Description
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has been studied since the late 1970s. Over the past three decades, interest in these behaviors has increased substantially. Organizational behavior has been linked to overall organizational effectiveness, thus these types of employee behaviors have important consequences in the workplace.
Case Study of Leader Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The importance of leading by personal example or role modeling for effective leadership has been recognized in many leadership theories. However, leaders' ability to influence group behavior through exemplary behavior has received little attention in empirical work. This study explores leading by example through theoretical development and empirical testing of a moderated mediation model of the potential effects of leader organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). This model suggests that a leader's OCB may promote group OCB directly and indirectly by enhancing the group's belief that OCB is worthy. It also specifies the moderators of the direct and indirect effects of leader OCB on group OCB. Data from 683 members of 67 intact work groups, 67 group managers, and their supervisors support the hypothesized model. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Keywords: leading by example, organizational citizenship behaviors, role modeling, role model, group-level OCB
Leadership has been defined as "a process of social influence through which an individual enlists and mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal" (Chemers, 2001, p. 376). The importance of leading by example or role modeling for effective leadership has been recognized in many leadership theories, including theories of self-leadership (Manz & Sims, 1980), economic leadership (Hermalin, 1998), self-sacrificial leadership(Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999), authentic leadership (Luthans & Avo- lio, 2003), and ethical leadership (Trevino & Brown, 2005). Trans- formational and charismatic leadership theories in particular posit that role modeling of a contribution to the collective is a major means by which effective leaders encourage followers to do the same (e.g., Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Although leading by example is a central premise of these theories, there is a lack of field studies that directly examined whether leaders' contribution to the collective actually promotes similar contributions by groups.1 Laboratory studies, by contrast, have clearly demonstrated this phenomenon (Guth, Levati, Sutter, ¨ & van der Heijden, 2007; Potters, Sefton, & Vesterlund, 2007), but these studies inevitably omit essential features of real leadership, work groups, and the relationships between them. A theoretical development and empirical study of leading by example in real organizations is still needed if we are to advance our understanding of leadership, particularly at the group level. Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks (2001) argued that "despite the large literature on leadership and groups/teams dynamics, we know surprisingly little about how leaders create and handle effective teams" (p. 452).
In the current study we try to fill this gap by addressing the need for conceptual models of collective performance that integrate leadership influence and group processes in a natural organizational context (Zaccaro et al., 2001). We focus on role modeling of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which typically is not an enforceable requirement of any specific formal job role but in aggregate promotes organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988; Organ, Podsakoff, &MacKenzie, 2006; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). In particular, we examine OCB that is targeted at the entire group or organization and demonstrates loyal and responsible involvement in the organization (Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). There are several reasons why the focus on modeling of OCB by leaders is important for the study of the process and the effectiveness of leading by example. First, OCB should be particularly affected by modeling, as organizations typically cannot rely on formal systems of job description, training, or rewards to cultivate OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000).2 Second, compared to leader behavior that is directed at individuals, leader OCB, which is ambient
1
Tal Yaffe, School of Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel; Ronit Kark, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. We thank Dikla Elisha and Boas Shamir for their thoughtful insights and helpful advice and Gil Luria and Dina Van Dijk for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronit Kark, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Psychology, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]
and is directed at the entire group, is more likely to operate at the group level and has the potential to motivate the group as a whole (Hackman, 1992; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). Finally, both theory and cumulative research suggest that group-level OCB contributes to organizational effectiveness (for recent meta-analyses, see Nielsen, Hrivnak, & Shaw, 2009; Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting, & Podsakoff, 2009). Thus,
1 Studies of transformational leadership typically measure the degree to which the leader is perceived as a role model to follow but not the actual
c o n t r i b u t i o
ns of the leader (e.g., Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005). 2 Modeling may also affect enforceable role behaviors but probably to a lesser degree. Enforceable role behaviors are typically explicitly defined and shaped by formal role description, formal training, and explicit direct rewards and punishments, and this tends to limit their variability within the organization. By contrast, OCB is discretionary and is typically not supported by formal systems of role description, training, and rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Thus, employees are more likely to turn to their role model to determine the desirable or normative level of OCB within the group (Bommer, Miles, & Grover, 2003; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).
2
YAFFE AND KARK
inducing groups to engage in OCB may be an important criterion for leadership effectiveness. Our aims in this study are threefold. First, we attempt to extend existing knowledge on the leading-by-example effect by studying the ways leaders' OCB can enhance OCB of work groups. Second, we seek to identify and empirically examine a potential mediator and the potential moderators of the effect of leader OCB on groupOCB in a natural organizational setting. Third, we hope to con- tribute to the emerging study of the antecedents of group-level OCB. To achieve these goals, we present a theoretical moderated mediation model that clarifies how and when a leader's OCB is likely to promote group-level OCB. This model suggests that a leader's OCB may promote group OCB directly and indirectly by enhancing the group's belief that OCB is worthy. It also specifies features of the organizational context (i.e., leader- group distance), the leader's standing (i.e., the leader as a role model), and the group (i.e., group consensus), each of which is expected to uniquely moderate the direct and/or indirect influence processes and thus the leading-by-example effects. This model is summa- rized in Figure 1.
A Mediation Model of the Effects of Leader OCB
In the following section we define and review the literature on leader OCB and group-level OCB and present the direct and indirect (mediated) relationships between them.
Leader OCB
The construct of OCB refers to the efforts undertaken by employees to behave as good citizens within their organization (Organ, 1988). There is no consensus on the definition and dimensions of the construct (Podsakoff et al., 2000), but Organ's (1988) and Graham's (1991) conceptualizations of OCB are probably the most widely acknowledged. The early definition of OCB (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) built on social psychology theory (Katz &Kahn, 1978) and suggested that OCB was both extra-role and organizationally functional. This definition was criticized for its vague and subjective distinction between in-role and extra-role,
which varies across individuals, jobs, and organizations (Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne et al., 1994). Organ (1997, p. 88) thus recommended excluding reference to extra-role behavior when defining OCB.3 However, in most organizations and jobs, OCB is still not likely to be (a) an explicit part of the formal strict job description; (b) guided by formal training; or (c) formally or explicitly rewarded (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Graham (1991) introduced an alternative approach to OCB, which is theoretically independent of role requirements or expectations and is based on the construct of active civic citizenship in political philosophy. According to this approach, OCB refers to loyal and responsible involvement in the organization through balanced engagement in three interrelated behavioral dimensionsthat make up the "active citizenship syndrome": obedience, loy- alty, and participation (Van Dyne et al., 1994). The operational- ization of the dimensions of the construct was further developed by Moorman and Blakely (1995) to include behaviors such as making persistent efforts to attain organizational goals, promoting and defending the organization's image to outsiders and insiders, and initiating constructive change in the workplace (Moorman & Blakely, 1995).4 These behaviors are the focus of this study. Graham's construct has major advantages for the study of the effect of leader OCB. First, the meaning and dimensions of OCB are theoretically similar across organizations, persons, and jobs (Van Dyne et al., 1994), and thus should be similar for leaders and followers. This point is important, because in order to explore the effect of leader modeling of OCB on group OCB, it is vital to assess leader and group OCB along the same dimensions (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Second, this construct is restricted to forms of OCB that are targeted at the entire organization (OCBO), and excludes forms of OCB that are targeted at individuals (OCBI), such as helping (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Leader OCB which is directed toward the group is more likely to be visible to all group members, and more likely to affect group processes (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Shamir et al., 1998), and thus the group-level OCB. Previous studies on formal leader (i.e., manager) OCB have suggested that it is both possible and important to study its effects on their groups. First, Conway's (1999) meta-analysis indicated that managers' OCB can be distinguished from in-role task behaviors in managerial jobs. Second, several studies showed that man3
Organ (1997) posited that OCB differs from task performance by its degree of discretionariness and by its guarantees of systematic rewards. about OCB Mediator That is, "OCB is less likely to be an enforceable job requirement and less likely to be regarded by the performer as leading confidently to systematic a b H4* rewards" (p. 91). Organ et al. (2006) further clarified that the discretionary H2 H3 nature of OCB is independent of an employee's subjective definition of OCB as in-role or extra-role: "People may feel that certain behaviors are H1 Leader Group 'expected' as part of the job even though they may believe that the c OCB OCB behaviors are discretionary and not formally rewarded by the organization" (p. 143). H5 H7 4 The active citizenship syndrome is multidimensional and includes both H6 Moderators affiliative and challenging OCBs. These may have different antecedents (Van Dyne et al., 1994) but still share a common theoretical factor of loyal Leader Group Distance Consensus and responsible organizational participation (Graham, 1991). Moreover, Role Model responsible citizenship requires engagement in both, in order to balance Figure 1. Moderated mediation model of the effects of leader organizacompeting organizational demands for maintenance and flexibility, cooptional citizenship behavior (OCB) on group-level OCB. H hypothesis. eration and innovation, and quality and efficiency (Miron, Erez, & Naveh; H4 is the mediation hypothesis. 2004; Quinn, 1988).
