Transformational Leadership and Perceived Role Breadth ...

Clemson UniversityTigerPrints

All Dissertations Dissertations

May 2019

Transformational Leadership and Perceived RoleBreadth: Multi-Level Mediation of Trust in Leaderand Affective Organizational CommitmentBenjamin Philip HardyClemson University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations byan authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationHardy, Benjamin Philip, "Transformational Leadership and Perceived Role Breadth: Multi-Level Mediation of Trust in Leader andAffective Organizational Commitment" (2019). All Dissertations. 2391.https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2391

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND PERCEIVED ROLE BREADTH: MULTI-LEVEL MEDIATION OF TRUST IN LEADER AND AFFECTIVE

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

A Dissertation Presented to

the Graduate School of Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy Industrial-Organizational Psychology

by Benjamin P. Hardy

May 2019

Committee: Dr. Robert Sinclair, Committee Chair

Dr. Eric Muth Dr. Robin Kowalski Dr. Eric McKibben

ii

ABSTRACT

This dissertation proposed a multilevel serial mediation model wherein trust in

leader and affective organizational commitment mediated the effect of transformational

leadership on perceived role breadth. This same serial mediation model was examined

with role instrumentality as the outcome variable. Moreover, perceived role breadth, after

factor analyses, was broken into three separate factors roughly corresponding to: 1)

organizational loyalty, 2) sportsmanship, and 3) altruism. The sample of this study was

997 employees from government agencies who were surveyed about their leader and

other constructs described in the hypothesized model. All employees reported which

specific leader they had, therefore allowing each individuals response nested within the

grouping of Level 2 leader. After initial multilevel model null testing as well as ICC1

calculations, it was determined that MLM techniques were appropriate for organizational

loyalty, sportsmanship, and role instrumentality due to between-group variance.

However, for altruism no evidence was found for group variance, and thus the proposed

serial mediation model was examined only at the individual level when altruism was the

outcome variable. For all three of the outcome variables examined with MLM, trust in

leader was not found to serially mediate when accounting for nesting. Therefore, trust in

leader was removed from the MLM and affective organizational commitment was

analyzed as a single multilevel mediator. For all three outcomes being tested with MLM,

affective organizational commitment mediating transformational leadership to the

outcome variable was represented at both individual and group levels. This study showed

that individual and group level transformational leadership predicts organizational

iii

loyalty, sportsmanship, and role instrumentality. Furthermore, this study showed that

group level affective organizational commitment mediated group level transformational

leadership on organizational loyalty, sportsmanship, and role instrumentality. When

accounting for nesting of individuals within leader groups, there was also individual level

mediation of the transformational leadership on organizational loyalty and on role

instrumentality, but not on sportsmanship. When testing the proposed serial mediation

model at the individual level without account for clustering of individuals by their leader,

significant serial mediation did occur wherein trust in leader through affective

organizational commitment mediated transformational leadership to altruism. In fact,

when not accounting for nesting, the proposed serial model was actually confirmed for

each of the four outcome variables. However, when accounting for nesting, trust in leader

was not found to be a multilevel mediator of any of the four outcome variables.

Therefore, this study answers several calls for multilevel research on transformational

leadership and highlights the importance of accounting for nesting on the results

researchers find.

iv

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to four pivotal relationships. First and foremost, my

relationship to God. I’m humbled by my life and all I’m continuing to learn. There is no

way I could have completed this dissertation without the belief that God wanted me to do

so, and the felt support along the way. Second, my wife Lauren for not letting me quit on

multiple occasions when my intrinsic motivation ran out. Third, my research advisor, Dr.

Robert Sinclair, who watched me fumble my way through my PhD program and always

remained patient and respectful toward me, especially in times when he did not have to

be. Furthermore, Dr. Sinclair, to me, demonstrated more than transformational leadership

in my behalf. He demonstrated something I honestly cannot put words to, in allowing me

to finish my PhD at Clemson, and in helping me throughout the process. Bob, thank you

for your help. I really don’t have much else to say. This is in large part dedicated to you

and I will never forget what you’ve given me. Fourth and finally, to both my own parents

as well as my in-laws. I wouldn’t have made it this far without your continued love and

support.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been completed without the help of numerous

people. Thank you all for your help, guidance, support, and time. Specifically, I’d like to

acknowledge Dr. Cindy Pury for giving me the opportunity to come study at Clemson,

and for advising me through my Masters and much of my Doctorate. I’d like to thank and

acknowledge my dissertation commitment for giving me a chance to complete this

degree, given my extreme and disappointing circumstances. I would like to thank my

advisor and committee chair, Dr. Robert Sinclair, firstly for his compassion and support

in helping me finishing my PhD. Without Bob, I wouldn’t have a PhD. I’m forever

humbled and grateful. Additionally, thanks to Bob for his ideas, guidance, thoughtful and

hasty feedback, and desire for this project to contribute to the literature, practice, and my

professional development. I learned more than I expected I would by completing this

dissertation. I’d also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. Eric Muth for

providing me with honest and direct feedback about what it takes to be a true scientist;

Dr. Eric McKibben for his friendship and support throughout my Doctorate program; and

Dr. Robin Kowalski for her genuine support and kindness in being on my committee and

helping me through my defense. Finally, I’d like to acknowledge Dr. Job Chen for his

feedback and help regarding the multilevel analyses of this dissertation, and for his

excitement and support in my well-being and success.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................ii

DEDICATION ........................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWELDGEMENTS......................................................................................... v

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

II. PERCEIVED ROLE BREADTH ............................................................. 10

Antecedents of Perceived Role Breadth .................................................... 13 Four Distinct Types of Role Perceptions .................................................. 17 OCB-Factors to be Examined as Role Breadth Factors ............................. 21 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 24

III. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ............................................... 26

The Four Dimensions of Transformational Leadership ............................. 28 Outcomes of Transformational Leadership ............................................... 31 Transformational Leadership and OCB .................................................... 32 Transformational Leadership and Perceived Role Breadth ........................ 34

IV. TRUST IN LEADER ............................................................................... 37

Relationship-Based Trust and Character-Based Trust ............................... 39 Trust in Leader ........................................................................................ 40 Trust in Leader as Mediator ..................................................................... 43 Trust in Leader as Group-Level Mediator................................................. 46

V. AFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ............................. 51

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment ................ 53 Trust in Leader, Affective Organizational Commitment,

and Role Breadth. ................................................................................ 54

vii

Table of Contents (Continued) Page

Affective Organizational Commitment as Mediator .................................. 56 Affective Organizational Commitment as Group-Level Mediator.............. 56

VI. HYPOTHESES, METHOD, AND ANALYSIS ........................................ 61

VII. Data for the Study ..................................................................................... 62 Sample ...................................................................................................... 63 Measures .................................................................................................. 65 Data-Analysis ........................................................................................... 67

VIII. RESULTS ................................................................................................ 70

Role Breadth and Instrumentality Scales ................................................... 70 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................. 73 Level 2 Grouping: Leader ......................................................................... 75 Testing Evidence for Multilevel Analysis .................................................. 75 Multilevel Serial Mediation… ................................................................... 77 Three Variable Multilevel Mediation ........................................................ 78 Level 1 Altruism Mediation… .................................................................. 82 Potential Problems With Level 1 Analyses ................................................ 83 Assumptions of Skewness ......................................................................... 85

IX. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 86

Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 88 Findings of this Dissertation ..................................................................... 91 Overall Findings ....................................................................................... 94 Exploratory Analyses of Level 1 Serial Mediation Ignoring Nesting ......... 94 Importance of Multilevel Modeling to Represent Nested Groups............... 95 Connecting this Study’s Finding to Existing Literature ............................. 97 Practical Implications.............................................................................. 102 Limitations and Future Directions ........................................................... 104 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 108

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 110

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 147

Table of Contents (Continued) Page

viii

A. Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory (Podsakoff et al., 1990) ................................................................................ 146

B. Trust in Leader Conditions of Trust Inventory (CTI; Butler, 1991) ............... 147 C. Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Allen & Meyer, 1990) ............. 148 D. Perceived Role Breadth ................................................................................ 149

TABLES ................................................................................................................. 150

1. Exploratory Factory Analysis ....................................................................... 150 2. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................... 151 3. Level 2 Grouping Variable .......................................................................... 152 4. Level 2 Leader Group Descriptive Statistics ................................................ 153 5. Null Models and ICC1s ............................................................................... 154

FIGURES ............................................................................................................... 155

1. Proposed Dissertation Serial Mediation Model ............................................ 155 2. MLM Transformation Leadership to RB-Organizational Loyalty. ................ 156 3. MLM Transformational Leadership to RB-Sportsmanship. .......................... 157 4. MLM Transformational Leadership to Role Instrumentality......................... 158 5. Serial Mediation Model of RB-Altruism ...................................................... 159 6. Serial Mediation Model of RB-Organizational Loyalty ................................ 160 7. Serial Mediation Model of RB-Sportsmanship. ............................................ 161 8. Serial Mediation Model of Role Instrumentality .......................................... 162

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Organizational success relies on what employees do in their workplace (Wright, Dunford,

& Snell, 2001). One form of employee behavior, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB;

Organ, 1988), has received large interest from researchers and organizations interested in getting

the most out of their employees. OCB was initially defined as discretionary behavior that is not

directly and explicitly rewarded (Organ, 1988). However, evidence suggests that employees

often perceive OCB to be part of their job (i.e., perceived role breadth; e.g., Lam, Hui, & Law,

1999; Morrison, 1994), and that OCB is associated with performance evaluations and

compensation decisions (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). As such, Organ

(1998) redefined the concept as behavior that is not specifically task-focused but still nourishes

the social-psychological work context in ways that enable task performance and overall

organizational well-being.

OCBs are a central element of work performance that contribute to overall performance

ratings in a manner comparable to task performance (Podsakoff et al., 2009). OCBs are also

related with “bottom line” effectiveness and specifically related to unit-level productivity, cost

reduction, customer satisfaction, turnover, and profitability (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Sun, Aryee,

and Law (2007) found that HR practices promoting OCB increase organizational-level outcomes

and that OCB mediates the impact of high-performance HR practices on turnover and

productivity.

Given that OCBs are considered vital to work performance and organizational well-

being, researchers have sought to understand the mediating mechanisms that facilitate OCB. One

such mechanism is perceived role breadth, defined as the degree to which employees consider

2

OCB to be an inherent part of their job (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Jiao, Richards, &

Hackett, 2013; Morrison, 1994). Morrison (1994) was the first to contend that some employees

view their jobs more expansively than others do. Specifically, Morrison had employees

categorize behaviors from existing measures of OCB as either “an expected part of your job” or

“above and beyond what is expected for your job” (Morrison, 1994, p. 1549), and found that

employees who defined more OCBs as in-role (i.e., greater role breadth) were rated by their

supervisors as performing more OCB. Similar to Morrison (1994), findings from other studies

have shown that perceived role breadth directly predicts OCB (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004;

Hofmann et al., 2003; Kamdar et al., 2006; Tepper & Taylor, 2003).

Given that prior research has shown perceived role breadth to directly influence OCB

behaviors, it seems that researchers and organizations would be interested in how perceived role

breadth is developed. Although prior research and theory have shown that employees define their

roles from a number of sources including environmental factors, social cues, and in particular,

through interactions between themselves and their supervisors (Graen, 1976) little research has

directly linked leadership with perceived role breadth in followers. I believe this is a potentially

large misstep in the current literature and thus have made examining this relationship the central

purpose of this dissertation.

Some research has connected transformational leadership with role breadth self-efficacy

(e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012), defined as an individual’s self-perceived ability to perform

proactive behaviors successfully (e.g., Parker, 1998, 2000). Although related, perceived role

breadth and role breadth self-efficacy are two distinct constructs. No prior research has directly

examined transformational leadership and perceived role breadth.

3

In a recent meta-analysis, Jiao, Richards, and Hackett (2013) showed that despite there

being only a small number of studies concerning leadership and perceived role breadth, the

evidence suggests a strong positive correlation between leader-member exchange (LMX) quality

and perceived role breadth (r = .55, Hofmann et al., 2003; r = .45, Jiao & Hackett, 2007; r = .49,

Klieman, Quinn, & Harris, 2000; r = .28 to .46, Van Dyne et al., 2008). Although prior research

has primarily connected perceived role breadth with LMX rather than transformational

leadership, it seems relevant to examine the connection between transformational leadership and

perceived role breadth directly. Indeed, recent meta-analytic structural equation modelling based

on 132 studies revealed that LMX mediates transformational leadership’s relationships with

employee outcomes (Boer, Deinert, Homan, & Voelpel, 2016). In fact, Shaffer et al. (2016)

examined the discriminant validity of several leadership constructs and questioned whether

transformational leadership and LMX are empirically distinct. In any case, it is possible that

prior research connecting LMX to perceived role breadth could either be better understood or

expanded by examining the relationship between transformational leadership and perceived role

breadth.

In their meta-analysis, Jiao et al. (2013) explain that prior research has found positive

correlations of perceived role breadth with affective organizational commitment (r = .21 to .30;

Morrison, 1994), trust (r = .24; Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009; r = .18 to .24; Chiaburu & Marinova,

2006), and organizational identification (r = .53; Jiao & Hackett, 2007). Given that

transformational leadership has been found to facilitate both affective organizational commit

(e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2011) as well as trust (e.g., Lin, Dang, & Liu, 2016), it seems likely that

transformational leadership may facilitate perceived role breadth through these constructs in a

mediating manner, both at the individual and group levels.

4

Examining the underlying mechanisms through which transformational leadership

influences follower perceptions and behaviors has become an important consideration to many of

the scholars studying and trying to better understand transformational leadership. Some of these

scholars have voiced concerns about the limited amount of research explaining the mediating

mechanisms, describing how transformational leadership influences follower behavior (e.g.,

Braun et al. 2011). For instance, prior research supports positive correlations between

transformational leadership and OCB (Carter et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2011). Yet, there is little

research explaining how transformational leadership facilitates OCB. I argue that perceived role

breadth may be one of the mediating factors linking transformational leadership with OCB.

Therefore, in this dissertation, my first aim is to determine whether transformational leadership

and perceived role breadth are related.

By striving to better understand the antecedents of employee role definitions, I am

responding to calls from prior researchers (Morrison, 1994) and seek to expand upon three clear

gaps in the current role-definition literature, namely: 1) a lack of knowledge of predictors of

perceived role breadth, 2) a lack of understanding of the potential psychological mechanisms

operating on the relationship between predictors such as leadership and perceived role breadth,

and 3) a need to investigate perceived role breadth and its antecedents from a multilevel

perspective. Indeed, few studies have investigated the predictors of perceived role breadth

(Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009), and those studies which have explored antecedents have focused on

attitudes such as job satisfaction (e.g., Morrison, 1994) or organizational commitment (Gordon et

al., 1992), and contextual variables such as organizational support, organizational justice, and the

quality of exchanges with the direct supervisor (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Hoffman et al., 2003;

Tepper et al., 2001). Although enlargement of role definitions can be the result of how

5

employees perceive their relationships with their leaders and overall organization, few

researchers have examined the specifics—such as the mediating mechanisms and multiple levels

of analysis—of perceived role breadth within the employee-leadership relationship.

Consequently, I believe it is necessary to examine how leadership, specifically transformational

leadership, may facilitate perceived role breadth.

Secondly, prior research points to a need to identify mechanisms explaining the

relationship between predictors and perceived role breadth (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison

1994), yet few studies have examined such mechanisms. One significant exception (Coyle-

Shapiro et al., 2004) demonstrated that mutual commitment mediated the relationships between

procedural justice and perceived role breadth. Coyle-Shapiro and colleagues (2004) defined

mutual commitment as an employer’s commitment to the employee and the employee’s

commitment to the organization. This dissertation extends this line of work by examining

affective organizational commitment as a mediating mechanism of the relationships between

transformational leadership and perceived role breadth. In addition to research which has

connected perceived role breadth with affective commitment (Morrison, 1994), trust has also

been found to be an antecedent (Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009; Chiaburu & Marinova, 2006).

Consequently, this dissertation seeks to determine whether affective organizational commitment,

as well as trust in leader, explain the relationship between transformational leadership and

perceived role breadth.

Thirdly, I seek to understand how the proposed mediators (i.e., affective organizational

commitment and trust in leader) may operate at both the individual and group levels to explain

how transformational leadership may expand followers’ ideas of their perceived roles. Indeed, in

addition to effects at the individual level, transformational leadership is suggested to also have an

6

impact at the team or group-level of analysis. This contention is based on a direct consensus

model, which employs consensus among lower level units to specify another form of a construct

at a higher level (Chan, 1998). This model is assumed because transformational leadership 1)

comprises individual-focused as well as group-focused behaviors (Wang & Howell, 2010) and 2)

as a participative leadership style, it contributes to mental model convergence in teams (Dionne,

Sayama, Hao, & Bush, 2010). Therefore, this study seeks to fill another important gap in the

transformational leadership literature by examining how transformational leadership may

facilitate perceived role breadth through multilevel mediation.

Examining the multilevel mechanisms of transformational leadership is warranted and

needed in the current state of the literature. Indeed, despite many calls for more multi-level

research of leadership (e.g., Braun et al. 2011; Leroy, Segers, van Dierendonck, & den Hartog,

2018), the state of the science predominantly looks at leadership as an individual phenomenon

(Batistic, Cerne, & Vogel, 2017). These and other scholars have voiced concerns regarding the

limited explanations of how transformational leadership relates to follower performance, and

even more, the lack of evidence and need for research on how transformational leadership and

follower performance may be mediated at multiple levels. Of this quandary, Braun et al. (2011,

p. 271) explicitly stated that, “Even more limited than insights into the direct relations between

transformational leadership and performance at multiple levels is knowledge about multilevel

mediators.”

Furthermore, despite the fact that several scholars have stressed that “the study of

leadership is inherently multilevel in nature” (Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002, p. 4),

leadership research has continued to suffer from a dearth of explicit theoretical and empirical

differentiation between levels of analysis (Yammarino et al., 2005). Indeed, transformational

7

leadership is closely related to desired outcomes for individuals (e.g., Casimir, Waldman,

Bartran, & Yang, 2006; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Liu, Siu, & Shi, 2010) and teams (e.g., Bass,

Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng,

2011). Yet, with some recent exceptions (e.g., Wang & Howell, 2010), research analyzing effects

of transformational leadership at individual as well as team levels is still scarce.

Indeed, prior research has found trust in leader to be a mediator of the effects of leader

behavior on team performance (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011) and team-level trust climate

among top-level management teams to be a mediator of the relationship between CEO

transformational leadership and firm performance (Lin, Dang, & Liu, 2016). Moreover, the

connection between transformational leadership and affective commitment has been well

documented, as has the connection between affective organizational commitment and OCB (e.g.,

Ng & Feldman, 2011).

The potential multilevel mediation of affective organizational commitment and trust in

leader is made even more relevant by a recent meta-analysis which highlighted key

psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship between transformational leadership and

OCB (Nohe & Hertel, 2017). Specifically, they found that affective organization commitment

and trust in leader mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. Even

still, like the majority of existing research examining the connection between transformational

leadership and OCB, this meta-analysis was performed solely at the individual-level of analysis.

Nevertheless, the model developed in Nohe and Hertel’s (2017) meta-analysis provides a strong

basis for the multilevel mediation model being proposed in this dissertation. Specifically, their

model, based on social exchange theory, contrasted attitudinal mediators (affective

organizational commitment, job satisfaction) and relational mediators (trust in leader, leader-

8

member exchange; LMX) of the positive relationship between transformational leadership and

OCB and found, when testing single-mediator models, that each of the mediators explained the

relationship between transformational leadership and OCB (Nohe & Hertel, 2017). Furthermore,

when testing a multi-mediator model, they found that LMX was the strongest mediator. Finally,

when testing a model with a latent attitudinal mechanism and a latent relational mechanism, the

relational mechanism was the stronger mediator of the relationship between transformational

leadership and OCB (Nohe & Hertel, 2017).

By examining perceived role breadth as a byproduct of transformational leadership, this

dissertation seeks to provide additional insight into to why transformational leadership facilitates

OCB. By better understanding how transformational leadership shapes perceptions, leaders and

organizations may become more proficient at proactively shaping such perceptions, and thus

facilitate desirable individual and group-level behaviors and climate. Moreover, exploring the

multilevel effects of transformational leadership has merit and relevance given that organizations

often have team-based structures requiring leaders “to lead and motivate not only individuals but

also teams as a whole” (Chen et al., 2007, p. 331). Therefore, by studying individual and group-

level mediators of transformational leadership, this dissertation seeks to provide useful

information to organizations and teams regarding how transformational leadership influences

team and individual dynamics and performance.

The preceding chapters are organized in the following manner. Chapters 2-6 provide a

literature review of key constructs of this dissertation. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the

literature on perceived role breadth and OCB. Chapter 3 reviews the literature and hypotheses for

transformational leadership and its connection to perceived role breadth. Chapter 4 provides a

brief summary of the literature on trust in leader, and provides hypotheses for trust in leader as

9

both an individual and group-level mediator between transformational leadership and perceived

role breadth. Chapter 5 gives a brief examination of the literature on affective organizational

commitment, and provides hypotheses for affective organizational commitment as an individual

and group-level mediator between transformational leadership and perceived role breadth.

Finally, Chapter 6 specifies the method of the current study including design, participants,

measures, and proposed analyses.

10

CHAPTER TWO

PERCIEVED ROLE BREADTH

Role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) proposes that people enact their roles in different ways

and that these roles can be expanded. A role is a set of expectations associated with a particular

social position in a specific type of setting (Biddle, 1979). A manager, for instance, has far-

reaching duties within his or her work context, but minimal obligations as a manager when at

home. In contrast, membership in a social group based on demographic variables such as age,

race, or gender has trans-situational influence. A father, for example, has obligations based on

being a father in all settings in which his role is identified. This distinction between roles and

groups reflects the distinction in expectation status theory between specific status characteristics,

which operate in a delineated range of settings, and diffuse status characteristics, which operate

trans-situationally (Correll, Ridgeway, & Delamater, 2003; Ridgeway, 2011).

In the work context, individuals who hold what would be considered the same position

within an organization often engage in a somewhat different set of tasks and activities, and in

turn go on to shape distinct and individualized roles for themselves (Graen 1976; Ilgen &

Hollenbeck 1991; Katz & Kahn 1978). Empirical work supports the notion that there can be

considerable variation in how broadly individuals define their work roles (Kamdar et al., 2006;

McAllister et al., 2007; Morrison, 1994). This is referred to as perceived role breadth and is the

set of behaviors or activities that an individual defines as being in-role (Morrison, 1994). The

more activities an employee defines as in-role, the greater his or her perceived role breadth will

be. Given that individuals differ in how they define their roles, researchers have recently directed

energy towards understanding perceived role breadth in an effort to better explaining when and

under what conditions employees perform OCBs.

11

Morrison (1994) contended that some employees have a distinction in where they “draw

the line between in-role and extra-role behavior” (p. 1544). She further argued that, all else being

equal, employees feel more compelled and motivated to perform behaviors that they define as in-

role. Her perspective was that OCBs are based on distal attitudinal antecedents, such as

organizational commitment and job satisfaction, operating through role enlargement (Morrison,

1994). Findings from several subsequent studies have shown that employees do not uniformly

view their jobs in narrow terms with OCB considered extra-role.

For instance, employees who view their psychological contract as relational rather than

transactional see OCB as in-role behavior—an obligation they owe their organizations (Gakovic

& Tetrick, 2003; Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Shore & Barksdale, 1998). Indeed, the

commonly accepted explanation for broader perceived role breadth is that there is a give-and-

take exchange process through ongoing interactions with others (e.g., coworkers, supervisors)

which influences how individuals perceive and define their roles (e.g., Graen 1976; Grant &

Ashford, 2008; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Similarly, different respondents (i.e., subordinates and

supervisors) disagree whether OCBs are part of the employees’ required work roles or are extra-

role behaviors (e.g., Lam et al., 1999). Not surprisingly, these findings are aligned with prior

suggestions signifying that work roles are subject to negotiation and modification (e.g., Ilgen and

Hollenbeck, 1991), or that they can be artificially and continuously enlarged by managers in

attempts to make employees overfulfill their work obligations (e.g., Van Dyne and Ellis, 2004).

Perceived role breadth has been examined in connection to OCB (Bachrach & Jex, 2000;

Haworth & Levy, 2001; Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999; Morrison, 1994; Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler,

2001; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). It is important to note that perceived role breadth and OCB,

although similar, are two fundamentally different things. Research on OCB focuses on the actual

12

behaviors that employees engage in, while research examining perceived role breadth focuses on

how an individual perceives their job. Although far more research has focused on the actual

proactive behaviors in which employees engage in, such as network building and taking initiative

(Thompson, 2005), other research has shown that perceived role breadth directly predicts

whether these OCB are performed in the first place (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Hofmann et

al., 2003; Kamdar et al., 2006; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). Specifically, numerous studies have

shown that employee OCB role definitions (i.e., what is considered in-role vs. extra-role) affect

OCBs either through role enlargement (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro et

al., 2004; Kidder, 2002; Morrison, 1994; Pond et al., 1997) or through role discretion (e.g.,

Tepper et al., 2001; Tepper & Taylor, 2003; Zellars et al., 2002).

