A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management
Responsible Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Relationship Study.
Author
|
Divya Jyoti Thakur
Research Scholar
Faculty of Management Sciences and Liberal Arts.
Shoolini University, Solan H.P.
|
Dr. Dipanker Sharma
Associate Professor
Faculty of Management Sciences and Liberal Arts.
Shoolini University, Solan H.P.
|
Abstract
Leaders are recognized for the influence they are able to create on their followers. Leaders influence the action and behavior of their followers. This study has been undertaken to understand the relationship between Responsible leadership style and organizational citizenship behavior. A Sample of 121 employees working in pharmaceutical firms was included in the study. The study variables were measured on a metric scale. Suitable statistical techniques were applied on the collected data. The results revealed that there is no difference in study variables with respect to demographic characteristics of the sample. A positive correlation has been found between responsible leadership style and all the dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior except courtesy. Limitations and future scope of the study has been highlighted.
Civic virtue, sportsmanship, helping others, courtesy, consciousness, responsible leader.
Introduction
A leader is ‘‘someone who occupies a position in a group, influences others in accordance with the role expectation of the position, and co-ordinates and directs the group in maintaining itself and reaching its goal’’ (Raven and Rubin 1976, p. 37). Organizations and their leaders are increasingly including a broader group of stakeholders in their planning and decision- making. There in arises the need of responsible leader.
Responsible leader has been defined as one who creates a culture of inclusion built on solid moral ground (Pless and Maak 2004). A responsible leader must incorporate ethics, corporate responsibility, and conscious and conscientious stakeholder relations (Doh and Stumpf 2005). Employees are a critical stakeholder group—with its leaders and their collective actions serving as the model of behavior employees are expected to follow. Responsible leadership is an inclusive concept whereby employees perceive their organization as having an ethical and proactive stakeholder perspective toward constituents outside the organization and the employees themselves.
As leaders are adept at leading and motivating subordinates and play irreplaceable roles in supporting and shaping employees’ willingness to perform extra-role behaviors (Ramus 2001, Ramus & Steger, 2000), leadership has been recognized as an essential factor in determining employee organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In particular, responsible leadership, which requires leaders to be morally conscious toward the stakeholders inside and outside of the corporation, has been theorized and interpreted as an effective antecedent of employee OCB. Because employees are critical internal stakeholders, responsible leadership can raise employees’ levels of OCB.
OCB is defined as “a set of voluntary behaviours that results in improved functioning of organization’s duties” (Appelbaumet al., 2004, p. 19).
The five-dimensional classification of organizational citizenship behavior which was developed by Organ, 1988 depending on the responsibilities resulting from being a civil citizen (altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue, and sportsmanship) and is the most commonly used classification in the literature. Altruism is discretionary behavior that has the effect of helping a specific other person with an organizationally relevant task and problem (Podsakoff et al. 1990.).Civic virtue refers to the behavior on the part of employees indicating that they responsibly participate in, are involved in, or are concerned about the life of the organization (Organ, 1988).Courtesy identifies proactive gestures that are sensitive to the point of views of other job incumbents before acting, giving advance notice, and passing along information (Organ, 1988). Sportsmanship refers to the forbearance of doing some action such as filling petty grievance against the organization (Organ, 1988). Conscientiousness is the discretionary behavior on the part of an employee that goes beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization, in the areas of attendance, obeying rules and regulations, breaks (Podsakoff et al. 1990).
Review of Literature
From th previous studies it has been revealed that for success of operations in any type of organization the role of OCB is significant.
The employees who inculcate OCB, make the organization successful (Baker, 2005). Such employees are expected to engage in less counter work behaviour. Research has evidence that
Bormanet al., (2001) stressed on the association between OCB and effectiveness in the organization.(Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997), performance and job satisfaction (Bateman and Organ, 1983) and many other such behavioral outputs.
Many studies also have investigated the characteristics of leaders and organizations under the umbrella of responsible leadership (Doh and Stumpf, 2005; Waldman and Galvin, 2008). Responsible leaders care for their followers, and set an example of how to do things the right way concerning making decisions. So, how responsible leadership influences an employee’s OCB is a fundamental, and is a practical research topic that needs to be investigated.
Shi and Ye (2016) in their study examined the antecedents and consequences of responsible leadership and analyzed how responsible leadership influences the organization and employees. In their study they concluded that responsible leadership is the integration of leadership ethics and corporate social responsibility. The researchers opined that the antecedents of responsible leadership are (a) personal factors and (b) situational factors. Personal factors and situational factors include: relational intelligence (trustful relationship with stakeholders); empathy (to understand others‟ emotions); and cognitive moral development (to improve their ability); moral intensity; culture value orientations; institutional content and media. In addition, the study found turnover intention, job satisfaction, organization commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors and work performance as consequences of responsible leadership.