Group Belief
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
3
agers tend to display some type of OCB (e.g., change initiatives) more than non-managers, but there are also sizeable differences among managers in their level of such behaviors (e.g., Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2001; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison & Phelps, 1999), implying that they are not an enforceable part of a manager's job. Finally, managers' OCB was found to be positively related to managers' performance evaluations by their supervisors (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999) and peers (Conway, 1999). MacKenzie et al. (1999) also found that managers' OCB affects their performance evaluations as much as objective measures of performance, and that OCB better predicts evaluations of managers than nonmanagers. A possible explanation for the amplified valuation of managers' OCB may be its potential effect on their groups' attitudes and behaviors (Conway, 1999; MacKenzie et al., 1999).
Group-Level OCB
Although OCB was originally conceptualized at the individual level (Organ, 1988), scholars have recognized the need for theory and study of OCB at the group level (e.g., George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Schnake & Dumler, 2003). Recent thinking on various group cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes as emergent group properties (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) and on OCB as a normative phenomenon within work groups in particular (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) has set the stage for a study of OCB at the group level. The construct of group-level OCB refers to the normative level of OCB enacted within the work group (Ehrhart, 2004). The essence and dimensions of OCB remain the same, but the group-level construct includes interactive elements that arenot part of the individual-level construct. Although OCB does not require coordination, it usually occurs within work groups that provide a strong social context. This leads group members to develop shared cognition, customs, and knowledge (Moreland &Levine, 1989) as well as a shared social identity (Turner, 1985). A group-level approach to OCB acknowledges the impact of this social context, as well as the group dynamics and processes that make the group more than a mere collection of individuals (Lewin, 1951). Group-level OCB presumably results from mutual learning, mutual adjustment and assimilation, and mutual (informative and normative) influence and is thus qualitatively different from individual-level OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). This implies that group members may explicitly or implicitly coordinate and to some extent synchronize their OCB (e.g., decide to stay together after work hours in order to complete a task or use their lunch break to elaborate on suggestions for improving work methods). The few studies of the antecedents of unit-level OCB have confirmed that leadership is an important antecedent of OCB at this level. Transformational leadership (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005), servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004), supportive leadership (Euwema, Wendt, & Van Emmerik, 2007), and ethical leadership (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009) have all been found to be related to OCB at the unit level.
and expert power) rather than their use of position power (legal, coercive, and reward power; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). According to Yukl (1998), one way in which leaders exercise referent power is through role modeling, which is likely to enhance followers' emulation of leaders' behavior. The idea that modeling of OCB is an important way by which leaders can enhance followers' OCB has long been recognized by OCB researchers (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Conway, 1999; MacKenzie et al., 1999; Organ et al., 2006; Smith et al., 1983). Modeling should be especially important for enhancing behaviors that are not already supported by formal systems of job description, training, or rewards. Naumann and Ehrhart (2005) further argued that modeling of OCB by a leader is likely to be particularly effective and that "given that the leader of the group is a likely role model for group members, his/her performance of OCB should have a large impact on the overall unit-level OCB in the work group" (p. 151). This proposition draws in part on Bandura's (1977) social learning theory, which posits that most human behaviors are learned by observation. Social learning theory suggests that individuals will strive to emulate the behaviors of their role models, leader, and coworkers to ensure that their behavior is in line with accepted norms (Bommer, Miles, & Grover, 2003; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Mayer et al., 2009). The literature on leadership (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1980, 1981; Trevino & Brown, 2005) and organizational socialization alike (e.g., Moreland & Levine, 1989; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Weiss, 1977) suggests that vicarious learning by observing leaders' behaviors plays a key role in shaping followers' conduct and misconduct. Further, the literature on team leadership suggests that vicarious learning may be an important group process (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) by which leader role modeling may enhance team contributions to the common goal (e.g., Zaccaro et al., 2001). Thus, a leader's observable OCB may be emulated by group members and become an emerging group property (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Similarly, through modeling and mimicry, avoidance of OCB can aggregate, spill over, and become a group property (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006). We hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 1: Leader OCB is positively related to group OCB.
