiousness (.24, p < .01), Courtesy (.25, p < .01), and Ci vic Virtue (.43, p < .01) In contrast, the Prosocial Values Motive correlated signi ficantly with only two OCB dimensions: Altruism (.18, p < 05) and Civic Virtue (.29, p < .01). No significan t relationships were found between the Impression Management Motive and any of the five OCB dimensions. It is interesting to note th at both the Organizational C oncern and Prosocial Values Motives correlated significantly stronger with the Altruism dimension (in comparison to the Conscientiousness dimension) across both self [t(130) = 2.19, p <.05] and supervisor

PAGE 66

58 [t(130) = 1.98, p < .05] reports. This finding is significant in the context of previous research on motives, and will be addressed later in the Discussion section of this paper. Finally, Table 7 also displays the correlations between each of the five OCB dimensions across both subordinate and supe rvisor reports. Each dimension correlated with itself across sources within the range of .18 (p < .05) for the Courtesy dimension to .44 (p < .01) for the Civic Virtue dimension. Analysis Approach In the case of each mediational hypothesis (Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7) Baron and Kennys (1986) procedure invo lving a series of four regr ession equations was used to test for mediation. In the fi rst equation, the relevant OCB dimension was regressed onto the antecedent variable. In the second equa tion, the relevant OCB motive, or predicted mediator, was regressed onto the antecedent va riable. In the third equation, the relevant OCB dimension was regressed onto the rele vant OCB motive. Finally, in the fourth equation, the relevant OCB dimension was regressed onto both the OCB motive and antecedent variable, with the relevant OCB mo tive being entered first into the equation. At each stage, the beta coe fficients were examined for significance. Mediation occurred when four criteria were met: (1) the antecedent variable was shown to significantly affect the releva nt OCB dimension (equation 1); (2) the antecedent variable was shown to significantly affect the relevant motive (equation 2); (3) the relevant motive was shown to significantly affect the releva nt OCB dimension (equation 3); and (4) the effect of the antecedent variable on the rele vant OCB dimension was significantly less in the fourth equation than in the first. If one or more of the specified criteria were unmet, then mediation was said not to have occurred.

PAGE 67

59 In cases where partial mediation was observed using Baron and Kennys (1986) test, the Aroian version (1944/1947) of the Sobel test (1982) was also performed to further test for the significance of the medi ation effect. In general, the Sobel test determined the significance of the interveni ng variable effect by first calculating the product of the path coefficient associated with the independent variable and the mediator ( ) and the path coefficient associated with the mediator and the dependent variable ( ). The product of these two terms, was then divided by its standard error, and compared to a standard normal distribution (see M acKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002, for a review). In the case of Hypothesis 8, the moderati ng effect of the Prosocial Values Motive on the relationship between LMX-quality and OCB was also tested using Baron and Kennys (1986) procedure. It was assumed th at the effect of LMX-quality on Altruism would change linearly with respect to the moderator. To test this hypothesis, the dependent variable (Altruism) was regresse d onto: (1) the indepe ndent variable (LMXquality), (2) the predic ted moderator (Prosocial Values), and (3) the product of these two variables (LMX-quality and Prosocial Va lues). Moderation was indicated by the significance of the beta-weight associated with the product te rm while controlling for the individual effects of the indepe ndent and moderator variables. Finally, in the cases of each mediati onal hypothesis, separate analyses were performed using the Organizational Concern Motive and Prosocial Values Motive. This approach was adopted due to the finding that both motives significan tly correlated with transformational leadership, LMX-quality, and va rious dimensions of OCB. Both of these motives are discussed in terms of their comparative mediational effects later in this paper.

PAGE 68

60 Also, unless otherwise mentioned, all anal yses investigating the relationship between leadership perceptions (i.e., transformational lead ership or LMX-quality) and additional criterion measures (e.g., motives, O CB) were based on subordinate perceptions of leadership. This second a pproach was justified based on the finding that subordinate reports of transformational leadership and LM X-quality correlated more consistently, in comparison to supervisor reports of leader ship, with both the mo tives and selfand supervisor-reports of OCB. A separate se ction is devoted to the comparison of subordinate versus superv isor-reported results. Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis predicted a signif icant, positive relationship between supervisor transformational leadership beha vior and subordinate Organizational Concern. As shown in Table 5, results supported this prediction using subordinate reports of transformational leadership. Specificall y, a .44 correlation (p < .01) was observed between subordinate ratings of transfor mational leadership behavior and the Organizational Concern Motive. In contrast, when transforma tional leadership was rated by the leaders themselves, these perceptions were not significantly related with the Organizational Concern Motive (r = .15, p > .05). Hypothesis 2 Self-reports of OCB. The second hypothesis pred icted that subordinate Organizational Concern w ould mediate the relations hip between supervisor transformational leadership behavior and subordinate Conscientiousness. Using Baron and Kennys (1986) approach, the first two re gression equations re vealed significant relationships between transformational le adership and both th e Conscientiousness

PAGE 69

61 dimension ( = .31, p < .01) and the Orga nizational Concern Motive ( = .44, p < .01). In addition, it was shown in the third equation that the Organizational Concern Motive significantly affected the C onscientiousness dimension ( = .55, p < .01). When Conscientiousness was regressed onto bot h the Organizational Concern Motive and transformational leadership, respectivel y, the beta-weight associated with transformational leadership showed a decrea se from .31 (p < .01) in the first equation (which included transformational leadership al one) to .09 (p > .05) in the fourth equation (which included the Organizational Concer n Motive and transformational leadership, respectively). Based on Baron and Kennys ( 1986) criteria, thes e results provided relatively strong evidence for full mediation (see Table 8). Because significant relationships were also observed between transformational leadership, the Prosocial Values Motive, and Co nscientiousness, this same series of steps was performed using subordinate Prosocial Valu es as the predicted mediator. As can be seen in Table 8, the beta-weight associated with transformational leadership showed a decrease from .31 (p < .01) in the first equati on to .25 (p < .01) in the fourth equation. These results provide evidence for partial me diation, and were also confirmed by results of the Sobel test (z = 2.00, p < .05). Supervisor-reports of OCB. As shown in Table 9, support was also found for Hypothesis 2 using supervisor -reports of Conscientiousness Specifically, the first two regression equations reveal ed significant relationships between transformational leadership and both the Conscientiousness dimension ( = .20, p < .05) and the Organizational Concern Motive ( = .44, p < .01). In addition, it was shown in the third equation that the Organizational Concer n Motive significantly affected the

PAGE 70

62 Table 8. Motives Mediator Analysis for Tran sformational Leadership and Self-reports of OCB Dependent Variable: Conscientiousness Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .31** .31 .10** Step4: OC Motive, TFL .09 .51** .56 .31** Dependent Variable: Conscientiousness Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .31** .31 .10** Step4: PV Motive, TFL .25** .26** .40 16** Dependent Variable: Sportsmanship Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .29** .29 .08** Step4: OC Motive, TFL .16 .29** .39 .15** Dependent Variable: Sportsmanship Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .29** .29 .08** Step4: PV Motive, TFL .24** .22** .36 .13** Dependent Variable: Courtesy Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .27** .27 .07** Step4: OC Motive, TFL .03 .54** .55 .30** Dependent Variable: Courtesy Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .27** .27 .07** Step4: PV Motive, TFL .15 .50** .55 .31** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .32** .32 .10** Step4: OC Motive, TFL .07 .58** .61 .37** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .32** .32 .10** Step4: PV Motive, TFL .21** .44** .53 .28** p <.05, ** p <.01

PAGE 71

63 Table 9. Motives Mediator Analysis for Tr ansformational Leadership and Supervisorreports of OCB Dependent Variable: Conscientiousness Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .20* .20 .04* Step4: OC Motive, TFL .12 .19 .26 .07* Dependent Variable: Courtesy Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .19* .19 .04* Step4: OC Motive, TFL .10 .21* .27 .07** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .18* .18 .03* Step4: OC Motive, TFL .01 .44** .43 .19** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .18* .18 .03* Step4: PV Motive, TFL .12 .26** .31 .10** p <.05, ** p <.01 Conscientiousness dimension ( = .24, p < .01). When Conscientiousness was regressed onto both the Organizational Concern Mo tive and transformational leadership, respectively, the beta-weight associated w ith transformational leadership showed a decrease from .20 (p < .05) to .12 (p > .05). T hus, these results provided evidence for full mediation. Results did not support the Prosocia l Values Motive as a mediator, however, as no relationship was found between th is motive and supervisor reports of Conscientiousness ( = .07, p > .05). In the case of Hypothesis 2, both motives received empirical support as mediators. However, based on the strength of the me diational effect associated with the

PAGE 72

64 Organizational Concern Motive across sources, it can be argued that subordinate Organizational Concern was the primar y mediator in this relationship. Hypothesis 3 Self-reports of OCB. Similar to the second hypothes is, Hypothesis 3 predicted that subordinate Organizational Concern would mediate the relationship between transformational leadership behavior and the Civic Virtue dime nsion. The first two regression equations reveal ed significant relationships between transformational leadership and both the Ci vic Virtue dimension ( = .32, p < .01) and the Organizational Concern Motive ( = .44, p < .01). In addition, it was s hown in the third equation that the Organizational Concern Motive significantly affected the Civic Virtue dimension ( = .61, p < .01). When Civic Virtue was regres sed onto both the Or ganizational Concern Motive and transformational le adership, respectively, the be ta-weight associated with transformational leadership showed a decrea se from .32 (p < .01) to .07 (p > .05). Similar to Hypothesis 2, these results again provi ded evidence for full mediation for the Organizational Concern Motive. This same series of steps was also performed with the Prosocial Values Motive. Again, evidence for partial mediation was f ound, as the beta-weight associated with transformational leadership showed a decrea se from .32 (p < .05) in the first equation (which included transformational leadership al one) to .21 (p < .05) in the fourth equation (which included the Prosocial Values Motive and transformational leadership, respectively). These results were also confir med by results of the Sobel test (z = 2.46, p < .05).