For instance, Kamdar, McAllister, and Turban (2006) performed a field study among

engineers and their supervisors at a Fortune 500 company in India and found both direct and

interactive effects of procedural justice perceptions and individual differences on perceived role

breadth, which they and others call OCB role definition. Furthermore, they found that perceived

role breadth not only predicted OCB directly, but also moderated the effects of procedural justice

perceptions on OCB. Another study sought to disentangle whether employees engage in OCB’s

due to reciprocation to the organization or if they simply perceived OCB-behaviors as part of

their job, regardless of reciprocation (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). They found that procedural

and interactional justice are positively associated with mutual commitment that, in turn, is related

directly to OCB, and indirectly, through expanding the boundaries of an individual’s job,

suggests that together the reciprocation thesis and ‘it’s my job’ argument actually complement,

rather than compete with, each other and provide a more complete understanding of OCB.

13

Coyle-Shapiro et al. (2004) further explain that the more nuanced differences in whether

an employee engages in OCBs based on reciprocation solely or out of perceived duty lies in the

process by which individuals respond; that is, role enlargement and role maintenance. Pond,

Nacoste, Mohr, and Rodriguez have argued that “employees believe that most behaviors on a

typical measure of OCB are formally evaluated by their supervisors” (p. 1537). Thus, Morrison

(1994) concludes that employees engage in OCB because these behaviors are viewed as part of

their job while Pond et al. (1997) argues that employees engage in OCB because these behaviors

are viewed as being directly rewarded. Coyle-Shapiro et al.’s (2004) work demonstrates that both

Morrison (1994) and Pond et al.’s (1997) perspectives have merit. Put simply, individuals are

likely to engage in OCB and to expand their role perceptions due in large part to exchanges and

reciprocity, which is developed through trust and perceptions of justice with their organization.

Antecedents of Perceived Role Breadth

Few studies have investigated the predictors of perceived role breadth (Chiaburu &

Byrne, 2009). Those studies that have explored antecedents have focused on attitudes such as job

satisfaction (e.g., Morrison, 1994) or organizational commitment (Gordon et al., 1992), and

contextual variables such as organizational support, organizational justice, and the quality of

exchanges with the direct supervisor (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Hoffman et al., 2003; Tepper et

al., 2001). Although enlargement of role definitions can be the result of how employees perceive

their relationships and exchanges with their leaders and overall organization (Cropanzano &

Mitchell, 2005), few researchers have examined the specifics of OCB role definition within the

employee-organization relationship. Even fewer researchers have examined the specifics, such as

the mediating mechanisms at multiple levels of analysis of perceived role breadth within the

employee-leadership relationship. Whether an individual perceives OCB as extra-role or within-

14

role, it has been demonstrated that such behaviors are more likely to occur when perceived as

within-role (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004).

Social exchange and trust as antecedents of perceived role breadth. Chiaburu and

Byrne (2009) investigated the relationship between trust and perceived role breadth through both

relation- and exchange-based variables and found that organizational commitment mediated the

relationships between trust and perceived role breadth. They further found that job satisfaction

moderated the relationship between trust and perceived role breadth. Thus, both attitudinal as

well as social variables were shown to expand employee role breadth. Other related research has

shown that individuals with high levels of trust in the organization tend to enter social exchange

relationships with the organization (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Indeed, research has demonstrated

that individuals indicating a social exchange with the organization do contribute high levels of

OCBs (e.g., Masterson et al., 2000). As noted previously, performing OCB based on social

exchange does not necessarily indicate that the employee perceives such behaviors as extra-role,

as was initially theorized (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004).

Rather than perceiving a one-sided view of an individual’s relationship with their

organization, some researchers have shown that covenantal relationships, reflecting the degree of

commitment in the relationship as well as mutual trust and shared values, can be a more

expansive way of conceptualizing the reasons individuals engage in OCB behaviors (Graham &

Organ, 1993). These types of covenantal relationships, like social exchange, retain the element of

reciprocity (Van Dyne et al., 1994). Indeed, one key antecedent to an individuals’ development

of job roles is how much they trust in their leadership. Mayer et al. (1995) defined trust as the

general willingness to make oneself vulnerable to the actions of another party (e.g., one’s

organization or leader). Further, Mayer et al. (1995) proposed that trust should lead to increased

15

cooperation on the part of the employee. Specifically, this linkage to cooperation suggests that

those who are more trusting may be more likely to expand their job roles in the spirit of

cooperation and collaboration. In support, previous research has linked organizational trust to

civic virtue behaviors (one form of OCB; Robinson & Morrison, 1995) and to OCB (Aryee et al.,

2002; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

Rotter (1967, 1971) defines trust as a generalized expectancy to attribute benevolent

intent to others. Thus, employees who trust their organization and leadership are expected to

enlarge their role to a greater extent than those low in trust, at least in part because they are less

likely to perceive malevolence on the part of their organization (e.g., an attempt to manipulate or

exploit the employee’s trust). Furthermore, those who trust others anticipate that they will be

treated fairly and not taken advantage of (Smith et al., 1983). Hence, these individuals are more

likely to become involved in their organizations, such as expanding their work roles and

engaging in OCBs, when compared with those who do not trust their organization.

Kamdar and colleagues (2006) suggest that ‘‘within social exchange theory, OCB role

definitions emerge as individually held beliefs about personal obligations within social exchange

relations’’ (p. 841). A social exchange relationship is a relationship existing outside formal

contracts and in which one’s contributions and obligations are not explicitly stated (Blau, 1964).

Consistent with economic exchanges, social exchange relationships include expectations of some

future return for contributions (Blau, 1964). However, unlike economic exchange, social

exchange relationships are based on unspecified agreements, in which there is no time-table for

reciprocation. Hence, given the ambiguity surrounding social exchange relationships, trust is

critical (Blau, 1964). Specifically, employees must trust that their exchange partner will fulfill

his or her agreements, otherwise the likelihood of social exchange will be low. Research has

16

shown that employees reciprocate with extra-role behaviors after the organization and/or

leadership has provided valued resources such as organizational fairness (Masterson et al., 2000),

organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1990), trust (Aryee et al., 2002), psychological

contract fulfillment (Turnley et al., 2003), and generalized social exchanges (Shore et al., 2006).

Social exchange and organizational commitment as antecedents of perceived role

breadth. Empirical studies show that employees engaged in social exchanges with their

organizations are more committed (e.g., Shore et al., 2006). Organizational commitment has

been defined as:

‘‘The relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a

particular organization… and can be characterized by at least three related factors: 1) a

strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values; 2) a willingness to

exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and 3) a strong desire to maintain

membership in the organization (Mowday et al, 1979; p. 226).”

Almond and Verba (1963) argue that individuals who strongly identify with a collective

identity and feel valued are more likely to expand their role and engage in contributory behaviors

toward that community. Likewise, Gorden, Anderson, and Bruning (1992) found a positive

relationship between employees’ perceptions of the commitment that exists in their relationship

with their organization (i.e., the organization’s commitment to them as an individual in addition

to their own commitment to the organization) and OCBs. Other research supports the notion that

those with higher levels of organizational commitment are more likely to engage in OCBs

(Moorman et al., 1993; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Shore & Wayne, 1993). As it relates to perceived

role breadth, Morrison (1994) found that employees who were more organizationally committed

defined their job roles more broadly (i.e., included OCBs as in-role behaviors) than those with

17

low organizational commitment. In seeking to better understand why individuals with higher

perceived role breadth were more likely to engage in OCB, Coyle-Shapiro et al. (2004) tested

whether mutual commitment between organization and employee mediated the relationship

between perceived role breadth and OCB, and only found a partial mediation. The present

dissertation is not examining the relationship between perceived role breadth and OCB, but

rather, on transformational leadership and perceived role breadth, but, like Coyle-Shapiro et al.

(2004), anticipates that organizational commitment is a mediating mechanism explaining this

relationship.

Four Distinct Types of Role Perceptions

McAllister et al. (2007) disentangled four distinct types of OCB role perceptions: 1)

perceived role breadth, 2) perceived role instrumentality, 3) perceived role efficacy, and 4)

perceived role discretion. The dimension most studied is perceived role breadth, which refers to

whether one regards behaviors associated with a particular class of OCB as part of one’s job

(Bachrach & Jex, 2000; Morrison, 1994). Perceived role breadth is greater when behaviors from

a particular OCB category are considered in-role rather than extra-role (Bachrach & Jex, 2000;

Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004; Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Morrison,

1994).

Role instrumentality. The second role perception that McAllister et al. (2007)

distinguished is perceived role instrumentality, which refers to whether one perceives a

relationship between performance of an OCB and outcomes, such as rewards and punishment

(Haworth & Levy, 2001; Hui et al., 2000; Reed & Kidder, 2005). Although, uncertainty remains

because perceived role instrumentality has typically been combined with perceived role breadth

(Tepper et al., 2001; Tepper & Taylor, 2003; Zellars et al., 2002).

18

Despite the idea that OCB is not directly rewarded (Organ et al., 2006), evidence

indicates supervisors’ factor in OCB when evaluating and rewarding performance (MacKenzie,

Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993). Indeed, evidence suggests that perceived role instrumentality

predicts OCB (Haworth & Levy, 2001; Hui et al., 2000). Findings have also shown that many

employees identify a connection between OCB and valued outcomes such as promotions and pay

increases (Haworth & Levy, 2001; Hui et al., 2000; Schnake & Dumler, 1997), and that most

employees believe that OCB should be rewarded in some way (Reed & Kidder, 2005). Given

these findings, it is perhaps not unexpected that employees are more likely to perform OCB

when they perceive it to be linked to outcomes they value (Haworth & Levy, 2001; Hui et al.,

2000).

Haworth and Levy (2001) used the term instrumentality beliefs to describe the perceived

link between OCB and valued outcomes. They argued that because OCBs are generally more

volitional than task behaviors, they vary as a function of the employee’s cognitive appraisal of

costs and benefits. In other words, OCB has a “deliberate controlled character” and is affected by

“perceived environmental contingencies” (Haworth & Levy, 2001, p. 65).

Wang, Baba, Hackett, and Hong (2016) performed a study showing that employees’

efficacy, instrumentality, and autonomy perceptions concerning voice mediated the association

between high-performance work systems (HPWS) and expanded role definition for voice.

Instrumentality mediated the HPWS-role definition relationship for helping. Importantly, these

relationships were found even after controlling for the social exchange concept. Moreover, Wang

et al. (2016) further found positive links between HPWS, and both supervisor-rated helping and

voice were mediated by employees’ role definitions. They further found that employees’ trust in

19

their supervisor strengthened the positive impact of HPWS on expanded role definitions for both

helping and voice.

This last finding is relevant to this dissertation and, as will be shown later during the

literature review on trust in leader, I will propose that trust in leadership is a mediator of the

relationship between transformational leadership and perceived role breadth. Moreover,

perceived role instrumentality, which I will be calling role instrumentality for the remainder of

this dissertation for sake of consistency, will be one of the primary outcome variables. To be

clear, perceived role breadth is the primary construct of interest in this study, but role

instrumentality is also of interest. Hypotheses related to both perceived role breadth and role

bread instrumentality will follow the remainder of the literature review.

Role breadth self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as the individuals’ belief in their

capability to perform tasks (Bandura, 1994). This belief can include one’s assessment of their

ability to cope with new challenges. Role Breadth Self-Efficacy (RBSE) is a form of self-efficacy

which refers to the degree of people’s belief or confidence that they have the capability to

perform broader tasks besides the immediate technical work (Parker, 1998). Other definitions of

RBSE refer to an individual’s perception of his or her competence in performing a given type of

OCB (Bandura, 1986; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Prior research has connected self-efficacy to

OCB-related behaviors such as issue selling (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998),

proactive behavior that supports work unit functioning (Parker, 2000; Parker, Williams, &

Turner, 2006), and creative self-efficacy predicts creative behavior at work (Tierney & Farmer,

2002, 2004). Employees with task-specific self-efficacy generally perform those tasks better

(Barling & Beattie, 1983) and persevere when problems arise (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987).

Individuals with high RBSE have been found to react positively when faced with new job

20

challenges (Cunningham et al., 2002). Furthermore, previous research suggests RBSE as a

central linking mechanism between job control and proactive behavior (Grant & Ashford, 2008;

Parker et al., 2006).

Up until this point, transformational leadership has only been examined directly with

PBSE, not with perceived role breadth. This dissertation seeks to expand the current scope of

literature on transformational leadership by examining it as a predictor of perceived role breadth.

Perceived role discretion. The fourth role perception McAllister et al. (2007)

distinguished was perceived role discretion, which refers to the extent an individual perceives

choice with respect to performing a particular class of OCB (Organ et al., 2006). From its early

conceptualization, OCB has been understood as discretionary behavior that employees can

choose whether to engage in (Organ, 1990). Still, scholars have argued that employees may

differ in the extent to which they actually perceive OCB as being discretionary (Morrison, 1994;

Tepper et al., 2001).

Scholars have argued that felt autonomy leads to higher internalized motivation (Ryan &

Deci, 2000; Sheldon, Turban, Brown, Barrick, & Judge, 2003). Consistent with this idea, studies

have shown that perceived job autonomy and self-determination are positively associated with

OCB (Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala, & Oakley, 2006; Bell & Menguc, 2002; Cappelli & Rogovsky,

1998; Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990; Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, & Fuller, 2001). In addition,

felt control has been shown to lead to more personal initiative (Frese et al., 1997), a construct

closely related to taking charge.

Prior researchers have confirmed that role definitions interact with procedural justice and

subsequently influence employee engagement in OCB (e.g., Tepper et al., 2001; Tepper and

Taylor, 2003). Specifically, employees who perceive OCBs as part of their roles are less

21

influenced by organizational justice factors when they decide to be good organization citizens.

Conversely, employees who perceive OCBs as extra-role perform the corresponding OCB with

higher frequency when they perceive higher levels of procedural justice in their work

organizations. When procedural justice is low, however, employees who classify OCBs as extra-

role exercise their option to refrain from citizenship behaviors. Thus, Tepper et al. (2001)

proposed that employees engage in an assessment of their organizational justice context, and use

role definitions to enhance or diminish their behavioral engagement in subsequent OCBs using

role discretion.

Chiaburu (2007) performed a study examining whether role enlargement and role

discretion explained the relationship between interactional fairness and OCB. Their results

provided support for a role discretion effect, whereby the OCBs of employees with more

restricted role definitions are a function of interactional fairness to a greater extent than they are

for employees with less restricted role definitions.

OCB-Factors to be Examined as Role Breadth Factors

Although most citizenship behavior research assumed citizenship behaviors were

universally extra-role across people, jobs, and tenure, arguments have been made that OCB’s are

actually more role-specific (Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne et al., 1995). Indeed, numerous studies

have shown that employee OCB role definitions (i.e., what is considered in-role vs. extra-role)

affect OCBs either through role enlargement (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Coyle-

Shapiro et al. 2004; Kidder 2002; Morrison 1994; Pond et al. ,1997) or through role discretion

(e.g., Tepper et al., 2001; Tepper & Taylor ,2003; Zellars et al. ,2002). According to role theory,

employees will enact their work roles in different ways (Biddle, 1979; Graen 1976; Ilgen &

Hollenbeck, 1991). Hence, researchers have recently directed energy towards understanding

22

OCB role definitions in an effort to better understand when and under what conditions

employees perform citizenship behaviors (Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009). Although researchers are

directing more attention and energy toward OCB role definitions, such as perceived role breadth,

it often remains unclear whether scholars are actually discussing extra-role or in-role perceptions

and behaviors. This, however, is becoming increasingly clarified by researchers on these

subjects, which will make future research, particularly on role perceptions such as perceived role

breadth, more focused, contextual, and clear.

Although there are a number of ways in which OCBs have been conceptualized over the

years (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988, 1990; Smith et al., 1983; Van Dyne, Graham,

& Dienesch, 1994; Williams & Anderson, 1991), the two most used and helpful

conceptualizations are those developed by Organ (1988, 1990) and by Williams and Anderson

(1991). Indeed, Organ (1988) originally proposed a five-factor OCB model consisting of

altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. However, he subsequently

expanded this model (Organ, 1990) to include two other dimensions (i.e., peacekeeping and

cheerleading).

Empirical evidence (Bell & Menguc, 2002; Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004; Lam, Hui, &

Law, 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990) suggests managers can easily distinguish between Organ’s

(1988, 1990) sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness dimensions. According to Organ

(1988), sportsmanship is defined as a willingness on the part of employees to tolerate less-than-

ideal circumstances without complaining and making problems seem bigger than they actually

are; civic virtue is behavior indicating employees take an active interest in the life of their

organization; and conscientiousness (often called compliance) is behavior indicating employees

accept and adhere to the rules, regulations, and procedures of the organization. However,

23

empirical research (Bachrach, Bendoly, & Podsakoff, 2001; MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff

& MacKenzie, 1994) also suggests managers struggle distinguishing between the other

dimensions identified in Organ’s conceptual model. Specifically, managers often perceive

altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading under the same overall helping dimension.

Thus, some have argued that helping behavior may be viewed as a second-order latent construct

comprising these four first-order dimensions, because as noted by Podsakoff, Ahearne, and

MacKenzie (1997), these dimensions “clearly involve helping others with or preventing the

occurrence of work-related problems” (p. 263).

The second major conceptualization of OCBs is that proposed by Williams and Anderson

(1991). These authors organize OCBs into categories on the basis of the target, or direction, of

the behavior. Specifically, they call behaviors directed toward the benefit of other individuals

OCB-I, whereas behaviors directed toward the benefit of the organization are called OCB-O.

Williams and Anderson originally identified Organ’s (1988, 1990) altruism dimension as an

exemplar of OCB-I. Based on the fact that courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading behaviors

are aimed at helping other individuals, it is also appropriate to include them in the OCB-I

category. Moreover, although Williams and Anderson originally used Organ’s compliance (or

conscientiousness) dimension as an exemplar of OCB-O, other researchers (Coleman & Borman,

2000; Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007; LePine et al., 2002) have also included civic

virtue and sportsmanship in this category. Thus, all of Organ’s (1988, 1990) OCB dimensions

can be captured by Williams and Anderson’s conceptual model.

In addition, Williams and Anderson’s (1991) categorization incorporates most other

OCB-related constructs. For example, OCB-I captures not only Organ’s (1990) altruism,

courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading dimensions, but also Graham’s (1989) interpersonal

24

helping, Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) interpersonal facilitation, and Farh, Earley, and

Lin’s (1997) helping coworkers and interpersonal harmony constructs. In a similar way, OCB-O

captures not only Organ’s (1990) compliance, civic virtue, and sportsmanship dimensions, but

also Graham’s (1991) organizational loyalty; Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993, 1997) endorsing,

supporting, and defending organizational objectives; Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) job

dedication; LePine and Van Dyne’s (1998) voice behavior; Morrison and Phelps’s (1999) taking

charge (or individual initiative); and Farh, Zhong, and Organ’s (2004) promoting the company’s

image constructs. Graham (1991, p. 255) defined organizational loyalty as an, “Identification

with and allegiance to organizational leaders and the organization as a whole, transcending the

parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments. Representative behaviors

include defending the organization against threats; contributing to its good reputation; and

cooperating with others to serve the interests of the whole.” This definition seemed to comprise

civic virtue, which was previously described as an active interest in the life of the organization

(Organ, 1988, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1990). As will be discussed further, specifically in the

methods and results sections, factor analyses were conducted on the perceived role breadth and

role instrumentality measures of this study. Factors were developed based on the literature

review just described.

Conclusion

There can be considerable variation in how broadly individuals define their work roles

(Kamdar et al., 2006; McAllister et al., 2007; Morrison, 1994). This is referred to as perceived

role breadth and is the set of behaviors or activities that an individual defines as being in-role

(Morrison, 1994). Expanding one’s role definition generally occurs as a byproduct of give-and-

take exchanges via ongoing interactions with others (e.g., Graen 1976; Grant & Ashford, 2008;

25

Katz & Kahn, 1978). One study investigated the relationship between trust and perceived role

breadth and found that organizational commitment mediated the relationships between trust and

perceived role breadth (Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009). Other research has shown organizational

commitment to predict perceived role breadth as well (Gordon et al., 1992).

The present dissertation seeks to expand upon the lack of research and empirical

understanding of the antecedents of perceived role breadth (Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009). In so

doing, this dissertation was the first to directly study transformational leadership as a predictor of

perceived role breadth, and even went beyond simply studying that direct relationship by

exploring multilevel mediators that further explained the relationship. Given that perceived role

breadth is associated with the quality of exchanges between an employee and their direct

supervisor (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Hoffman et al., 2003; Tepper et al., 2001), and that LMX

has been found to fully mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and

employee outcomes (Boer, Deinert, Homan, & Voelpel, 2016), it seems likely that

transformational leadership may explain perceived role breadth. In the next chapter, I provide

literature review of transformational leadership and then provide theoretical explanations and

hypotheses relating to perceived role breadth as an outcome of transformational leadership.

26

CHAPTER THREE

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Downton (1973) first coined the term transformational leadership, which he defined as a

leadership style whereby one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and

followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. The concept, however,

did not emerge as an important leadership approach until the publication of Burns’ (1978) book,

Leadership. Burns used the term transforming leadership to emphasize the distinguishing feature

of this approach, which is to “convert self-interest into collective concerns” (p. 19). For Burns,

leadership is about change and sharing a common purpose and values.

Originally, theorists used Burns’ transforming leadership to classify politicians’

leadership styles. Burns compared this transforming leadership to the traditional leadership style,

which he related to transactional leadership. Burns’ premise for transforming leadership

comprised of transactional leaders, ordinary leaders, or transformational leaders. He determined

that the leaders’ actions and the impact of those actions on their followers shaped the basis of

transactional and transformational leadership types. Bass (1985) changed Burns’ transforming

leadership theory’s name to transformational leadership theory and provided a more structured

and detailed explanation of transformational leadership and its components.

Bass’ transformational leadership has been a leadership approach that organizational

leaders have used to examine if followers are inspired by their leaders to increase in their morals

and work performance motivation level (Bass, 1985; Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013). Differing from

Burns’ (1978) outline of transforming leadership, Bass did not sort transformational and

transactional leadership as being polar opposites (Krishnan, 2012; Leroy, Palanski, & Simons,

27

2012). Indeed, Bass designated transactional leadership and transformational leadership as being

effective concurrently.

Based on Burns’ (1978) theory, Bass and Aviolo (1990) developed the Full Range of

Leadership Program (FLRP), a method for training and developing transformational leaders.

Later, Bass and Avolio (1995) produced the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-Form 6S

(MLQ), an instrument that assesses transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership

styles. Since the publication of the MLQ, researchers have gathered extensive data that provide

evidence of the instrument’s reliability and validity, and it is widely used in leadership research

(Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Transformational leadership has been examined in relation to other leadership styles.

Mahdinezhad et al. (2013) and Basham (2012) compared transformational leadership to

transactional leadership. Transactional leadership refers to a leadership style in which leaders

demonstrate transactional behavior and use rewards to achieve cooperation from employees

(Mahdinezhad et al., 2013). The purpose of the study conducted by Mahdinezhad et al. (2013)

was to identify which leadership style, transactional or transformational, was more effective as it

relates to job performance. The researchers defined job performance and provided an analysis of

literature relating to transformational leadership and transactional leadership. They concluded

that the two leadership styles are not at opposite ends of a continuum and that leaders can exhibit

characteristics of both leadership styles to achieve desired results in their follows.

Transactional and transformational leadership are two of the primary components of Bass

and Avolio’s (1995) Full Range Leadership Theory. Both types of leadership are derived largely

from social exchange theory and have been defined primarily in terms of their component

behaviors. Although transactional and transformational leadership are distinct, they are not

28

mutually exclusive; to be effective, leaders must use a combination of both types of leadership

(Bass, 1990a).

Transactional leadership refers to an exchange between the leader and follower in which

the follower receives valued outcomes when he or she acts in accordance with the leader’s

desires (Yukl, 2009). Transactional leadership is characterized by two behaviors: 1) contingent

reward and 2) active management-by-exception (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Contingent

reward behaviors include clear explanations of the actions required to obtain desired rewards,

and the use of incentives and conditional rewards to motivate and influence followers. Active

management-by-exception refers to attempts by leaders to actively enforce rules in an effort to

avoid mistakes (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). In contrast, transformational leadership refers to

the ways in which leaders affect followers who, in turn, respect, trust, and admire the leader

(Bass, 1985).

Transformational leaders influence followers by: 1) focusing on the value and importance

of the task, 2) encouraging followers to replace self-interest with the goals of the

team/organization, and 3) engaging higher-order needs of followers. Transformational leaders

thus “encourage followers to embrace moral values and to act in the interest of the collective

rather than according to self-interest” (Brown & Trevino, 2006, p. 955). By engaging the values

of followers, transformational leaders transcend purely exchange-based transactional leadership

processes (Bass, 1985).