The Mediating Role of Group Belief in the Value of OCB
Although social learning is not limited to level of behaviors, one of our goals is to differentiate the process of learning by behavioral modeling and imitation from a presumably deeper, indirect process that may involve the transformation of group-level OCB-related beliefs. The term beliefs refers to convictions held to be true by individuals and groups and can refer to various content, including values, goals, and preferable modes of conduct (Bar-Tal, 2000; Rokeach, 1973). Researchers acknowledge that beliefs, judgments, and attitudes are socially constructed and are likely to be shared by group members who have common experiences and social interactions through social processes in which collective meaning is established (e.g., Bar-Tal, 1990; Hardin & Higgins, 1996; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). We focus on the group-value-laden belief that OCB is worthy, though not formally rewarded, as a potential mediator of the effect of
The Relationship Between Leader OCB and Group OCB
It has been argued that the influence of leaders on their followers stems from their use of personal idiosyncratic power (referent
4
YAFFE AND KARK
manager OCB on group OCB. Haworth and Levy (2001) addressed a related individual-level belief, namely, the "belief that OCB is in general worthwhile." They built on Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory, arguing that an individual's decision to enact OCB draws on the belief that OCB yields a "valent outcome which may be instrumental in achieving some greater goal" (p. 65).5 Haworth and Levy distinguished this belief from the "belief that OCB is formally rewarded," reporting that the former is related to perceived indirect psychological benefits and the latter is related to perceived direct tangible rewards. We sharpen this distinction by emphasizing the evaluative and valueladen nature of the belief that OCB is worthy (Rokeach, 1973)6 and conceptualize it as an emergent group property (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The belief that OCB is worthy is general enough to include any discretionary contribution that may benefit the organization (allowing team members the flexibility to deal effectively with unpredictable situations and demands), and it does not specify the potential benefits of OCB performance. The unspecified nature of returns for contributions characterizing this belief is a defining feature of the type of relationship that promotes OCB (Graham & Organ, 1993). This feature also makes this belief relevant to work groups, as group members may come to value OCB due to its contribution to their group and organization (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Shamir et al., 1993).7 According to Schein (2004), deliberate role modeling is one of the primary embedding mechanisms by which leaders create, maintain, and sometimes change their group culture (i.e., its shared basic assumptions, beliefs, and values). The leader's assumptions that help the group solve its problems of external adaptation and internal integration gradually become shared assumptions and are taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. Similarly, leadership theories view role modeling as an important means by which work group leaders transmit their belief systems to their groups (Dragoni, 2005). Because leaders are expected to represent group identity and values in their personal behavior (Shamir et al., 1998), the leader's behaviors provide influential input for collective sense making about what is really of value in the work group. Moreover, leaders' exemplary behaviors often aimed to actively foster shared values that leaders wish their followers to adopt (House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1998). Transformational and charismatic leadership theory posits that role modeling is a major way in which leaders transform followers' values, goals, and aspirations (e.g., Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993). Exemplary behaviors refer to the leader's display of a commitment to the shared values, identity, and goals that aim to increase the intrinsic valence of group efforts on behalf of the collective goal (Shamir et al., 1993, 1998). We propose that leader OCB, which represents loyal and responsible involvement in an organization (Graham &Organ, 1993), suits this purpose well. A leader's role modeling of OCB may serve four interrelated functions, which together are likely to enhance the group belief that OCB is worthy. First, a leader's OCB demonstrates commitment and loyalty to the group and the organization, thus enhancing the feeling of unit pride and the salience of collective identity and values (e.g., De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005; Shamir et al., 1998). Group members are more likely to value a contribution in the form of OCB when unit pride and the salience of collective identity are elicited (Turner, 1985; Tyler, 1999). Second, by modeling OCB the leader displays goal dedication, communicating to the group
that the group's mission is important and worthy of members' extra efforts (e.g., De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Shamir et al., 1993). Group members are more likely to value OCB when they have a sense of mission and when they recognize the importance of their task (Shamir et al., 1998). Third, leader behavior "models the way" organizational/ group goals should be pursued (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). It clarifies role expectations, norms of conduct, and the acceptable means for accomplishing the group's goals (e.g., Ostroff &Kozlowski, 1992). Thus, by modeling OCB a leader links shared identity, values, and goals with the expected group behaviors (i.e., OCB) for goal attainment and group success (Schein, 2004; Shamir et al., 1998). Group members are more likely to value OCB when they realize the importance of OCB to group survival and success (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Finally, by setting a personal example of the efforts the leader expects from the group, the leader demonstrates credibility (Kouzes & Posner, 2003) and trustworthiness (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), thereby building trust in the leader (Organ et al., 2006; Rich, 1997) and the organization he or she represents (Lapidot, Kark, & Shamir, 2007; Shamir &Lapidot, 2003). Group members are more likely to value OCB when they trust their leader and are not afraid of being exploited (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005). For all these reasons, leader OCB should increase the likelihood that the group will come to value OCB. We made the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: Leader OCB is positively related to the group belief that OCB is worthy. The study of individual-level OCB suggests that individual display of OCB is correlated with individual OCB-related beliefs, such as instrumentality that links OCB to valued outcomes (Haworth & Levy, 2001), self-efficacy belief (Bandura, 1986), and perceived role breadth (Morrison, 1994; see McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007). However, because group-level OCB involves interactive elements that are not included in the individual-level construct (Ehrhart, 2004), it is more likely to be guided by group-level constructs, such as shared beliefs (Karam & Kwantes, 2006; Leung & Bond, 2004) and particularly by behavioral beliefs or attitudes (Ajzen, 1991) that specifically address the value of OCB.
5 Haworth and Levy (2001), building on Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory, referred to OCB as an instrumental belief, but the construct addresses the valence of the behavior and thus may represent a behavioral attitude. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) defines attitude toward the behavior as the degree to which the performance of the behavior is positively or negatively valued. 6 Rokeach (1973) defined value as "an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence" (p. 5). 7 The evaluative nature of this belief (i.e., the focus on what is worthy of doing) distinguishes it from a group climate that promotes OCB, because the climate construct is mainly descriptive (i.e., describes "how things are done"; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Moreover, Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) argued that the climate construct addresses formal organizational practices, procedures, and rewards but that "OCB generally occurs outside the formal requirements and rewards in the organization" (p. 962).
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
5
Shared beliefs and attitudes serve important functions for individuals as group members and for the group as a whole (Bar-Tal, 2000; Hardin & Higgins, 1996). Festinger (1950) argued that people experience their personal beliefs as being valid when these beliefs are shared by others who are sufficiently similar to themselves. Bar-Tal (2000) clarified that shared beliefs exist in the individual's mind, but the recognition that they are shared tends to arouse high confidence in their content. He further argued that shared beliefs play an important role in the formation and maintenance of social identities as well as collective reality. Shared beliefs may provide the basis for a sense of unity, solidarity, and interdependence, and they may guide, support, and coordinate group-level actions. In general, when a behavior is within their control, group members tend to act upon their shared beliefs (Bar-Tal, 1990, 2000). Thus, the shared belief that OCB is worthy is likely to be positively related to a group-level display of OCB. Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) argued that when OCB is aggregated over time, group members tend to view OCB as a standard behavior in the group and may develop prescribed norms to regulate OCB if they realize the contributions of OCB to the group. In sum, leader OCB may enhance the level of group OCB indirectly by enhancing the group belief that OCB is worthy. We hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 3: Group belief that OCB is worthy is positively related to group OCB. Hypothesis 4: Group belief that OCB is worthy mediates the relationship between leader OCB and group OCB.
Moderated Mediation Model of the Effect of Leader OCB
Figure 1 depicts the two influence processes discussed above. It also specifies the moderating role of leader distance, group belief about the leader as a role model, and group consensus about the value of OCB, each of which is expected to uniquely shape the direct and/or indirect effects of leader OCB. The direct effect of the leader's OCB (Path c) presumably represents observational learning of the leader's OCB and thus should be affected by the conditions for such learning (Bandura, 1977). The leader's distance should reduce the opportunity to observe the leader's behaviors, whereas the group belief that the leader is a worthy role model should boost the motivation to emulate him or her. The indirect effect of the leader OCB involves enhancement of the value that the group ascribes to OCB. This process requires a significant effect of leader OCB on the group's belief in the value of OCB (Path a), as well as a significant effect of this belief on group OCB (Path b). The former effect (Leader OCB3 Group belief about OCB) is more likely to be evident when the group believes that the leader is a highly worthy role model, whereas the second effect (Group belief3 Group belief about OCB) is more likely to be evident when there is a high level of consensus in the group about the value of OCB. We clarify these propositions below.