PAGE 73

65 Supervisor-reports of OCB Analyses based on supervis or-reports of Civic Virtue revealed similar results. That is, the first two regression equations revealed significant relationships between transformational leader ship and both the Civic Virtue dimension ( = .18, p < .05) and the Organizational Concern Motive ( = .44, p < .01). In addition, it was shown in the third equa tion that the Organizational Concern Motive significantly affected the Civic Virtue dimension ( = .43, p < .01). When Civic Virtue was regressed onto both the Organizational Concern Mo tive and transformational leadership, respectively, the beta-weight associated w ith transformational leadership showed a decrease from .18 (p < .05) to -.01 (p > .05) Based on Baron and Kennys (1986) crieria, these results provided evidence for full mediation. Similar results were found substituting the Prosocial Values Motive as the predicted mediator. Specifically, previous analyses revealed significant relationships between transformational leadership a nd both the Prosocial Values Motive and supervisor-reports of Civic Virt ue. In addition, when Civic Vi rtue was regressed onto the Prosocial Values Motive, th is relationship was also found to be significant ( = .29, p < .01). When Civic Virtue was regressed ont o both the Prosocial Values Motive and transformational leadership, respectivel y, the beta-weight associated with transformational leadership showed a decrease from .18 (p < .05) to .12 (p > .05). These results provided evidence for the Prosocial Values Motive as a full mediator in this antecedent-OCB relationship. Thus, although both motives were associated with mediational effects in the case of this hypothesis, results again supported the Organizational C oncern Motive as the primary mediator. These findings provide empirical evidence for Hypothesis 3.

PAGE 74

66 Hypothesis 4 Self-reports of OCB. The fourth hypothesis predicted that subordinate Organizational Concern w ould mediate the relations hip between supervisor transformational leadership behavior and subor dinate Courtesy. The first two regression equations revealed significant relationships between transformational leadership and both the Courtesy dimension ( = .27, p < .01) and the Orga nizational Concern Motive ( = .44, p < .01). In addition, it was shown in the third equation that the Organizational Concern Motive significantly affected the Courtesy dimension ( = .55, p < .01). When Courtesy was regressed on to both th e Organizational C oncern Motive and transformational leadership, respectivel y, the beta-weight associated with transformational leadership showed a decrease from .27 (p < .01) to .03 (p > .05). This finding provides evidence of full mediation. This same series of steps was also perfor med with the Prosocial Values Motive. In contrast to previous results, however, evidence for full mediation was observed. Specifically, the beta-weight associated w ith transformational leadership showed a decrease from .27 (p < .01) in the first equation (which included transformational leadership alone) to .15 (p > .05) in the f ourth equation (which included the Prosocial Values Motive and transformational leader ship, respectively). These results again conform to the mediational criteria outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) regarding full mediation. Supervisor-reports of OCB. Supervisor-reports of Courtesy were also significantly associated with transformational leadership ( = .19, p < .05) and the Organizational Concern Motive ( = .25, p < .01). When Courte sy was regressed onto

PAGE 75

67 both the Organizational Concer n Motive and transformational leadership, respectively, the beta-weight associated with transformati onal leadership decreased to .10 (p > .05). Thus, support was provided for the Organizatio nal Concern Motive as a full mediator. In contrast, no relationship was found between th e Prosocial Values Motive and supervisorreports of Courtesy. As a result, mediati onal analyses were not conducted with the Prosocial Values Motive with regard to the Courtesy dimension. In the case of Hypothesis 4, it was agai n observed that both the Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values Motives were associated with mediational effects. However, the relative reduction in the size of the beta-weights from the first to the fourth equations again supports the Organizational Concern Motive as the primary mediator. Thus, these results lend support to Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 5 Self-reports of OCB. Finally, results of this st udy also supported the fifth hypothesis, which predicted a mediated relati onship between supervisor transformational leadership behavior and s ubordinate Sportsmanship usi ng the Organiza tional Concern Motive. Using Baron and Kennys (1986) proce dure, the first two regression equations revealed significant relationships between transformational leadership and both the Sportsmanship dimension ( =.29, p < .01) and the Organi zational Concern Motive ( = .44, p < .01). The third equation also revealed that the Organizational Concern Motive significantly affected the Sportsmanship dimension ( = .36, p < .01). When Sportsmanship was regressed onto both the Organizational Concern Motive and transformational leadership, respectivel y, the beta-weight associated with

PAGE 76

68 transformational leadership showed a decrease from .29 (p < .01) to .16 (p > .05). These results again provide evidence for full mediation. In contrast, mediational support was not found using the Prosocial Values Motive. Although the beta-weight associated with tr ansformational leadership showed a small decrease from .29 (p < .01) in the first equation (which included transformational leadership alone) to .24 (p < .01) in the fourth equation (which included the Prosocial Values Motive and transformational leadership, respectively), results of the Sobel test did not support partial media tion (z = 1.81, p > .05). Supervisor-reports of OCB. In contrast to the self-re port results, no evidence was found for a correlation between supervisor re ports of Sportsmanship and either the Organizational Concern (.17, p < .05) or Prosocial Values (. 09, p > .05) Motives. Due to the absence of these relations hips, mediational analyses we re not performed using this criterion. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was only suppor ted using self-reports of Sportsmanship. Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6 dealt specifically with pe rceptions of LMX-quality, and predicted that LMX-quality would correla te significantly with subordina te Prosocial Values. This hypothesis was supported using subordinate re ports of LMX-quality (.28, p < .01). In contrast, no relationship was obs erved with regard to supe rvisor perceptions of LMXquality (-.08, p >.05). Hypothesis 7 Self-reports of OCB Based on the support found for Hypothesis 6, Hypothesis 7 predicted that subordinate Prosocial Values would medi ate the relationship between LMX-quality and the Altruism dimension. Th is hypothesis was part ially supported, as

PAGE 77

69 shown in Table 10. Specifically, the first tw o regression equations revealed significant relationships between LMX-quality and both the Altruism dimension ( = .34, p < .01) and the Prosocial Values Motive ( = .28, p < .01). In addition, it was shown in the third equation that the Prosocial Values Motive si gnificantly affected the Altruism dimension ( = .56, p < .01). When Altruism was regre ssed onto both the Prosocial Values Motive and LMX-quality, respectively, the beta-weight associated with LMX-quality showed a decrease from .34 (p < .01) to .20 (p < .01). Because the beta-weight associated with LMX-quality remained significant in the fourth equation, evid ence was provided for partial mediation. Results of the Sobel test reinforced th is conclusion (z = 2.98, p < .01). As results showed a significant corr elation between LM X-quality and the Organizational Concern Motive, this motive wa s also tested as a possible mediator. In contrast to the Prosocial Values Motive evidence for full mediation was observed. Specifically, the beta-weight associated w ith transformational leadership showed a decrease from .34 (p < .01) in the first equation (which included transformational leadership alone) to .09 (p > .05) in th e fourth equation (which included the Organizational Concern Motive and transf ormational leadership, respectively). Table 10. Motives Mediator Analysis for LMX-quality and Self-re ports of Altruism Dependent Variable: Altruism Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .34** .34 .12** Step4: PV Motive, LMX-quality .20** .50** .59 .35** Dependent Variable: Altruism Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .34** .34 .12** Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .09 .65** .69 .47** p <.05, ** p <.01

PAGE 78

70 Supervisor-reports of OCB. Results based upon supervis or-reports of Altruism further supported the Organiza tional Concern Motive as the pr imary mediator (see Table 11). Specifically, the first two regression equa tions revealed significant relationships between LMX-quality and both the Altruism dimension ( = .22, p < .05) and the Prosocial Values Motive ( = .28, p < .01). In addition, it was shown in the third equation that subordinate Prosocial Values signifi cantly affected the Altruism dimension ( = .18, p < .05). When Altruism was regressed onto both the Prosocial Values Motive and LMXquality, respectively, the beta-w eight associated with LMXquality showed a decrease from .22 (p < .05) to .18 (p < .05). Although th is finding provided evidence for partial mediation based on Baron and Kennys (1986) pro cedure, results of the Sobel test were not significant (z = 1.29, p > .05). Therefor e, these results di d not provide strong evidence for the Prosocial Values Motive as a partial mediator. In contrast, evidence for full mediation was found for the Organizational Concern Motive. That is, the beta-weight associated with transformational leadership showed a decrease from .22 (p < .05) in the first equation (which included transformational leadership alone) to .10 (p > .05) in the fourth eq uation (which included the Organizational Concern Motive and transf ormational leadership, respectively). Due to the relative reduction in the size of the beta-weights associated with the Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values Motives, it can be argued that Hypothesis 7 only received partial support. While result s were supportive of the Prosocial Values Motive as a partial mediator in the rela tionship between LMX-quality and Altruism, findings more fully supported subordinat e Organizational Concern as the primary mediator.