Doh and Quigley (2014) explored how responsible leadership influences organizational process and outcomes. They looked upon four distinct levels of pathways: (a) micro/individual level (this is important for stakeholders), (b) team level (psychological safety and learning) both linked to team performance. (c) Organizational level (strong ties with external stakeholders) and (d) societal level (identify economic and societal problems). From the study, it seems clear that leader inclusiveness is conceptually related to responsible leadership that emphasizes a stakeholder-based approach-leader. Such leaders are more sincerely interested and invite from others. Responsible leaders are high on inclusiveness and engage multiple categories of stakeholders. Gunavathy and Indumathi (2011), revealed that subordinates will to use OCB and positive impact on any organization depends on the leadership style adopted.
Research Gaps
● There are more studies being conducted on Information technology.
●The research on area of study are very less.
Significance of the study
This study intends to bridge the research gaps mentioned above and contributing to the theory and practice. This study intends to explore the responsible leadership style in pharmaceutical industry. Citizenship behavior exhibited by the employees will also be studied. The study also explores the relation and effect of responsible leadership style on citizenship behavior of pharmaceutical sector employees.
Objectives of the study
1. To study the demographic difference in citizenship behavior and perception of responsible leadership.
2. To study the relationship between responsible leadership style and OCB.
3. To study the impact of responsible leadership style on OCB.
Hypotheses of the study
H1: There is no significant difference in citizenship behavior and responsible leadership style on the basis of gender, age, education and experience
H2: There is no significant relationship between responsible leadership style and on dimensions of OCB
H3: There is no impact of responsible leadership style on dimensions of OCB
Methodology
This study has been completed with responses of 121 pharmaceutical employees. Initially 150 questionnaires were distributed but 29 incomplete questionnaires were not included in the study. Perception of responsible leadership style was measured with the help of self designed questionnaire consisting of 14 items. Civic virtue, sportsmanship, helping others, courtesy and consciousness dimensions of OCB were measured with the help of standardized questionnaire developed by Bakshi & Kumar (2009). Collected data was analyzed with the help of correlation, regression, t-test and ANOVA tools.
Results
Table1: Descriptive statistics and Independent sample t-test for responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB with respect to gender
|
Variable
|
Group
|
|
N
|
Mean
|
S.D.
|
T
|
Df
|
P
|
|
Responsible leadership
|
Gender
|
Male
|
99
|
4.015152
|
.5661447
|
1.079
|
119
|
.283
|
|
Female
|
22
|
3.866883
|
.6569859
|
|
Civic virtue
|
Gender
|
Male
|
99
|
4.2298
|
.57330
|
.513
|
119
|
.609
|
|
Female
|
22
|
4.1477
|
1.03699
|
|
Courtesy
|
Gender
|
Male
|
99
|
4.203704
|
.8569959
|
.769
|
119
|
.443
|
|
Female
|
22
|
4.045455
|
.9430641
|
|
Sportsmanship
|
Gender
|
Male
|
99
|
2.398990
|
1.1245604
|
.507
|
119
|
.613
|
|
Female
|
22
|
2.265152
|
1.0991328
|
|
Helping Others
|
Gender
|
Male
|
99
|
4.080808
|
.5924141
|
-.268
|
119
|
.789
|
|
Female
|
22
|
4.118182
|
.5876802
|
|
Consciousness
|
Gender
|
Male
|
99
|
4.351291
|
.5261389
|
.993
|
119
|
.323
|
|
Female
|
22
|
4.217172
|
.7547438
|
The table 1 shows difference in responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB among males and females. As evident p value in all cases is higher than assumed level of significance i.e. 5%. Therefore it is interpreted that there is no difference in responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB on the basis of gender.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics and ANOVA for responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB with respect to age
|
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Responsible leadership
|
20-30
|
57
|
3.844612
|
.6509024
|
2.336
|
.077
|
|
30-40
|
54
|
4.111111
|
.5046314
|
|
40-50
|
8
|
4.187500
|
.3835873
|
|
50 & above
|
2
|
3.964286
|
.5555839
|
|
Total
|
121
|
3.988194
|
.5836015
|
|
Civic Virtue
|