as role models and leaders" (p. 399). We intentionally distinguish leader visibility from the potential impact of the leader as a role model for two reasons. First, distance leadership theory suggests that visibility is neither sufficient nor essential for the leader to be perceived a role model (e.g., Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Shamir, 1995). Second, visibility is closely associated with social learning processes (Bandura, 1977) that underpin the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB, while the status of the leader as a worthy role model is closely associated with the transformational process that underlies its indirect effect. In the organizational context, the leader's visibility is highly related to physical leader- group distance.8 The theory of substitutes for leadership regards the leader distance as a neutralizer of leadership, arguing that physical distance creates "circumstances in which effective leadership may be impossible" (Kerr & Jermier, 1978, p. 396). Antonakis and Atwater (2002), in contrast, argued that the dynamics of influence differ depending on the leaderfollower distance and that "leader-follower distance can contribute to or detract from leader effectiveness" (p. 697). Although groups may perceive distant leaders as role models, Shamir (1995) con- cluded that the influence of distant leaders relies more on their vision and rhetorical skills, and the influence of close leaders derives to a greater extent from their personal example and ob- servable behaviors. Thus, the direct effect of leader OCB should be more salient for close than for distant leaders. Further, if observa- tional learning is involved in the effect of the leader OCB, as suggested by Naumann and Ehrhart (2005), the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB may not be evident for distant leaders, as an opportunity to closely observe a model's behavior is a crucial condition for social learning (Bandura, 1977). In other words, a leader's physical proximity increases his or her visibility and thus the likelihood that the level of leader OCB will be more adequately emulated by the group. However, the social learning process that presumably underlies this effect does not necessarily involve transformation of OCB-related values and beliefs. Leaders are prominent role senders in the role set of group members (Katz & Kahn, 1978), their behaviors convey role expectations and norms of conduct. Thus, group members may feel expected to perform the OCB the leader exhibits (Organ et al., 2006) or simply mimic these behaviors without recognizing their value to the group. In terms of Kelman's (1958) theoretical model of social influence processes, a leader's physical proximity is likely to encourage compliance but is not a sufficient condition for identification and internalization of the leader's values and beliefs. The ability of the leader's OCB to influence group beliefs and values may thus be dependent on other factors, which are discussed in the following section. Therefore, we contend that the leader's physical distance should mainly reduce the direct effect of leader OCB. In Edwards and Lambert's (2007) terms, the moderating effect of distance should conform to a pattern of a direct effect moderated mediation model (i.e., applied to Path c). We hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 5: Leader distance reduces the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB.
8 There are settings in which distant leaders are highly visible, for instance, on TV or the Internet (e.g., political leaders).
The Leader's (Physical) Distance
MacKenzie et al. (1999) argued that one reason for the amplified importance of OCB at the managerial level "has to do with the fact that managers are in highly visible positions, affecting more people
6 Group Belief That the Leader Is a Worthy Role Model
YAFFE AND KARK
The term role model draws on the concept of role, the human tendency to identify with and emulate other people occupying important social roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978), and the concept of behavioral modeling (Bandura, 1977). Gibson (2004, p. 134) defined a role model as a cognitive construction based on the attributes of people in social roles to which an individual desires to increase similarity by emulating those attributes. This definition emphasizes the distinction between the cognitive construction of role model and the role model's behaviors. Gibson's review suggests that the cognitive construction of role models involves identification and social-comparison processes and that it serves the interrelated psychological functions of learning, inspiration and motivation, and self-concept definition. Follower perception of the leader as a worthy role model is conceptually different from exemplary behaviors that the leader may exhibit, including OCB (Organ et al., 2006). Thus, although setting a personal example should facilitate the social learning process (Manz & Sims, 1981), it should have a stronger effect on unit-level behavior when group members share the belief that the leader is a worthy role model. From a social learning perspective, this belief is likely to enhance both the group's attention to the leader's behaviors and the group's motivation to emulate them. In line with this argument, Jaussi and Dionne's (2003) laboratory study showed that the interaction between leader creative behavior and follower perceptions of the leader as a role model for creativity contributes to the prediction of follower creativity. The study of the cognitive construction of role models implies that mere organizational status does not ensure that a leader will be perceived by the group as a role model. In fact, depending on individual needs and aspirations, each group member may identify with various role models inside and outside the organization (Gibson, 2004). However, leaders who are viewed by their groups as worthy role models should have profound inspirational effects on their groups' values and beliefs, because they do not merely convey role expectations but also represent what people would like to be and to achieve (Gibson, 2004). Thus, internalizing leaders' values and beliefs as well as emulating leaders' behaviors helps group members define and develop aspects of their self-concept, including their role identity and social identity (Ashforth, 2001; Kark & Shamir, 2002). This idea is a main theme in charismatic and transformational leadership theories, which posit that the influence of leaders on followers' identity, values, beliefs and behaviors is to a large degree dependent on their ability to earn the status of role models "worthy of identification and imitation" (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kark et al., 2003). In Kelman's (1958) terms, the influence of a highly worthy role model relies on identification and internalization processes. The social identity theory of leadership (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003) addresses this phenomenon by focusing on group members' collective self-conception and social identity processes, which underlie the leadership influence in salient groups. According to the theory, social influence in salient groups reflects and is driven by prototypicality, the degree to which a member of the group defines the group as a whole (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2005). In the terms of this theory, leaders who are viewed by their groups as role models worthy of identification are
likely to be highly prototypical; that is, they embody central and desirable attributes of the group and are representative of group members' collective identity (van Knippenberg et al., 2005). Because these leaders are seen as the best representatives of the group's attributes and shared social identities, they are better able to redefine group identity and thereby influence group members to internalize and act on new values, beliefs, and norms (Reicher, Haslam, &Hopkins, 2005). Thus, the group belief that the leader is a worthy role model should enhance the effect of leader OCB not only on the group OCB but also on the value the group ascribes to OCB. In Edwards and Lambert's (2007) terms, the moderating effect of this belief should conform to a pattern of a first stage and direct effect moderated mediation model (applied to Paths c and a). We hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 6: The group belief that the leader is a worthy role model enhances the effect of leader OCB both on group OCB and on the group belief that OCB is worthy.
Group Consensus About the Value of OCB
The indirect effect of the leader's OCB is dependent not only on the impact of the leader on the group belief that OCB is worthy but also on the impact of this belief on group OCB. Because the impact of group belief on group behavior is dependent on its "sharedness" (Kameda, Tindale, & Davis, 2003), the belief- behavior relationship at the group level should increase with the level of the group consen- sus about the value of OCB. Kameda et al.'s (2003) review of the group decision-making literature suggests that groups tend to define "correctness" by consensus and that shared information, beliefs, and preferences within groups exert an extraordinary influence on grouplevel decision processes and outcomes. Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) addressed the importance of consensual beliefs (i.e., norm strength) and argued that the level of within-group agreement about descriptive OCB norms (i.e., shared recognition that OCB is considered to be standard or "correct" within the group) should enhance the impact of the group norm on group members' OCB. Note that sufficient within-group agreement about the belief in the value of OCB is a prerequisite for analyzing this belief as a group-level property when the consensus model is applied (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).9 Yet, even groups with sufficient agreement (indicated by adequate statistical measures) are still likely to vary in their degree of consensus about the value of OCB, due to between-group differences in social interaction among group members (Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001), group cohesiveness (Luria, 2008), and the group development stage (Tuckman, 1965). Because the development of consensual beliefs about the value of OCB is assumed to be the process underlying the indirect effect of the leader's OCB on group OCB, the model clearly suggests that the group should reach high rather than sufficient consensus about the value of OCB. In other words, the consensus about the value of OCB should be high in order for OCB to become a collective — explicitly or implicitly— coordinated action (instead of a mere aggregation of individuals'
9 The requirement for within-group agreement depends on the aggregation model being used (Chan, 1998). When an additive model rather than a consensus model is assumed, it is not necessary to demonstrate withingroup agreement. (For an example, see Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002.)