The Four Dimensions of Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is a type of normative theory of leadership that signifies how

leaders ought to behave (Grant, 2012; Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013; Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, &

Deci, 2015). Bass’ (1985) transformational leadership theory signified that followers can feel and

29

experience admiration, loyalty, and trust, and consequently, focused on followers’ impact and

influence of their leaders (Bass, 1985; Pandey, Davis, Pandey, & Peng, 2016). Bass’

transformational leadership theory consists of four main dimensions: 1) intellectual stimulation,

2) individualized consideration, 3) inspirational motivation, and 4) idealized influence (Bass,

1985; Grant, 2012; Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, & Deci, 2015; Pandey et al., 2016). These four

dimensions of transformational leadership are have been shown to motivate employees to

improve work performance and encourage personal and professional development (Caldwell et

al., 2012).

Idealized influence. Leaders who exhibit idealized influence or charisma are revered,

respected, and trusted (Bayram & Dinc, 2015). Transformational leaders enable such a

relationship by conveying a vision of the future of the organization and its employees and

providing encouraging details on how to attain this vision (Okcu, 2014). Consequently, leaders

with idealized influence are confident and optimistic, but also have been found to share

information on risks and challenges with their followers (Okcu, 2014). Finally, leaders with

idealized influence stress the importance of values and morals, particularly through their own

actions (Bayram & Dinc, 2015; Okcu, 2014).

Inspirational motivation. The second dimension of transformational leadership is

inspirational motivation, which refers to the ability of a leader to motivate followers to think and

act towards achieving goals and reaching high expectations (Bayram & Dinc, 2015).

Inspirational motivation is possible and effective when leaders know their followers’ individual

and collective characteristics such that they are better able to lead their followers towards

improved thinking and behavior, and collaborative action (Bayram & Dinc, 2015).

30

As transformational leaders communicate and share a collective vision with their

followers, they also highlight the importance of each individual’s role in the achievement of that

vision. Indeed, it has been shown that one of the most critical skills related to inspirational

motivation is the ability to effectively communicate and clearly explain their vision, mission, and

roles to followers (Bayram & Dinc, 2015). Given that transformational leadership consists of

helping followers clarify and define their work roles, it seems that transformational leadership

would predict perceived role breadth, or the extent to which followers consider a set of behaviors

or activities to be defined as being in-role (Morrison, 1994).

Intellectual stimulation. While inspirational motivation refers to the leader’s ability to

motivate followers through emotional encouragement, the third dimension, intellectual

stimulation, refers to a transformational leader’s aptitude for engaging followers in intellectual

exercises towards the creation of solutions to organizational issues as well as to innovate in

problem solving (Bayram & Dinc, 2015; Marinova et al., 2015). Transformational leaders who

utilize intellectual stimulation can increase followers’ awareness about issues and problems

within the organization and seek to change how followers or employees think about their work

and roles in the firm (Marinova et al., 2015). Indeed, intellectual stimulation may help employees

expand their work roles, thus enabling them to go above and beyond the prescribed call of duty.

Encouraging employees to engage in unconventional thinking and innovation allows

them to develop and utilize a broader range of skills and knowledge, thereby allowing them to

better contribute to the organization in ways such as involvement in collective decision-making

and addressing new challenges (Marinova et al., 2015). Such intellectual stimulation and

augmented responsibility create a sense of empowerment among employees, which can

31

subsequently increase their creative ability to develop, share, and apply innovative ideas

(Marinova et al., 2015).

Individualized consideration. The final dimension, individualized consideration, refers

to the personal attention and reinforcement a leader provides to each of his or her subordinates.

By providing each follower ample personal time and attention, a transformational leader is able

to understand and describe followers’ personalities, abilities, needs, and desires (Bayram & Dinc,

2015). Consequently, a transformational leader with individualized consideration can often help

subordinates create a vision for the future and also provide them opportunities for growth and

professional development (Bayram & Dinc, 2015; Okcu, 2014).

Expansions to the four dimensions. Researchers have expanded upon the four

dimensions of transformational leadership in attempts to better conceptualize its influence on

outcomes and to adapt the concept to a variety of fields and situations. For instance, Conchie,

Taylor, and Donald (2012) added the dimension of trust to transformational leadership in order

to apply the concept to high-risk industries that promote safety. They found that affect-based

trust has a mediating role on the effects of transformational leadership. For this study, the

concept of affect-based trust was used, in which it is expected that individuals would act

unselfishly towards one another and show concern for their welfare.

Outcomes of Transformational Leadership

Through a consistent process of motivation, learning, and the constant thrust towards

excellence both for oneself and the organization as a whole, transformational leadership can

enable leaders to create an organizational culture of high trust and excellent performance, which

can facilitate opportunities for increased profitability and long-term sustainability (Caldwell et

al., 2012). Moreover, as transformational leadership requires a continuous process of motivation,

32

action, and development, it embodies a need for great commitment to the organization and its

members, including the commitment to honor obligations to employees, not only as required by

law but also to keep them informed, improve their motivation, and to provide them with ample

reach and resources to enable their personal and professional growth (Caldwell et al., 2012). As

transformational leaders demonstrate commitment to followers, it is likely the followers will

reciprocate by enhancing their commitment to their leaders and to the organization as a whole

(Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004).

Previous research shows that transformational leadership relates positively to employees’

proactive behavior (e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010; Strauss,

Griffin, & Rafferty, 2009). Over the past few decades, researchers have consistently examined

the idea that transformational leadership can motivate followers “to perform above and beyond

the call of duty” (House et al., 1991, p. 364; Wang et al., 2011; Carter et al., 2014) by building

enthusiastic team spirit and inspiring employees’ commitment to the organization (Bass &

Avolio, 1995; Joo et al., 2012). Robust evidence has shown that followers of transformational

leaders are more productive, regardless of whether performance is measured at the individual,

team, unit, or firm level (Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, & Courtright, 2015; Bass, Avolio, Jung, &

Berson, 2003a, 2003b) and whether the performance outcomes are in-role tasks, extra-role

activities, or innovations (Chen, Farh, Campbell-Bush, Wu, & Wu, 2013; Choi, 2009; Keller,

1992).

Transformational leadership behavior is frequently associated with higher levels of

employee satisfaction (Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang, & Lawler, 2005), organizational performance,

follower work engagement (Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2009), and employees’ willingness to

exert extra effort to reach a given goal. More recently, Higgins (2015) found that

33

transformational leaders improve the quality of patient care among nurses by creating supportive

practice environments and OCBs.

Transformational Leadership and OCB

Recent studies have examined the relationship between transformational leadership and

OCB (Shah, Hamid, Memon, & Mirani, 2016). Transformational leadership can be effective in

promoting OCB in the workplace, and although there is much known about the mechanisms

explaining this relationship, there is still much to be discovered (Carter et al., 2012). For

instance, Carter et al. (2012) examined the effect of transformational leadership in maintaining

employee productivity, commitment, and satisfaction in a continuous incremental change

context. In their study, they conducted surveys among employees and their team leaders that

measured perceptions on transformational leadership, relationship quality, change frequency,

task performance, and OCB. Through hierarchical linear modelling of the gathered data, their

results showed that transformational leadership was related to employees’ task performance and

OCB, and that this effect was greatly influenced by the quality of the relationship between the

manager or team leader and the members (Carter et al., 2012).

Moghadam, Moosavi, and Dousti (2013) also assessed the relationship between

transformational leadership and OCB. They specifically analyzed the relationship of these

constructs among the general office of the Sport and Youth of Mazandaran Province. The results

from the regression test revealed that OCB can be predicted staff member’s perception and

understanding of transformational leadership (Moghadam, Moosavi, & Dousti, 2013). Another

study used a general framework of proactive motivation to examine the effects of the

individualized consideration dimension of transformational leadership and organizational climate

on change-oriented OCB (López-Domínguez, Enache, Sallan, & Simo, 2013). They found that

34

individuals’ cognitive emotional states were considered mediating variables between

transformational leadership and OCB.

Other research examined the effect of transformational leadership on OCB in the food

service industry and found that 1) the individualized inspiration and charisma of transformational

leaders can lead to positive effects on the altruistic action of OCB, 2) intellectual stimulation and

individual consideration of transformational leadership can negatively affect the altruistic action

of OCB, and 3) intellectual stimulation and individual consideration of transformational

leadership do not have effects on the conformist action of OCB (Shin, 2012). Shin (2012) further

found in their study that individualized inspiration and charisma can lead to conformist actions,

showing that the various dimensions of transformational leadership could potentially promote

both positive and negative influences on dimensions of OCB. Another study examined the

relationship between transformational leadership and OCB in the healthcare industry, and found

mediating effects of empowerment on the relationship between transformational leadership, job

characteristics, and OCB among nurses (Lin, Li, & Hsiao, 2012).

Saeed and Ahmad (2012) performed a study measuring the effects of the level of

perceived transformational leadership style on the level of OCBs among the administrative staff

of the Punjab University, consisting of 15 faculties. Their results indicated that transformational

leadership and OCB are positively correlated, suggesting that transformational leaders may

encourage altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness among their followers.

Transformational Leadership and Perceived Role Breadth

Relationship-based theories have been predominantly used to account for the tendency of

employees who expand their role definitions to ultimately engage in more frequent OCB. For

instance, social exchange (Blau, 1964) can explain why employees are likely to engage in OCB

35

and the relationship of OCB to role breadth. Employees in a social exchange relationship are

thought to follow equity (Homans, 1961) and reciprocity norms (Gouldner, 1960) to reciprocate

favorable treatment from the supervisor and organization by broadening their work role to

include OCB (Chiaburu & Marinova, 2006; Hofmann et al., 2003; Kamdar, McAllister, &

Turban, 2006; Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). Importantly, unlike a transactional quid pro

quo exchange, a social exchange relationship is open-ended, such that the timing and nature of

reciprocity is loosely defined. This provides employees with the flexibility to engage in

reciprocity by way of expanded role definitions that include OCB. From a social exchange

perspective, perceived role breadth reflects felt obligations of employees to their supervisors and

organizations (Hofmann et al., 2003; Kamdar et al., 2006), and OCB is a currency of exchange

that can be used to fulfill these obligations.

The generally accepted rationalization for broader perceived role breadth is that there is a

give-and-take exchange process through ongoing interactions with others (e.g., coworkers,

supervisors) which influences how individuals perceive and define their roles (e.g., Graen 1976;

Grant & Ashford, 2008; Katz & Kahn, 1978). According to Bass (1990a), both transactional and

transformational leadership are derived largely from social exchange theory and have been

defined primarily in terms of their component behaviors. Furthermore, transformational leaders

who utilize intellectual stimulation can increase followers’ awareness about issues and problems

within the organization and seek to change how followers or employees think about their work

and roles in the firm (Marinova et al., 2015).

According to some scholars, one of the most critical skills related to inspirational

motivation is the ability to effectively communicate and clearly explain their vision, mission, and

roles to followers (Bayram & Dinc, 2015). Given that transformational leadership consists of

36

helping followers clarify and define their work roles, and that perceived role is associated with

quality of exchanges between the employee and direct supervisor (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004;

Hoffman et al., 2003; Tepper et al., 2001), it seems that transformational leadership would

predict perceived role breadth.

Understanding the connection between transformational leadership and perceived role

breadth will help to explain the consistent connection that has been made between

transformational leadership and OCB. Indeed, prior research shown that individuals are less

likely to engage in OCB if they view OCB as extra-role rather than in-role. Thus, it seems that

perceived role breadth may explain the relationship between transformational leadership and

OCB. Yet, no research to this point has examined transformational leadership as a predictor of

perceived role breadth. Given that perceived role breadth has been found to strongly predict

OCB (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Hofmann et al., 2003; Kamdar et al., 2006; Tepper & Taylor,

2003), it is likely that perceived role breadth may provide additional insight and future research

directions regarding the well-established connection between transformational leadership and

OCB.

The following two chapters will cover the constructs of trust in leader and affective

organizational commitment, both of which have been shown to be outcomes of transformational

leadership and antecedents of perceived role breadth. As will be shown, it is hypothesized that

these constructs act as both individual and group-level mediators of the relationship between

transformational leadership and perceived role breadth.

37

CHAPTER FOUR

TRUST IN LEADER

According to Mayer et al. (1995), “Trust is the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to

the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular

action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party” (p.

712). Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, and Cesaria (2000) propose that trust “takes time and patience to

establish with repetition, interactions, and degrees of openness or delegation. Spending informal,

nonwork time with co-workers nurture trust and speeds up its effects” (p. 1).

Mayer et al. (1995) proposed one of the most well-known and influential models of trust.

This model was influential in that it was one of the first to begin to truly define trust as separate

from its antecedents. Developed to examine organizational trust across levels (e.g., Schoorman,

Mayer, & Davis, 2007), the importance of both the perceived characteristics of the trustee as well

as the disposition of the trustor is acknowledged. The model proposed by Mayer et al. (1995)

examined the antecedents of trust focusing on ability, benevolence, and integrity. Perceived risk

and the trustor’s tendency to trust moderated the relationship of trust. While the model had

several strengths, a weakness was a lack of specification of the outcomes of trust.

Utilizing and extending the initial work within Mayer et al.'s (1995) model, Williams

(2001) developed a model whose referent is trust within groups. Williams (2001) further

delineated trust antecedents into belief and affect-based categories. Categorized under the belief

component are Mayer's original three antecedents (i.e., benevolence, integrity, and ability).

However, extending the original model is the addition of: 1) emotional states as an affect-based

antecedent, 2) moderating role of motivation to trust, and 3) specification of a distal outcome of

trust (i.e., cooperation).

38

Taking a slightly different standpoint on trust, Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner

(1998) defined the antecedents to managerial trustworthy behavior, and correspondingly, how

managerial behavior influenced employee perceptions of trust. Specifically, Whitener et al.

(1998) presented five types of behavior that affect trust: 1) behavioral consistency, 2) behavioral

integrity, 3) participative decision making, 4) communication, and 5) demonstrated concern. The

strength of their model was primarily due to its recognition of cross-level phenomena impacting

managerial behavior, including a view of trust from the manager and employee perspectives, and

the recognition that task interdependence moderates the relationship between leader behavior and

development of trust with his/her subordinates.

Frustrated by a lack of integration across the literature base, Dirks and Ferrin (2002)

conducted a meta-analytic examination of trust in leadership. Highlighting the complexity within

the literature, their framework expanded on the antecedents to trust, conceptualization of trust,

and outcomes. Additionally, it examined the moderating role of direct versus indirect leadership.

Specifically, their framework consisted of three antecedent variables to trust: leader action and

practices, follower attributes (i.e., propensity to trust), and relationship attributes (i.e., length of

the relationship). Leader action/practices were defined with constructs such as perceived

organizational support, participative decision making, and unmet expectations. Interactional,

procedural, and distributive justice was included under leader action practices as well as

transformational and transactional leadership styles.

In their meta-analysis, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) specifically reported that trust in

leadership had a significant relationship with individual outcomes, including job performance (r

= .16), OCB (altruism, r = .19), turnover intentions (r = - .40), job satisfaction (r = .51),

organizational commitment (r = .49), and a commitment to the leaders’ decisions (r = .24). They

39

also showed that there are substantial relationships between perceptions of leaders’ actions and

transformational leadership (r = .72), interactional justice (r = .65), and participative decision-

making (r = .46). They concluded that “trust in leadership appears to be associated with a well-

established set of leadership actions and behaviors” (p. 31). They also noted that this research

suggests trust is important to effective organizational functioning.

Relationship-Based Trust and Character-Based Trust

Later, Dirks and Skarlicki (2004), who reviewed the trust literature, stated, “Trust in

leaders has been linked to positive job attitudes, organizational justice, psychological contracts,

and effectiveness in terms of communication, organizational relationships, and conflict

management” (p. 21). Dirks and Skarlicki (2004) argued that the trust formation literature is

viewed through the lens of two qualitatively different theoretical perspectives of trust:

relationship-based and character-based. Relationship-based trust is concerned with followers’

perceptions of the nature of their relationship with a leader. Blau (as cited in Dirks & Skarlicki)

noted that relation-based trust operates through a social exchange process, stating, “followers see

their relationship with their leader as beyond the standard economic contract such that the parties

operate on the basis of trust, goodwill, and the perception of mutual obligations” (p. 22).

Effective relation-based trust may form the type of relationship with a transformational leader

that allows the organization and its members to willingly go beyond what has been expected of

them (Burns, as cited in Ciulla, 1998; Simons, 1999).

Following social exchange principles, the relation-based trust perspective suggests that

followers will reciprocate benefits received and that individuals will direct their efforts toward

the person who initiated the benefit. Relation-based trust operates from a perspective of

reciprocity. Dirks and Skarlicki (2004) stated that the immediate line supervisor who manages

40

performance today may be the beneficiary of followers’ increased job performance or increased

OCBs. Followers see the relationship with their leader as beyond the standard economic contract,

such that the parties operate on the basis of trust, goodwill, and the perception of mutual

obligations (Blau, 1964). The exchange denotes a high-quality relationship, and issues of care

and consideration in the relationship are central. Researchers have used this perspective in

describing how trust in leader-follower relationships evokes OCBs (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), in

some research, on the operation of transformational leadership and trust (Pillai, Schriesheim, &

Williams, 1999), and in literature on leader-member exchange relationships (e.g., Schriesheim et

al., 1999). Furthermore, Simons (1999) argues that behavioral integrity is critical in followers

trusting that they will “walk their talk and keep their promises” (p. 95). The leader’s behavioral

integrity forms the basis for mutual trust or, more precisely, relation-based trust.

Character-based trust, on the other hand, is a perspective that focuses on followers’

perceptions of a leader’s character and how it influences followers’ vulnerability in a hierarchical

relationship (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Thus, the followers are especially attuned to the

behaviors of the leader, specifically whether he or she keeps their promises (Simons, 1999). If

the leader breaks his or her promises and exhibits a lack of integrity, character-based trust would

suggest that followers will perceive that person as lacking integrity and withdraw their support in

terms of doing extra things for the organization. Mayer et al. (1995) hypothesized that followers

would be more willing to take workplace risks if they perceive their leaders to have integrity,

capability, or benevolence.

Trust in Leader

In Dirks and Skarlicki (2004) review of trust literature, they argued that trust has been an

understudied component of several leadership theories, including trust building, transformational

41

and charismatic leadership, effective leadership behavior, leader and member exchange theory,

and leadership effectiveness. In their review, they specifically stated, “Until recently, however,

surprisingly little research has focused on illuminating how trust in leaders contributes to the

effective functioning of the groups and organizations and how it can be leveraged to meet this

objective” (p. 21). By studying trust in leader as a mediating mechanism in the relationship of

transformational leadership on perceived role breadth, this dissertation will further illuminate

how trust in leaders can contribute to individual and group functioning and effectiveness.

Measure of trust in the leader have been widely used by researchers to assess the quality

of social exchange between the leader and follower (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). Trust in

leadership, as stated by Kanji and e Sa’ (2001), promoted good leader-follower relationships,

which were the center for the effective functioning of the organization. Pierce and Newstrom

(2003) noted that trust in leadership is one means by which leadership operates. Efficient leaders

generate a positive kind of follower; followers who are distinguish by their discretionary

endeavors (Chi, Chung, & Tsai, 2011; Wang & Rode, 2010).

For instance, employees whose leader practiced individualized consideration had greater

trust in their leader, overall satisfaction, role clarity, in-role performance, altruism,

sportsmanship, and civic virtue (Podsakoff et al., 1996). As compared to transactional leadership

behaviors, transformational behaviors appear to be more positively related to subordinate

effectiveness and satisfaction (Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001) Indeed,

transformational leadership has been found to be one of the strongest predictors of trust in one’s

leader (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Put more directly, it has been shown that transformational

leadership can only be made effective through the development of follower trust in the leader

(Jung & Avolio, 2000; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,

42

1990). While articulating inspirational visions, transformational leaders emphasize building trust

and promoting high levels of performance for organizational success (Gholamreza, Matin, &

Farjami, 2009; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Mozes, Josman, & Yaniv, 2011).

According to Gong, Haung, and Farh (2009) trust in transformational leadership is

exemplified when employees’ and/or followers’ creativity flourishes. Transformational leaders

should engender higher levels of trust in followers as they exhibit support, encouragement,

concern and respect for their followers (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Jung & Avolio, 2000). With high

levels of trust in the leader, followers are more likely to exert stronger efforts to finish their work

tasks on time and are more likely to engage in OCBs (Burke et al., 2007; Organ, Podsakoff, &

MacKenzie, 2006). For example, prior research (e.g., Organ et al., 2006) found that followers in

a trusting relationship reciprocate in the form of enhanced job attitudes, performance and OCBs.

Similar findings of a positive relationship between trust in the leader and follower work

outcomes were uncovered through meta-analytical work by Dirks and Ferrin (2002). Although

trust in the leader has been consistently found to be an influential mediator on the relationship

between transformational leadership and follower outcomes, uni-dimensional measures of trust

using cognitive elements alone, or ones combining affective and cognitive elements, have

typically been adopted in previous studies (Jung & Avolio, 2000; Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et

al., 1990).

Trust in leader was chosen for this dissertation because it has been empirically tested and

validated in a wide variety of industrial and geographic settings (Schaubroeck et al., 2011; Wang

et al., 2010; Yang & Mossholder, 2010), and been the subject of meta-analytical work (Dirks &

Ferrin, 2002). It also shares many similarities with prominent transformational models of trust

(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Rousseau et al., 1998; Shapiro, Sheppard, & Cheraskin, 1992), given

43

its cognitive dimension captures deterrence or knowledge-based definitions of trust, and its

affective dimension captures identification or relationship-based definitions of trust. Even more,

is that trust in leader has already been found to be a mediator of transformational leadership and

OCB (Burke et al., 2007; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Moreover, trust in leader has

been found to predict perceived role breadth (Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009). Thus, it seems likely

that trust in leader may explain the relationship between transformational leadership and

perceived role breadth.

Evidence suggests that failure of the trustee to meet expectations regarding such

characteristics provides a rational basis for the trustor to withhold trust (McAllister, 1995). In

contrast, affective trust is based on the emotional bond the trustor has developed with the trustee.

It results from the trustor’s recognition that the trustee sincerely cares about the trustor and acts

with the other party’s welfare in mind (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007). Affective trust matures

over time as the two parties engage in a process of social exchange through the display of mutual

concern and care for each other (McAllister, 1995; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985).

Cognitive definitions of trust are related with the character-based perspective, since they

capture perceptions about the leader’s character that may influence the vulnerability of the

subordinate to him or her (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Conversely, affective definitions of trust are

logically related to the social exchange-based perspective, given they focus on the exchange of

socio-emotional benefits between individuals (McAllister, 1995). Indeed, trust in the leader has

been found to mediate the impact of transformational leadership on follower work outcomes

(Jung & Avolio, 2000; Podsakoff et al., 1990).

44

Trust in Leader as Mediator

Over the last three decades a great deal of research has examined the direct effects of

transformational leadership on follower work outcomes including job performance, creativity

and OCBs (Burke, Sims, Lassara, & Salas, 2007; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996). However, it is only in recent years that leadership researchers have

begun to unravel the psychological mechanisms which underlie such relationships (e.g., Avolio,

Zhu, Koh, & Puja, 2004; Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). One mechanism central to the process of

effective transformational leadership is the development of follower trust in the leader (Kark,

Shamir, & Chen, 2003), which has been found to fully mediate the impact of transformational

leadership on OCB (Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990), and job performance (Jung &

Avolio, 2000). Trust in leader refers to an individual's positive expectations toward the behaviors

of the leader and the willingness to become vulnerable to the leader (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, &

Camerer, 1998).

Kelloway, Turner, Barling, and Loughlin (2012) found that trust in the leader fully

mediated the positive relationship between perceptions of managers’ transformational leadership

and employee psychological well-being in a cross-sectional sample. They performed another

study which extended the model by showing that active management-by-exception and laissez-

faire behaviors negatively affected employee psychological well-being by reducing trust in the

manager, excluding the possibility that these results were accounted for by individual differences

or liking of the manager.

Zhu, Newman, Miao, and Hooke (2013) found that affective trust fully mediated the

relationships between transformational leadership and the work outcomes of followers, including

their affective organizational commitment, OCB, and job performance. In contrast, cognitive

45

trust negatively mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and follower job

performance, and had insignificant effects on their affective organizational commitment and

OCB. These findings highlight the importance of affective trust as a mechanism which translates

transformational leadership into positive work outcomes for the organization (Zhu, Newman,

Miao, & Hooke, 2013). Related research demonstrates that when employees feel they can trust

their leaders, they are able to focus more on both in-role and extra-role performance (Mayer &

Gavin, 2005). Indeed, trust in leader has been found to directly predict perceived role breadth

(Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009).

Given that affective or relationship-based trust has been found to fully mediate

transformational leadership on both affective organizational commitment as well as extra-role

and in-role behaviors, it seems likely that this form of trust in leader would also mediate

transformational leadership on perceived role breadth. Therefore, this dissertation seeks to both

replicate and extend current research on transformational leadership, trust in leader, affective

organizational commitment, and perceived role breadth. Specifically, this study seeks to replicate

prior findings that trust in leader predicts perceived role breadth (Chiaburu & Byrne, 2009) as a

potential mediating mechanism of transformational leadership to perceived role breadth.