PAGE 79

71 Table 11. Motives Mediator Analysis for LMX-quality and Supervisor-reports of Altruism Dependent Variable: Altruism Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .22* .22 .05* Step4: PV Motive, LMX-quality .18* .13 .25 .06* Dependent Variable: Altruism Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .22* .22 .05* Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .10 .31** .35 .13** p <.05, ** p <.01 Hypothesis 8 Self-reports of OCB. Alternative to Hypothesis 7, Hypothesi s 8 predicted that the Prosocial Values Motive would moderate th e relationship between LMX-quality and the Altruism dimension. Results did not support this prediction, as the be ta-weight associated with the LMX*Prosocial Values interaction term was not significant ( = -.40, p > .05) once LMX-quality and the Prosocial Values Mo tive were accounted for in the regression equation. Similar results were also observ ed for the Organizational Concern Motive ( = -.25, p > .05). Supervisor-reports of OCB. Hypothesis 8 was also tested using supervisorreports of Altruism. Again, results did not support a moderated rela tionship with regard to the Prosocial Values Motive. In partic ular, the beta-weight associated with the LMX*Prosocial Values interac tion term was not significant ( = -.66, p > .05) once LMX-quality and the Prosocial Values Motiv e were accounted for in the regression equation. This effect was also observed using the Organizatio nal Concern Motive ( = .80, p > .05).

PAGE 80

72 Additional Analyses Based on additional relationships observe d in this study (e.g., LMX-quality and various dimensions of OCB), further analys es were conducted to learn more about the connection between leadership, motives, and OCB. The results of these analyses are described below. Transformational Leadership, Al truism, and the OC and PV Motives As mentioned, a significant correlation (.33, p < .01) was observed between subordinate perceptions of transformationa l leadership and self-reports of Altruism. To further investigate the nature of this relationship, additional mediational an alyses were conducted using both the Organizational Concern and Pr osocial Values Motives (see Table 12). Beginning with the Organizational Concer n Motive, results were supportive of full mediation. Specifically, the beta-weight associated with transformational leadership showed a decrease from .33 (p < .01) in the first equation (which included transformational leadership alone ) to .04 (p > .05) in the four th equation (which included the Organizational Concern Motive and tran sformational leadersh ip, respectively). In contrast, results supported the Prosoc ial Values Motive as a partial mediator. Specifically, the beta-weight associated w ith transformational leadership showed a decrease from .33 (p < .01) in the first equation (which included transformational leadership alone) to .21 (p < .01) in the f ourth equation (which included the Prosocial Values Motive and transformational leadershi p, respectively). In addition, results of the Sobel test supported this conclusion (z = 2.55, p < .05).

PAGE 81

73 Table 12. Motives Mediator An alysis for Transformational Leadership and Self-reports of Altruism Dependent Variable: Altruism Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .33** .33 .11** Step4: OC Motive, TFL .04 .67** .69 .47** Dependent Variable: Altruism Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: TFL .33** .33 .11** Step4: PV Motive, TFL .21** .51** .60 .36** p <.05, ** p <.01 LMX-quality, OCB, and Motives It was also observed th at LMX-quality related positively to all five self-reported OCB dimensions, and, with the exception of Conscientiousness, all five supervisor-reported dimensions. Additional analyses were performed to identify the nature of these re lationships; specificall y, to determine whether the Organizational Concern or Prosocial Valu es Motives served as a primary mediator. The results of each of the regression anal yses, including the beta-coefficients and their associated significance le vels, are displayed in Tables 13 and 14. With the exception of Civic Virtue, full mediation was observed regarding both motives for each of the selfreport OCB dimensions. However, in each case, the relative decrease in the beta-weights from the first to the fourth equations was greatest for the Organiza tional Concern Motive. These results argue for the subordinate Orga nizational Concern as the primary mediator, although the Prosocial Values Motive was also associated with significant mediational effects. In the case of self-reported Civic Virt ue, both motives were associated with partial mediation. This finding was also supported by results of the Sobel test

PAGE 82

74 Table 13. Motives Mediator Analysis for LMX-quality and Self-reports of OCB Dependent Variable: Conscientiousness Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .24** .24 .06** Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .03 .54** .55 .31** Dependent Variable: Conscientiousness Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .24** .24 .06** Step4: PV Motive, LMX-quality .16 .27** .36 .13** Dependent Variable: Sportsmanship Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .21* .21 .05* Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .09 .32** .37 .14** Dependent Variable: Sportsmanship Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .21** .21 .05* Step4: PV Motive, LMX-quality .15 .23** .31 .10** Dependent Variable: Courtesy Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .20* .20 .04* Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .02 .56** .55 .30** Dependent Variable: Courtesy Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .20** .20 .04* Step4: PV Motive, LMX-quality .05 .52** .54 .29** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .37** .37 .13** Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .15* .55** .62 .39** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .37** .37 .13** Step4: PV Motive, LMX-quality .25** .42** .55 .30** p <.05, ** p <.01

PAGE 83

75 Table 14. Motives Mediator An alysis for LMX-quality and Supervisor-reports of OCB Dependent Variable: Courtesy Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .23** .23 .05** Step2: OC Motive, LMX-quality .16 .19* .29 .08** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .23** .23 .05** Step2: OC Motive, LMX-quality .07 .40** .44 .19** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .23** .23 .05** Step2: PV Motive, LMX-quality .16 .24** .33 .11** p <.05, ** p <.01 [Organizational Concern Motiv e (z = 3.98, p < .01), Prosocial Values Motive (z = 2.82, p < .05)]. Again, however, the largest decrease in the value of the beta-weights was associated with the Organizational Concer n Motive. This result would again support subordinate Organizational C oncern as the primary mediat or in this relationship. Supervisor-reports of OCB displayed a similar trend. As mentioned, LMX-quality correlated significantly with four of the five OCB dimensions (the exception was Conscientiousness). Of these, subsequent me diational analyses were performed with the Courtesy and Civic Virtue dimensions (med iation was not attempted with Sportsmanship, as supervisor-reports of this dimension failed to correlate with either the Prosocial Values or Organizational Concern Motive). As can be seen in Table 14, evidence for full mediation was observed for the Organizat ional Concern Motive regarding both the Courtesy and Civic Virtue dimensions. In addition, the Prosocial Values Motive was found to fully mediate the relationship betw een LMX-quality and Civic Virtue. In the

PAGE 84

76 case of this dimension, however the relative decrease in th e value of the beta-weights was larger for the Organizational Concern Motive in comparison to the Prosocial Values Motive. Mediational Analyses from the Supe rvisors Leadership Perspective As mentioned, subordinate and supervisor perceptions of l eadership displayed differential relationships with a number of criteria. For example, although subordinate perceptions of transformational leadership correlated significantly with both the Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values Motives, these relationships did not exist when transformational leadership was measured from the perspectiv e of the supervisor. As such, mediational analyses were onl y conducted using subordinate reports of transformational leadership. The case was somewhat different for LMX-quality. Specifically, significant relationships were observed between supervisor perceptions of LMX-quality and both the Organizational Concern and Impression Mana gement Motives, as well as the five supervisor-reported OCB dimensions. Therefor e, mediational anal yses were conducted using the Organizational Concern Motive (no relationship was found between the Impression Management Motive and supervis or-reported OCB) and supervisor-reported Altruism, Conscientiousness, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue. Sportsmanship was not included in these analyses, as the Organiza tional Concern Motive fa iled to significantly correlate with this dimension. As can be seen in Table 15, the beta -weights associated with LMX-quality dropped slightly from the first regression e quation to the fourth for each of the OCB dimensions tested. Although these results are evidence for partial me diation according to

PAGE 85

77 Baron and Kennys (1986) crit eria, results of the Sobel test argued against partial mediation for each dimension (Altruism, z = 1.73, p >.05; Conscientiousness, z = 1.38, p > .05; Courtesy, z = 1.50, p > .05; Civic Vi rtue, z = 1.87, p > .05). Thus, given these results and the relatively small decrease in the value of the beta-weights, it can be argued that the Organizational Concern Motive was not a mediator in these relationships. Table 15. Motives Mediator An alysis Based on the Superv isors Perspective of LMXquality and OCB. Dependent Variable: Altruism Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .50** .50 .25** Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .45** .26** .56 .31** Dependent Variable: Conscientiousness Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .44** .44 .19** Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .41** .16* .47 .22** Dependent Variable: Courtesy Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .32** .32 .10** Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .28** .20* .37 .14** Dependent Variable: Civic Virtue Independent Variable (antecedent) (mediator) R R2 Step1: LMX-quality .36** .36 .13** Step4: OC Motive, LMX-quality .29** .38** .52 .27** p <.05, ** p <.01

PAGE 86

78 Chapter Four Discussion In general, the goal of this study was to expand upon previous research in the area of leadership and OCB by further defining rela tionships between select leadership styles (i.e., transformational leadership and LMXquality) and different OCB dimensions. In contrast to a direct effects model, this study hypothesized that both transformational leadership and LMXquality were associated with the arousal of sp ecific motives states (e.g., Organizational Concern, Prosocial Values), and that these motives, in turn, were associated with the performance of OCB (i .e., a through mediation and/or moderation). This hypothesis was taken one step further by suggesting that diffe rent motives were more strongly associated with specific lead ership styles, as well as with different OCB dimensions. As a whole, results of this study support the mediated model depicted in Figure 1. That is, support was found across both superv isor and subordinate ratings of OCB that motives do, in fact, mediate the relationship between select lead ership styles and different OCB dimensions. Contrary to prediction, however, the Organizational Concern Motive was supported as the dominant mediator across all leadership -OCB relationships. Specifically, although both motives received sup port as mediators, the mediational effect was generally stronger for the Organizationa l Concern Motive as compared to the Prosocial Values Motive. Taken together, th ese findings suggest that both leadership