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
7
OCB). In Edwards and Lambert's (2007) terms, the moderating role of group consensus should show a pattern of a second stage moderated mediation model (i.e., applied to Path b). Hypothesis 7: Group consensus about the value of OCB moderates (enhances) the effect of the belief that OCB is worthy on the unit-level OCB.
Method Sample and Procedure
The study was carried out in a large Israeli communication organization. The sample was composed of 67 work units from three departments: service (37 units), technical (21 units), and sales (9 units). Basic task activities in these three departments included responses to customer calls, equipment installations and repairs, and sales of communication packages. The department managers supported the study and provided a letter requesting the employees' cooperation and assuring the confidentiality of responses. To avoid a common source bias, we collected data from three different sources (roughly at the same time). First, work unit managers were rated by their immediate (regional) managers for their level of OCB. Second, group members (employees) of these work units rated their beliefs that OCB is worthy and their beliefs that the leader is a worthy role model. Last, unit managers rated the level of OCB of their group as a whole. Participation in the study was voluntary, to encourage honest responses, and surveys were returned directly to the research staff. Usable surveys were obtained from 683 employees, representing an average response rate of 73% within units. Response rate varied considerably between groups (38%-100%) and tended to be lower for shift employees. However, we did not find any significant relationship between response rate and the study variables, except for a positive relationship with group age. An average work unit had 14 employees (SD 3.2). For managers, average age was 30.5 years (SD 5.0), average organizational tenure was 3.4 years (SD .74), and average job tenure was 2.0 years (SD 1.2). About 33 percent of the managers were women. For employees, average age was 26.6 years (SD 2.4), average job tenure was 1.3 years (SD 0.64), and 42.5% were women. 10
Measures
All the scales in this study were 7-point scales (ranging from 1 strongly disagree or not typical at all to 7 strongly agree or very typical). Leader OCB. Area managers rated the degree to which each of their subordinate group managers engaged in OCB directed toward the organization. The construct of OCB included three scales that were chosen based on theoretical considerations (i.e., OCB that is likely to be observed by group members) as well as their psychometric qualities. Two 5-item scales from Moorman and Blakely's (1995) instrument were used to assess managers' "loyal boosterism" and "personal industry." Loyal boosterism re- fers to active defending and promoting of the organizational image to outsiders and insiders (e.g., "Defends the organization when other employees criticize it," "Shows pride when representing the
organization in public"). Industry refers to performance above and beyond the call of duty and high attention to quality (e.g., "Always meets or beats deadlines for completing work," "Performs his/her duties with extra-special care"). Change-oriented OCB, also referred to as innovative OCB (Moon, Van Dyne, & Wrobel, 2005), was assessed by Morrison and Phelps' (1999) Taking Charge Scale, which is somewhat more comprehensive than the parallel Individual Initiative Scale developed by Moorman and Blakely. Taking charge refers to employees' initiatives to bring about functional change in the workplace (e.g., "Tries to correct a faulty procedure or practice," "Makes constructive suggestions for improving how things operate within the organization"). On the basis of a pilot study, which is described in the preliminary analysissection, we used 8 items out of the 10 of the Taking Charge Scale. Work group OCB. Following the procedure applied by Ehrhart (2004) and Richardson and Vandenberg (2005), group managers rated the level of their groups' OCB along the same scales, which were refined to address the group as a whole rather than the individual's OCB. Group belief about OCB. Group members' beliefs that OCB is worthy were assessed by three items adapted from Haworth and Levy (2001). The items were modified to reflect group belief and to focus on the worthiness of OCB and not on OCB being worthwhile (i.e., "Behaviors above and beyond the job requirements areworthy although not formally rewarded," "Performance above and beyond the formal job requirements is in general valuable," and "It is worthy to devote efforts far beyond job requirements, even if these efforts are not paid for"; .84). The focus on the group was aimed to make sure that all unit members would address the same referent, and it is consistent with the concept of shared beliefs as an emergent group property (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) and with Chan's (1998) referent-shift consensus model. Leader distance. The firm's policy dictated uniform communication procedures aimed at enhancing efficient management of its highly geographically dispersed sites. Thus, there were considerable structural differences between the departments with regard to leaders' physical distance and the frequency of leadergroup interactions, which were mainly determined by the firm's procedures. In the service department (37 work units), employees worked daily in the vicinity of their leader in the same office. In the other departments (30 work units), employees worked in the field in dispersed geographical locations and met their manager once a week at the work unit meeting held at the firm's headquarters. Thus, leader distance was coded as a dummy variable (distant leader 1; close leader 0). Group belief about the leader. Group beliefs that the leader is a worthy role model were assessed with three items from Rich's (1997) Role Model Scale and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) "providing an appropriate model" scale. In line with the referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998), the items were modified to reflect the belief about the degree to which the group leader is a worthy model for the group as a whole (i.e.,
10 Work units had between 7 and 23 employees. For managers, age ranged from 23 to 50 years, organizational tenure ranged from1.0 to 5.0 years, and job tenure ranged from 0.4 to 4.0 years. For group members, mean age ranged from 23 to 50 years and mean job tenure ranged from 0.4 to 4.0 years.
8
YAFFE AND KARK
"provides us a good model to follow," "leads us by example," and "acts as role model worthy of imitation"; .91). Group consensus. In line with the conceptualization of within-group variability as indicative of the strength of group beliefs (Chan, 1998) and with previous studies on group consensus (see Luria, 2008), the level of within-group agreement/ disagreement on the value of OCB was assessed by the withingroup standard deviation in the scores of this belief (higher values signify lower consensus). Note that in this study we were interested both in the average level of belief about OCB and in within-group variability in this belief. Thus, in Chan's terms we first applied a consensus model, in which sufficient level of agreement is a prerequisite for the emergence of group property and shared meaning, and then a dispersion model, in which the level of within-group agreement is the group characteristic of interest. Controls. Our main analysis method, structural equation modeling (SEM), and the sample size limited the ability to control for potential covariates of OCB. However, in our complementary regression analysis we controlled for leader and group tenure, which are theoretically related to the development of relationships that enhance OCB (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 1994), and for group size, which may affect social integration, social coordination, or social loafing (e.g., Karau & Williams, 1993) and consequently grouplevel OCB.
First, the separate testing of each moderator without adequate controls hinders conclusions about unique contribution of the hypothesized moderator. Second, dichotomizing quantitative measures results in a loss of information and havoc with regard to estimation and interpretation of relationships among variables (MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). We therefore applied a complementary analysis using Preacher et al.'s SPSS (regression-based) macro, to assess the combined effect of all the hypothesized moderators and the unique contribution of each continuous moderator, when other interactions and potential covariates of OCB are controlled for.
Results Preliminary Analysis: Examining the Adequacy of the Study Measures
683) ratings of their beliefs about the leader and about OCB were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using the maximum likelihood method. The hypothesized two-factor model fit the data well. The chi-square was 14.3 (df 8, ns), the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.99, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) was 0.99, and the root- meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA) was .03. All scale loadings on their intended factors were high (.73-.91) and significant ( p .001), and the correlation between the factors was moderate (r .37). This model was superior to a one-factor model, which significantly decreased the model fit ( 2 150.4, 1 p .001). Following Kozlowski and Klein (2000), the interrater agreement coefficient (rwg(J); James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC(1) and ICC(2); Bliese, 2000) were examined to determine whether group members' beliefs could be analyzed as group-level constructs. The rwg(J) index compares the observed variance in group ratings to the expected variance of random response. Leadership researchers have concluded that a slightly negatively skewed distribution is a reasonably good approximation of a random response to leadership and attitude questionnaires (e.g., Schriesheim, Cogliser, & Neider, 1995; Shamir et al., 1998). Such a distribution is theoretically defensible, given the common social desirability and leniency biases in attitude studies (James et al., 1984). Our descriptive statistics indeed indicated mildly negatively skewed responses in the item ratings. We thus computed the rwg(J) index based on expected distributions possessing a small skew. For the belief about the leader, the rwg(J) values ranged from .71 to .99, and the median rwg(J) value was .90. For the belief about OCB, the rwg(J) values ranged from .58 to .98, and the median rwg(J) value was .85. Although two groups showed an interrater agreement below .70 with regard to the belief about OCB, rwg(J) values generally indicated a meaningful within-group consensus regarding both beliefs.