As will be developed more fully in the next chapter, affective organizational commitment

has been found to predict perceived role breadth (e.g., Gordon et al., 1992). Given that trust in

leader has been shown to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and

affective organizational commitment (Zhu et al., 2013), and that organizational commitment has

been found to mediate the relationship between trust and perceived role breadth (Chiaburu

&Byrne, 2009), this dissertation proposes a serial mediation model wherein trust in leader

mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and affective organizational

46

commitment, which affective organizational commitment then acts as a mediator between trust

in leader and perceived role breadth. Thus, transformational leadership facilitates trust in leader

which then facilitates affective organizational commitment, which then facilitates perceived role

breadth (see Figure 1). All of this is based on the affective trust or relationship-based trust model,

which is rooted in social exchange (McAllister, 1995), which social exchange has been used to

explain how transformational leadership facilitates both trust (Burns, 1978; Ciulla, 1998;

Simons, 1999) and OCB (Boer et al., 2016). Indeed, trust in the leader has been widely used by

researchers to measure the quality of social exchange between the leader and follower (Lavelle,

Rupp, & Brockner, 2007).

Trust in Leader as Group-Level Mediator

Most teams, even those that are self-managed, are typically also supervised by a team

leader (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Hackman, 1987). Given their dependence on this leader, team

members are likely to develop a certain level of trust in him/her. Team members typically rely on

the leader for setting the overall direction and coordination of the team, monitoring the team’s

performance, as well as for boundary-spanning activities, such as negotiating and acquiring

resources, information and support for the team’s work, and representing the team to higher

organizational authorities (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).

Burke, Sims, Lazzara, and Salas (2007) sought to develop an integrative and multilevel

model of trust in leadership, and found that trust in leadership generally springs from three broad

categories of antecedents which can be delineated: ability, benevolence, and integrity (see Mayer

et al., 1995; Gill, Boies, Finegan, & McNally, 2005; Schoorman et al., 2007). Having gone

through nearly all of the research on trust available at the time, they composed several

suggestions or requirements for an integrative and multilevel model on trust. Given that the

47

current dissertation is focused on both individual and group-level trust in leader as a mediator of

the relationships between transformational leadership and perceived role breadth, this literature

review will isolate and more fully examine a few of the propositions developed by Burke et al.

(2007). By facilitating interactions between co-workers, transformational leaders should also

enhance group cohesion, making followers feel more comfortable in one another's presence, and

lead to a greater willingness amongst them to go above and beyond their job role, or even expand

that role, to assist one another and their organization on a voluntary basis (Burke et al., 2007;

Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Yang & Mossholder, 2010). One symptom of higher group cohesion

would be group-level or team trust. Indeed, one such way in which transformational leadership

may create a team or group-level trust is through a climate of psychological safety.

Specifically, team psychological safety, which has been defined as the shared belief that

the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson, 1999). Indeed, team psychological

safety reflects a team climate where interpersonal trust and mutual respect are present such that

well-intentioned actions will not lead to punishment. Within such a climate, it has been argued

that team members will feel free to question suggestions and decisions (Burke, Stagl, Salas,

Pierce, & Kendall, 2006), including those of the leader. Edmondson (2003) found that team

leaders could develop psychological safety within the team through interpersonal activities

which serve to motivate the team and illustrate the importance of all members' inputs and

downplay power differences. Other research found that the effects of leader behavior on team

performance were fully mediated through trust in leader as well as the team members’

psychological states (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). Specifically, Schaubroeck et al. (2011)

found that transformational leadership influenced team performance indirectly through

48

cognition-based trust, which directly influenced team potency and, through affect-based trust,

indirectly influenced team psychological safety.

It seems likely that group-level trust in leader operates similarly to trust climate. The

connection between transformational leadership and trust climate has been previously

established. For instance, Lin, Dang, and Liu (2016) found that team-level trust climate among a

top-management team mediated the relationship between CEO transformational leadership and

firm performance. Their findings of top-management, team-level intragroup trust as a mediator

of transformational leadership and organization-level performance extend prior research, which

explained the moderating role of trust in workplace team contexts.

Indeed, team climate can exert both mediating and moderating effects on the leaders’

influence (e.g., Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008; West, 1990) and has been found to

be a key mechanism through which leadership behaviors can promote advantageous outcomes

(Boies, Fiset, & Gill, 2015; Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Carmeli et al., 2012; Shih,

Chiang, & Chen, 2012). Following the inputs-mediators outcomes (IMO) model (Mathieu et al.,

2008), this dissertation hypothesizes trust in leader as a group-level mediator, operating similarly

to trust climate (Liu, Hernandez, & Wang, 2014; Sun et al., 2014), and sees it as a psychological

state that may explain why transformational leadership evokes role breadth and OCB. Thus,

transformational leadership may facilitate group-level trust in leadership, which could then evoke

greater perceived role breadth in each individual follower. Given Mayer et al.’s (1995) definition

of trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the

expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of

the ability to monitor or control the other party” (p. 712), this dissertation defines team-level

trust in leader as a shared willingness of a group to be vulnerable to the actions of their leader

49

based on the expectation that their leader will perform particular actions that are important to the

trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the leader.

Prior studies focused on leadership behavior toward individuals and individual outcomes

(e.g., Eisenbeib & Boerner, 2013), or on leadership behavior toward teams and resulting team

outcomes (e.g., Sy et al., 2013, Wang and Howell, 2010). By linking individual-level and team-

level phenomena, this dissertation goes above and beyond prior studies and examine how

leadership behavior toward individuals contributes to the emergence of relevant team outcomes.

Unlike previous research that examined team constructs as potential antecedents of team

trust, I propose a bottom-up relationship between an individual-level variable, which, in the case

of this study, is transformational leadership, and team or group-level trust in leader. Although

bottom-up relationships are theoretically meaningful (e.g., Liao and Chuang, 2004), they have

rarely been tested because available analytical methods have constrained statistical tests of such

relationships, but recent advances in multilevel modeling techniques have made such tests

feasible (e.g., Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010). Bottom-up relationships are especially likely to

contribute to the manifestation of a higher-level phenomenon when it has yet to fully form, such

as during a major organizational change initiative (Mathieu & Chen, 2011). Notably, two recent

studies addressed bottom-up relationships and found positive relationships among individual-

level informal leader emergence (Zhang, Waldman, & Wang, 2012), individual-level

commitment to change, and in-role team performance (Nohe, Michaelis, Menges, Zhang, &

Sonntag, 2013).

How does trust in the leader ascend to affect team-level trust in leader? An individual

team member who trusts his/her leader is likely to be bound to the leader's stated goals and

mission. This assumption is based on the notion that followers and leaders are engaged in a

50

social exchange relationship in which followers reciprocate good leader treatment through

behavior that benefits the leader (i.e., identification with the leader’s goals; Blau, 1964,

Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). When trust is established, followers should feel a sense of obligation

to reciprocate through behavior that benefits the leader’s goals, such as coordination of tasks

within the team and support of other team members (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005, Kacmar et

al., 2012). As a result, norms of interaction develop and codify the normative level of trust in

leader performed within the team (Ehrhart, 2004, Whitman et al., 2010).

Furthermore, once team members have identified with the leader’s goals, their within-

team shared focus on joint goals is likely to facilitate positive member interactions, such as

coordination of tasks and support of members who need assistance. In other words, the leader-

member social exchange relationship inspires trust among team members, in turn contributing to

the emergence of social exchange relationships between individual members. According to

theory on collective constructs, individual interactions are “the basic building block upon which

all larger collective structures are composed” (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999, p. 252). Thus, when

individual team members develop trust in leader, it seems possible that others in the group could

develop trust in the leader as well. Hence, this dissertation proposed that transformational

leadership predicts both individual and group-level trust in leader.

51

CHAPTER FIVE

AFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Commitment is an attitude that highlights a worker’s loyalty to the company, and a

continuous process that lets the organization’s staff voice their concerns for the organization and

its prolonged success and welfare (Phillips, Kim-Jun, & Shim, 2011). Commitment is viewed as

attachment and devotion (Shanker, 2013). Phillips et al. (2011) defined commitment as having

three components: 1) an ambition to always be a part of the organization, 2) an adaptation in the

morals and objectives of the organization, and 3) a desire to highlight responsibility on behalf of

the organization.

Bateman and Strasser (1984) defined organizational commitment as concerning a

worker’s integrity and devotion to the company, readiness to work hard as part of the

organization, level of organizational objectives and code congruency, and longing to remain a

member of the organization. Commitment is characterized by several aspects within the

organization, such as the nature of the job and the mode of leadership of the management

(Bateman & Strasser, 1984). Furthermore, organizational commitment can also be influenced by

a number of personal aspects such as age, character, investment in the organization, and other

organizational or non-organizational factors (Bateman & Strasser, 1984).

Allen and Meyer (1990) conceptualized organizational commitment as consisting of three

fundamental components: 1) affective, 2) continuance, and 3) normative. Meyer and Allen

(1984) initially proposed that a distinction be made between affective and continuance

commitment, with affective commitment denoting an emotional attachment to, identification

with, and involvement in the organization and continuance commitment denoting the perceived

costs associated with leaving the organization. Allen and Meyer (1990) later suggested a third

52

distinguishable component of commitment, normative commitment, which reflects a perceived

obligation to remain in the organization.

For their study, Allen and Meyer (1990) developed a 24-item scale in order to measure

these three components of organizational commitment. The researchers found that there was

statistically significant evidence suggesting the affective and continuance components were

different and distinguishable from other constructs related to organizational commitment.

Additionally, the affective and normative components appear to be related. The affective

component of organizational commitment conceptualized by Allen and Meyer (1990) perceived

employees as identifying with their organization and being committed to retaining their

employment in order to achieve their own personal and professional goals (Cohen, 2003).

Moreover, organizational commitment has been found to play a major role in the research on

organizational behavior (Bateman & Strasser, 1984). Several studies have found a connection

between organizational commitment and employee conduct in the place of work (Wright et al.,

2012; Thamrin, 2012).

For this dissertation, affective organizational commitment will be focused on because

prior research has already shown that transformational leadership predicts both employee

affective organizational commitment and contextual performance (Pradhan & Pradhan, 2015).

Other research has shown that affective trust fully mediated the relationships between

transformational leadership and the work outcomes of followers, specifically their affective

organizational commitment, OCB, and job performance (Zhu, Newman, Miao, & Hooke, 2013).

Trust has been found to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and

affective organizational commitment, as well as the relationship between transformational

leadership and OCB and job performance. Therefore, this study focuses directly and exclusively

53

on affective organizational commitment, and as will be shown, proposed it as a mediator of the

relationship between transformational leadership and perceived role breadth. More specifically,

this dissertation proposed a two-step mediation model wherein the relationship between

transformational leadership and perceived role breadth is mediated by trust in leader, which

predicts affective organizational commitment, which predicts perceived role breadth.

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment

According to Popper, Ori and Ury (1992), the defining characteristic of transformational

leaders is their ability to secure subordinates’ commitment towards the organizational goal. A

transformational leader generates meaning in otherwise mundane activities, a meaning that

arrests subordinates’ commitment towards the organization’s goals. A transformational leader

acts as an example who translates subordinates’ motivation to commitment and their

commitment into extraordinary performance. Consistent with this reasoning, several studies have

linked transformational leadership with organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004; Mert,

Keskin & Bas, 2010; Tseng & Kang, 2008).

The direct relationships between transformational leadership and follower organizational

commitment have been well supported by empirical and meta-analytic findings (Lowe et al.,

1996; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Moreover, such organizational commitment has

been found to be influential in translating transformational leadership into positive work

outcomes among employees (Thamrin, 2012). For instance, Han, Seo, and Yoon (2016) studied

the mediating effects of variables on transformational leadership, in relation to knowledge

sharing intention. The researchers noted that the concept of knowledge sharing, or the way that

an organization’s knowledge assets are distributed and disseminated, is gaining attention. The

mediating effects examined were psychological empowerment and organizational commitment.

54

The participants selected for the study were full-time employees of Korean conglomerate

companies. The participants filled out a questionnaire, which was a combination of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Spreitzer’s (1995) psychological empowerment scale,

Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1995) organizational commitment scale, and a modified scale to

measure knowledge sharing intention. The researchers concluded that organizational

commitment was a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and

knowledge sharing intention.

Pradhan and Pradhan (2015) explored the effect of affective organizational commitment

on contextual performance, wherein individuals who are firmly committed towards the goals of

the organization will look beyond their vested interests and will demonstrate more discretionary

prosocial behaviors. Their cross-sectional study included a sample of 480 software professionals

working in several information technology (IT) companies across India. Results showed a

significant positive influence of transformational leadership on the followers’ affective

organizational commitment and contextual performance (Pradhan & Pradhan, 2015). Moreover,

they found that affective organizational commitment had positive linkage with the contextual

performance of the followers.

Trust in Leader, Affective Organizational Commitment, and Perceived Role Breadth

Prior research has already connected trust, commitment, and OCBs. For instance, Zhu,

Newman, Miao, and Hooke (2013) performed a study using structural equation modeling and

found that affective trust fully mediated the relationships between transformational leadership

and the work outcomes of followers, specifically their affective organizational commitment,

OCB, and job performance. According to Butler (1991, p. 647), “the literature on trust has

converged on the beliefs that 1) trust is an important aspect of interpersonal relationships, 2) trust

55

is essential to managerial careers, and 2) trust in a specific person is more relevant in terms of

predicting outcomes than is the global attitude of trust in generalized others.” As Siegel,

Brockner, and Tyler (1995) suggest, organizational commitment can be preserved during

organizational downturns if trust has been established with employees. It is true that “all leaders

require trust as a basis for their legitimacy and as the mortar that binds leader to follower”

(Nanus, 1989, p. 101). Liou (1995) found that trust in the supervisor and the organization was

predictive of commitment to the organization.

Prior research suggests that affective trust should mediate the relationship between

transformational leadership and follower outcomes, given that trust reflects the process that

occurs as leaders develop strong social exchange relationships with their subordinates (Yang &

Mossholder, 2010). Transformational leadership behaviors should assist leaders to develop close

emotional ties with their followers, engendering higher levels of affective trust. Furthermore,

trust in leader has been shown to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership

and affective organizational commitment (Zhu et al., 2013), and that organizational commitment

has been found to mediate the relationship between trust and perceived role breadth (Chiaburu

&Byrne, 2009).

According to one theory, OCBs are based on distal attitudinal antecedents such as

organizational commitment and job satisfaction, operating through role enlargement (Morrison

1994). Specifically, employees engage in OCBs due to their commitment and satisfaction, and

because they perceive OCBs as role-specific. Indeed, numerous studies have shown that

employee OCB role definitions (i.e., what is considered in-role vs. extra-role) affect OCBs either

through role enlargement (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler 2002; Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2004;

56

Kidder 2002; Morrison 1994; Pond et al. 1997) or through role discretion (e.g., Tepper et al.

2001; Tepper and Taylor 2003; Zellars et al. 2002).

Affective Organizational Commitment as a Mediator

Several studies have linked transformational leadership with organizational commitment

(Avolio et al., 2004; Mert, Keskin & Bas, 2010; Tseng & Kang, 2008). Furthermore, trust in

leader has been shown to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and

affective organizational commitment (Zhu et al., 2013). Additionally, affective organizational

commitment has been shown to facilitate perceived role breadth (Morrison 1994). Finally,

affective organizational commitment has been found to mediate the relationship between trust in

leader and perceived role breadth (Chiaburu &Byrne, 2009). This dissertation seeks to replicate

and extend these findings by 1) showing trust in leader and affective organizational commitment

as mediators of the relationship between transformational leadership and role breadth, and 2) in

examining these relationships at the group-level of analysis. Therefore:

Affective Organizational Commitment as a Group-Level Mediator

Research shows that transformational leadership positively impacts affective

organizational commitment, defined as an employee’s emotional attachment to an organization

(Allen & Meyer, 1990, 1996), across a variety of organizational settings and cultures (Bono &

Judge, 2003; Judge & Piccolo 2004; Meyer et al., 2002). A recent meta-analysis found a

corrected mean correlation of 0.45 between transformational leadership and affective

organizational commitment (Jackson et al., 2013). The connection between transformational

leadership and affective commitment has been well documented, as has the connection between

affective commitment and OCB (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2011). Moreover, Nohe and Hertel’s

(2017) recent meta-analysis demonstrated that affective commitment operates as a mediator of

57

transformational leadership on OCB. However, given the call to study transformational

leadership as a group-focused and multilevel construct, this dissertation seeks to expand current

understanding and fill a research gap by testing affective commitment as a group-level mediator

of transformational leadership on role breadth.

Theoretically, affective commitment as a group-level mediator may operate similarly to

prior research on commitment done at the team level. For instance, although this line of research

is sparse, team-goal commitment is one way in which commitment has been measured at the

group level. It refers to team members’ determination to achieve team goals, their attachment to

the team goals, their intention to exert effort to achieve team goals, and team members’

persistence in pursuing the goals (Aube & Rousseau, 2011). According to Aube and Rousseau

(2011), teams with high team-goal commitment utilize their time, effort, and resources to achieve

their goals. In contrast, teams with low team-goal commitment are likely to lose focus and be

easily distracted. In their study, Aube and Rousseau (2011) measured team-goal commitment

using Klein et al.’s (2001) commitment scale, which they adapted to refer to the established team

goals, rather than individual goals. Another study found that team commitment in self-directed

teams moderated the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB, such that the relationship

was stronger when team commitment was high (Foote & Li-Ping Tang, 2008). In Foote et al.’s

(2008) study, they measured team commitment by starting with the 15-item Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) (see Mowday et al., 1979) as a model. They then identified

specific items of the OCQ and modified them to fit the context of self-directed work teams,

eventually developing and validating a new ten-item team commitment scale (TCS) specifically

for their study.

58

Affective commitment as a group-level mediator may also operate similarly to collective

identity. For instance, Shamir et al.’s (1993) self-concept-based theory suggests transformational

leaders can facilitate followers’ affective organizational commitment by engaging followers’

self-concept in the interest of the leader’s mission. Just as leaders may engage followers’ self-

concept to increase affective organizational commitment, they may also engage a group’s

collective identity. On this subject, Del Carmen Triana, Richard, and Yücel (2017) found that

collective identity mediated the relationships between transformational leadership and affective

organizational commitment. Similarly, Luo, Marnburg, and Law (2017) found that collective

identity partially mediated the effects of transformational leadership and procedural justice on

employee commitment. Thus, one potential way to conceptualize affective organizational

commitment as a group-level mediator could be through collective identity, which is prompted

by transformational leadership behaviors.

A final potential avenue for conceptualizing affective organizational commitment as a

group-level mediator is positive group affective tone, defined as homogeneous or consistent

positive affective reactions among team members (George, 1990). Indeed, previous studies have

consistently found positive associations between affective organizational commitment and OCB

(Ng & Feldman, 2011), which is perceived to be due, at least in part, to the experience of

positive affect making people more likely to engage in OCB (George & Brief, 1992). Moreover,

transformational leadership has been found to positively predict group affective tone, which

positively relates to team-level performance (Chi & Huang, 2014). Other research has examined

how leadership moods can affect team performance via emotional contagion (Hatfield,

Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994), suggesting that leader positive moods might influence team

processes and team performance through an increase in team members’ positive group affective

59

tone. However, as Kelly and Spoor (2006) and Sy et al. (2005) proposed, in addition to

nonconscious, automatic, and implicit processes such as emotional contagion, it is possible that

leaders in positive moods might influence team processes or performance through conscious,

deliberate, and explicit processes, such as transformational leadership behaviors (Ashkanasy &

Tse, 2000; Bass, 1998; Grandey, 2008; Kelly & Barsade, 2001).

Although prior research has examined commitment at the team level, no prior research

has specifically examined affective organization as a team or group-level mediator of

transformational leadership on perceived role breadth. Building upon theory on collective

identity, group affective tone, and prior research done on team commitment, the present

dissertation hypothesizes affective organizational commitment as a group-level mediator, seeing

it as a psychological state that may explain why transformational leadership may evoke

perceived role breadth. Specifically, this study defines group-level affective commitment as

shared emotional attachment and positive affective reaction to the organization among group

members.

Similar to the explanation detailed above related to group-level trust in leader, I propose a

bottom-up relationship between an individual-level variable, which in the case of this study is

transformational leadership, and team or group-level affective organizational commitment.

Although bottom-up relationships are theoretically meaningful (e.g., Liao & Chuang, 2004), they

have rarely been tested because available analytical methods have constrained statistical tests of

such relationships, but recent advances in multilevel modeling techniques have made such tests

feasible (e.g., Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010). Bottom-up relationships are especially likely to

contribute to the manifestation of a higher-level phenomenon when it has yet to fully form such

as during a major organizational change initiative (Mathieu & Chen, 2011). In the following

60

chapter, the method and proposed analysis will be described for this dissertation, as well as the

demographic information of the study sample.

61

CHAPTER SIX

HYPOTHESES, METHOD, AND ANALYSIS

The prior chapters provided literature reviews for perceived role breadth,

transformational leadership, trust in leader, and affective organizational commitment. In those

literature reviews, I highlighted relevant gaps in the current literatures, particularly that no

previous study had attempted to examine the direct relationships of transformational leadership

to perceived role breadth or role instrumentality, which relationships seem relevant given the

burgeoning and long-standing interest in transformational leadership and OCBs. Moreover, the

previous literature reviews also provided ample evidence for the need of multilevel

understanding of the effects of transformational leadership, and offered evidence of trust in

leader and affective organizational commitment as likely multilevel mediators. Specifically, the

proposed model (see Figure 1) of this dissertation is a serial multilevel mediation model, wherein

the relationship of transformational leadership and perceived role breadth is mediated by trust in

leader and affective organizational commitment, at both the individual and group-level, by

accounting for individuals nested within leader groups. This same model is hypothesized for role

instrumentality as well.

Therefore, the two hypotheses for this dissertation are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: The relationship of transformational leadership and perceived role

breadth is mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment, at both

individual and group levels, when accounting for nesting.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship of transformational leadership and role instrumentality

is mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment, at both individual and

group levels, when accounting for nesting.

62

As will be shown in the results section, exploratory factor analyses were performed for

both perceived role breadth and role instrumentality. Based upon the outcomes of those

exploratory factor analyses, these hypotheses were adjusted to account for the new outcome

variables.

Data for this Study

The proposed dissertation used prior collected data (Cox, 2000) that were originally

gathered via a mail survey considering recommendations for survey design to enhance response

rate as much as possible. The test instruments used to assess the proposed constructs were

developed and validated by other researchers. When formatting the questions, guidelines from

the Total Design Method (TDM; Dillman, 1978) were followed to ensure responding as easy as

possible.

Although this dissertation analyzed the same data as Cox (2000), there is relatively little

overlap in variables studied each of our studies. Specifically, Cox (2000) examined leader

character based on moral development and personality as a predictor of employee trust, and

found that perceptions of character mediated the relations between character and trust. Cox

(2000) further found that empathy was the only component of leader character that retained a

direct effect on perceptions of leader openness, and moral judgment and values were not related

to trust or perceptions of character. Finally, Cox (2000) found that leader stress moderated the

relations between self-regulation and perceptions of integrity, promise keeping, and consistency,

and further that stress also moderated the relations between the leader character composite and

trust.

63

Sample

The target sample. The sample of leaders for this dissertation included individuals in

state government agencies with supervisory responsibility for three or more employees (i.e.,

followers). Agencies were selected for participation depending on size (large enough to employ a

leader and at least six employees). There are approximately 80 agencies in state government, 75

of which were contacted by mail.

Sampling procedure. According to Cox (2000), the selected state agencies were

contacted for participation with the help of a personal letter of introduction from the

Administrator of the Office of Personnel Management. Additionally, the original researchers

made follow-up calls and meetings were used to generate interest and participation. During those

conversations, the agency heads were told that beyond the leaders, the study attempted to recruit

at least four to six followers for each leader. These followers would be asked to complete a

shorter questionnaire, estimated to take 15 to 20 minutes. In all, sixty-two (62) agencies agreed

to participate in the original study, representing 15,000 to 20,000 employees. The data from that

study are to test the current hypotheses for this dissertation.

Response rate. According to Cox (2000), there were seventy-five agencies, ranging in

size from 7 to over 7500, who were contacted to participate in the study. Of those agencies, 62

(83%) agreed to participate. The agencies that chose not to participate cited organizational

change or extreme workload as the reasons. Three agencies did not respond to letters and phone

calls during the recruitment phase of the study. Five hundred seventy-eight (578) leaders were

identified for inclusion in the original study, based on organizational charts and apparent

supervisory responsibility. Agencies were grouped roughly into thirds, representing small

64

agencies (<100 employees), medium agencies (100-500 employees), and large agencies (>500

employees). The sample was evenly distributed among these groups.

Questionnaires with cover letters were either mailed, hand-delivered and internally

distributed to the leaders between the dates of September 20 and October 30, 1999. Additionally,

Cox (2000) sent follow-up postcards to all leaders approximately one week after the

questionnaires were distributed. There were exceptions made for two agencies that were late

joining the original study. In one of those agencies, internal personnel followed up and

encouraged participation (response rate 64%). In the second agency, no follow-up action was

taken (response rate 21%).

After the leader surveys had been distributed, it was brought to the original scholars’

attention that the cover letter to the leaders did not inform leaders that their followers would also

be asked to fill out a questionnaire (Cox, 2000). A letter was subsequently sent to all leaders who

had responded, explaining the oversight and offering them the option of withdrawing from the

study. Eleven leaders elected to withdraw after returning their surveys. For all other agencies,

follower questionnaires were prepared and mailed or distributed after the leader questionnaires

were returned. Drop boxes were provided to collect completed questionnaires in most local

agencies.