20-30
|
57
|
4.0658
|
.77851
|
2.066
|
.108
|
|
30-40
|
54
|
4.3704
|
.51336
|
|
40-50
|
8
|
4.1563
|
.76692
|
|
50 & above
|
2
|
4.5000
|
.35355
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.2149
|
.67647
|
|
Courtesy
|
20-30
|
57
|
4.152047
|
1.0939411
|
.633
|
.595
|
|
30-40
|
54
|
4.132716
|
.6380490
|
|
40-50
|
8
|
4.500000
|
.3779645
|
|
50 & above
|
2
|
4.666667
|
.2357023
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.174931
|
.8713153
|
|
Sportsmanship
|
20-30
|
57
|
2.312865
|
1.0346527
|
.995
|
.398
|
|
30-40
|
54
|
2.336420
|
1.1407686
|
|
40-50
|
8
|
3.020833
|
1.5051169
|
|
50 & above
|
2
|
2.583333
|
1.0606602
|
|
Total
|
121
|
2.374656
|
1.1166420
|
|
Helping Others
|
20-30
|
57
|
3.926316
|
.6454584
|
3.146
|
.028
|
|
30-40
|
54
|
4.259259
|
.5104635
|
|
40-50
|
8
|
4.050000
|
.4503967
|
|
50 & above
|
2
|
4.200000
|
.4503967
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.087603
|
.5892892
|
|
Consciousness
|
20-30
|
57
|
4.237817
|
.5962991
|
.928
|
.430
|
|
30-40
|
54
|
4.407407
|
.5330887
|
|
40-50
|
8
|
4.361111
|
.7071068
|
|
50 & above
|
2
|
4.555556
|
.1571348
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.326905
|
.5731111
|
The table 2 shows difference in responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB among respondents of different age groups. As evident p value (.028) in helping others dimension of OCB is less than the assumed level of significance i.e. 5%. Therefore it is interpreted that there is difference in helping behavior exhibited by the respondents of different age groups. People in higher age group show more helping behavior than young employees. But in case of other dimensions of OCB and responsible leadership style age does not causes in difference because p vale is higher than assumed level of significance i.e. 5%. Therefore it is interpreted that there is no difference in responsible leadership style and civic virtue, sportsmanship, courtesy and consciousness dimensions of OCB on the basis of age.
Table 3 shows the difference in responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB on the basis of education. As evident p value in all cases is higher than assumed level of significance i.e. 5%. Therefore it is interpreted that there is no difference in responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB on the basis of education.
Table 3: Descriptive statistics and ANOVA for responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB with respect to qualification
|
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Responsible leadership
|
Diploma
|
6
|
4.261905
|
.5338858
|
.701
|
.553
|
|
Bachelor
|
57
|
3.928571
|
.6334343
|
|
Master degree
|
56
|
4.015306
|
.5339520
|
|
Doctorate
|
2
|
4.107143
|
.7576144
|
|
Total
|
121
|
3.988194
|
.5836015
|
|
Civic Virtue
|
Diploma
|
6
|
4.1667
|
.84656
|
1.353
|
.261
|
|
Bachelor
|
57
|
4.0921
|
.74497
|
|
Master degree
|
56
|
4.3348
|
.57658
|
|
Doctorate
|
2
|
4.5000
|
.35355
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.2149
|
.67647
|
|
Courtesy
|
Diploma
|
6
|
4.250000
|
.6810939
|
.890
|
.449
|
|
Bachelor
|
57
|
4.040936
|
.6815895
|
|
Master degree
|
56
|
4.291667
|
1.0508534
|
|
Doctorate
|
2
|
4.500000
|
1.0508534
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.174931
|
.8713153
|
|
Sportsmanship
|
Diploma
|
6
|
2.305556
|
1.3140974
|
.345
|
.793
|
|
Bachelor
|
57
|
2.432749
|
1.0800590
|
|
Master degree
|
56
|
2.300595
|
1.1609904
|
|
Doctorate
|
2
|
3.000000
|
.4714045
|
|
Total
|
121
|
2.374656
|
1.1166420
|
|
Helping Others
|
Diploma
|
6
|
3.733333
|
.7447595
|
1.896
|
.134
|
|
Bachelor
|
57
|
4.014035
|
.6345523
|
|
Master degree
|
56
|
4.207143
|
.5087801
|
|
Doctorate
|
2
|
3.900000
|
.4242641
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.087603
|
.5892892
|
|
Consciousness
|
Diploma
|
6
|
4.333333
|
.6085806
|
.831
|
.479
|
|
Bachelor
|
57
|
4.253411
|
.6433606
|
|
Master degree
|
56
|
4.386905
|
.4937277
|
|
Doctorate
|
2
|
4.722222
|
.3928371
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.326905
|
.5731111
|
Table 4 shows the difference in responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB on the basis of experience. As evident p value in all cases is higher than assumed level of significance i.e. 5%. Therefore it is interpreted that there is no difference in responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB on the basis of experience.