11 This resampling procedure creates multiple independent subsamples from the original database, which operates as an empirical rather than theoretical sampling distribution, and is free from restricting assumptions inherent to classic inferential statistics. In contrast to other tests of mediation, the bootstrap method does not rest on the assumption that the indirect effect is normally distributed, which is rarely true (Preacher et al., 2007).
Group beliefs. Group members' (n
Analytical Approach to Hypothesis Testing
We examined measurement adequacy and the study hypotheses by SEM analysis, using AMOS 7.0 software (Arbuckle, 2006). SEM is the preferred method for mediation analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Unlike regression analysis, SEM estimates the relationship between the theoretical (latent) constructs in a structural path model that takes into account the imperfect reliability of the study measures and corrects for random measurement error. In addition, SEM enables the simultaneous estimation of all the paths in a mediation model and the degree of fit of the entire mediation model, by comparing it to the fit of alternative plausible models. By contrast, regression analysis provides only separate and partial tests of model components conducted on an equation-by-equation basis. AMOS software also provides bootstrap estimates for all the parameters in a path model and significance tests of the direct, indirect, and total effects based on bias-corrected confidence intervals. The bootstrap method (Efron, 1979) is regarded the most powerful test of the size and significance of indirect effects (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). 11 We began with preliminary tests of the adequacy of our measurement model and then applied nested structural model comparisons and bootstrap analysis to draw conclusions about the direct and indirect effects of leader OCB on unit-level OCB and the mediating role of the belief about the value of OCB. We then used SEM multigroup analyses and the bootstrap method to test the specific moderating role of each potential moderator of the effect of leader OCB. Given the limitation of the sample size and the complexity involved in estimating interactions with continuous latent variables in structural equation modeling (Preacher et al., 2007), each moderation hypothesis was examined in a different SEM multigroup analysis, and continuous moderators were categorized by the median split. This procedure has two limitations.
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
9
We also looked at the range of rwg values when calculated against other plausible null distributions, as recommended by James et al. (1984) and LeBreton and Senter (2008). For the belief about the leader, median rwg(J) values ranged between .93 when the uniform null distribution applied and .72 when the heavy skew null distribution applied. For the belief about OCB, median rwg(J) values ranged between .90 when the uniform null distribution applied and .52 when the heavy skew null distribution applied. 12 We regard both extremes as a less reasonable approximation for the expected random variance. A uniform distribution neglecting common biases most likely leads to overestimation of agreement, whereas a heavy skew null distribution most likely provides an underestimation of agreement. Moreover, applying this null distribution resulted in negative rwg(J) in several groups, which often indicates that the random response null distribution has been incorrectly specified (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). ICC(1) values for the belief about the leader (ICC(1) .26, p .001), and for the belief about OCB (ICC(1) .16, p .001), indicated that a significant percent of the variance in both beliefs could be explained by membership in a particular work group. ICC(2) values (.67 and .78, respectively) indicated that for both beliefs, the group means were fairly stable. Taken together, these results suggested sufficient justification for the aggregation of both beliefs to the group level. OCB measures. On the basis of Graham's (1991) theory, we treated OCB as a second-order latent construct reflecting an active citizenship syndrome, indicated by the three dimensions (firstorder factors) of loyalty, industry, and constructive initiative (i.e., taking charge). Because the number of groups in this study (J 67) was not suitable for CFA at the item level, we obtained supporting evidence by using a different sample of 1,387 employees from the same industry who rated their coworkers along these scales. Following exploratory factor analysis we omitted two items of the Taking Charge Scale that had low loadings on their latent factor. After omission of these items, a second-order-factor model fit the data rather well (CFI 0.94, TLI 0.93, RMSEA .08). CFA indicated adequate loadings of scale items on their latent dimensions, the first-order factors (.74 -.91), and adequate loadings of the dimensions on the second-order factor, presumably representing OCB (loyalty .86, industry .85, initiative .78). The dimensions were separable, but a large portion of their vari- ance (61%-74%) was explained by the shared general OCB con- struct. Although we could not analyze the current data in the same manner, the moderately high correlations among the dimensions (.67-.69 and .64 -.70 for the leader and the group OCB, respectively) supported the assumed second-order latent factor. We thus assessed a simplified measurement model that represents the leader and group OCB as two distinct but related second-order latent factors, each reflected by three indicators (i.e., the three scale means). The reliabilities of the dimensions for the leader OCB (initiative, .91; loyalty, .88; and industry, .89) and for the group OCB (initiative, .81; loyalty, .84; and industry, .86) minimize the risk that parceled scales masked problems with individual items. CFA results showed that this 7.1, ns, CFI 1.0, TLI 1.0, model fit the data well ( 2 8 RMSEA .00). All the scale loadings on their intended factors were high (.73-.87) and significant ( p .001). We further compared this general measurement model to several restricted models,
in order to establish the invariance of measurement across the ratings of leaders and group OCB, to control for similarity of meaning of the two latent factors (see Byrne, 2001). Nested model comparisons indicated that (a) imposing equality constraints on the factor loadings of the three scales on their intended latent factors— work-unit OCB and leader OCB— did not decrease the measure2 4.1, ns, and 0.51, ns), ment model fit to the data ( 2 2 2 respectively, implying that the three scales can be considered parallel measures of both latent constructs; (b) equality constraints on the loadings of parallel scales of the same leader and group behaviors (e.g., leader loyalty and group loyalty) on their respective latent factors, leader and group OCB, did not decrease the fit of the measurement model to the data ( 2 2 2.7, ns); and (c) a restricted model that enforced the three scales to be parallel measures of the latent constructs of leader and group OCB, as well as invariance across the ratings of group and leader OCB, seemed useful. Both fit indices ( 2 12 11.7, ns, CFI 1.0, TLI 1.0, RMSEA .00), and nested model comparisons ( 2 4.6, ns), 4 suggested that this model adequately combined parsimony and fit. These results support the construct validity and the similar- ity of the factorial structure of the leader and the group OCB.13 Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables are shown in Table 1.