The original questionnaire distributed to followers contained 106 items, and the estimated

time to complete was 10 minutes (Cox, 2000). The present dissertation did not use all of the data

collected in that original study, only the data on the relevant constructs being examined. Out of

the original 2,254 questionnaires distributed, 959 were reportedly returned (Cox, 2000). Follower

responses were aggregated and only those leaders with two or more follower responses were

65

included in the model analyses. The resulting sample of leaders who had the requisite follower

responses was 209 (Cox, 2000).

Demographic characteristics of the sample. There were no demographic data gathered

for the followers in this study to preserve the anonymous nature of the data.

Measures

Transformational leadership. Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) Transformational leadership

inventory (TLI) was used to measure transformational leadership behaviors in this study. This

scale consisted of 22 items, and measured six dimensions of transformational leadership:

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

high performance expectations, providing individualized support, and intellectual stimulation.

Although previous research supports the hypothesized six-factor structure (e.g., Podsakoff et al.,

1996), three of the dimensions have been found to be highly correlated (articulating a vision,

providing an appropriate model, and fostering the acceptance of group goals). As such, these

three factors are sometimes combined to represent a “core” transformational leadership

construct. Internal consistency reliabilities for each of the dimensions range from .82 to .87. In

addition, the TLI has shown impressive validities with related constructs across several studies

(e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 2001). As shown in Table 2,

the reliability of this full measure had high reliability (α = .95).

Trust in leader. Follower trust in leaders was assessed with the Conditions of trust

inventory (CTI; Butler, 1991), an instrument designed specifically to assess conditions of trust,

or antecedents that are necessary for one person to trust another. Items were scored on a five-

point Likert agreement scale, with low scores indicating little trust and high scores indicating a

great deal of trust. Research on trust identifies integrity, competence, consistent behavior,

66

loyalty, and openness as antecedents to trust (Butler & Cantrell, 1984). Butler (1991) developed

the CTI specifically to measure these antecedents of trust. The current version of the CTI has 11

subscales: Openness, Loyalty, Fairness, Integrity, Promise Fulfillment, Consistency, Overall

Trust, Availability, Competence, Discreetness, and Receptivity. Of these, Openness, Fairness,

Integrity, Promise Fulfillment, and Consistency could be expected to relate differentially to the

dimensions of leader character as defined for this study. As shown in Table 2, this measure had

high reliability (α = .97).

Affective organizational commitment. Allen and Meyer’s (1990) instrument was used

with their permission to measure the three dimensions of organizational commitment, namely,

affective commitment. The affective commitment scale consists of eight items. Each subject was

asked to indicate the extent to which he/she agree with statements, such as “I would be very

happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization” and “I enjoy discussing my

organization with people outside of it.” As shown in Table 2, this measure had high reliability (α

= .89).

Perceived role breadth. Based on Morrison (1994), perceived role breadth was

measured by respondents answering a series of questions regarding work-related activities and

were then given the option of answering either “No, not a part of my job,” or “Yes, part of my

job,” wherein answering in the affirmative about specific activities would represent greater

perceived role breadth. This scale was originally intended to represent multiple dimensions or

factors of perceived role breadth, such as OCB-O and OCB-I. For this dissertation, I first

examined if there were different factors of this scale using exploratory factor analysis (see Table

1) and then examined the reliabilities of the factor solution decided upon (see Table 2).

67

Role instrumentality. In asking about the work-related activities captured the perceived

role breadth scale, respondents were also asked about the instrumentality of performing these

behaviors in terms of receiving rewards or not when performing these activities. Specifically,

respondents indicated if the work-related activity “Does not help to,” “Helps to obtain rewards,”

or “Critical to obtain rewards.” As with perceived role breadth, I conducted a series of

exploratory factor analyses to investigate the structure of this scale.

Data Analysis

All of the data collected and analyzed in this study were collected at the individual level.

In other words, none of the measures of interest directly assessed group-level phenomena. In

collecting the data from employees, however, employees indicated who their leader was, which

became a grouping variable. Thus, employees were nested within leader groups. Factor analyses

on the two outcome variables (i.e., perceived role breadth and role instrumentality) were

conducted to determine the best solution for outcome variables. Descriptive statistics for all

measures were conducted, including for each of the selected outcome variables drawn from the

factor analyses.

The primary purpose of this dissertation was to examine the possibility of group-level

mediation on the relationship between transformational leadership and perceived role breadth. In

order to determine whether there was variation at the group level, and therefore whether the use

of multilevel modeling (MLM) techniques was appropriate, two initial criteria were examined: 1)

null model testing separately for each of the outcome variables with random intercepts of Level 2

leader but no predictors, and 2) intraclass correlations (ICC1) testing between-group variance.

Explanation of each of these two analyses will be shown below, respectively.

68

Multilevel modeling (MLM) properly controls for the non-independence of errors by

allowing both intercepts and slopes to vary across groups. In two-level MLM, three variance

terms are estimated: intercept variance, slope variance, and random variance (Bliese & Jex,

2002). Intercept variance refers to mean differences between groups’ dependent variables. Slope

variance refers to the variance that occurs between groups in their IV and DV relationships.

Finally, random variance is the variance within groups. Thus, MLM estimates and tests the

differences that occur within and between groups (i.e., within and between leaders).

Similar to other multilevel mediation studies on transformational leadership (e.g., Braun,

Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013), I followed Zhang, Zyphur, and Preacher's (2009) approach to

multilevel mediation, and analyzed the relations of the independent variable (transformational

leadership), mediator variables (trust in leader and affective organizational commitment) at

individual and group levels, and outcome variables (perceived role breadth and role

instrumentality). To overcome confounding of mediation within and between groups, Zhang and

colleagues (2009) proposed a multilevel mediation approach based on team-mean centered

analyses. The MLmed SPSS macro (May 2017 version) was used to fit multilevel mediation

based on Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006) and Zhang, Zyphur, and Preacher (2009). There is

within-group centering of Level 1 predictors, group means are used to estimate between-group

effects, and indirect effects were tested using Monte Carlo confidence intervals, which have been

found to reduce confounding, have sufficient empirical power, and reduce Type-I error rates

(Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Zhang et al., 2009). Maximum likelihood estimation

was used with an unstructured covariance matrix to allow random effects estimates to be

correlated.

69

For any outcome variables whose mixed model null testing and ICC1 calculations did not

merit MLM, the proposed mediation model was tested, but not accounting for group-differences.

Thus, in such cases, Hayes Process Macro (version 3.3) for SPSS was used to assess serial

mediation models without variance at group levels, due to the small degree of nesting in terms of

between-leader differences. More explanation on this will be provided in the chapter covering

the results of this study.

70

CHAPTER SEVEN

RESULTS

A total of 997 employees were surveyed. There were 47 participants removed who did

not have scores on all the four measures of primary interest (transformational leadership, trust in

leader, affective organizational commitment, and perceived role breath items), and thus the

primary sample was N = 950; due to some missing responses, a slightly smaller n = 936 was used

for analyses predicting role instrumentality.

Role Breadth and Instrumentality Scales

The role breadth and role instrumentality items were created for this study, and thus

psychometric analyses were performed to determine if they should each represent single

constructs or be better described by being separated into factors. There were 24 items

participants answered regarding specific activities at work. Firstly, they were asked whether

these various activities were perceived as aspects of their actual job (i.e., in-role activities): no (=

1) or yes (= 2). Activities viewed as in-role were considered as enlarged perceived role breadth.

After answering whether or not a specific activity was viewed as in-role behavior, that is, as part

of their actual job, they were asked whether engaging in that activity would lead to obtaining

rewards (1 = Does not help to, 2 = Helps to obtain rewards, 3 = Critical to obtain rewards). When

activities were viewed as relating to specific rewards, it was an indication of greater role

instrumentality.

For this study, perceived role breadth was of primary interest, so consequently it was

examined first. Ultimately, the decisions made about how to use the items to represent perceived

role breadth would influence the choices made about how to use those same items to represent

role instrumentality. While the initial 24 items had a good reliability for perceived role breadth

71

(ɑ = .85), there were five items with corrected item-total correlations below .30 (items 4, 8, 9, 20,

and 23).

Factor analyses was first conducted with principal axis extraction and a direct oblimin

rotation to allow the factors to be correlated with each other, were first tested on all 24 items.

The eigenvalue value greater than one rule led to a six-factor solution, which was not

parsimonious. The scree plot could have argued for a two-factor solution, a three-factor solution,

or even a four-factor solution. A two-factor solution did not yield interpretable factors, and both

a 3 and 4 factor solution were not clean. Among the problems were that the items previously

identified as having low item-total correlations from the reliability analyses tended to have low

loadings on factors. Thus, it was determined that these items did not have low corrected item-

total correlations simply because they may have represented a different subfactor, but rather they

were just not measuring the same constructs. They were removed and exploratory factor analysis

with principal axis extraction and a direct oblimin rotation was conducted using the 19 remaining

items to allow the factors to be correlated with each other.

The eigenvalue value greater than one rule led to a three-factor solution, while the scree

plot would argue for a two-factor solution or a three-factor solution. The two-factor solution had

an item with cross loadings above .30, and was not as conceptually interpretable. Both the four

and three-factor solutions did not have items 18 and 24 loading onto any factor (loadings below

.30), and the four-factor solution also dropped item 3. The only other difference between the two

was that four-factor solution split one of the factors for the three-factor solution. Thus, the three-

factor solution using 17 items was chosen because it was supported by the scree plot, for

parsimony, and on conceptual grounds. The first factor had some items matching concepts that

later literature called civic virtue and organizational loyalty (as will be addressed in the

72

Discussion), and for simplicity in this dissertation, the factor will be called RB-organizational

loyalty (eight items), the second factor represented RB-altruism (four items), and the third factor

was RB-sportsmanship (five items). The items are shown in Table 1 with their factor loadings.

The reliabilities of the scales for RB-organizational loyalty and RB-sportsmanship were

acceptable (ɑ = .77 and ɑ = .70, respectively) and all corrected item-total correlations were above

.30. The reliability for altruism was slightly beneath the .7 threshold of what is usually

considered as an acceptable range (ɑ = .69). However, I noted that, for this scale, all item

loadings in the factor analysis were above .50 and all corrected item-total correlations were

above .46, meaning the retained items reflected the construct.

As a result, this particular three-factor solution was deemed acceptable for further

analyses. Based on this three-factor solution decided upon, Hypothesis 1, wherein perceived role

breadth was the dependent variable, was adjusted to account for the new three factor solution.

The multilevel serial mediation model remained the same, however, rather than a single

perceived role breadth variable, each of the perceived role breadth factors became separate

outcome variables. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was adjusted to the following three separate

hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: The relationship of transformational leadership and RB-organizational

loyalty is mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment, at both individual

and group levels, when accounting for nesting.

Hypothesis 1b: The relationship of transformational leadership and RB-altruism is

mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment, at both individual and

group levels, when accounting for nesting.

73

Hypothesis 1c: The relationship of transformational leadership and RB-sportsmanship is

mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment, at both individual and

group levels, when accounting for nesting.

Although role instrumentality had a high reliability for all 24 items (ɑ = .97) and no

corrected item-total correlations below .52, for consistency with the perceived role breadth

factors the same items were excluded: the five items that reliability and initial factor analyses

identified as problematic as well as the two item that did not load onto the three factors. Using

these 17 items of role instrumentality, an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis

extraction and a direct oblimin rotation suggested a single factor. The two-factor solution

produced a second factor with only a single item with a small cross loading, and a three-factor

solution was not justified by the scree plot and would not converge. Thus, role instrumentality

was a single factor (17 items) with an excellent reliability (ɑ = .96) and no corrected item-total

correlations below .56. Given that role instrumentality remained a single-factor solution,

Hypotheses 2 remained the same.

To summarize, based on the analyses explained above, the final perceived role breadth

representation used for all further analyses was three separate factors, RB-organizational loyalty

with eight items, RB-altruism with four items, and RB-sportsmanship with five items. For role

instrumentality, the same 17 items were used for consistency and given factor loadings, and the

best solution was a single-factor scale.

Descriptive Statistics

The individual-level descriptive statistics of the three newly-created perceived role

breadth factors, role instrumentality, and the other constructs of interest, namely 1)

74

transformational leadership, 2) trust in leader, and 3) affective organizational commitment, are

shown in Table 2. Each scale was represented as a mean of its individual items.

While the full range of every scale was used, people were slightly positive about their

affective organizational commitment (compared to a neutral midpoint of 3), and a bit more

positive about the transformational leadership qualities of their boss and their trust in the leader

(which also had a neutral midpoint of 3). The majority perceived all RB-altruism and RB-

sportsmanship activities as expected in their job, while averages across the role instrumentality

of all the job activities were in the lower range, indicating that these activities were perceived

somewhere between not helping and helping obtain rewards, but not as being critical. RB-

altruism and RB-sportsmanship had large negative skews; corrections for these potential

violations of assumptions of the models did not yield any different conceptual conclusions, as

will be addressed after presenting the mediation analyses, and thus the original untransformed

variables were used in all subsequent analyses.

Also shown in Table 2 are the individual-level bivariate correlations of all the scales.

Transformational leadership and trust in leader were very highly correlated (r = .81, p < .01),

causing initial concern about the distinction of these two constructs and about whether trust

could serve a mediational role, as will be discussed further below in the hypothesis testing.

Transformational leadership had small correlations with the three role breadth factor outcomes,

and a medium correlation with role instrumentality. The factors of role breadth had medium and

large correlations with each other, but even the largest (r = .53 between RB-organizational

loyalty and RB-sportsmanship) was not large enough to indicate that these could not be

conceptually distinguished. Role instrumentality had small and medium correlations with the

75

perceived role breadth factors, again indicating perceived requirements and instrumentality of the

same activities to be distinct concepts.

Level 2 Grouping: Leader

Each individual surveyed rated their leader for transformational leadership and trust in

leader, and more generally individuals were clustered in terms of having the same leader. That is,

individuals were nested within leaders. As seen in Table 3, groups ranged in size from single

individuals up to 11 people (M = 3.30, SD = 1.63). There were 288 different leaders evaluated by

this sample. The majority of groups (64.5%) contained three or more individuals, and the vast

majority of individuals (82.5%) in this sample were in groups with three or more other

individuals also rating their leader.

The group means of each of these predictor variables were calculated, and descriptive

statistics at the group level are shown in Table 4. As seen, the results were largely consistent

with the individual level: groups were slightly positive about their affective organizational

commitment, and a bit more positive about the transformational leadership qualities of their boss

and their trust in the leader. Transformational leadership and trust in leader had a very large

correlation at the group level as well (r = .81).

Assumption Checking for Skewness

As will be shown later in this chapter, there were negatively skewed distributions of the

perceived role breadth outcomes of RB-altruism and RB-sportsmanship, and thus, there was

some concern about violations of assumptions of normality of residuals for the regressions that

make up mediation analyses. For RB-altruism, the Hayes Process Macro (version 3.3) calculated

bootstrap confidence intervals for all parameter coefficients of the serial mediation models and

reached the same conclusions with respect to the overall patterns of which regression coefficients

76

were significant and not significant. For RB-sportsmanship, a reflected inverse transformation

reduced the skew from -2.20 (SE = .08) to -1.59 (SE = .08), but the multilevel mediation model

patterns of relationships were conceptually similar. Thus, analyses on the original untransformed

variable were presented for clarity.

Hypothesis Testing: Establishing Need for Multi-Level Analyses

The first step of testing Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2 was determining if group level

differences existed for each of the four outcome variables. As such, series of null models were

tested using maximum likelihood estimation, with no predictors but random intercepts for the

Level 2 variable of leader to assess if there was significant variation in these outcomes at the

group level. Covariance parameters of the null model represent the amount of variance occurring

in the role outcome variable at the individual level (residual variance) and at the agency group

level (intercept variance; Mathieu, Ahearne, & Taylor, 2007). As shown in Table 5, the null

models for three of the outcome variables (i.e., RB-organizational loyalty, Estimate = .008, SE

= .001, p < .001; RB-sportsmanship, Estimate = .004, SE = .002, p = .008; role instrumentality,

Estimate = .023, SE = .008, p = .005) showed significant intercept variance for Level 2

leadership, whereas the null test for RB-altruism as the outcome variable did not show any

intercept variability (Estimate = .000, SE = .002, p = .851). Moreover, as shown in Table 5, the

null models for three of the predictor variables (i.e., affective organizational commitment,

Estimate = .106, SE = .025, p < .001; trust in leader, Estimate = .191, SE = .035, p < .001;

transformational leadership, Estimate = .214, SE = .035, , p < .001) are also presented, each of

which showed clear evidence of between group variance. This initial analysis provides evidence

that for three out of the four outcome variables, a moderate amount of variance existed at Level

2. This means that a moderate amount of variability was due to between-leader differences, and

77

the use of multilevel techniques were appropriate. In this case, individuals are nested within

leaders.

Next, the ICC1s were calculated to determine if significant nesting was present by

comparing the relative proportion of intercept variance to the total of the residual and intercept

variances. ICC1 values represent the degree to which the data are dependent on the grouping

variable, or the proportion of total variance of individual scores that can be explained by the

agency in which an individual is a member of (Bliese, 2000). Greater ICC1 values indicate a

greater level of non-independence among group members; the theoretical range would be from 0

(no variance can be explained by agency membership) up to 1.0 (indicating all variance among

individuals is due to their group membership).

In addressing the question of when to justify ICC1 values, the results of a recent literature

review provide a normative base against which to compare (Woehr, Loignon, Schmidt, Loughry,

& Ohland, 2015). Specifically, Woehr et al. (2015) found that across a sample of 416 ICC1

values reported in the literature, the average was .21 (SD = .15), and over 75% of the values

reported exceeded .11. Many scholars prefer to evaluate agreement in comparison to levels

typically found in the literature for similar constructs.

As shown in Table 5, the ICC1 value for RB-organizational loyalty (ICC1 = .115) was

reflective of the values reported in similar studies shown by Woehr et al. (2015), whereas the

ICC1 values for RB-sportsmanship (ICC1 = .085) and role instrumentality (ICC1 = .091) were

slightly lower, but according to some rules of thumb, still reflecting a small to medium- sized

effect (Bliese, 2000). Therefore, these ICC1 values for RB-organizational loyalty, RB-

sportsmanship, and role instrumentality provide further evidence that variability exists due to

Level 2 effects, and thus, MLM is appropriate. However, in the case of RB-altruism, the ICC1

78

value was lower (ICC1 = .005), further evidencing that examining RB-altruism at the group level

is not appropriate for this particular study. Therefore, Hypothesis 1b was not confirmed.

Hypothesis Testing: Multilevel Serial Mediation

A serial mediation model was proposed to explain the relationship of transformational

leadership to each role outcome by mediation first through trust in leader and then through

affective organizational commitment. The role outcomes of RB-organizational loyalty, RB-

sportsmanship, and role instrumentality were analyzed using MLM, while RB-altruism was

analyzed further below as a Level 1 individual model, as there was no variation of RB-altruism

by leader groups. The MLmed SPSS macro (May 2017 version) was used to fit multilevel

mediation based on Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006) and Zhang, Zyphur, and Preacher (2009).

There was within-group centering of Level 1 predictors; group means were used to estimate

between-group effects, and indirect effects were tested using Monte Carlo confidence intervals,

which have been found to reduce confounding, have sufficient empirical power, and low Type-I

error rates (Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Zhang et al., 2009). Maximum likelihood

estimation was used with an unstructured covariance matrix to allow random effects estimates to

be correlated.

The proposed mediation model for this study was a serial mediation, the relationship

between transformational leadership and perceived role breadth was mediated by trust in leader

and affective organizational commitment (see Figure 1). However, in initial MLM testing, there

was no evidence of trust in leader as a mediator of the relationship between transformational

leadership and affective commitment for each of the three outcome variables being analyzed, at

the group or individual level. All intercepts and slopes of transformational leadership and trust in

leader were estimated as random effects to allow them to vary at Level 2. Transformational

79

leadership did predict trust in leader at both the individual or within level (𝛾𝛾10 = .83, SE = .03, p

< .001) and the group or between level (𝛾𝛾01 = .81, SE = .03, p < .001). However, while

transformational leadership still had significant direct effects on affective organizational

commitment, trust in leader did not predict affective organizational commitment at the within

level (𝛾𝛾20 = .07, SE = .05, p = .195) nor at the between level (𝛾𝛾02 = .13, SE = .07, p = .080). Thus,

trust in leader cannot serially mediate the relationship of transformational leadership to affective

organizational commitment and subsequently to the outcome because it does not have any

pathway to affective organizational commitment. Therefore, Hypotheses 1a, 1c, and 2 were not

confirmed

Three Variable Multilevel Mediation

Given that trust in leader was found to be highly correlated with transformational

leadership, in addition to not being found to mediate transformational leadership and affective

organizational commitment at individual or group levels when accounting for nesting, a

simplified model was developed and tested, wherein the relationship between transformational

leadership and each of the role outcomes (RB-organizational loyalty, RB-sportsmanship,

instrumentality) was mediated through affective organizational commitment. The MLmed macro

was again used for each of these analyses, using within-group centering of Level 1 predictors,

and group means to estimate between-group effects. Indirect effects were tested using Monte

Carlo confidence intervals. Maximum likelihood estimation was used with an unstructured

covariance matrix to allow random effects estimates to be correlated, and all intercepts and

slopes were estimated as random effects to allow them to vary at Level 2.

RB-organizational loyalty. As seen in Figure 2, individual employee Level 1

transformational leadership predicted affective organizational commitment, and individual

80

affective organizational commitment significantly predicted RB-organizational loyalty. There

was a significant indirect or mediation effect of individual transformational leadership to RB-

organizational loyalty through individual affective organizational commitment (within indirect

effect = .03, SE = .01, p = .017). The direct pathway of transformational leadership to RB-

organizational loyalty was also significant. At the group level, Level 2 transformational

leadership significantly predicted group level affective organizational commitment, and group

level affective organizational commitment significantly predicted individual RB-organizational

loyalty. There was a significant indirect or mediation effect of group level transformational

leadership to RB-organizational loyalty through group level affective organizational commitment

(between indirect effect = .06, SE = .01, p < .001). The direct pathway of group level

transformational leadership to individual RB-organizational loyalty was not significant. Thus,

mediation existed at both the individual and the group level, with a direct pathway still existing

for the individual level but no direct pathway for the group level.

Given that hypotheses were only developed for the serial multilevel mediation model

which included trust in leader, there were no specific hypotheses for this simplified mediation

model wherein affective organizational commitment was the sole mediator. However, the

proposed adjusted model excluding trust in leader was found to be significant, wherein affective

organizational commitment mediated transformational leadership and RB-organizational loyalty

at both individual and group levels when accounting for nesting. These findings demonstrate that

transformational leadership can enhance affective organizational commitment at both group and

individual levels, which group and individual affective organizational commitment then

increases individual perceived role breadth in the form of RB-organizational loyalty.

81

RB-sportsmanship. As seen in Figure 3, individual employee Level 1 transformational

leadership predicted affective organizational commitment, but affective organizational

commitment did not predict RB-sportsmanship. Thus, there was also no significant indirect or

mediation effect of individual transformational leadership to RB-sportsmanship through

individual affective organizational commitment (within indirect effect = .01, SE = .01, p = .362).

The direct pathway of transformational leadership to RB-sportsmanship was significant. At the

group level, Level 2 transformational leadership significantly predicted group level affective

organizational commitment, and group level affective organizational commitment significantly

predicted individual sportsmanship. There was a significant indirect or mediation effect of group

level transformational leadership to sportsmanship through group level affective organizational

commitment (between indirect effect = .03, SE = .01, p < .001). The direct pathway of group

level transformational leadership to individual RB-sportsmanship was not significant. Thus,

mediation existed at the group level with no direct pathway, but mediation did not exist at the

individual level, only a direct pathway.

Given that hypotheses were only developed for the serial multilevel mediation model

which included trust in leader, there was no specific hypotheses for this simplified mediation

model wherein affective organizational commitment was the sole mediator. However, the

proposed adjusted model excluding trust in leader was not found to be significant, given that

individual affective organizational commitment was not found to mediate transformational

leadership and RB-sportsmanship. Even still, these findings demonstrate that transformational

leadership can enhance affective organizational commitment at the group level, which group

level affective organizational commitment then increases individual perceived role breadth in the

form of RB-sportsmanship.

82

Role instrumentality. As seen in Figure 4, individual employee Level 1 transformational

leadership predicts affective organizational commitment, and individual affective organizational

commitment significantly predicts role instrumentality. There is a significant indirect or

mediation effect of individual transformational leadership to instrumentality through individual

affective organizational commitment (within indirect effect = .06, SE = .02, p = .003). The direct

pathway of transformational leadership to instrumentality is also significant. At the group level,

Level 2 transformational leadership significantly predicted group level affective organizational

commitment, and group level affective organizational commitment significantly predicted

individual instrumentality. There was a significant indirect or mediation effect of group level

transformational leadership to instrumentality through group level affective organizational

commitment (between indirect effect = .08, SE = .02, p < .001). The direct pathway of group

level transformational leadership to individual RB-organizational loyalty was significant. Thus,

mediation existed at both the individual and the group level, with a direct pathway still present

for both the individual and the group level.