Table 4: Descriptive statistics and ANOVA for responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB with respect to experience
|
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Responsible leadership
|
0-2
|
25
|
3.868571
|
.6280301
|
.887
|
.474
|
|
2-5
|
44
|
3.962662
|
.5326298
|
|
5-10
|
36
|
4.005952
|
.6607212
|
|
10-15
|
11
|
4.246753
|
.3743888
|
|
15 & above
|
5
|
4.114286
|
.5727663
|
|
Total
|
121
|
3.988194
|
.5836015
|
|
Civic Virtue
|
0-2
|
25
|
3.9300
|
.70902
|
2.038
|
.094
|
|
2-5
|
44
|
4.2330
|
.70381
|
|
5-10
|
36
|
4.2778
|
.65677
|
|
10-15
|
11
|
4.3636
|
.50452
|
|
15 & above
|
5
|
4.7000
|
.27386
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.2149
|
.67647
|
|
Courtesy
|
0-2
|
25
|
4.120000
|
1.4644870
|
.527
|
.716
|
|
2-5
|
44
|
4.087121
|
.7148197
|
|
5-10
|
36
|
4.203704
|
.6199221
|
|
10-15
|
11
|
4.484848
|
.4246210
|
|
15 & above
|
5
|
4.333333
|
.4409586
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.174931
|
.8713153
|
|
Sportsmanship
|
0-2
|
25
|
2.120000
|
.8760179
|
2.523
|
.045
|
|
2-5
|
44
|
2.238636
|
1.1666100
|
|
5-10
|
36
|
2.824074
|
1.0442165
|
|
10-15
|
11
|
1.939394
|
1.2566992
|
|
15 & above
|
5
|
2.566667
|
1.2995726
|
|
Total
|
121
|
2.374656
|
1.1166420
|
|
Helping Others
|
0-2
|
25
|
3.896000
|
.5718974
|
1.358
|
.253
|
|
2-5
|
44
|
4.045455
|
.6337245
|
|
5-10
|
36
|
4.227778
|
.5740140
|
|
10-15
|
11
|
4.181818
|
.5618152
|
|
15 & above
|
5
|
4.200000
|
.4503967
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.087603
|
.5892892
|
|
Consciousness
|
0-2
|
25
|
4.120000
|
.5799461
|
1.128
|
.347
|
|
2-5
|
44
|
4.378788
|
.5712603
|
|
5-10
|
36
|
4.367284
|
.5087034
|
|
10-15
|
11
|
4.363636
|
.8029128
|
|
15 & above
|
5
|
4.533333
|
.2876040
|
|
Total
|
121
|
4.326905
|
.5731111
|
Table 5: Pearson correlation coefficient between study variables
|
|
Responsible leadership
|
Civic Virtue
|
Courtesy
|
Sportsmanship
|
Helping Others
|
Consciousness
|
|
Responsible leadership
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Civic Virtue
|
.389**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Courtesy
|
-.105
|
.175
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
Sportsmanship
|
.114
|
-.288**
|
-.137
|
1
|
|
|
|
Helping Others
|
.305**
|
.405**
|
.161
|
.035
|
1
|
|
|
Consciousness
|
.264**
|
.640**
|
.325**
|
-.408**
|
.372**
|
1
|
Note: Assumed level of significance is 5%
The table 5 shows relationship between responsible leadership style and dimensions of OCB. As evident the responsible leadership style is positively and significantly related to civic virtue (r=.389). This means responsible leadership style positively enhance civic virtue among the employees. Consciousness dimension of OCB is also positively and significantly related to OCB (r=.264), which implies that responsible leadership enhances consciousness behavior. Helping others (r=0.305) is also positively and significantly related to responsible leadership. This implies that if a leader follows responsible leadership style, then employees show helping behavior towards others. Sportsmanship is positively but insignificantly (r=.114) related to responsible leadership style. Responsible leadership style has been found negatively related to courtesy dimension of OCB (r=-.105).
Thus it can be interpreted that responsible leadership style is positively related to OCB dimensions (namely civic virtue, sportsmanship, helping others and consciousness).