PAGE 87

79 styles are associated with a general concern for the organizat ion, which in turn, is linked with the performance of OCB. Figure 1. A Mediated Model of the Effect s of Transformational Leadership and LMX quality on OCB It should be noted that Figur e 1 displays a slightly overs implified interpretation of the results of this study by failing to include the mediational effects observed for the Prosocial Values Motive. The rational for this model as well as further discussion of the results are provided below. Relationships Among Variables As previously mentioned, a number of significant relationships were observed among the variables in this study. Most importantly, subordinate reports of Transformational Leadership Organizational Concern Altruism Conscientiousness Sportsmanship Courtesy Civic Virtue LMX-quality

PAGE 88

80 transformational leadership and LMX-quality were significantly associated with all five dimensions of OCB. As a whole, this trend was observed across both selfand supervisor-reports of OCB, although the correl ations were somewhat smaller using the supervisor OCB ratings. The only exception to this trend were the nonsignificant correlations found between transf ormational leadership and su pervisor-repor ted Altruism, as well as LMX-quality and supervisor-rated Conscientiousness. In general, these findings support previ ous research addressing the connection between transformational leadership, LMXquality, and OCB (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2001). That is, transformational leaders were found to have a positive impact across every form of citizenship behavior. Simila rly, supervisor-subordi nate relationships characterized by high levels of trust, support, liking, and atte ntion were also associated with increased OCB. This research suggest s that these specific leadership styles encourage employees to engage in informal behaviors that benefit the organization, ranging from those directed toward individual organiza tional members (e.g., Altruism, Courtesy) to those aimed at benefiti ng the organization as a whole (e.g., Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue). This was a key finding that set the stage for determining the exact nature of these leadership-OCB relationships. As predicted, significant re lationships were also f ound between both styles of leadership and OCB motives. Specificall y, results showed si gnificant positive relationships between subordi nate perceptions of both l eadership styles and the Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values Motives (lending support to Hypotheses 1 and 6). Transformational leadership, how ever, showed a significantly stronger relationship with the Organiza tional Concern Motive. Althou gh larger in magnitude, the

PAGE 89

81 correlation between LMX-quality and the Organizational Concern Motive was not significantly different from its correlation with the Prosocial Values Motive. Finally, no relationship was found between s ubordinate perceptions of eith er leadership style and the Impression Management Motive. These findings suggest that both transformational leader ship and LMX-quality are linked with specific employee motivations. Alth ough also associated with the desire to help others and be accepted by them, transf ormational leadership was more strongly related with an employees general concern for the organizations overall well-being. As mentioned, this association aligns with a basi c tenant of transformational leadership. That is, encouraging followers to transcend thei r own self-interests and move beyond simple leader-member transactions for the g ood of the organization (Bass, 1985). In contrast, perceptions of LMX-quality were closely linked with both motive states. That is, high-quality supervisor-subordinate relations hips were positively related to a desire to help others and be accepted by them, as well as a positive regard for the organization as a whole. Although not signifi cantly different, perceptions of LMX-quality did show a slightly stronger association with the Organizational Concern Motive. As with transformational leadership, this finding suggests that a general concern for the organization is a primary outcome of a heal thy supervisor-subordi nate relationship. It was interesting to note that neither leadership style was associated with Impression Management (when measured from the perspective of the subordinate). More specifically, subordinate percepti ons of either leadership st yle were not linked with a desire to avoid negative evalua tion by others or to gain mate rial rewards. This finding is somewhat encouraging, as it suggests that e ffective leadership is more likely to evoke

PAGE 90

82 more genuine motivations to help the organi zation. While past studies have shown an association between all three motives and various types of OCB (e.g., Finkelstein & Penner, 2004), the Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values motives seem to be a closer match with conceptions of how e ffective leadership impacts subordinate motivations. In general, past studies on OCB motives had revealed differe ntial relationships between both the Organizational Concern a nd Prosocial Values Motive and certain dimensions of OCB (e.g., Rioux & Penner, 2001; Connell & Penner, 2004). In particular, the Organizational Concern Motive was consis tently most strongly associated with the Conscientiousness dimension, while the Prosocial Values Motive was more strongly related to the Altruism dimension. The curr ent study observed a slig htly different trend. That is, of the two OCB dimensions menti oned (Altruism and Conscientiousness), both the Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values Motive were found to correlate significantly stronger with the Altruism dimension across both subordinate and supervisor reports of OCB. In addition, bot h the Organizational C oncern and Prosocial Values Motive correlated most strongly with the Civic Virtue dimension (.43, .29, respectively, p <.01) using s upervisor-reports of OCB. Currently, we have not found a convincing explanation for why this occurre d. For example, restriction of range alone could not have accounted for this effect, as the degree of variability was similar across both motives and OCB dimensions. Regardless, the finding that both motives consistently correlated with each of the five OCB dimens ions reinforces their role as important antecedents of OCB.

PAGE 91

83 With regard to supervisor perceptions of leadership, findings were somewhat less consistent when compared with subordinat e perceptions. For example, it was somewhat surprising to observe the l ack of agreement between subordinate and supervisor perceptions of transformati onal leadership (r = .16, p > .05). Similarly, although the correlation between subordinate and superv isor perceptions of LMX-quality was significant (.27, p < .01), this relationship was surprisingly small considering both parties were (in theory) rating the same relationship. Although perceptions of transformational le adership are predominantly measured from the subordinate perspective, other res earch has compared the perceptions of LMXquality across leaders and followers. For exampl e, in their meta-analytic review of LMX theory, Gernster and Day (1997) found an unc orrected correlation of .29 between leader and member perceptions of LMX-quality. This finding suggests that a certain amount of disagreement between leader and subordinate pe rceptions of leadership is not unusual, as was the case in the current study. As such, it is important to include both parties perspectives when investigating the overall e ffects of leadership on both subordinate and organizational outcomes. From a practical perspe ctive, this finding also demonstrates that a leader should make the effort to unders tand how his/her behavior s are being perceived by the employees that he/she supervises. Along similar lines, supervisor perceptions of leadership also showed different relationships with a number of criterion variables. No t surprisingly, supervisor perceptions of both leadership st yles most consistently correl ated with supervisor reports of OCB (with the exception of transformational leadership and both the Sportsmanship and Courtesy dimensions). However, in contrast to transfor mational leadership,

PAGE 92

84 supervisor reports of LMX-quality correlate d significantly with bot h the Organizational Concern and Impression Management Motives. Th is finding is especially interesting for the Impression Management Motive, which was not significantly rela ted to subordinate perceptions of LMX-quality. It is not completely clear why leader perceptions of LMXquality would be a better indicator of employee Impression Management than subordinate perceptions. Conversely, it could perhaps be argued that an employees tendency to impression manage somehow influences their supe rvisors view of their own leadership ability. Regardless of the directi on of this relationship, future research is needed to further clarif y the relationship between Impression Management and subordinate and supervisor perceptions of LMX-quality. Finally, significant correla tions were also observed between each of the OCB dimensions across rating sources. In general, the size of these corre lations suggests that, although related, subordinate a nd supervisor perceptions of OCB do not completely overlap. This finding again argues for the use of multiple sources regarding OCB research. In addition, better agreement was observed for certain types of OCB versus others. For example, OCB directed toward s the organization as a whole (e.g., Civic Virtue, Conscientiousness) tended to show higher correlations across sources than OCB directed towards individual members (e.g., Al truism, Courtesy). This finding may be attributed to the increased visibility associat ed with certain types of OCB. For example, serving on a formal committee within the organization may be more visible to a supervisor than assisting another co-worker during a typical workday.