Given that hypotheses were only developed for the serial multilevel mediation model

which included trust in leader, there was no specific hypotheses for this simplified mediation

model wherein affective organizational commitment was the sole mediator. However, the

proposed adjusted model excluding trust in leader was found to be significant, wherein affective

organizational commitment mediated transformational leadership and role instrumentality at both

individual and group levels when accounting for nesting. These findings demonstrate that

transformational leadership can enhance affective and organizational commitment at both group

and individual levels, and both group and individual organizational commitment subsequently

lead to increased individual role instrumentality.

83

Level 1 RB-Altruism Mediation

As noted previously, Hypothesis 1b was not confirmed given that there was no group

level variability in RB-altruism, and thus using rule-based methods of ICC1s and null testing, I

only analyzed the hypothesized mediation model at the individual level with no leader Level 2

clustering represented. In contrast to the MLM and despite the high correlation with the predictor

of transformational leadership, initial analyses looking at transformational leadership to trust in

leader to affective organizational commitment did indicate trust in leader had a mediational role,

and thus the full serial mediation is presented. The Hayes Process Macro for SPSS, version 3.3,

was used with model 6 to test for serial mediation. Bootstrapping with N = 5000 samples was

used to compute confidence intervals for testing the indirect effects. Confidence intervals whose

lower and upper bounds did not encompass zero were inferred to represent significant indirect

effects at the p < .05 level. As shown in Figure 5, there was a significant total effect between

transformational leadership and RB-altruism (β = .11, p < .001). There was not a significant

combined indirect effect when examining all three indirect pathways collectively in the full

mediation model (completely standardized indirect effect = .01, p > .05). However, the only

indirect pathway that was not significant was the first part of the serial mediation that may not

have a pathway to the outcome. Specifically, the indirect effect of trust in leader as a mediator of

transformational leadership to RB-altruism was not significant (completely standardized indirect

effect = -.07, p > .05). However, there was a significant indirect effect of affective organizational

commitment as a mediator of transformational leadership to RB-altruism (completely

standardized indirect effect = .07, p < .05). And most importantly, there was a significant indirect

effect of the full serial pathway of transformational leadership to trust in leader to affective

organizational commitment to RB-altruism (completely standardized indirect effect = .01, p <

84

.05). With all of the indirect effects in the model, the direct effect of transformational leadership

to RB-altruism was no longer significant (β = .10, p = .081). This overall model explained a

significant 3.3% of variance in RB-altruism (R2 = .033, F(3, 945) = 10.63, p < .001).

Given that hypotheses were only developed for the serial multilevel mediation model

which included trust in leader, there was no specific hypotheses for a serial mediation model

without accounting for nesting. However, the proposed adjusted model examining serial

mediation strictly at the individual level was found to be significant, wherein trust in leader and

affective organizational commitment mediated transformational leadership and RB-altruism.

These findings demonstrate that transformational leadership can enhance trust in leader and

affective organizational commitment at individual level, which then increase perceived role

breadth in the form of RB-altruism.

Potential Problems with Level 1 Analyses when Individuals are Clustered

When observations are not independent, OLS regression analyses and the mediation

analyses based on those regressions using individual level data may lead to incorrect inferences

(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). This is why MLM was used to represent the clustering of

individuals who were nested within leaders for RB-organizational loyalty, RB-sportsmanship,

and role instrumentality.

However, OLS regression analyses and meditations on such clustered data are frequently

reported. Therefore, I will present three analyses of my data for the proposed serial mediation

models predicting RB-organizational loyalty, RB-sportsmanship, and role instrumentality using

just the individual level data without considering the nesting within leader groups. The purpose

will be to contrast the findings and conclusions that would be drawn from this common approach

compared to representing the clustering of the data using MLM. To be clear, these analyses were

85

not appropriate for this clustered data, but these models were conducted to demonstrate how

different inferences may be drawn by not representing the nesting of individuals within groups.

The Hayes Process Macro for SPSS, version 3.3, was used with model 6 to represent

serial mediation. Bootstrapping with N = 5000 samples was used to compute confidence

intervals for testing the indirect effects. Confidence intervals whose lower and upper bounds did

not encompass zero were inferred to represent significant indirect effects at the p < .05 level.

As shown in Figure 6, there was a significant indirect pathway representing the serial

mediation of transformational leadership to trust in leader to affective organizational

commitment to RB-organizational loyalty (completely standardized indirect effect = .03, p <

.05). Similarly, in Figure 7 there was significant indirect pathway representing the serial

mediation of transformational leadership to trust in leader to affective organizational

commitment to RB-sportsmanship (completely standardized indirect effect = .01, p < .05). In

Figure 8, there were also significant indirect pathways representing the serial mediation of

transformational leadership to trust in leader to affective organizational commitment to

instrumentality (completely standardized indirect effect = .02, p < .05). Thus, there were

significant indirect serial meditations among the individual level data for each of these outcomes

in direct contrast to the MLM, which found no mediation role of trust in leader at group or

individual levels when accounting for the nesting of individuals within their groups.

86

CHAPTER EIGHT

DISCUSSION

The current dissertation assessed what may predict increased perceived role breath; that

is, what may increase the degree to which employees think that various kinds of pro-organization

and helpful behaviors are not extra-role but actually an expected part of their job (Morrison,

1994). I focused on predicting individuals’ perceived role breadth while considering the context

that relationships may independently operate at group levels, differing between workgroups, and

individual levels, differing among individuals within the same workgroups. Employees are often

situated within small work groups, sharing the same leader or boss, and these work groups

naturally develop collective characteristics and norms that are different from the characteristics

of the individuals themselves, within the group. Thus, this study sought to determine if group

level characteristics, as well as individual characteristics, led individuals to increasing their

perception of prosocial work behaviors as part of their job.

The predictors of interest were transformational leadership, trust in leader, and affective

organizational commitment. Transformational leadership has been conceptualized as involving

four broad types of behaviors, namely 1) idealized influence, which includes creating a shared

vision and relationship with team members; 2) individualized consideration, which includes

addressing each individual’s needs and creating a shared learning climate; 3) intellectual

stimulation, which includes sharing relevant and important knowledge, inspiring the team to

share knowledge with each other, as well as inspiring cultural and individual innovation; and

finally 4) inspirational motivation, which includes setting higher standards for individuals and

groups to live up to (Bass, 1985). Trust in leader has been defined as a willingness of a group or

individual to be vulnerable to the actions of their leader based on the expectation that their leader

87

will perform actions that are important, relevant, or meaningful to the trustor (Mayer et al.,

1995). Finally, affective organizational commitment has been defined as an emotional

attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1984).

Specifically, I assessed if there was a relationship between transformational leadership

and perceived role breadth that was serially mediated through trust in leader and affective

organizational commitment at both individual and group levels. Conceptually, this addresses the

question: Does leading in this leadership style motivate employees to perceive their workplace

roles more broadly because such leadership style increases trust and this trust increases the

commitment individuals feel to their organization? Further, I assessed if this occurs at both the

group and individual level. At the group level, the question was: Do work groups (employees

with the same leader) who collectively perceive their leader as transformational develop a

cohesive and shared sense of trust and commitment to that leader, which group characteristics

and experiences then influence each individual to view their roles more broadly? In other words,

can leaders promote a climate or shared feeling of trust and commitment among group members

that then changes how each individual perceives their job? Finally, and independently at the

individual level, do individual differences in how each employees views their leader influence

their trust and commitment to that leader, which may shape how they individually view their

job?

Perceived role breadth as measured in this study was found to be best represented as three

correlated but distinct factors. These three factors were 1) RB-organizational loyalty, which is

defined as an employee perceiving the identification with and allegiance to their leader and

organization as part of their job, 2) RB-altruism, which is defined as an employee perceiving

helping and supportive behaviors toward team members as part of their job, and 3) RB-

88

sportsmanship, which is defined as an employee perceiving the acceptance of less-than-ideal

circumstances without complaining as part of their job. The proposed multilevel serial mediation

model was tested separately for each of the three perceived role breadth factors of RB-

organizational loyalty (Hypothesis 1a), RB-altruism (Hypothesis 1b), and RB-sportsmanship

(Hypothesis 1c).

This dissertation also examined whether the same multilevel serial mediation model

could predict role instrumentality; that is, the extent an individual perceives prosocial and helpful

behaviors as a part of their job, and thus something they are rewarded for (McAllister et al.,

2007). Thus, hypothesis 2 was that that trust in leader and affective organizational commitment

would mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and role instrumentality.

Role instrumentality did not separate into distinct factors, and was assessed as a single outcome

(hypothesis 2).

It is important to note that the interpretations of mediations as causation are conceptual

claims based on prior research, and it is an explanatory and language style choice in this

Discussion. However, as will be discussed further below, this is not intended to imply claims of

actually demonstrating such causation as the data was cross sectional and causation cannot be

assessed in the current study.

Hypotheses

The following were all of the proposed hypotheses for this dissertation:

Hypothesis 1a: The relationship between transformational leadership and RB-

organizational loyalty is serially mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational

commitment, at both individual and group levels, when accounting for nesting.

89

Hypothesis 1b: The relationship between transformational leadership and RB-altruism

is serially mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment, at both

individual and group levels, when accounting for nesting.

Hypothesis 1c: The relationship between transformational leadership and RB-

sportsmanship is serially mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment, at

both individual and group levels, when accounting for nesting.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between transformational leadership and role

instrumentality is serially mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment,

at both individual and group levels, when accounting for nesting.

In short, there was not support for any of these four full hypotheses of multilevel serial

mediation. However, there was support for some pieces of these full hypotheses, which will be

restated as modified hypotheses in response to initial findings.

First, it was confirmed that there was variability in group scores for all three predictors

(transformational leadership, trust in leader, and affective organizational commitment) and for

three of the four outcome variables (RB-organizational loyalty, RB-sportsmanship, and role

instrumentality), but not for the outcome of RB-altruism. Thus, RB-altruism would be tested

without considering any clustering in the data; that is, a modified hypothesis 1b at just the

individual level was tested for RB-altruism. The proposed multilevel mediation model of

hypothesis 1a, 1c, and 2 were tested for the other outcomes of RB-organizational loyalty, RB-

sportsmanship, and role instrumentality, respectively.

However, when considering clustering of individuals within their leaders, trust in leader

was not found to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and affective

organizational commitment between groups or within groups. Without these first pathways, trust

90

in the leader could not serve as a serial mediator. Therefore, there was ultimately not support for

hypothesis 1a, 1c, nor 2 of multilevel serial mediation. However, simplified versions of these

hypotheses were examined for the multilevel analyses with trust in leader removed as a mediator,

leaving affective organizational commitment as a single multilevel mediator. These modified

hypotheses of multilevel single mediation by affective organizational commitment were tested

for RB-organizational loyalty (hypothesis 1a) and RB-sportsmanship (hypothesis 1c), and a

modified hypothesis 2 of multilevel single mediation by affective organizational commitment

was tested for role instrumentality. As noted, because there was no evidence to examine RB-

altruism at the group level, the proposed serial mediation model was examined only at the

individual level, which I will call a modified hypothesis 1b. The multilevel findings (hypotheses

1a, 1c, and 2) will be addressed in turn first, followed by the non-multilevel model predicting

RB-altruism in hypothesis 1b.

The following is a listing of the modified hypotheses following initial testing:

Modified hypothesis 1a: The relationship between transformational leadership and RB-

organizational loyalty is mediated by affective organizational commitment, at both individual

and group levels, when accounting for nesting.

Modified hypothesis 1b: The relationship between transformational leadership and RB-

altruism is serially mediated by trust in leader and affective organizational commitment, at the

individual level of analyses.

Modified hypothesis 1c: The relationship between transformational leadership and RB-

sportsmanship is mediated by affective organizational commitment, at both individual and group

levels, when accounting for nesting.

91

Modified hypothesis 2: The relationship between transformational leadership and role

instrumentality is mediated by affective organizational commitment, at both individual and group

levels, when accounting for nesting.

Findings of this Dissertation

RB-organizational loyalty. The modified multilevel single mediation hypotheses 1a was

tested to see if transformational leadership increases RB-organizational loyalty because it

increases affective organizational commitment, and if this occurs at both group and individual

levels. There was mediation of group level transformational leadership increasing individual RB-

organizational loyalty through increasing group feelings of commitment to the organization, and

there was no longer a direct effect of group level transformational leadership predicting

individual RB-organizational loyalty. There was also mediation of individual transformational

leadership increasing RB-organizational loyalty through increasing individual feelings of

commitment to the organization, although there was still a direct effect of individual level

perceptions of transformational leadership predicting increased RB-organizational loyalty.

Thus, the more the employees of a working group overall perceive their leader as

transformational, the more the individuals perceive RB-organizational loyalty behaviors as

expected in their job assumedly because the group as a whole tends to have higher feelings of

commitment to the organization. In addition, within groups the individuals who tend to have the

best opinions of their leader in terms of their transformational style also tend to perceive RB-

organizational loyalty behaviors as expected in their job at least in part because they have greater

individual feelings of commitment to their organization. Thus, there was support for the

modified multilevel single mediation hypothesis 1a.

92

RB-sportsmanship. In testing the modified multilevel single mediation hypothesis 1b,

there was also mediation of group level transformational leadership increasing individual RB-

sportsmanship through increasing group level affective organizational commitment, and there

was no longer a direct effect of group level transformational leadership predicting individual RB-

sportsmanship. However, at the individual level although transformational leadership perceptions

of individuals predicted their increased RB-sportsmanship, and individual perceptions of

transformational leadership increased individuals’ feelings of commitment to the organization,

individuals higher in commitment did not perceive RB-sportsmanship behaviors as any more

expected in their job. That is, there was no mediation of individual transformational leadership

predicting increased perceptions of RB-sportsmanship being a part of their job because of

increased individual affective organizational commitment.

In other words, while groups that overall perceive their leaders as more transformational

may think that RB-sportsmanship — essentially, willingness to put up with less than ideal

situations and be optimistic — is more expected in their job because they collectively have

greater commitment to the organization, the same relationships are not true of individuals within

groups. That is, within a particular group, individuals with the greatest feelings of commitment

to the organization are not any more likely than their coworkers to think that putting up with less

than ideal situations are expected of them. Thus, there was group level mediation but no support

for individual level mediation for the modified multilevel single mediation hypothesis 1c.

Role instrumentality. Broadly similar to the findings for RB-organizational loyalty, the

modified multilevel single mediation hypotheses 2 found that group level transformational

leadership increases individual perceived role instrumentality because it increases group level

affective organizational commitment. Unlike RB-organizational loyalty, there was still a direct

93

effect such that higher group level transformational leadership still predicted increased individual

perceived role instrumentality even after accounting for the effect of greater group level affective

organizational commitment. There was also mediation of individual transformational leadership

increasing the perceived role instrumentality through increasing individual feelings of

commitment to the organization, and similar to the results for RB-organizational loyalty there

was still a direct effect of individual level perceptions of transformational leadership predicting

increased perceived role breadth.

Thus, the more the employees in working groups overall or collectively perceive their

leader as transformational, the more the individuals perceive their workplace behaviors as

bringing them rewards assumedly at least in part because the group as a whole tends to have

higher feelings of commitment to the organization. In addition, within groups the individuals

who tend to have the best opinions of their leader in terms of their transformational style also

tend to perceive workplace behaviors as bringing them rewards at least in part because they have

greater individual feelings of commitment to their organization. Thus, broadly similar to the

results for modified hypothesis 1a for RB-organizational loyalty, there was support for the

modified multilevel single mediation hypothesis 1c.

RB-altruism. As noted, there was no variation between the groups in overall RB-

altruism levels. Therefore, RB-altruism was assessed without considering clustering in the data

with the modified individual level serial mediation hypothesis 1b. There was significant serial

mediation such that greater transformational leadership predicted increased RB-altruism because

it increased trust in leader and that increase led to increased feelings of commitment to the

organization. There was also an indirect effect of transformational leadership increasing RB-

altruism because it increased feelings of commitment more directly; in contrast, trust in leader

94

did not directly lead to RB-altruism in this model, it affected it only through feelings of

commitment to the organization. Accounting for these indirect relationships, there was no longer

a direct relationship of transformational leadership increasing RB-altruism.

Thus, at an individual level and not taking account that many individuals shared leaders,

when individuals perceive their leader as behaving in transformational styles, it increases both

their trust in the leader and their feeling of commitment to the organization. Their feelings of

trust also increase their feelings of commitment. And it is these feelings of being committed to

their organization that increases the extent to which they feel that helping their coworkers is an

expected part of their job. Thus, there was support for individual level serial mediation of

hypothesis 1c.

Overall Findings

Overall, while there was no support for the hypotheses as originally presented, there was

support for some modified aspects of these original hypotheses. Broadly speaking and with some

caveats, transformational leadership does predict perceived role breath and role instrumentality

outcomes because of its ability to increase positive feelings of commitment to one’s

organization. This is true at the group level for RB-organizational loyalty, RB-sportsmanship,

and role instrumentality. This is true at the individual level, when accounting for nesting, for RB-

organizational loyalty and role instrumentality, but not for RB-sportsmanship. Not accounting

for nesting, this is also true for RB-altruism, but additionally trust in leader can also serially

mediate from the individual’s perceptions of their leader’s transformational style to their feelings

of commitment and then increase RB-altruism.

Exploratory Analyses of Level 1 Serial Mediation Ignoring Nesting

95

This dissertation particularly focused on examining these relationships of perceptions of

leaders and individuals’ perceptions of workplace behavior expectations in the context that these

relationships may independently operate at both the group and individual level. However, much

of the prior research—indeed research that influenced the creations of the multilevel mediation

hypotheses—has primarily focused on the individual level, not considered nesting of individuals

within groups, and not examined group level dynamics for the relationships they may show.

Interestingly, when the current data were examined ignoring clustering of individuals and

looking only at the individual level of data, there was support for the full serial mediation.

Specifically, for RB-organizational loyalty, RB-sportsmanship, and role instrumentality there

was significant serial mediation from transformational leadership to trust in leader to affective

organizational commitment to each of these outcomes. (As already noted RB-altruism was

examined only at the individual level and it too showed this serial mediation.) Specifically, the

proposed relationship of trust in the leader occurred only when examining individual data

without considering that these individuals were clustered within workgroups; when considering

nesting within workgroups trust in leader no longer had any mediational role at the group or even

at the individual level. Thus, different results were found in assessing what predicts individual

employee perceptions of their role when accounting for and not accounting for their nesting into

work groups.

Importance of Multilevel Modeling to Represent Nested Groups

There seem to be a few possible reasons as to why different results are found when

considering nesting of individuals under their particular leader. When observations are clustered

within groups, they do not meet a fundamental assumption of regression analyses (which

mediation analyses are based on) of independent observations and may lead to incorrect

96

inferences (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). In particular, standard error estimates are too

small and alpha levels are subsequently inflated, in short leading to significant findings that may

be Type 1 errors. Further, there can be heterogeneity of regression in which the relationships of

predictors to the outcome vary based on the grouping variable (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). In

fact, not considering grouping can fundamentally change the conclusions (Roberts, 2004).

Roberts (2004) demonstrated that a predictor can have a positive relationship to an outcome, but

when taking grouping into account the predictor showed a positive relationship to the outcome at

the group level, but a negative relationship at the individual level.

From a more conceptual perspective and as described in the introduction, despite the fact

that several scholars have stressed that “the study of leadership is inherently multilevel in

nature,” (Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002, p. 4) and that transformational leadership has

been found to operate at both individual and group levels (e.g., Wang & Howell, 2010; Dionne,

Sayama, Hao, & Bush, 2010), the state of the science predominantly looks at leadership as an

individual phenomenon (Batistic, Cerne, & Vogel, 2017). Indeed, there have been several calls

for more multilevel research on transformational leadership and especially calls for research

examining multilevel mediating mechanisms of transformational leadership. These calls for

research have merit, considering it has been suggested that “transformational leaders are often

thought to have their greatest effect by changing how work groups (rather than individuals)

function” (Lord & Dinh, 2011, p. 31).

Considering individual values on a construct (e.g., individual perceptions of supervisors’

transformational leadership) independently of the group value (e.g., team perceptions of

supervisors’ transformational leadership) “is not only informative but necessary to interpret an

individual’s placement or standing” (Klein et al., 1994, p. 202). If theoretical constructs relate to

97

individuals nested in groups or teams, then one must acknowledge the group or team as a

meaningful entity (Braun et al., 2013), and with respect to leadership as a theoretical construct, it

has been suggested that “transformational leaders are often thought to have their greatest effect

by changing how work groups (rather than individuals) function” (Lord & Dinh, 2011, p. 31).

Leading teams yields several challenges, like aligning individual goals with a shared

mission, managing resources, establishing a positive climate of trust and support, and

coordinating information transfer and task completion (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Yet,

while scholars stressed that “the study of leadership is inherently multilevel in nature” (Bliese,

Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002, p. 4), leadership research has been suffering from a dearth of

deliberate theoretical and empirical differentiation between levels of analysis (Yammarino,

Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005).

It is for these reasons that many scholars acquainted with MLM have criticized the state

of the literature, particularly the exponentially growing topic of transformational leadership. It is

well understood, now more than ever, that organizations’ predominantly team-based structures

require leaders “to lead and motivate not only individuals but also teams as a whole” (Chen et

al., 2007, p. 331). The findings of this dissertation seem to highlight the statistical and theoretical

arguments for studying leadership and other organizational constructs from a multilevel

perspective.

Connecting this Study’s Findings with Existing Literature

The findings of this study contribute to, as well as expand upon, current understanding of

transformational leadership and perceived role breadth. Various scholars have voiced concerns

about the dearth of research identifying mechanisms explaining the relationship between

predictors and perceived role breadth (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison 1994). For instance,

98

prior research has connected transformational leadership with role breadth self-efficacy (e.g.,

Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012), yet no prior study has directly examined the relationship

between transformational leadership and perceived role breadth. Importantly, perceived role

breadth and role instrumentality are concepts about what behaviors an employee believes are

expected of them or will earn them rewards; they are not measures of what behaviors they are

actually performing. Yet, given that a large body of research exists connecting transformational

leadership to OCB (Carter et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2011), and that perceived role breadth has

been found to directly predict OCB (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Hofmann et al., 2003; Kamdar et

al., 2006; Tepper & Taylor, 2003), the potential connection between transformational leadership

and perceived role breadth seemed promising.

Expanding on the prior literature showing that transformational leadership facilitates

citizenship behaviors (e.g., MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Martinez, Sun, Gergen, &

Wheeler, 2018; Podsakoff et al., 1990), this study demonstrated that transformational leaders can

shape the perceptions of employees such that they view citizenship behaviors as expected parts

of their job. More directly, this study showed how transformational leaders expand role

perceptions to include loyalty, altruism, and sportsmanship. The facilitation of expanded work

roles makes sense given that fundamental to transformational leadership is inspirational

motivation, which includes the raising of individual and group expectations and standards (Bass,

1985). Thus, it seems that individuals are motivated by their leaders to reshape their work role to

include higher standards of loyalty, helping, and positive attitudes toward imperfect situations.

Moreover, this study shows that affective commitment plays a meaningful role in

explaining how transformational leadership expands individual’s perceived role breadth and role

instrumentality. Through their leadership style, affective commitment is formed as a group level

99

experience, wherein a shared experience is felt between group members. As a whole, the group

becomes more committed to the leader, the organization, the vision, and each other. This shared

and enhanced sense of commitment then leads individual members to expand their work role,

wherein they believe they should go above and beyond what may have initially be considered the

expected call of duty.

These findings provide meaningful connections to currently disconnected bodies of

literature. Specifically, the findings of this dissertation seem to connect research on

transformational leadership theory with research on leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. For

instance, previous evidence suggests a strong positive relationship between LMX quality and

perceived role breadth (Hofmann et al., 2003; Jiao & Hackett, 2007; Jiao, Richards, & Hackett,

2013; Klieman, Quinn, & Harris, 2000; Van Dyne et al., 2008). Indeed, LMX theory is premised

the notion of role making (Graen, 1976), social exchange, reciprocity, and equity (Deluga, 1994),

wherein leaders clearly convey role expectations to their followers and provide potential

rewards, both tangible and intangible, to followers who satisfy these expectations. Although

leaders often initially create role expectations, followers are not passive role recipients, but either

reject, embrace, or renegotiate roles prescribed by their leaders (Graen, 1976). Role negotiation

occurs over time, defining the quality and maturity of LMX, and leaders develop relationships of

varying quality with different followers over time (Graen, 1976; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

It seems possible that transformational leadership actually operates through LMX,

although that relationship was not examined here nor has that relationship been examined much

in the past. Although transformational leadership and LMX are two distinct forms of leadership,

recent meta-analytic structural equation modelling based on 132 studies revealed that LMX

mediates transformational leadership’s relationships with employee outcomes (Boer, Deinert,

100

Homan, & Voelpel, 2016). In fact, Shaffer et al. (2016) examined the discriminant validity of

several leadership constructs and questioned whether transformational leadership and LMX are

empirically distinct. Although this study did not directly examine LMX, nor does this study seek

to determine whether LMX and transformational leadership are distinct or separate, it seems

possible that LMX may be involved in the process by which transformational leaders enhance

perceived role breadth. This possibility does not seem far-fetched given that recent research has

shown LMX is positively related to extra-role customer service where affective commitment

mediated this relationship (Garg & Dhar, 2016). Although Garg’s study was focused on extra-

role performance, the findings are quite similar to this study’s findings that affective

organizational commitment facilitated the expansion of work role perception. Future research

could further disentangle the connection between transformational leadership and LMX, and how

these two phenomena are distinct and how they may operate simultaneously. Furthermore, future

research could explore how transformational leadership, LMX, and affective organizational

commitment operate to facilitate expanded work roles.