Table 6: Regression analysis showing impact of responsible leadership style on dimensions of OCB
|
Dependent variable
|
R
|
R Square
|
Adjusted R Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
|
Civic virtue
|
.389
|
.151
|
.144
|
.62
|
|
Courtesy
|
.105
|
.011
|
.003
|
.87
|
|
Sportsmanship
|
.114
|
.013
|
.005
|
1.11
|
|
Helping Others
|
.305
|
.093
|
.085
|
.56
|
|
Consciousness
|
.264
|
.070
|
.062
|
.55
|
In the next step regression analysis has been used to study the impact of responsible leadership style on dimensions of OCB. Table shows that responsible leadership style accounts for 14.4%(adjusted r square) change in civic virtue and 6% change in Consciousness and 9% change in helping others dimension of OCB. Responsible leadership does not account for change in other dimensions of OCB namely courtesy and sportsmanship.
Limitations and future scope
The study has been undertaken on a small sample. Further studies can increase the sample size to get a clear picture of the relationship. Only pharmaceutical employees are included in the study. Employees from other industry can be included to make a comparison between their perception and behavior. The study covered only one leadership style. An inclusion of other leadership styles could further clarify the impact of leadership style on OCB
Conclusion
The study intended to establish a relationship between responsible leadership style and citizenship behavior exhibited by the employees. The application of suitable statistical tools revealed that as far as gender, qualification, age, experience are concerned, they are not the cause of difference in the level of responsible leadership style and organizational citizenship behavior. With respect to correlation results it can be interpreted there exists a below average correlation between responsible leadership style and citizenship behavior exhibited by the employees. Responsible leadership accounts for a little change in civic virtue, consciousness and helping others dimensions of OCB.
References
Appelbaum, S., N. Bartolomucci, E. Beaumier, J. Boulanger, R. Corrigan, I. Doré and C. Serroni (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviour: A case study of culture, leadership and trust. Management Decision, 42(1), pp. 13-40.
Baker, B. A. (2005). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Mediating Role ofAttributional Style in the Relationship between Personality and Performance.Master’s thesis, North Caroline University, Raleigh.
Bateman, T. S. and D. W. Organ (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: Therelationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy ofManagement Journal, 26(4), pp. 587-595.
Borman, W. C., D. E. Buck, M. A. Hanson, S. J. Motowidlo, S. Stark and F.Drasgow (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, andaccuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive ratingscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 86(5), pp. 965-973.
Doh, J. P., &Stumpf, S. A. (Eds.).(2005). Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global business. Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Gunavathy, J. S. &Indumathi, G. (2011). Leadership and organization citizenshipbehaviour: A study among employees of a civil engineering company. BVIMRManagement Edge, 4(1), pp. 66-81.
Jiao, C., D. A. Richards & K. Zhang (2011). Leadership and organizationalcitizenship behavior: OCB-specific meanings as mediators. Journal of Businessand Psychology, 26(1), pp. 11-25.
Kamisan P., Arif& B. E. M. King (2013). Transactional and transformational leadership: A comparitive study of the difference between Tony Fernandes(Airasia ) and IdrisJala (Malaysia Airlines) leadership styles from 2005-2009.International Journal of Business and Management, 8(24), pp. 107- 116.
Khan, N. R., A. M. Ghouri and M. Awang (2013).Leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior in small and medium scale firms.Journalof Arts, Science and Commerce, 4(2), pp. 144-154.
Pless, N. M., &Maak, T. (2004).Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice.Journal of Business Ethics, 54, pp. 129–147.
Podsakoff, P. M. and S. B. MacKenzie (1997). Impact of organizational citizenshipbehavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for futureresearch. Human Performance, 10(2), pp. 133-151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.,(1990). Transformational leaders behaviorand their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors,Leadership Quarterly, 2, pp.107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. B. Paine and D. G. Bachrach (2000).Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal ofManagement, 26(3), pp. 513-563.
Organ, D. W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good SoldierSyndrome. Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.
Ramus, C.A. (2001). Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. Calif. Manage. Rev., 43, pp. 85–105.
Ramus, C.A. & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Acad. Manage. J., 43, pp. 605–626.
Raven, B. H., & Rubin, J. E. (1976). Social psychology: People in groups. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Sahaya, N. (2012), A learning organization as a mediator of leadership style andfirms’ financial performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(14), pp. 96-113.
Shi Y, Ye M. (2016). Responsible leadership: Review and Prospects. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management. 6, pp. 877-884.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. PersonnelReview, 36(5), pp. 661-683.
Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership.Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), pp. 327–341.