Tests of Mediation
Given that at least in some conditions, the belief about OCB may not fully account for the effect of the leader OCB on the group OCB, our basic model (see Figure 1) is a partial mediation model. In this model the total effect of the leader OCB (X) on the unit OCB (Y) is the sum of the direct effect (c ) and the indirect yx.m effect of the leader OCB through the mediator (M; group belief about OCB), which is equal to the product of the a and b paths ( mx ). The measurement part of this model, where all ym.x structural paths between the three variables are free (but the leader and the group OCB have a similar factorial structure), fit the data 32.9, ns, CFI 0.98, TLI 0.98, RMSEA .05). well ( 2
28
Hypotheses 1- 4 concerning the mediating role of the belief about OCB were examined by comparing three structural models. The direct effect model included only the direct effect of the leader OCB on group OCB, omitting its indirect effect through the group belief about the value of OCB. The full mediation model included the indirect effect of leader OCB, omitting its direct effect. These two models are nested in the partial mediation model, which included both the indirect and direct effects of leader OCB. The direct effect model indicated a significant effect of leader OCB on group-level OCB ( .34, p .01), implying that there is a relationship between these variables that may be mediated (Baron
12
Expected variances for a 7-point scale were adapted from LeBreton
and Senter (2008). The median rwg values for the belief about the leader and about OCB were .93 and 90 for the uniform null distribution ( 2 4); .90 and .85 for the slightly skewed distribution ( 2 2.90); .85 and .77 for moderately skewed distribution ( 2 2.14); .84 and .76 for the triangular distribution ( 2 2.10); and .72 and .52 for the heavily skewed distribution ( 2 1.39). 13 Although our hypotheses refer to the general construct of OCB, it is worth noting that the correlations of the OCB dimensions with the other study variables, although not identical, are generally in the same direction.
10
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Leader OCB Work group OCB Group size
Leader tenure Group tenure Distancea Role model Group consensus (belief variability)b Belief about OCB M 5.32 4.65 14.01 1.98 1.34 6.21 0.97 6.00 SD 0.84 0.63 3.32 1.19 0.64 0.50 0.24 0.47
YAFFE AND KARK
1 — .35 .12 .06 .17 .07 .40 .20 .37
2 — .30 .24 .33 .38 .09 .29 .46
3
4
5
6
7
8
— .02 .44 .34 .06 .25 .16
— .05 .19 .14 .05 .11
— .21 .23 .09 .06
— .03 .12 .23
— .12 .38
— .32
Note. N 67 work units. Latent variables are represented by maximum likelihood factor scores. Descriptive statistics are based on raw scores. SD standard deviation; OCB organizational citizenship behavior. a Distant leader 1; Close leader 0. b Group consensus is measured by the within-group standard deviation in the belief about OCB; the higher the score the lower the consensus. p .05. p .01.
& Kenny, 1986), and supported Hypothesis 1. Although some fit indices showed a reasonable model fit (CFI 0.94, TLI 0.93), other fit indices indicated that the fit of the direct effect model to 48.9, p .02, RMSEA .09). data is deficient ( 2 30 32.9, ns, The partial mediation model fit the data well ( 2 28 CFI 0.98, TLI 0.98, RMSEA .06), and showed significantly better fit than the direct effect model ( 2 16, p .001). 2 ng hypotheses were examined in a restricted measurement model of However, although yielding somewhat better fit indices, it did not show significantly better fit than the full mediation model ( 2 1 34.9, ns; CFI 0.99, TLI 0.98, RMSEA .05), 2.0, ns; 2 29 implying that the more parsimonious full mediation model was preferable (Mathieu & Taylor, 2006). Inspection of the path coefficients in the partial mediation model indicated a significant effect of leader OCB on group belief that OCB is worthy ( .38, p .005) and a significant effect of this belief on group OCB ( .39, p .05), thus supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3, respectively. However, the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB, which was significant in the direct effect model, became nonsignificant when the effect of the belief about OCB was introduced in the partial mediation model ( .20, ns). Moreover, bootstrap estimates (means estimates across 2,000 independent samples drawn from the original data) revealed that the indirect effect of leader OCB on ym.x .15, SE .07, p group OCB was significant ( mx .01), as was the total effect (.35, SE 35, p .05), but the direct .20, SE .16, ns). effect of leader OCB was not ( yx.m Together, these results satisfy Baron and Kenny's criteria for establishing full over partial mediation, thus partially supporting Hypothesis 4. See Figure 2.
moderation analysis began with tests of the invariance of the factorial structure of the study measures across the levels of the moderator, and invariant measures were constrained equal while subsequent tests of the structural parameters were conducted. The results of these preliminary tests indicated a reasonable similarity in the measurement model across the levels of the three moderators, and thus the moderati group invariance. The potential moderating effects of each moderator were examined by comparing the unconstraint structural model to three nested models; each constrained a different path coefficient in the mediation model to equality across the levels of the moderator (see Table 2). A significant decrease in the unconstrained model fit to the data implies a significant difference between the levels of the moderator in the path coefficient that was constrained to equality, thus indicating that the foci variable moderates the path of interest (Kline, 1998). We further looked at the effects at each level of the moderator, to examine whether the moderating pattern was consistent with our hypotheses. Figure 3 shows the basic mediation model at the two levels of each moderator (factor loadings are constrained to equality, but structural paths are free of constraints). Note that for each level of the moderator, the path (a, b, c) coefficients in the mediation model represent conditional effects. That is, the magnitude of each path coefficient in the mediation model is conditioned (or dependent) on the particular level (high or low) of the moderator. Hence, although a significance test of the difference between equivalent path coefficients at the two levels of the moderator investigates whether the effects in the mediation model vary systematically as a function of the moderator, the magnitude and direction of these conditional effects indicate how they vary. Bootstrap estimates of these conditional paths as well as the conditional indirect and total effects for each moderator are presented in Table 3. Leader distance. Figure 3a depicts the unconstrained structural mediation model for close leaders who have daily direct interactions with their groups (n 37) and for distant leaders who interact with their groups in a formal meeting once a week (n 31). Nested model comparisons (see Table 2) supported Hypothesis 5, showing that the only significant difference between close and distant leaders is in the direct path from the leader OCB to the
Tests of Moderated Mediation
Given the limitation of the sample size and the complexity involved in estimating interactions with continuous latent variables in structural equation modeling (Preacher et al., 2007), each moderation hypothesis was examined in a different SEM multigroup analysis, and continuous moderators were categorized by the median split. Note that although the full mediation model better fit the data from the entire sample, the test of the hypotheses on the specific role of each moderator required the assessment of the saturated (partial mediation) model at both levels. Following Byrne's guidelines (2001), each
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
11
Model: Partial Mediation
e4
.80 .89
e5
.65 .81 .90
e6
. 81
Value1
Value2
Group belief about OCB
Value3 R2=.14 .39* (s.e.=.15)
Z2
e1 e2
.73
Initiative
.86
.38** (s.e.=.13)
Leader OCB
.78 R2=. 25 .88 .80 .74
Initiative Loyalty e7
Z1
Loyalty .68 .82
.20 (s.e.=.16)
.80 .65
e3 Industry
Group OCB
.63 .55
e8
Industry
e9
Chi-square = 32.94; df = 28; p< .24; CFI = .99; GFI = .90; TLI = .98; RMSEA = .05; RMR = .04 Model: Full Mediation
e4 e5 e6
.80 .89
.65 .81 .90
.81
Value1
Value2
Group belief about OCB
Value3 R2=.15 .47* (s.e.=.15)
Z2
e1 e2
Initiative
.73 .86
Leader OCB
.38** (s.e.=.13)
Z1
R2=.22 .00
Group OCB
.88 Initiative
.78 e7
Loyalty .67 .82 .81 .65 Industry
.80 Loyalty .63 e8 .74 Industry .55
e9
e3
Chi-square = 34.97; df = 29; p< .22; CFI = .98; GFI =.90; TLI = .98; RMSEA = .05; RMR = .06
Figure 2. Partial and full mediation models of the leader organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Standardized path coefficients are the means of bootstrap parameter estimates from 2,000 independent samples drawn from the original sample. Bootstrap standard errors are shown in parentheses. All factor loadings are significant at the .005 or .001 level. Two-tailed significance is determined by bias-corrected confidence intervals. s.e. standard error; df degrees of freedom; CFI comparative fit index; GFI goodness of fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA root-mean-square-error of approximation; RMR root-mean-square residual. p .05. p .01.