Beyond perceived role breadth, this study also showed that transformational leadership

predicts role breadth instrumentality through affective organizational commitment, both at group

and individual levels. As such, individuals who are members of committed groups following

transformational leaders can have expanded work roles wherein they perform behaviors they

believe will bring rewards. Findings of previous research has shown that many employees

identify a connection between OCB and valued outcomes such as promotions and pay increases

(Haworth & Levy, 2001; Hui et al., 2000; Schnake & Dumler, 1997), and that most employees

believe that OCB should be rewarded in some way (Reed & Kidder, 2005). This study shows

that not only can OCB be viewed as in-role, but that those in-role behaviors are done

101

strategically in order to produce rewards. Thus, it is likely that part of transformational

leadership is helping employees want greater rewards for themselves and for the group as a

whole through increased commitment to the vision and organization. Bass (1985) suggests

transformational leaders are influential in that they raise followers’ awareness of the importance

and value of designated outcomes and ways of reaching these outcomes.

Although this dissertation further contextualized how work roles are developed, in

addition to role instrumentality wherein transformational leaders inspire their followers to

enhance work roles and awareness of the value of outcomes, there are still clear gaps that future

researchers could explore and address. For instance, LMX may also be at play in regards to the

connection between transformational leadership and role instrumentality. Indeed, the very idea of

LMX argues that during work associated exchanges, leaders develop different kinds of relations

with their followers (Graen and Cashman, 1975, Graen and Scandura, 1987). Those followers

who experience high quality LMX relationships with their leader usually earn favored treatment

such as large support (Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001), more growth opportunities (Graen &

Scandura, 1987) and greater freedom in taking decisions (Liden & Graen, 1980). Such favored

treatments, growth opportunities, and freedoms may be intentionally sought via role

instrumentality as inspired by transformational leaders. Thus, it is possible that individuals with

high LMX did so because the transformational leader engaged them powerfully, both

individually and as a group, and inspired them to raise their standards and expand their roles. The

ones who do so may then be greater rewarded by such leaders because they became aware via

role instrumentality that such rewards were not only possible, but expected.

Finally, this study provides evidence that when a data analysis accounts for nesting, there

will be differences in the relationships and pathways found between variables. Regarding RB-

102

sportsmanship, however, there was a distinct finding in this study that bears further discussion.

Unlike RB-organizational loyalty and role instrumentality, which both had similar results in that

affective organizational commitment was found to be both a group level and individual level

mediator of transformational leadership, the relationship between transformational leadership

and RB-sportsmanship was only found to be mediated by affective organizational commitment at

the group level, not at the individual level. In other words, it seems that individuals who are part

of highly committed groups begin to see putting up with less than ideal circumstances as part of

their job. However, having individual commitment to the organization does not seem to facilitate

this expansion of perceived role breadth. This finding may highlight the sometimes portent

impact of group characteristics on individual perception, or it may simply be an example of Type

2 error give the number of relationships being tested.

Practical Implications

Like others (Braun et al., 2013), the results of this study highlight the importance of

transformational leadership at multiple levels. These findings should inspire leaders to consider

how individual and team perceptions of their behavior and how transformational leadership can

be facilitated at both levels. Indeed, prior research shows that transformational leadership can be

trained (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Thus, the findings of this study suggest that

organizations should introduce training approaches that address transformational leader behavior

at multiple levels (i.e., individual-directed and team-directed) in order to provide leaders with

necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Second, the results of this study highlight the impact of affective organizational

commitment. Indeed, leaders should consider the importance of developing commitment among

not only individuals, but also among groups as a whole. Transformational leadership positively

103

influences affective organizational commitment among group members. Therefore, leaders

should be aware of their impact on group members’ mutual and shared sense of commitment.

Such should be of great interest to leaders, especially given that affective organizational

commitment in large part explains how leaders raise the standards and motivation of their

followers. Indeed, affective organizational commitment explains in varying degree how leaders

can help their employees see loyalty, altruism, and sportsman as expected parts of their jobs.

Such perceptions would likely lead to increases in related behaviors, which would likely improve

the overall climate, performance, and outcomes of the organization. One way in which leaders

could foster an open climate of discussion and exchange with individual followers is through

continuous team reflection (Braun et al., 2013), which may facilitate a group of individual

followers to work together as a single cohesive unit or team (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008).

Third, transformational leadership must be considered in hiring, promoting, and training

supervisors in organization contexts. Indeed, leadership development in any organization

wherein teams are being led by leaders would benefit from implementing combined training and

coaching methods based on the transformational leadership research (Braun et al., 2009; Braun et

al., 2013). Overall, the results of this study demonstrate the beneficial impact of a culture shaped

by transformational leadership and affective organizational commitment at multiple levels.

Finally, the results of this study showed that transformational leaders, through both group

level and individual level affective organizational commitment, can expand individual role

perceptions. These findings should be inspiring and interesting to organizations seeking

employees who go above and beyond the call of duty. Indeed, prior research has shown that

perceived role breadth and role instrumentality both predict OCB behavior (Coyle-Shapiro et al.,

2004; Hofmann et al., 2003; Kamdar et al., 2006; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). Thus, if companies

104

want their employees to engage in more of these behaviors, they should first address the

perception of their employees work roles. Importantly, one of the roles of transformational

leaders is to help expand their follower’s work roles to include organizational loyalty, altruism

toward team members, and sportsmanship. Such expansion of roles would likely yield a positive

impact on the organization within in terms of culture and environment as well as outcomes.

Limitations and Future Research

This dissertation is not free of limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting

the findings, and several future directions can be proposed. First there are limitations of the

design for testing the proposed model. Second, there are limitations of the measures themselves.

Third, there are limitations in generalizability because of the sample and the recruitment of

participants.

As initially noted, one of the main caveats to bear in mind is that although the model

proposes a sequence of relationships based on prior research, in the present study the data is

cross sectional, measured at a single time point, and cannot establish direction of causation.

Future research could attempt to measure these constructs and their changes over time to

correctly establish causal direction. And while experimental manipulations are difficult in the

context of employees in their workplaces, research following natural changes could be

informative. For example, following the introduction of training programs that emphasize

transformational leadership styles, or tracking employees as who is their leaders changes due to

organizational restructuring or new hiring.

A strength of this study is that it is one of the first studies explicitly combining multilevel

research of transformational leadership with mediating processes via trust in leader and affective

organizational commitment, and I encourage researchers to further pursue multilevel modeling in

105

the domain of transformational leadership. And this study found important differences in

mediational process when representing the clustering of individuals under their leaders.

Clustering based on the leader made sense given that two of the original proposed predictors in

the model were directly assessing the leader (transformational leadership and trust in leader).

However, given that it has been shown that accounting for nesting can produce different results,

a further question is if clustering within other levels should be represented for this or similar

models. That is, what other higher levels of grouping or clustering in the data may be

conceptually important? Does affective organizational commitment vary at higher levels of

agency or department within an organization?

Conceptually overlapping between the first limitations (the design) and the second

limitations (the measures), another topic to raise is this study’s ability to represent the multilevel

nature of relationships is that all of the data was collected at the individual level. That is, there

were no overall group assessment or performance measures; the group representations were

conceptually how the individuals collectively or on average thought about their leader as

compared to other groups. Considering the same variable at two levels can lend itself to

theoretically interesting models (Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003), but future research could

benefit from gathering information regarding the nature of the groups themselves. That is,

additional important questions could be addressed when asking individuals about how the leader

acts towards others or their group as a whole; that is, directly asking them about the constructs at

the team level (Braun et al, 2013; Wang & Howell, 2010; Yammarino, Schriesheim, Sosik, Jung,

& Liu, 2012).

In addition to these considerations about levels of measurement, some of the constructs in

this study were also assessed in somewhat outdated ways. As noted previously, given the

106

timeframe in which this data was collected, there have been several developments in the

literatures for many of the constructs being studied. For instance, more recently, researchers have

come to distinguish between cognitive and affective-based trust, wherein each produces separate

outcomes (Dirks, 2000). In examining the results of previous studies which have found trust to

be a mediator, often there is distinction of results when accounting for either affective or

cognitive trust. For instance, Zhu and colleagues (2013) examined the mediating effects of

cognitive and affective trust on the relationship between follower perceptions of transformational

leadership behavior and their work outcomes. The results of their study indicated that affective

trust fully mediated the relationships between transformational leadership and the work

outcomes of followers, including their affective organizational commitment, organizational

citizenship behaviors (OCBs), and job performance. In contrast, they further found that cognitive

trust negatively mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and follower job

performance, and had insignificant effects on their affective organizational commitment and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Zhu et al.’s (2013) study demonstrates that affective trust

can be a mechanism which translates transformational leadership into positive work outcomes

for the organization. Other research shows different results, for example, Schaubroeck, Lam, and

Peng (2011) found that transformational leadership influenced team performance indirectly

through cognition-based trust. They further found that cognition-based trust directly influenced

team potency and indirectly (through affect-based trust) influenced team psychological safety.

Given that more recent literature on trust is becoming more nuanced and complex, one potential

weakness of the current study is that the scale was constructed before these conceptualizations

were derived. Future research examining multilevel trust in leader could account for the various

forms in which trust could manifest, such as affective and cognitive. it is possible that the lack of

107

multilevel findings with respect to trust could be due to contradictory influences of these two

types of trust that the current scale could not clearly distinguish.

It should be noted that the third main limitation was that the entire sample of this study

comprised employees of state governmental agencies. Among the ways in which that may have

impacted the findings, what employees perceive to be an expected part of their job, that is the

perceived role breadth, may differ in this kind of organization. Beyond the type of organization,

there were also concerns about the potential bias in the sample in this study and thus the ability

to generalize from them to workplaces more broadly. The researcher who collected the original

data (Cox, 2000) noted some example of fear expressed by respondents, including fears of

retribution for their responses. Other employees called requesting an address so they could mail

their questionnaires to her directly. Drop boxes in the agencies were used for survey collection;

given technological advances since this time and the widespread use of online surveys, future

research can easily address these concerns.

Given that trust in one’s leader, as well as affective commitment and role breadth were

constructs being examined, it seems likely that the sample may have been biased on these

particular measures. Those with lower trust in their leader may have been less confident in the

anonymity of their responses and less likely to participate or honestly participate. Those with

lower commitment to their organization may also have been less motivated or felt their voice

was less important. In addition, those particularly high in thinking that many potentially extra

role behaviors are expected of their job, that is those with high perceived role breadth, may have

been more likely to participate. Future research would benefit from more careful recruitment and

communication with participants to allay fears and perhaps provide kind of monetary rewards for

108

participation so that the sample is not just limited to those who feel a commitment and feel that

they should perform these extra behaviors.

Conclusion

This dissertation proposed a multilevel serial mediation model wherein trust in leader and

affective organizational commitment mediated the effect of transformational leadership on

perceived role breadth among 950 employees from government agencies. This same serial

mediation model was examined with role breadth instrumentality as the outcome variable.

Moreover, perceived role breadth was broken into three separate factors roughly corresponding

to: 1) RB-organizational loyalty, 2) RB-altruism, and 3) RB-sportsmanship. All employees

reported which specific leader they had, therefore allowing each individuals response to be

nested within the grouping of Level 2 leader. After initial multilevel model null testing as well as

ICC1 calculations, it was determined that MLM techniques were appropriate for RB-

organizational loyalty, RB-sportsmanship, and role breadth instrumentality due to between-group

variance. However, for RB-altruism no evidence was found for group variance, and thus the

proposed serial mediation model was examined only at the individual level when RB-altruism

was the outcome variable.

For all three of the outcome variables examined with MLM, trust in leader was not found

to serially mediate when accounting for nesting. Therefore, trust in leader was removed from the

MLM and affective organizational commitment was analyzed as a single multilevel mediator.

For all three outcomes being tested with MLM, affective organizational commitment mediated

transformational leadership to the outcome variable at the group level. For RB-organizational

loyalty and role instrumentality, but not RB-sportsmanship, affective organizational commitment

mediated transformational leadership to the outcome variable at the individual level as well.

109

When testing the proposed serial mediation model at the individual level without account

for clustering of individuals by their leader, significant serial mediation did occur wherein trust

in leader through affective organizational commitment mediated the relationship between

transformational leadership and RB-altruism. In fact, when not accounting for nesting, the

proposed serial model was actually confirmed for each of the four outcome variables. However,

when accounting for nesting, trust in leader was not found to be a multilevel mediator of any of

the four outcome variables. Therefore, this study answers several calls for multilevel research on

transformational leadership and highlights the importance of accounting for nesting.

110

REFERENCES

Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in

organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91(1), 221-232.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance

and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational &

Organizational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the

organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

49(3), 252-276.

Arnold, K. A., Barling, J., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2001). Transformational leadership or the

iron cage: which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy?. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 22(7), 315-320.

Aryee, S., et al. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and

work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Behavior: The International

Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(3),

267-285.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of

context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A

conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in

111

the Workplace: Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 221-235). Westport, CT, US:

Quorum Books/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Ashikali, T., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Diversity management in public organizations and its

effect on employees’ affective commitment: The role of transformational leadership and

the inclusiveness of the organizational culture. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 35(2), 146-168.

Aube, C., & Rousseau, V. (2011). Interpersonal aggression and team effectiveness: The

mediating role of team goal commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 84(3), 565-580.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and

moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The

International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and

Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.

Bachrach, D. G., & Jex, S. M. (2000). Organizational citizenship and mood: An experimental

test of perceived job breadth. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 641-663.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy: Encyclopedia of Human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81).

Bandura, A. (Ed). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.

Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal of

Organizational Behavior Management, 5(1), 41-51.

112

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training

on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81(6), 827–832.

Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015). Collective

organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation,

and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 111-135.

Basham, L. M. (2012). Transformational and transactional leaders in higher education. SAM

Advanced Management Journal, 77(2), 15-23.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Leading in the army after next. Military Review, 78(2), 46-57.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21–27.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of

analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational

leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199-218.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by

assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88(2), 207-218.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Psychology Press.

Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of

organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 95-112.

113

Batistic, S., Cerne, M., & Vogel, B. (2017). Just how multi-level is leadership research? A

document co-citation analysis 1980-2013 on leadership constructs and outcomes. The

Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 86-103.

Bayram, H., & Dinç, S. (2015). Copyright© 2015 by Academic Publishing House Researcher

Published in the Russian Federation European Researcher.

Bell, S. J., & Menguc, B. (2002). The employee-organization relationship, organizational

citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. Journal of Retailing, 78(2), 131-146.

Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of

proactive behavior: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475-498.

Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self‐categorization, affective commitment and group self‐

esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 39(4), 555-577.

Bergeron, D. M., Schroeder, T. D., & Martinez, H. A. (2014). Proactive personality at work:

Seeing more to do and doing more?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 71-86.

Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review

and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of

Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(5), 645-663.

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory (p. 1683). New York: Academic Press.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193-206.

Blau, G., Moideenkutty, U., & Ingham, K. (2010). Leader-member exchange as a significant

correlate of organizational and occupational sportsmanship behaviors in a health services

setting. Leadership in Health Services, 23(3), 219-232.

114

Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel methods

in leadership: The articles, the model, and the data set. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(1),

3-14.

Boer, D., Deinert, A., Homan, A. C., & Voelpel, S. C. (2016). Revisiting the mediating role of

leader-member exchange in transformational leadership: the differential impact model.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 883-899.

Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the

relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership

Quarterly, 26(6), 1080-1094.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the

motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5),

554-571.

Braun, D., Gable, R., & Kite, S. (2011). Situated in a community of practice: leadership

preparation practices to support leadership in K-8 school. International Journal of

Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(1), 1-17.

Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job

satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The

Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270-283.

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence,

and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 954-616.

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level

review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606-632.

115

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team

adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6),

1189-1297.

Burns, G.P. (1978). The Principles of Leadership. San Antonio: Our Lady of the Lake University

of San Antonio.

Butler Jr, J. K. (1991). Toward an understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of

a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643-663.

Butler Jr, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling

dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 19-28.

Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyed, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas, G. (2012).

Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence. Journal of Business

Ethics, 109(2), 175-187.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based

on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.

Campbell, J. W., Lee, H., & Im, T. (2016). At the Expense of others: Altruistic helping

behaviour, performance management and transformational leadership. Public

Management Review, 18(6), 795-818.

Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Employee involvement and organizational citizenship:

Implications for labor law reform and ‘lean production# x201D. ILR Review, 51(4), 633-

653.

Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2012). CEO relational leadership and strategic

decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from

failure. Strategic Organization, 10(1), 31-54.

116

Carter, M. Z., Self, D. R., Bandow, D. F., Wheatley, R. L., Thompson, W. F., Wright, D. N., &

Li, J. (2014). Unit-focused and individual-focused transformational leadership: The role

of middle leaders in the midst of incremental organizational change. Journal of

Management Policy and Practice, 15(5), 44-53.

Casimir, G., Waldman, D. A., Bartram, T., & Yang, S. (2006). Trust and the relationship

between leadership and follower performance: Opening the black box in Australia and

China. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(3), 68-84.

Cassar, V., Bezzina, F., & Buttigieg, S. C. (2017). The relationship between transformational

leadership and work attitudes: Comparing mediating influences of social identity and the

psychological contract. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(5), 646-

661.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different

levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology,

83(2), 234-246.

Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative

systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1018-1027.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of

leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,

92(2), 331-346.

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational

commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339-356.

117

Chi, N. W., Chung, Y. Y., & Tsai, W. C. (2011). How do happy leaders enhance team success?

The mediating roles of transformational leadership, group affective tone, and team

processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 1421-1454.

Chi, N. W., & Huang, J. C. (2014). Mechanisms linking transformational leadership and team

performance: The mediating roles of team goal orientation and group affective tone.

Group & Organization Management, 39(3), 300-325.

Chiaburu, D. S. (2007). From interactional justice to citizenship behaviors: Role enlargement or

role discretion? Social Justice Research, 20(2), 207–227.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Byrne, Z. S. (2009). Predicting OCB role definitions: Exchanges with the

organization and psychological attachment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2),

201-214.

Chiaburu, D. S. & Marinova, S. V. (2006). Employee role enlargement: Interactions of trust and

organizational fairness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(3), 168-

182.

Choi, J. N. (2009). Collective dynamics of citizenship behavior: What group characteristics

promote group-level helping? Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1396-1420.

Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Goodman, D. (2017). Affective organizational commitment and

job satisfaction: A cross‐national comparative study. Public Administration, 95(1), 178-

195.

Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Psychology

Press.

118

Cole, D. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Manifest variable path analysis: Potentially serious and

misleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error. Psychological Methods,

19(2), 300-315.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:

a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927.

Conchie, S. M., Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. J. (2012). Promoting safety voice with safety-specific

transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimension of trust. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 105-115.

Correll, S. J., Ridgeway, C. L., & Delamater, J. (2003). Handbook of Social Psychology.

Coyle‐Shapiro, J. A. M. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational

citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of

Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(8), 927-946.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.M., et al. (2004). Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behavior:

reciprocity or ‘It’s my job’? Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 85-106.

Coyle‐Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the

employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7),

903-930.

Cox, S. P. (2000). Leader character: A model of personality and moral development (Order No.

9970542). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304631311).

Croon, M. A., & van Veldhoven, M. J. (2007). Predicting group-level outcome variables from

variables measured at the individual level: A latent variable multilevel model.

Psychological Methods, 12(1), 45-57.

119

Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.

Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,

Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A

longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 377-392.

Del Carmen Triana, M., Richard, O. C., & Yücel, İ. (2017). Status incongruence and supervisor

gender as moderators of the transformational leadership to subordinate affective

organizational commitment relationship. Personnel Psychology, 70(2), 429-467.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance

employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194-202.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method (Vol. 19). New

York: Wiley.

Dionne, S. D., Sayama, H., Hao, C. & Bush, B. J. (2010). The role of leadership in shared mental

model convergence and team performance improvement: An agent-based computational

model. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1035-1049.

Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 1004-1012.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications

for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611.

Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging issues.

Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, 7, 21-40.

120

Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary

process. Free Press.

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership

of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435-457.

Du, L., Qian, L., & Feng, Y. (2014). Influences of altruistic motivation, shared vision, and

perceived accessibility on microcharity behavior. Social Behavior and Personality,

42(10), 1639-1650.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on

follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management

Journal, 45(4), 735-744.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61-94.

Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double-edged sword: Transformational leadership and

individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54-68.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and

team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,

1438–1446.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and

employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1),

51-59.

121

Epitropaki, O. (2003). Transformational leadership, psychological contract breach and

organizational identification. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2003, No. 1,

pp. M1-M6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Epitropaki, O. (2013). A multi‐level investigation of psychological contract breach and

organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership:

Testing a moderated-mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 65-86.

Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship

behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management,

16(4), 705-721.

Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative:

Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139-161.

Foote, D. A., & Li-Ping Tang, T. (2008). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB) does team commitment make a difference in self-directed teams?. Management

Decision, 46(6), 933-947.

Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty?. Journal of Service Research, 5(4),

333-344.

Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Psychological contract breach as a source of strain for

employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(2), 235-246.

Garcia-Guiu, C., Moya, M., Molero, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2016). Transformational leadership

and group potency in small military units: The mediating role of group identification and

cohesion. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 32(3), 145-152.

122

Garg, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2016). Extra-role customer service: The roles of leader–member

exchange (LMX), affective commitment, and psychological empowerment. International

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 17(4), 373-396.

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,

75(2), 107-116.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the

mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2),

310-329.

Gholamreza, J., Matin, H. Z., & Farjami, A. (2009). Comparing transformational leadership in

successful and unsuccessful companies. African Journal of Business Management, 3(7),

272-280.

Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, J. E., & McNally, J. (2005). Antecedents of trust: Establishing a

boundary conditions for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(3), 287-302.

Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The

building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607.

Gist, M. E. & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and

malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational

leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-

efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.

123

Gorden, W. I., Anderson, C. M., & Bruning, S. D. (1992). Employee perceptions of corporate

partnership: An affective-moral quid pro quo. Employee Responsibilities and Rights

Journal, 5(1), 75-85.

Gouldner, H. P. (1960). Dimensions of organizational commitment. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 4(4), 468-490.

Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Graham, J. W., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Commitment and the covenantal organization. Journal

of Managerial Issues, 5(4), 483-502.

Grandey, A. A. (2008). Emotions at work: A review and research agenda. Handbook of

Organizational Behavior, 235-261.

Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the

performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal,

55(2), 458-476.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.

Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of

adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95(1), 174-182.

Gupta, V., Agarwal, U. A., & Khatri, N. (2016). The relationships between perceived

organizational support, affective commitment, psychological contract breach,

organizational citizenship behavior and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

72(11), 2806-2817.

124

Han, S. H., Seo, G., Yoon, S. W., & Yoon, D. Y. (2016). Transformational leadership and

knowledge sharing: Mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and

citizenship behaviors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(3), 130-149.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96-100.

Haworth, C. L., & Levy, P. E. (2001). The importance of instrumentality beliefs in the prediction

of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(1), 64-75.

Higgins, E.A. (2015). The influence of nurse manager transformational leadership on nurse and

patient outcomes: Mediating effects of supportive practice environments, organizational

citizenship behaviors, patient safety culture and nurse job satisfaction. ProQuest

published doctoral dissertation. London, Ontario, Canada: Western University.

Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the

relationship between leader-member exchange content specific citizenship: Safety

climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 170-178.

Homans, G. C. (1961). The humanities and the social sciences. American Behavioral Scientist,

4(8), 3-6.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the US

presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 36(3), 364-396.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

125

Hui, C., Lam, S. S., & Law, K. K. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship

behavior for promotion: a field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5),

822828.

Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contract and organizational

citizenship behavior in China: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 311-321.

Hyypia, M., & Parjanen, S. (2013). Boosting creativity with transformational leadership in fuzzy

front-end innovation processes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and

Management, 8, 21-41.

Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles in

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Eds. MD Dunnette and LM

Hough. Palo Alto.

Iqbal, A., Tufail, M. S., & Lodhi, R. (2015). Employee loyalty and organizational commitment in

Pakistani organizations. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(1), 1-11.

Jackson, T. A., Meyer, J. P., & Wang, X. H. (2013). Leadership, commitment, and culture: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20(1), 84-106.

Jain, A. K. (2016). Volunteerism, affective commitment and citizenship behavior: An empirical

study in India. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 657-671.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability

with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-98.

Jiang, L., & Probst, T. M. (2015). Do your employees (collectively) trust you? The importance of

trust climate beyond individual trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(4), 526-

535.

126

Jiao, C., Richards, D. A., & Zhang, K. (2011). Leadership and organizational citizenship

behavior: OCB-specific meanings as mediators. Journal of Business and Psychology,

26(1), 11–25.