PAGE 93

85 Transformational Leadersh ip, Motives, and OCB Overall, significant support was found fo r subordinate Organizational Concern as a primary mediator in the relationshi p between subordinate perceptions of transformational leadership and OCB. This likewise provided support for Hypotheses 1 5. As mentioned, subordinate perceptions of transformational le adership correlated significantly with the Organi zational Concern Motive (.44). In addition, evidence for full mediation was found for the Organizational C oncern Motive across selfand supervisorreports of Conscientiousness, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue, as well as self-reports of Sportsmanship. Finally, additiona l analyses also revealed that the Organizational Concern Motive was associated with full mediational effects with regard to self-reports of Altruism. Taken together, these findings provide im portant evidence for the notion that the relationship between perceptions of transf ormational leadership and OCB may not be direct in nature. Rather, as predicted, a mediated model that includes employee motivations seems more descriptive (see Figur e 1). Based on the results of this study, it can be argued that subordinate perceptions of transformational leadership are associated with a general concern for the organization. Th ese feelings are, in turn, linked with a number of different types of OCB. Thus, ev idence supports the no tion that subordinate Organizational Concern serves as the unde rlying mechanism by which transformational leadership influences OCB. It should be noted that evidence was provi ded for the Prosocial Values Motive as a partial, and in some cases, full mediator regarding transformationa l leadership and all five OCB dimensions. However, in each cas e, the relative decrease in the beta-weights

PAGE 94

86 from the first regression equation (including transformational leadership alone) to the fourth equation (including transformationa l leadership and the relevant motive, respectively) was larger for the Organizational Concern Motive than the Prosocial Values Motive. These results suggest th at subordinate perceptions of transformational leadership are associated with two specific motive states : a desire to help others and be accepted by them, and a general concern for the organizatio ns well-being. However, in terms of their relative mediational effects re garding different types of OCB, evidence supports the Organizational Concern Motive as th e primary underlying mechanism. As a whole, these results clearly iden tify a third variable (Organizational Concern) as the primary underlying mechan ism by which transfor mational leadership influences employee OCB. In addition, the mediational effects associated with the Organizational Concern Motive were roughly th e same across most forms of citizenship performance. This finding is significant, as it supports the th eoretical notion that transformational leaders prom ote a general positive regard for the organization among their followers. Most importantly, this study ad dresses a current gap in the literature by describing how certain leadership behaviors impact OCB. As depicted here, without feelings of Organizational Concern, the effects of tr ansformational leadership on subordinate OCB are unlikely to be realized. LMX-quality, Motives, and OCB This study also predicted that the re lationship between LMX-quality and the Altruism dimension would be mediated and/ or moderated by employee motives. In the case of Hypothesis 7, it was pred icted that the Prosocial Va lues Motive would serve as the underlying mechanism by which LMX-qual ity influenced subordinate Altruism.

PAGE 95

87 Results were supportive of the Prosocial Valu es Motive as a partial mediator using selfreports of Altruism (no support was found usi ng supervisor reports). However, stronger evidence was observed for the Organizational Concern Motive. Specifically, results provided evidence of full mediation for the Organizational Concern Motive across both sources of OCB ratings (self and supervisor). In the case of Hypothesis 8, it was pred icted that the Prosocial Values Motive would also moderate the rela tionship between LMX-quality a nd subordinate Altruism. In other words, a relatively strong positiv e relationship between LMX-quality and subordinate Altruism was proposed to exist when the level of s ubordinate Prosocial Values was high. In contrast, when the level of subordinate Prosocial Values was low, a much smaller relationship was predicted to ex ist between these two variables. Results did not support this prediction using either selfor supervisor-reports of OCB. In addition, nonsignificant results were also observed with the Organizational Concern Motive. Although these last set of hypotheses did not receive strong suppor t, their results are still useful regarding the effects of relationship quality on OCB. Specifically, this evidence suggests that LMX-quality is significantly associated with both the Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values Motives, and that a slightly stronger relationship exists regarding the Organizational Concern Motive. These motivations are, in turn, linked with OCB directed toward individual members of the organization. Thus, similar to transformational leadership, Orga nizational Concern serves as the general mechanism by which LMX-quality impacts this particular OCB dimension. Although contrary to prediction, this result is not surprising based on the relatively strong correlation found between transf ormational leadership and LM X-quality (.77, p < .01). In

PAGE 96

88 addition, both leadership styles showed la rger correlations with the Organizational Concern Motive as compared with the Prosocial Values Motive. With regard to the role of either the Organizational Concern or Prosocial Values Motive as a moderator, it is unlikely that either motive is associated with the hypothesized effects. More spec ifically, the strength of the relationship between LMXquality and subordinate Altruism was not c ontingent upon the level of Prosocial Values (or Organizational Concern) reported by the subordinate. Although a small sample size likely contributed to this resu lt, the nonsignificant p-values were large, and were unlikely to increase even given a larger sample size ( i.e., N > 200). Although contrary to prediction, it seems both the Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values Motives are more suited to the role of mediators. Howeve r, future research employing larger sample sizes is still needed to furt her clarify these relationships. Although results were not strongly supportive of Hypotheses 7 and 8, additional analyses involving LMX-quality, motives, a nd additional dimensions of OCB provided more encouraging results. Specifically, with the exception of Civic Virtue, full mediation was observed for both motives (e.g., Prosocia l Values and Organizational Concern) regarding each of the self-reported OCB dimens ions. For Civic Virtue, both motives were associated with partial mediation. In the case of supervisor-reports of OCB, results were also similar. For the dimensions that were te sted, Courtesy and Civic Virtue, evidence for full mediation was observed for the Organiza tional Concern Motive. Full mediation was also observed for the Prosocial Values Motive in the case of Civic Virtue. Taken together, these results somewhat mirror those found with transformational leadership. That is, across both rating sour ces and numerous dimensions of OCB,

PAGE 97

89 evidence was provided that supports the Orga nizational Concern Motive as the primary mediator between LMX-quality and subordinate OCB. As depicted in Figure 1, leadermember relationships characterized by high leve ls of support, trust, liking, and latitude are associated with a general concern for th e organization. These feelings, in turn, are linked with different types of subordinate OCB. This resu lt was somewhat contrary to prediction, as the Prosocial Values Motive was predicted to play a more substantial role in these relationships. However, base d on the strong correlation found between perceptions of transformational leadership and LMX-quality, it is not surprising that these two leadership approaches, al though arguably unique, would di splay similar relationships with the OCB motives. Comparative Mediational Effects Overall, the analyses described above lend support to the Or ganizational Concern Motive as the primary mediator in the re lationships between perceptions of both leadership variables and vari ous dimensions of OCB. Two main pieces of evidence support this argument. First, although in the ca se of most of the hypotheses, the Prosocial Values Motive received support as a partial me diator, the relative de crease in the betaweights associated with the leadership pr edictor (e.g., transformational leadership, LMXquality) from the first regression equation to the fourth was generally larger for the Organizational Concern Motive than for the Prosocial Values Motive. Based on this evidence, it can be argued that the Orga nizational Concern Motive played a more dominant role in these le adership-OCB relationships. Second, partial correlations observed betw een the leadership variables, both motives, and the five OCB dimensions further su pport this argument. Th at is, in order to

PAGE 98

90 address the relative effect of each motive, pa rtial correlations were computed between the Prosocial Values Motive and both transformational leadersh ip and LMX-quality while controlling for the effects of th e Organizational Con cern Motive. In both cases, the partial correlation between the Prosocial Values Motive and either transformational leadership or LMX-quality was nonsignificant (-.10, .02, resp ectively). Results were similar when partial correlations were calculated between the Prosocial Values Motive and both selfand supervisor-reports of OCB. Specificall y, when the effect of the Organizational Concern Motive was controlled, the correlati on between the Prosocia l Values Motive and each of the five OCB dimensions was nonsignificant (the only exception was self-reports of Courtesy). In contrast, th is effect was not observed w ith the Organizational Concern Motive when the influence of the Prosocial Values Motive was controlled. These findings provide further support fo r the Organizational Concern Motive as the primary mediator. Specifically, it is possi ble that any mediati onal effects observed with the Prosocial Values Motive were due to its overlap with the Organizational Concern Motive. Alternatively, it was also postulated that the Prosocial Values Motive may have acted as a suppressor variable. In other words, including this variable in the regression equation along with the other pr edictors (i.e., either transformational leadership or LMX-quality, a nd the Organizational Concern Mo tive) may have helped to explain additional variance in OCB. This hypothesis was also tested using multiple regression. However, results did provide evidence for this effect with regard to any of the OCB dimensions.

PAGE 99

91 Different Leadership Perspectives (Subordinate versus Supervisor) It should be noted that the results of this study differed substantially depending on the source of leadership inquiry. For ex ample, one interesting finding was that mediational effects were only observed with transformational leadership when these behaviors were measured from the perspective of the subordinate. As mentioned, supervisor perceptions of transformational leadership failed to correlate significantly with either the Organizational Concern, Prosocial Values, or Impression Management motives. Thus, mediational analyses coul d not be performed using this particular set of predictors. Combined with the finding that subordinate reports of transformational leadership failed to significantly corre late with supervis or reports (.16, p > .05), these results suggest that a leaders view of their own transformational leadership behaviors is not necessarily an accurate indicator of their subordi nates performance motivations. In the case of LMX-quality, significan t relationships were observed between supervisor-reports of leadership and both the Organizational Concern and Impression Management Motives, as well as all five s upervisor-reported OCB dimensions. However, evidence was not supportive of either motive as a mediator in these leadership-OCB relationships. As mentioned, thes e results are in stark contrast to those associated with subordinate-reports of LMX-quality, wh ich found substantial evidence for the Organizational Concern Motive as a primary mediator. Thes e different outcomes again highlight the need to include both parties pers pectives in leadership research. Also, in comparison to leader perceptions of transfor mational leadership, this study suggests that a leaders assessment of LMX-qua lity can be a significant predictor of what motivates a subordinate on the job.