Jiao, C., Richards, D. A., & Hackett, R. D. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior and role

breadth: A meta‐analytic and cross‐cultural analysis. Human Resource Management,

52(5), 697-714.

Joo, B. K., Jun Yoon, H., & Jeung, C. W. (2012). The effects of core self-evaluations and

transformational leadership on organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 33(6), 564-582.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-

analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.

Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, J. K., & Noble, D. (2012). Exploring the role of

supervisor trust in the associations between multiple sources of relationship conflict and

organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 43-54.

Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). “All in a day's work”: how follower

individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 841-855.

Kanji, G. K. & e Sa’, P. M. (2001). Measuring leadership excellence. Total Quality

Management, 12(6), 701-718.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:

Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2, p. 528). New

York: Wiley.

127

Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and

development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489-501.

Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2012). Transformational leadership and

employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership.

Work & Stress, 26(1), 39-55.

Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99-130.

Kelly, J. R., & Spoor, J. R. (2006). Affective influence in groups. Affect in Social Thinking and

Behavior, 311-325.

Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Management, 28(5), 629-648.

Kidwell, R. E., & Godkin, L., & Fleischman, G. M. (2011). Corporate ethical values and

altruism: The mediating role of career satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 509-

523.

Kim, H. (2014). Transformational leadership, organizational clan culture, organizational

affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: A case of South Korea's

public sector. Public Organization Review, 14(3), 397-417.

Kim, K. S., & Lee, J. Y. (2013). Motives of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: comparison

between OCBO & OCBI. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 13(11), 699-

713.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in

organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass.

128

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The

assessment of goal commitment A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 32-55.

Klieman, R. S., Quinn, J. A., & Harris, K. L. (2000). The influence of employee-supervisor

interactions upon job breadth. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(6), 587-605.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of

Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.

Krishnan, V. R. (2012). Transformational leadership and personal outcomes: empowerment as

mediator. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 33(6), 550-563.

Kwon, I. S., & Seo, M. K. (2015). The effect of Job Satisfaction on Altruism and Civic Virtue:

The mediating role of Chinese employees' organizational commitment. The Journal of

the Korea Contents Association, 15(12), 436-446.

Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C. & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behavior: comparing

perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 84(4), 594-601.

Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of

justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of

Management, 33(6), 841-866.

Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachments to nested groups: A choice-process theory. American

Sociological Review, 57(3), 327-339.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and

interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.

129

Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2015). Underlying motives of organizational citizenship behavior:

comparing egoistic and altruistic motivations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 22(2), 129-148.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically derived

variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy, interest congruence,

and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(3), 293-298.

Leroy, H., Segers, J., van Dierendonck, D., & den Hartog, D. (2018). Managing people in

organizations: Integrating the study of HRM and leadership. Human Resource

Management Review, 28(3), 249-257.

Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as

drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3),

255-264.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.

Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, 114, 139.

Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee

service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1),

41-58.

Lin, H., Dang, T. H., & Liu, Y. (2016). CEO transformational leadership and firm performance:

A moderated mediation model of TMT trust climate and environmental dynamism. Asia

Pacific Journal Of Management, 33(4), 981-1008.

Lin, R., Li, H. H., & Hsiao, J. K. (2012). What are the relationships between transformational

leadership and organizational citizenship behavior?—An empirical study. In

International Conference on Economics, Business Innovation—ICEBI.

130

Liou, K. T. (1995). Understanding employee commitment in the public organization: A study of

the juvenile detention center. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(8),

1269-1295.

Liu, D., Hernandez, M., & Wang, L. (2014). The role of leadership and trust in creating

structural patterns of team procedural justice: A social network investigation. Personnel

Psychology, 67(4), 801-845.

Liu, J., Siu, O. L., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well‐being: The

mediating role of trust in the leader and self‐efficacy. Applied Psychology, 59(3), 454-

479. Lopez-Dominguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J. M., & Simo, P. (2013). Transformational

leadership as an antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior.

Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2147-2152.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2008).

The multilevel latent covariate model: A new, more reliable approach to group-level

effects in contextual studies. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 203-229.

Luo, Z., Marnburg, E., & Law, R. (2017). Linking leadership and justice to organizational

commitment: The mediating role of collective identity in the hotel industry. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1167-1184.

131

Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and

objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’

performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123-150.

Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship

behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1),

70-80.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional

leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the academy of Marketing Science,

29(2), 115-134.

Mahdinezhad, M., & Suandi, B. (2013). Transformational, transactional leadership styles and job

performance of academic leaders. International Education Studies, 6(11), 29-34.

Mallén, F., Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Guinot, J. (2015). Are altruistic leaders worthy? The role of

organizational learning capability. International Journal of Manpower, 36(3), 271-295.

Marinova, S. V., Peng, C., Lorinkova, N., Van Dyne, L., & Chiaburu, D. (2015). Change-

oriented behavior: A meta-analysis of individual and job design predictors. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 88, 104-120.

Martinez, S., Sun, Y., Gergen, E., & Wheeler, C. (2018). A Study of the Relationship between

School Administrators’ Leadership Styles and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Journal of Management Science and Business Intelligence, 3(1), 1-6.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and

social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work

relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748.

132

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A

review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management,

34(3), 410-476.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the

shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874-

888.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role

perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate

to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1200-1211.

Mert, S. I., Keskin, N., & Bas, T. (2010). Leadership style and organizational commitment: Test

of a theory in Turkish banking sector. Journal of Academic Research in Economics, 2(1),

1-20.

Moghadam, F. I., Moosavi, S. J., & Dousti, M. (2013). The relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior of general office of

sport and youth of Mazandaran Province. International Journal of Sport Studies, 3(7),

779-783.

Molines, M., Sanséau, P. Y., & Adamovic, M. (2017). How organizational stressors affect

collective organizational citizenship behaviors in the French Police: The moderating role

of trust climate? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(1), 48-66.

133

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and

organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3),

209-225.

Moorman, R., Brower, H., & Grover, S. (2018). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Trust:

The Double Reinforcing Spiral. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Citizenship

Behavior, 285.

Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs:

Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management

Review, 24(2), 249-265.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance

of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543–1567.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

Mozes, M., Josman, Z., & Yaniv, E. (2011). Corporate social responsibility organizational

identification and motivation. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(2), 310-325.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.0. Los

Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nanus, B. (1989). The leader's edge: The seven keys to leadership in a turbulent world. Chicago:

Contemporary Books.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2011). Affective organizational commitment and citizenship

behavior: Linear and non-linear moderating effects of organizational tenure. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 528-537.

134

Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G., & Fuller, J. (2001). The influence of empowerment

and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment. Group &

Organization Management, 26(1), 93-113.

Nohe, C., & Hertel, G. (2017). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship

behavior: a meta-analytic test of underlying mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,

1364.

Nohe, C., & Michaelis, B. (2016). Team OCB, leader charisma, and organizational change: A

multilevel study. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 883-895.

Nohe, C., Michaelis, B., Menges, J. I., Zhang, Z., & Sonntag, K. (2013). Charisma and

organizational change: A multilevel study of perceived charisma, commitment to change,

and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 378-389.

Northcraft, T., & Neale, H. (1996). Organisation behaviour. London: Prentice-Hall. Nwagwu,

CC (1997). The environment of crisis in the Nigerian education system. Journal of

Comparative Education, 33(1), 87-95.

Okcu, V. (2014). Relation between secondary school administrators’ transformational and

transactional leadership style and skills to diversity management in the school.

Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(6), 2162-2174.

Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H., Forest, J., & Deci, E. L. (2015). Show them the money? The role of

pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of

intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 447-457.

Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of

Management, 14(4), 547–557.

135

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 43-72.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.

Pandey, S. K., Davis, R. S., Pandey, S., & Peng, S. (2016). Transformational leadership and the

use of normative public values: Can employees be inspired to serve larger public

purposes? Public Administration, 94(1), 204-222.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other

organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852.

Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role

orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 447-469.

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive

behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652.

Phillips, K. W., Kim-Jun, S. Y., & Shim, S. H. (2011). The value of diversity in organizations: A

social psychological perspective. Social Psychology and Organizations, 253-271.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The

mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-

340.

Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (2003). Leaders & the leadership process. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as

mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal

of Management, 25(6), 897-933.

136

Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group

cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 17(2), 144-159.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and

organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader

behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,

commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management,

22(2), 259-298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational

leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

Podsakoff, N. P., Morrison, E. W., & Martinez, T. M. (2018). The Role of Research on

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Role Perceptions and Recommendations for the

Future Research. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, 91.

Pond III, S. B., Nacoste, R. W., Mohr, M. F., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1997). The measurement of

organizational citizenship behavior: are we assuming too much? Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 27(17), 1527-1544.

Popper, M., Landau, Ol, & Gluskinos, U. M. (1992). The Israeli defence forces: An example of

transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 13(1), 3-

8.

137

Pradhan, S., & Pradhan, R. K. (2015). An empirical investigation of relationship among

transformational leadership, affective organizational commitment and contextual

performance. Vision, 19(3), 227-235.

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for

assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reed, K. K., & Kidder, D. L. (2005). Work is its own reward (?): Employee perceptions about

rewarding organizational citizenship behaviors. Handbook of organizational citizenship

behavior: A review of ‘good soldier’ activity in organizations, 243-266.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112.

Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2006). Effects of psychological contract breach on

performance of IT employees: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 299-306.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern

world. Oxford University Press.

Roberts, J. K. (2004). An introductory primer on multilevel and hierarchical linear modeling.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 30-38.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of

unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

16(3), 289-298.

138

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the

psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1),

137-152.

Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of

Personality, 35(4), 651-665.

Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist,

26(5), 443.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camere, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A

cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Saeed, A., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Perceived transformational leadership style and organizational

citizenship behavior: A case study of administrative staff of University of the Punjab.

European Journal of Business and Management, 4(21), 150-158.

Sagnak, M. (2017). Authentic leadership and altruism: The mediating role of meaningfulness.

Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 447-452.

Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment

structures. In Innovations in Multivariate Statistical Analysis (pp. 233-247). Springer,

Boston, MA.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: team

values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(4), 1020-1030.

139

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as

mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96(4), 863-871.

Schnake, M., & Dumler, M. P. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: The impact of

rewards and reward practices. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(2), 216-229.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational

trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX)

research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices.

The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.

Shah, S. M. M., Ab Hamid, K. B., Memon, P. A., & Mirani, M. A. (2016). The Relationship

between Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: An

Empirical Evidence from the Banking Sector of Pakistan. The International Journal of

Business & Management, 4(2), 103.

Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D., & Li, A. (2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: A

guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs.

Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 80-110.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic

leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4(4), 577-594.

Shanker, M. (2013). Organizational commitment and employees’ intention to stay in Indian

companies: Factor analytical approach. Journal of Psychological Research, 8(2), 199.

Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation

Journal, 8(4), 365-377.

140

Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B., Brown, K. G., Barrick, M. R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Applying

self-determination theory to organizational research. In Research in personnel and human

resources management (pp. 357-393). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Shih, H. A., Chiang, Y. H., & Chen, T. J. (2012). Transformational leadership, trusting climate,

and knowledge-exchange behaviors in Taiwan. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 23(6), 1057-1073.

Shin, Y. (2012). CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and collective

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 299-312.

Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (2000). Measuring organizational trust. San

Francisco, CA: IABC Research Foundation.

Shore, L. M., & Barksdale, K. (1998). Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the

employment relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational

Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational

Psychology and Behavior, 19(S1), 731-744.

Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchange:

Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 837-

867.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of

affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774.

Siegel, P., Brockner, J., & Tyler, T. (1995). Revisiting the relationship between procedural and

distributive justice: The role of trust. In Academy of Management Conference,

Vancouver.

141

Simons, T. L. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 89-104.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature

and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on

group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 89-103.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and

organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British

Journal of Management, 20(3), 279-291.

Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., and Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices,

citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy

of Management, 50(3), 558–577.

Sun, W., Xu, A., & Shang, Y. (2014). Transformational leadership, team climate, and team

performance within the NPD team: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of

Management, 31(1), 127-147.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship

between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(5), 974-983.

Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 789-796.

142

Tepper, B. J. & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationship among supervisors’ and subordinates’

procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of

Management Journal, 46(1), 97-105.

Thamrin, H. M. (2012). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational

commitment on job satisfaction and employee performance. International Journal of

Innovation, Management, and Technology, 3(5), 566-572.

Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: a social capital perspective.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011-1017.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and

relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-

1148.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of

Management, 30(3), 413-432.

Tseng, H. C., & Kang, L. M. (2008). How does regulatory focus affect uncertainty towards

organizational change?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(8), 713-

731.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of

psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206.

Uen, J. F., Chen, S. Y., Chen, H. C., & Lin, C. T. (2016). The effect of employer’s moral

obligation violation on survivor’s commitment: The mediating role of justice climate.

Personnel Review, 45(2), 214-231.

143

Van Dyne, L. I. N. N., & Ellis, J. B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on

organizational citizenship behavior as over-fulfillment of obligations. The employment

relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives, 181-205.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:

Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,

37(4), 765-802.

Verba, S., & Almond, G. (1963). The civic culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five

Nations.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter?

CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental

uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134-143.

Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. J. (2005). Transformational leadership,

organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and US

financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 235-256.

Wang, C. H., Baba, V. V., Hackett, R. D., & Hong, Y. (2016). Effects of High-Performance

Work Systems on Expanding Employee OCB Role Definitions. In Academy of

Management Proceedings (Vol. 2016, No. 1, p. 12081). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510:

Academy of Management.

Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and

performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.

Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270.

144

Wang, P., & Rode, J. C. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The

moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human

Relations, 63(8), 1105-1128.

Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational

leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134-1144.

West, J. F. (1990). Educational collaboration in the restructuring of schools. Journal of

Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 23-40.

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators

of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy

behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530.

Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors,

and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations.

Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 41-81.

Williams, S. (2001, February). A conceptualization of interpersonal trust in the workplace. In

Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings, AHRD: Tulsa,

Oklahoma (Vol. 116).

Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Pulling the levers: Transformational

leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration

Review, 72(2), 206-215.

Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based

view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701–721.

Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature

review. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190-216.

145

Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of

analysis: a state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 879-919.

Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-

foci approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 50-63.

Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research. The

Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 49-53.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068-1076.

Zhang, Z., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). A multilevel investigation of leader-member

exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel

Psychology, 65(1), 49-78.

Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics

with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization

Management, 34(5), 590-619.

Zhu, W., Newman, A., Miao, Q., & Hooke, A. (2013). Revisiting the mediating role of trust in

transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference?. The

Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 94-105.

146

Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory (Podsakoff et al., 1990) In this section, we would like to ask you about other qualities of the person you rated above. Please use the key below and circle your response. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

Response Choices He/she has a clear understanding of where we are going. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she leads by “doing," rather than by simply “telling." 1 2 3 4 5 He/she fosters collaboration among different work groups. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she shows that he/she expects a lot from us. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she paints an interesting picture of the future for our organization. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she provides a good role model. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she encourages employees to be “team players.” 1 2 3 4 5 He/she insists on only the best performance. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she constantly seeks new opportunities for the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she leads by example. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she will not settle for second best. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she gets the group to work together for the same goal. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she demonstrates good character. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she leads based on principles. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she puts the good of the organization above his/her own needs. 1 2 3 4 5 He/she demonstrates self-control. 1 2 3 4 5

147

Trust In Leader Conditions of Trust Inventory (CTI; Butler, 1991) A Strongly Disagree B Moderately Disagree C Neither Agree Nor Disagree D Moderately Agree E Strongly agree

Response Choices He/she does things consistently from one time to the next............. A B C D E He/she does the same thing every time the situation is the same... A B C D E He/she behaves in a consistent manner........................................... A B C D E I seldom know what he/she will do next......................................... A B C D E He/she treats me fairly................................................................ A B C D E He/she treats others better than he/she treats me.................. A B C D E He/she always gives me a fair deal................................................ A B C D E He/she treats me on an equal basis with others............................... A B C D E He/she always tells me the truth..................................................... A B C D E He/she would not lie to me.............................................................. A B C D E He/she deals honestly with me...........................................................A B C D E Sometimes he/she does dishonest things....................................... A B C D E He/she tells me what he/she is thinking........................................... A B C D E He/she tells me what’s on his/her mind........................................... A B C D E He/she shares his/her thoughts with me........................................ A B C D E He/she keeps information from me............................................... A B C D E Sometimes I cannot trust him/her.................................................... A B C D E I can count on him/her to be trustworthy........................................ A B C D E I feel that he/she can be trusted....................................................... A B C D E I trust him/her.................................................................................. A B C D E He/she follows through on promises made to me............................ A B C D E Keeping promises is a problem for him/her..................................... A B C D E If he/she promises something to me, he/she will stick to it............. A B C D E He/she does things that he/she promises to do for me.................... A B C D E

148

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Allen & Meyer, 1990) 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

Response Choices I would be happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization 1 2 3 4 5 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own 1 2 3 4 5 My organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me 1 2 3 4 5 I feel like I’m “part of the family” at my organization 1 2 3 4 5 I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it 1 2 3 4 5 I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one

1 2 3 4 5 I feel “emotionally attached” to my organization 1 2 3 4 5 I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization 1 2 3 4 5

149

Perceived Role Breadth In this section, we would like to ask some questions about the activities you do as part of your job. In PART I, PLEASE INDICATE WHICH ACTIVITIES YOUR ARE EXPECTED TO DO AS PART OF YOUR JOB. IN PART II, PLEASE INDICATE HOW IMPORTANT PERFORMING EACH OF THESE ACTIVITIES IS FOR OBTAINING REWARDS AT WORK (raises, promotions, good assignments, personal status, etc.). Part 1 N No, not part of my job. Y Yes, part of my job. Part II 1 Does not help to 2 Obtain Helps to obtain rewards 3 Critical to obtain rewards

Response Choices Representing my organization favorably to outsiders N Y 1 2 3 Assisting coworkers when they have heavy workloads N Y 1 2 3 Keeping informed about events in my organization N Y 1 2 3 Understanding work procedures N Y 1 2 3 Avoiding complaining about trivial matters at work N Y 1 2 3 Taking on new assignments with enthusiasm N Y 1 2 3 Promoting my organization’s services N Y 1 2 3 Working well without supervision N Y 1 2 3 Demonstrating technical proficiency at my job N Y 1 2 3 Making suggestions to improve productivity N Y 1 2 3 Tolerating minor hassles without complaining N Y 1 2 3 Helping coworkers catch up when they have been absent N Y 1 2 3 Defending my organization when others criticize it N Y 1 2 3 Requesting challenging work assignments N Y 1 2 3 Focusing on the positives at work, not the negatives N Y 1 2 3 Getting involved in work-related events, even when they are not required N Y 1 2 3 Lending a helping hand to my coworkers N Y 1 2 3 Working harder than I am expected to N Y 1 2 3 Helping new coworkers get oriented N Y 1 2 3 Accepting changes in my department N Y 1 2 3 Staying at my organization even if another organization offered more money N Y 1 2 3 Attending optional work-related functions N Y 1 2 3 Working efficiently N Y 1 2 3 Persisting to complete difficult tasks N Y 1 2 3

150

Table 1

Exploratory Factor Analysis Loadings of Role Breadth Items

Organizational loyalty Altruism Sportsmanship

16. Getting involved in work-related events, even when they are not required

0.715

22. Attending optional work-related functions

0.699

7. Promoting my organization’s services 0.525

13. Defending my organization when others criticize it

0.462

14. Requesting challenging work assignments

0.410

21. Staying at my organization even if another organization offered more money

0.400

1. Representing my organization favorably to outsiders

0.371

3. Keeping informed about events in my organization

0.364

2. Assisting coworkers when they have heavy workloads

0.771

12. Helping coworkers catch up when they have been absent

0.587

17. Lending a helping hand to my coworkers

0.564

19. Helping new coworkers get oriented 0.515

5. Avoiding complaining about trivial matters at work

-0.614

11. Tolerating minor hassles without complaining

-0.600

15. Focusing on the positives at work, not the negatives

-0.549

6. Taking on new assignments with enthusiasm

-0.379

10. Making suggestions to improve productivity

-0.323

18. Working harder than I am expected to Did not load on any factor >.30 24. Persisting to complete difficult tasks Did not load on any factor >.30 Note. Principle axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation. Loadings < .30 are suppressed.

151

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations

Descriptives Transformationa

l Leadership Trust in Leader

Affective Organizational Commitment

Role Breadth Organizational

Loyalty Role Breadth

Altruism Role Breadth

Sportsmanship Role

Instrumentality Mean 3.75 3.87 3.52 1.70 1.87 1.89 1.58 Median 3.92 4.13 3.63 1.75 2.00 2.00 1.59 SD 0.91 0.93 0.84 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.50 Skewness (SE=.08) -0.80 -0.94 -0.62 -0.70 -2.00 -2.20 0.43

Min-Max 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-3 N 950 950 950 950 949 950 936 Cronbach's α .95 .97 .89 .77 .69 .70 .96

Pearson correlations

Trust in Leader .807**

Affective Organizational Commitment

.508** .445**

Role Breadth Organizational Loyalty

.217** .159** .345**

Role Breadth Altruism .111** .066* .171** .401**

Role Breadth Sportsmanship .167** .143** .197** .530** .442**

Role Instrumentality .341** .312** .363** .316** .137** .221**

Note. For all correlations ***p < .001

152

Table 3

Level 2 Grouping Variable of Leader

Number of individuals rating a particular leader

Number of groups

Percentage of groups

Number of individuals in

groups that size

Percent of individuals in

groups that size

1 individual per leader 38 13.2 38 4 2 individual per leader 64 22.2 128 13.5 3 individual per leader 66 22.9 198 20.8 4 individual per leader 56 19.4 224 23.6 5 individual per leader 34 11.8 170 17.9 6 individual per leader 24 8.3 144 15.2 7 individual per leader 4 1.4 28 2.9 9 individual per leader 1 0.3 9 0.9 11 individual per leader 1 0.3 11 1.2 Total 288 100 950 100

153

Table 4

Level 2 Leader Group Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations

Descriptives Transformational

Leadership Trust in Leader

Affective Organizational Commitment

Mean 3.74 3.86 3.53 Median 3.81 3.97 3.58 SD 0.68 0.68 0.61 Skewness (SE = .14) -0.91 -1.08 -0.71 Min-Max 1-4.97 1.29-5 1.13-4.88 N 288 288 288

Pearson correlations

Trust in Leader .810***

Affective Organizational Commitment .514*** .479***

Note. For all correlations ***p < .001

154

Table 5

Null Models Testing for Level 2 Random Intercept Variability by Leader, ICC1s

Null Models with Random Intercepts for Level 2 Leader

95% CI Parameter Estimate SE Wald Z p Lower Upper ICC1 RB– Organizational Loyalty

Residual 0.062 0.003 18.84 <.001 0.055 0.068 0.115 Intercept 0.008 0.002 3.50 <.001 0.005 0.014

RB- Altruism

Residual 0.056 0.003 18.70 <.001 0.051 0.062 0.005 Intercept 0.000 0.002 0.19 .851 0.000 10.116

RB- Sportsmanship

Residual 0.041 0.002 18.72 <.001 0.037 0.046 0.085 Intercept 0.004 0.001 2.64 .008 0.002 0.008

Role Instrumentality

Residual 0.229 0.012 18.66 <.001 0.206 0.254 0.091 Intercept 0.023 0.008 2.84 .005 0.011 0.045

Affective Organizational Commitment

Residual 0.598 0.032 18.69 <.001 0.538 0.664 0.150 Intercept 0.106 0.025 4.21 <.001 0.066 0.169

Trust in Leader

Residual 0.674 0.036 18.56 <.001 0.607 0.749 0.221 Intercept 0.191 0.035 5.47 <.001 0.133 0.273

Transformational Leadership

Residual 0.613 0.033 18.51 <.001 0.551 0.681 0.259 Intercept 0.214 0.035 6.06 <.001 0.155 0.296

Note. Level 1 N = 950 (n = 949 for Altruism); Level 2 N = 288. Maximum likelihood estimation.

155

Figure 1

Proposed Dissertation Serial Mediation Model of Transformational Leadership and Perceived Role Breadth

156

Figure 2

Multilevel Mediation Model of Transformational Leadership to RB-Organizational Loyalty Through Affective Organizational

Commitment

157

Figure 3

Multilevel Mediation Model of Transformational Leadership to RB-Sportsmanship Through Affective Organizational Commitment

158

Figure 4

Multilevel Mediation Model of Transformational Leadership to Role Instrumentality Through Affective Organizational Commitment

159

Figure 5

Serial Mediation Model of Transformational Leadership to RB-Altruism through Trust in Leader and Affective Organizational

Commitment

160

Figure 6

Serial Mediation Model of Transformational Leadership to RB-Organizational Loyalty Through Trust in Leader and Affective

Organizational Commitment without Accounting for Clustering of Individuals

161

Figure 7

Serial Mediation Model of Transformational Leadership to RB-Sportsmanship through Trust in Leader and Affective Organizational

Commitment without Accounting for Clustering of Individuals

162

Figure 8

Serial Mediation Model of Transformational Leadership to Role Instrumentality through Trust in Leader and Affective Organizational

Commitment without Accounting for Clustering of Individuals