PAGE 100

92 Limitations This study helped to shed light on a nu mber of important relationships between transformational leadership, LMX-quality, mo tives, and OCB. That being said, certain limitations should also be acknowledged. Firs t and foremost, as with most studies investigating OCB, this study was cross-sectional in nature. As a result, it is difficult to make causal inferences regarding the relati onship between leadership, motives, and OCB. Future studies should incorporate more longitu dinal designs, so that the influence of both leadership and motives on OCB may be ex amined over time. In addition, more experimental approaches should also be use d, allowing more insight regarding the issue of causality. A second potential weakness of this study was that the supervisors selected the subordinates included in this st udy. This approach is in contra st to either the researcher randomly selecting the subordi nates for each supervisor, or the supervisor providing ratings on each of the employees that they supe rvise (which was the case in some instances). The danger with the approach used in this study is that the supervisors could have inadvertently biased these results by selecting only those employees who perform exceptionally well on the job. Thus, the samp le would have only included employees who tended to report high levels of OCB, as well as more favorable ratings of transformational leadership and LMX-quality. We attempted to counter this threat by including a statement in the supervisors set of instructions that reminded them to select employees that represented a range of performa nce. In other words, each supervisor was instructed not to select all high pe rformers or all low performers.

PAGE 101

93 Examination of the descriptives and distri butions for each scale indicated that the instructions were moderately successful at incorporating an acceptable amount of variance into the sample. Although a number of significant correlations were observed across variables, the range of scores obser ved for each scale tended to be somewhat small. In addition, the distributions were bi modal for some of the measures. That is, the majority of scores tended to occur both to wards the middle and at the high end of the range for these particular scales. However, although it could be argued that this sample displayed a slight positive bias with regard to leadership perceptions and OCB, we would argue that this trend is no t significant enough to discred it the results of this study. Finally, research has consistently dem onstrated that repo rts of OCB differ depending on the source. For instance, employ ees tend to exaggerate the frequency of their own behaviors, or may monitor thes e behaviors while in the presence of a supervisor. The present study addressed this concern by incl uding both selfand supervisor-ratings of OCB. However, it could be argued that the inclusion of co-worker ratings would have provided a more comprehensive perspective. This criticism is justified by the tendency of co-workers to have cl oser and more frequent contact with an employee when compared to a supervisor, which allows them more opportunities to observe the occurrence of OCB. However, supervisor ratings generally have been found to be more objective in comparison to co-w orker ratings. This observation has been credited to factors such as friendship, whic h may sometimes bias co-worker perceptions. Thus, although the inclusion of supervis or-reports of OCB was clearly a more comprehensive approach than relying on self -reports alone, the inclusion of co-worker

PAGE 102

94 reports would have arguably provided an ev en more complete re presentation of the subordinates OCB. Future Research Based on what this study has revealed, a number of future directions should be taken to further expand on these results. First, these findings have significant bearing on traditional antecedent-OCB models. Penner et al .s (1997) conceptual model of OCB (see Figure 2), for example, argues that short-term OCB (i.e., intermediate OCB) is influenced by organizational variables, j ob attitudes, mood on the j ob, prosocial orientation, and motives for OCB. However, as time passes, individuals who engage in high levels of OCB began to identify with the role of the good organizational citizen. That is, organizational citizenship becomes a compone nt of their role id entity within the organization. Penner and his colleagues argue that the development of this type of personal identity is important because it be comes the mechanism by which each of the variables mentioned above affects enduring or long-term OCB. That is, over time, the direct effects of these variables on OCB are significantly reduced, and are instead transferred through the indivi duals role identity as a good organizational citizen. Combined with the work of other re searchers (Tillman,1998; Connell & Penner, 2004; Finkelstein & Penner, 2004), results of the study reconceptu alize the manner in which motives are expected to influence O CB. Specifically, in addition to serving as antecedents, these prior studies suggest that the Prosocial Values and Organizational Concern Motives both moderate and mediate the relationship between certain antecedent variables (e.g., procedural justice, aff ective commitment) and OCB. In addition, Finkelstein and Penner (2004) determined that th e development of citizen role identity is

PAGE 103

95 linked with the acquisition of motives, and th at these motives influence the performance of OCB (rather than the reverse). Figure 2. Penner et al.s (1997) Conceptual Model of the Causes of OCB The current study expanded upon these resu lts by providing evidence for similar relationships among additiona l antecedents (i.e., transf ormational leadership, LMXquality) and different dimensions of OCB. That is, perceptions of both leadership styles were primarily associated with subordinate Organizational Concern, which in turn, was linked with a variety of short-term OCB beha viors. Combined with previous studies, these results clearly demonstrate a need to revisit Penner et als OCB model. Future research should continue to expand upon its th eoretical tenants, as well as similar models Organizational Variables Mood on the Job Job Attitudes Prosocial Orientation Intermediate OCB Citizen Role Identity Motives for OCB Enduring OCB

PAGE 104

96 of OCB. As seen with the cu rrent study, additional dispos itional variables and outcomes of OCB should be investigated to help furthe r clarify the nature of these relationships. On a related note, efforts should also be directed towards more underemphasized antecedents of OCB. As mentioned, one such area that has shown significant potential are task characteristics. For example, in his rece nt review of the OCB literature, Podsakoff et al. (2001) demonstrated that task feedback, ta sk routinization, and in trinsically satisfying tasks each displayed significant correla tions with Altruism Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue ac ross multiple studies. Specifically, task feedback and intrinsically satisfying tasks displayed significant positive relationships, while task routinization displayed signifi cant negative relationships. Building on the results of this study, future efforts should address whether employee motives play any significant role in these relationships. For exam ple, it may be the case that all three task variables are significantly related with subor dinate Organizational Concern. That is, the amount of satisfaction and feedback associated with a particular task could be positively related to ones concern for the organization, while the rou tine nature of a task could likewise contribute to a lack of organi zational concern. As wi th perceptions of transformational leadership and LMX, the Organizational Concern Motive could also potentially serve as the underlying mechan ism by which these task characteristics influence OCB. In addition, similar effects ma y also be observed with other leadership variables (e.g., Supportive Beha vior) and antecedents (e.g., role ambiguity, role conflict, perceived organizational suppor t), each of which have s hown significant relationships with OCB and also share a theoretical c onnection with the Organizational Concern Motive.

PAGE 105

97 In sum, the areas mentioned above are currently underresearched in the OCB literature. The results of the current study pr ovide a theoretical basis for uncovering what mechanisms may be involved in their rela tionships with citizenship performance. At this time, research addressing the e ffects of cultural differences on OCB is somewhat limited. As proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2001), these poten tial effects could vary from the types of OCB that are perfor med in organizations, to the strength of the relationships observed between select anteced ents and different dimensions of OCB. Similarly, employee motivations for engagi ng in OCB may also vary by culture. For example, it is reasonable to assume that a greater importance may be placed on the Organizational Concern Motive in a culture that is primarily collectivistic versus individualistic. This hypothesi s is based on the tendency of collectivist cultures to value the success of the group as a whole (e.g., th e organization), wher eas individualistic cultures tend to emphasize personal success as the ultimate reward. Similarly, an entirely different set of motives may be appropriate fo r cultures that are dissimilar to the United States. That is, cultural valu es may play a significant ro le in shaping an employees performance motivations. However, until efforts are made to incorporate cultural nuances into OCB research, the knowledge surr ounding OCB, including its drivers and organizational impacts, will only be generalizable to Western societies. Finally, better statistical t echniques are needed in the investigation of antecedents and OCB. Structural equation modeling (SEM), for example, has the ability to test the plausibility of an entire mode l as it applies to a given data set. Such an approach is advantageous because the relative effects of mu ltiple variables can be tested at the same time while also accounting for th e effects of measurement erro r (Byrne, 1998). This is in

PAGE 106

98 contrast to multiple regression techniques, wh ich are limited to examining portions of a model one at a time. Because of these advant ages, it has also been argued that SEM is a more effective means of testing cause and effect relationships between variables. However, a drawback of using SEM is that it re quires rather large sample sizes to test for these effects. This disadvantage aside, the use of SEM would help to clarify the accuracy of such models as Penner et al.s (1997) model of OCB. Applying such a technique would provide a more comprehensive perspect ive of the antecedents of OCB, and would showcase the relative effect of each anteceden t in combination with an entire set of predictors. Based on these obvious advantages, it is recommended that future research on leadership and OCB utilize more SEM techniques so that more accurate inferences can be made regarding the leader influence pr ocess and citizenship performance. Conclusions This study provides empirical evidence th at employee motives play a significant role in the relationships between two speci fic leadership variables (transformational leadership and LMX-quality) and various dime nsions of OCB. In general, consistent support was found for subordinate Organizational Concern as a significant mediator in these relationships across self and supervisor-reports of OCB. However, the prediction that subordinate Prosocial Values moderate d the relationship between LMX-quality and subordinate Altruism was not supported. These findings are significant in the context of current OCB research, as they provide insight regarding the nature of certain antecedentOCB relationships. From a practical standpoint, they also highlight th e need to consider employee motives as key determinants of employee citizenship performance.

PAGE 107

99 References Allen, K. (1982). Americans volunteer: 1981. Voluntary Action Leadership 21-23. Allen, T.D. (1999). Mentoring others: Mentor dis positions and desired protg characteristics Paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of Society of Industrial and Organizational Ps ychology, Atlanta, GA, April. Aroian, L. A. (1944/1947). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18 265-271. Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Transf ormational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J.G Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler & C.A. Schrisheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statis tical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1988). The insp irational process of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 7, 21-31. Bass, B.M (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the transactiona l-transformational paradigm transcend organizational a nd national boundaries? American Psychologist 52, 130-139. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Multifactor leadership questionnaire Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.G. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world class level. Journal of Management, 13 7 19.

PAGE 108

100 Bauer, T.A., & Green, S. (1996). Devel opment of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6) 1538-1567. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life New York: Wiley. Bolino, M.C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24 (1), 82-98. Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). E xpanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10 (2), 99-109. Borman, W.C., & Penner, L.A. (2001). Citizensh ip performance: Its nature, antecedents, and motives. In B.W. Roberts, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality Psychology in the Workplace (pp. 45-61), Washington, DC: Amer ican Psychological Association. Borman, W.C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T.D ., & Motowidlo, S.J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 (1-2), 52-69. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership New York: Harper & Row. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessment of Basss (1985) conceptualization of tr ansactional and transf ormational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4) 468-478. Cashman, J., Dansereau, F., Graen, G., and Haga, W.J. (1976). Organizational understructure and leadership: A longitudina l investigation of the managerial rolemaking process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15 278-296. Clary, E.G., & Orenstein, L. (1991). The amount and effectiveness of help: The relationship of motives and ab ilities to helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 58-64. Clary, E.G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A functiona l analysis of altruism and prosocial behavior: The case of volunteerism. In M.S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology : Vol. 12. Prosocial Behavior (pp.119-148), Knobbier, CA: Sage.

PAGE 109

101 Connell, P., & Penner, L.A. (2004). The antecedents of OCB: Motives as mediators Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago. Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J., (1975) A vertical dyad li nkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investig ation of the rolemaking process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13 46-78. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.G., & Markham, S.E. (1995). Leadership: The multiple level approaches. Leadership Quarterly, 6 97-109. Deluga, R.J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Pyschology, 67 315-3126. Deluga, R.J. (1998). Leader-member excha nge quality and effectiveness ratings. Group and Organization Management, 23 (2), 189-216. Dienesch, R.M., & Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11 618-634. Facteau, J.D., Allen, T.D., Facteau, C.L., Bordas, R.M., & Tears, R.S. (2000). Structured interviewing for OCBs: Construct validity, faking, and the ethics of question type Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. April. Finkelstein M.A., & Penner, L.A., (2004) Predicting organizational citizenship behavior: Integrating the functiona l and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32 (4), 383-398. Foa, U.G., & Foa, E.B. (1980). Resource theory : Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg, R.H. Willis (Eds.). Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research New York: Plenum Press. Forde, D.S.(2000). Correlates of organizational citizenship behavior motives Honors thesis, University of Sout h Florida, Tampa, Florida. Funder, D.C. (1995). Two cheers for the big five! Psychological Inquiry, 5 125-127. Funderberg, S.A., & Levy, P.E. (1997). The in fluence of individual and contextual variables on 360-degree feedback system attitudes. Group and Organization Management, 22 210-235.

PAGE 110

102 George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeli ng good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112 310-329. Gernster, C.R., & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-ana lytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6 827844. Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25 165-167. Graen, G.B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Graen, G., Novak, M.A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and job satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30 109131. Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T.A. (1987). To ward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior 9, 175-208. Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relatio nshipbased approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. Hanson, M.A. (1991). Volunteer motivation Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors ev aluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 73 695-702. Hense, R.L. (2000). The Big Five and cont extual performance: Expanding personenvironment fit theory. Unpublished manuscr ipt. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9 131-133. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations New York: Wiley.

PAGE 111

103 Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R.J., (1994) Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19 195-229. Konovsky, M.A., & Organ, D.W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17 (3), 253-266. Koys, D.J. (2001). The effects of employ ee satisfaction, organi zational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational e ffectiveness: A unitlevel, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1) 101-114. Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The rela tionship between man and the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4) 370-390. Liden, R.C. & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dya d linkage model of leadership. Academy of Manage ment Journal, 23 451-465. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674. Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiven ess correlates of transformational and transactional leadersh ip: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7 385-425. Mackenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 70-80. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood C.M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation a nd other intervening va riable effects. Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 83 McManus, M.A., & Kelly, M.L. (1999). Personality measures and biodata: Evidence regarding their incrementa l predictive value in the life insurance industry. Personnel Psychology, 52 137-148. Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness per ceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 845-855. Moorman, R.H., & Blakely, G.L., (1995). Indivi dualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organi zational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16 127-142.

PAGE 112

104 Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P., & Organ, D.W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sor ting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225. Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from cont extual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 475-80. Neuman, G.A. & Kickul, J.R. (1998). Organiza tional citizenship behaviors: Achievement orientation and personality. Journal of Business Psychology, 13 263-279. Nystrom, P.C. (1990). Vertical exchanges a nd organizational commitments of American business managers. Group and Organizational Studies, 15 296-312. Omoto, A., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 671-687. Omoto, A.M., Snyder, M., & Berghuis, J.P. (1993). The psychology of volunteerism: A conceptual analysis and a program of acti on research. In J.B. Pryor & G. Reeder (Eds.), The Social Psychology of HIV Infection (pp. 333-356). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behav ior: The good soldier syndrome Lexington, MA: Lexington. Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizationa l citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10 85-97. Organ, D.W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 157-164. Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizatio nal citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48 775802. Orr, J.M., Sackett, P.R., & Mercer, M. (1989) The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating the do llar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 34-40. Penner, L.A., & Finkelstein, M.A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (2), 525-537.

PAGE 113

105 Penner, L.A., Midili, A.R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10 (2), 111-131. Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship be havior. Indiana University. Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10 133-151. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2001). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A cri tical review of the theoreti cal and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3) 513-563. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Bomm er, W.H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organi zational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2) 259-298. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Morrman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and thei r effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizationa l citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Rioux, S.M. (1998). Assessing individual motives fo r engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors: A functional approach Unpublished Dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. Rioux, S.M., & Penner, L.A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1306-1314. Scandura, T.A., & Graen, G.B. (1984). Mode rating effects of in itial leader-member exchange status on the effect s of leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 428-436. Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S. L., & Cog liser, C.C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and dataanalytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1) 63-113. Settoon, R.P, Bennett, N., & Liden, R.C. ( 1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, le ader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 219-227.

PAGE 114

106 Skarlicki, D.P. & Latham, G.P. (1996). Incr easing citizenship behavi or within a labor union: A test of organi zational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 161-169. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983) Organizational citizen ship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 653-663. Stevens, J.P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Tansky, J.W. (1993). Justice and organizati onal citizenship beha vior: What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6 195-207. Tillman, P.T.E. (1998). In search of moderators of the rela tionship between predictors of organizational citizenship behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: The case of motives Unpublished masters thesis. Univer sity of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & Parks, J.M. ( 1995). Extra-role behavior s: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A br idge over muddied waters). In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 17): 215-285. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Dyne, L.V., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M.E., & Cummings, L.L., (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust, and self -esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 3-23. Van Scotter, J.R., & Motowidlo, S.J., (1996). Interpersonal facilita tion and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 525-531. Waldman, D.A., Bass, M.A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent rewardbehavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 15 381-394. Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1992). Negative aff ectivity: The disposi tion to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96 465-490. Wayne, S.J., & Green, S.A. (1993). The effect s of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46 14311440. Werner, J.M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (1), 98-107.

PAGE 115

107 Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job sa tisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational ci tizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 91 601-617. Yukl, G. (1998 ). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of concep tual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2) 285-305.

PAGE 116

108 Appendices

PAGE 117

109 Appendix A: Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI) Subordinate Version Below is a set of statements that may or ma y not describe your supe rvisors behavior at work. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you agree (or disagree) that each statement is desc riptive of your SUPERVISOR. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. Is always seeking new opportunities fo r the unit/department/organization. 2. Paints an interesting pictur e of the future for our group. 3. Has a clear understanding of where we are going. 4. Inspires others with his/her plans for the future. 5. Is able to get others committed to his/her dream of the future. 6. Leads by doing rather than simply telling. 7. Provides a good model to follow. 8. Leads by example. 9. Fosters collaboration among work groups. 10. Encourages employees to be team players. 11. Gets the group to work together for the same goal. 12. Develops a team attitude and spirit among his/her employees. 13. Shows that he/she expects a lot from us. 14. Insists on only the best performance. 15. Will not settle for second best. 16. Acts without consid ering my feelings.

PAGE 118

110 Appendix A (Continued) 17. Shows respect for my personal feelings. 18. Behaves in a manner that is t houghtful of my personal needs. 19. Treats me without consider ing my personal feelings. 20. Has provided me with new ways of looki ng at things which used to puzzle me. 21. Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some of my own ideas that I have never questioned before. 22. Has stimulated me to think about old problems in new ways.

PAGE 119

111 Appendix B: Transformational leadership Inventory (TLI) Supervisor Version Below is a set of statements which may or may not describe your behavior at work. Using the scale below, please indicate the ex tent to which you agree (or disagree) that each statement is descriptive of YOUR behavior as a leader. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. I am always seeking new opportunities for the unit/department/organization. 2. I paint an interesting pictur e of the future for our group. 3. I have a clear understandi ng of where we are going. 4. I inspire others with my plans for the future. 5. I am able to get others committed to my dream of the future. 6. I lead by doing rather than simply telling. 7. I provide a good model to follow. 8. I lead by example. 9. I foster collaboration among work groups. 10. I encourage employees to be team players. 11. I get the group to work t ogether for the same goal. 12. I develop a team attitude a nd spirit among my employees. 13. I show that I expect a lot from my employees. 14. I insist on only the best performance. 15. I will not settle for second best. 16. I act without considering my employees feelings.

PAGE 120

112 Appendix B (Continued) 17. I show respect for my employees personal feelings. 18. I behave in a manner that is thoughtfu l of my employees personal needs. 19. I treat my employees without cons idering their personal feelings. 20. I have provided my employees with new wa ys of looking at things which used to puzzle them. 21. I have ideas that have forced my employ ees to rethink some of their own ideas that they have never questioned before. 22. I have stimulated my employees to think about old problems in new ways.

PAGE 121

113 Appendix C: LMX7 Subordinate Version Using the scales presented below, please answer each of the following statements. 1. Do you know where you stand with your supervisordo you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do? 1 2 3 4 5 Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often 2. How well does your supervisor understand your job problems and needs? 1 2 3 4 5 Not a Bit A Little A Fair Amount Quite a Bit A Great Deal 3. How well does your supervisor recognize your potential? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at All A Little Moderately Mostly Fully 4. Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, what are the chances that your supervis or would use his/her power to help you solve problems at work? 1 2 3 4 5 None Small Moderate High Very High 5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your supervisor has, what are the chances that he/she would b ail you out, at his/her expense? 1 2 3 4 5 None Small Moderate High Very High

PAGE 122

114 Appendix C (Continued) 6. I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 7. How would you characterize you r working relationship w ith your supervisor? 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely Ineffective Worse Than Average Average Better Than Average Extremely Effective

PAGE 123

115 Appendix D: LMX7 Supervisor Version Using the scales presented below, please answer each of the following statements. 1. Does your subordinate know where th ey stand with youdo they usually know how satisfied you are with what they do? 1 2 3 4 5 Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often 2. How well do you understand your subordinates job problems and needs? 1 2 3 4 5 Not a Bit A Little A Fair Amount Quite a Bit A Great Deal 3. How well do you recognize their potential? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at All A Little Moderately Mostly Fully 4. Regardless of how much formal authority you have built into your position, what are the chances that you would use your pow er to help solve your subordinates problems at work? 1 2 3 4 5 None Small Moderate High Very High 5. Again, regardless of the amount of form al authority you have, what are the chances that you would bail your subor dinate out, at your own expense? 1 2 3 4 5 None Small Moderate High Very High

PAGE 124

116 Appendix D (Continued) 6. My subordinate has enough confidence in me that they would defend and justify my decision if I was not present to do so? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 7. How would you characterize you r working relationship w ith your subordinate? 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely Ineffective Worse Than Average Average Better Than Average Extremely Effective

PAGE 125

117 Appendix E: OCB Measure Subordinate Version Below is a set of statements which may or may not describe YOU R behavior at work. Using the scale below, please indicate the ex tent to which you agree (or disagree) with each statement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. My attendance at work is above the norm. 2. I help orient new people even though it is not required. 3. I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. 4. I am one of my supervisors most conscientious employees. 5. I help others who have heavy work loads. 6. I am the classic squeaky wheel that always needs greasing. 7. I attend meetings that are not manda tory, but are considered important. 8. I keep abreast of cha nges in the organization. 9. I tend to make mountains out of molehills. 10. I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching. 11. I try to avoid creating problems for coworkers. 12. I am mindful of how my behavi or affects other peoples jobs. 13. I always focus on whats wrong, rather than the positive side. 14. I read and keep up with organizatio nal announcements, memos, and so on. 15. I willingly help others who have work related problems. 16. I attend functions that are not requ ired, but help the company image.

PAGE 126

118 Appendix E (Continued) 17. I do not abuse the rights of others. 18. I consider the impact of my actions on coworkers. 19. I help others who have been absent. 20. I do not take extra breaks. 21. I am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me. 22. I believe in giving an honest da ys work for an honest days pay. 24. I always find fault with wh at the organization is doing.

PAGE 127

119 Appendix F: OCB Measure Supervisor Version Below is a set of statements which may or ma y not describe your subordinates behavior at work. Using the scale below, please indica te the extent to which you agree that each statement is descriptiv e of your SUBORDINATE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. Attendance at work is above the norm. 2. Helps orient new people even though it is not required. 3. Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. 4. Is one of my most conscientious employees. 5. Helps others who have heavy work loads. 6. Is the classic squeaky wheel that always needs greasing. 7. Attends meetings that are not manda tory, but are considered important. 8. Keeps abreast of changes in the organization. 9. Tends to make mountains out of molehills. 10. Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching. 11. Tries to avoid creating problems for coworkers. 12. Is mindful of how his/her behavi or affects othe r peoples jobs. 13. Always focuses on whats wrong, rather than the positive side. 14. Reads and keeps up with organizatio nal announcements, memos, and so on. 15. Willingly help others who have work related problems. 16. Takes steps to try to prevent problems with other workers.

PAGE 128

120 Appendix F: (Continued) 17. Attends functions that are not requi red, but help the company image. 18. Does not abuse the rights of others. 19. Considers the impact of hi s/her actions on co-workers. 20. Helps others who have been absent. 21. Does not take extra breaks. 22. Is always ready to lend a help ing hand to those around him/her. 23. Believes in giving an honest day s work for an honest days pay. 24. Always finds fault with wh at the organization is doing.

PAGE 129

121 Appendix G: Citizenship Motives Scale (CMS) During the course of the workday people often engage in prosocial or helpful behaviors. These behaviors are not a required part of th e job and they are not formally rewarded (e.g., more money). Yet these behaviors are very important and help the organization function smoothly. Examples of such behavior include: helping coworkers with a heavy worklo ad not taking long lunches or breaks touching base with others be fore initiating action keeping informed of changes in the organization attending functions that arent mandato ry not complaining over small things People are motivated to engage in these ki nds of behavior by many different things. Below is a list of motives that may influen ce people to engage in these behaviors. For each motive listed, please indicate HOW IMPORTANT that motive is for YOU to engage in these kinds of beha viors at work. Please see the s cale below and darken in the number corresponding to your response. Use the following scale to indicate your answer: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all important Slightly important Important Very important Extremely important 1. Because I have a genuine interest in my work. 2. Because I feel it is importa nt to help those in need. 3. To make myself more marketable to other organizations. 4. So that others will see me as helpful. 5. Because I want to be fully involved in the company. 6. To get a good raise. 7. In order to keep my job. 8. Because I am concerned about other peoples feelings. 9. Because I want to be a well-informed employee.

PAGE 130

122 Appendix G (Continued) 10. To have fun with my co-workers 11. To get a promotion. 12. So that others will like me. 13. Because I care what happens to the company. 14. Because I like interactin g with my co-workers. 15. So that others will think of me as supportive. 16. Because the organization values my work. 17. Because I want to help my co-workers in any way I can. 18. Because I feel pride in the organization. 19. Because I can put myself in other peoples shoes. 20. Because I want to understand how the organization works. 21. Because I believe in bein g courteous to others. 22. So that others will think highly of me. 23. To keep up with the latest deve lopments in the organization. 24. Because it is easy for me to be helpful. 25. So that I dont get laid off. 26. Because I am committed to the company. 27. To get to know my co-workers better. 28. Because the organization treats me fairly. 29. To be friendly with others. 30. So that others will think I pull my weight.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001709501
003 fts
005 20060614112125.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 060509s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001383
035
(OCoLC)68570614
SFE0001383
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (Online)
1 100
Connell, Patrick W.
0 245
Transformational leadership, leader-member exchange (LMX), and OCB
h [electronic resource] :
b the role of motives /
by Patrick W. Connell.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2005.
502
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 130 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of employee motives regarding select leadership-OCB relationships. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the relationships observed between transformational leadership and various dimensions of OCB would be mediated by subordinate Organizational Concern. In contrast, the relationship between LMX-quality and subordinate Altruism was predicted to be either mediated or moderated by subordinate Prosocial Values. Two hundred and one part-time and full-time employees (subordinates and supervisors) served as participants in this study, representing a total of 13 organizations in the Southeast United States. Results were based on a final sample of 131 supervisor-subordinate pairs. In general, participants responded to questionnaires that measured transformational leadership, LMX-quality, and OCB Motives (i.e., Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern, and Impression Management).Both subordinate and supervisor ratings of OCB were also collected. Analyses were based upon Baron and Kennys (1986) approach for mediation and moderation, as well as the Aroian version (1944/1947) of the Sobel test (1982). Across self- and supervisor-reports of OCB, results revealed that the Organizational Concern Motive significantly mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and various dimensions of OCB (Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue). Results also supported the Prosocial Values Motive as a partial mediator in the relationship between LMX-quality and self-reported Altruism. Surprisingly, a stronger mediating effect was consistently observed for the Organizational Concern Motive across both leadership styles and all five of Organs (1988) OCB dimensions. In contrast, no evidence was found for either motive with regard to moderation. Results also differed based on leadership perspective (subordinate versus supervisor).Taken as a whole, these results suggest that both transformational leadership and LMX-quality are strongly associated with an employees general concern for the organization. This motive is, in turn, associated with a variety of citizenship behaviors. In summary, this evidence addresses an important gap in the OCB literature by providing evidence for an indirect relationship between leadership perceptions and OCB.
590
Adviser: Dr. Walter C. Borman.
Co-adviser: Dr. Tammy D. Allen
653
Organizational concern.
Prosocial values.
Impression management.
Altruism.
Conscientiousness.
Sportsmanship.
Courtesy.
Civic virtue.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1383