group OCB. This implies a pattern of a direct effect moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). That is, enforcing the equality constraint on the direct path from leader OCB to group across the levels of leader distance significantly decreases the model fit to the data ( 2 5.6, p .05). However, equality 1 constraints on the path from the leader OCB to the group belief about OCB ( 2 .06, ns), and from the group belief to the group 1 .38, ns), did not decrease the model fit to the data OCB ( 2 1 (see Table 2). In line with the role of visibility in a social learning process, the direct effect of leader OCB was significant only for close leaders. Figure 3a and Table 3 show that close leaders' OCB significant direct effect (.48, p .001) as well as a significant indirect effect (.12, p .001), which together produced a significant total effect on group-level OCB (.60, p 001). Distant leaders' OCB had a significant indirect effect on group OCB
through the group belief about OCB (.13, p .001), but this effect did not yield a significant total effect. Group belief that the leader is a worthy role model. Fig- OCB ure 3b depicts the unconstrained structural mediation model for leaders who were seen by their groups as highly worthy role models to follow (n 34; factor M 0.75) and for leaders who were rated less favorably on this leadership quality (n 33; factor M 0.77). We use relative terms to describe the two groups because the raw score rating of the leaders in our sample were generally favorable (ranging between 4.46 and 6.97 ), consistent with the typical leniency bias in leadership studies (e.g., had a Schriesheim et al., 1995; Shamir et al., 1998). Thus, the less favorable role models still rated rather high on this quality (raw score M 5.8), although meaningfully lower that the highly worthy role models (raw score M 6.6).
12
YAFFE AND KARK
Table 2 Nested Model Comparisons Testing the Differences Between Path Coefficients Across the Levels of the Moderators
Moderator Model 1. Unrestricted measurement model 2. Unrestricted structural model
a 2 48
Distance 56.1, ns, CFI 0.97, TLI 0.96, RMSEA .05 2 62.7, ns, CFI 0.99, TLI 58 0.98, RMSEA .04 2 6.60 10 2 0.06 1 2 0.38 1 5.6 2
1 2 48
Role model 54.7, ns, CFI 0.98, TLI 0.97, RMSEA .05 2 63.1, ns, CFI 0.98, TLI 58 0.97, RMSEA .04 2 8.42 10 2 5.6 1 2 0.84 1 3.8 2
1 2 48 2 58
Group consensus 52.3, ns, CFI 0.98, TLI 0.98, RMSEA .04 61.8, ns, CFI 0.99, TLI 0.99, RMSEA .03 2 9.43 10 2 1.6 8.6 1 2 0.00
1 2 1
3. AL 4. BL 5. CL
AHb BH CH
Note. ns nonsignificant; CFI comparative fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation. a In the unrestricted measurement model, all the parameters are free to vary. In the unrestricted structural model, structural path coefficients are free to vary, but the measurement model is restricted in two ways. First, as in the mediation test, at each level of the moderator the three scales are enforced to be parallel measures of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and invariant across the rating of the group and the leader OCB. Second, the factor loadings in the latent factors are enforced to be equal across the level of the moderator. b In Models 3-5, the structural paths (a, b, c) on the mediation model are constrained to equality across the two levels of the moderator (L low, H high). p .05. p .01.
Nested model comparisons (see Table 2) indicated significant differences across the levels of this moderator in the effects of leader OCB both on group belief and on group behavior, implying a pattern of a first stage and direct effect moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). That is, equality constraints both on the path from leader OCB to group belief about OCB ( 2 5.6, p .05), and on 1 the path from leader OCB to group OCB ( 2 3.8, p .05), across 1 the role model levels, significantly decreased the model fit to the data, but the equality constraint on the paths from group belief to group OCB did not ( 2 1 0.84, ns). Figure 3b shows that the effect of group belief that OCB is worthy on group OCB was significant for both higher and lower role models ( .41, p .01 and .35, p .01, respectively). However, the effects of leader OCB on belief about OCB and on group OCB were significant only for those leaders who were seen by their groups as highly worthy role models ( .72, p .001 and .50, p .005, respectively). These results support Hypothesis 6. Table 3 shows that for leaders who were seen by their groups as highly worthy role models, leader OCB had a significant direct effect (.50, p .005) as well as a significant indirect effect (.30, p .005), which together produced a significant total effect on group OCB (.79, p .005). Modeling of OCB did not seem to exert any (direct or indirect) effect on group behavior for leaders who were not seen by their groups as highly worthy role models. Group consensus about the value of OCB. Figure 3c depicts the unconstrained structural mediation model for groups with high (n 34; mean SD 1.16) and relatively low (n 33; mean SD .78) levels of consensus about the value of OCB. The group consensus was determined based on group within-group variability (i.e., standard deviation) in the group belief that OCB is worthy. Nested model comparisons (see Table 2) indicated that the only significant difference between the levels of group consensus was in the effect of the group belief on group behavior, implying a pattern of a second stage moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). That is, equality constraints on the path from group belief about OCB to group-level OCB across the levels of group consensus significantly decreased the model fit to the data ( 2 1 8.6, p .01), whereas equality constraints on the path from leader OCB to group belief about OCB ( 2 1.6, ns), and to group OCB ( 2 .00), did not.
1 1
In support of Hypothesis 7, Figure 3c indicates that the positive effect of the group belief that OCB is worthy on group OCB was significant when the group consensus about the value of OCB was high ( .77, p .001) rather than merely sufficient ( .00). Table 3 also shows that when the group consensus was high, leader OCB had a significant indirect effect (.34, p .01), thus yielding a significant total effect (.48, p .05) on group OCB. When the group consensus about the value of OCB was lower, leader OCB had no significant effect on group OCB. Although we did not formulate hypotheses about the dependence of indirect effects and the mediation pattern on the moderators, Table 3 reveals several interesting findings. First, the direct effect of the leader was significant in two conditions: when the leader was close and when the leader was seen by the group as a highly worthy role model. In both cases, the leader's OCB had significant direct and indirect effects, implying that the group belief about OCB only partially mediates the effect of the leader's OCB. Second, the indirect effect of the leader's OCB was not significant in two conditions: when the leader was not seen by the group as a highly worthy role model and when the consensus about the value of OCB was low. Third, the criteria for establishing full mediation were satisfied only in the high consensus condition. That is, this is the only case in which leader OCB had significant indirect and total effects but a nonsignificant direct effect (see Mathieu & Taylor, 2006). Thus, although the mediational analysis of the entire sample data indicated that the belief about OCB may fully account for the effect of leader OCB on group OCB, the moderated medi- ation analyses suggested that the extent to which the belief in the value of OCB fully or partially mediates the effect of leader OCB is dependent on the moderators in our model.
Complementary Analyses
Despite the advantages of SEM, the multigroup analysis has two shortcomings. First, each moderator was examined separately without controlling for the other moderators; thus, the unique contribution of each moderating effect to group OCB is unclear.
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
13
A.1. Distant Leaders
A.2. Close Leaders
GBAO R2 = .13 = .36** (s.e .= .19) = .38** (s.e .= .16) R2 = .12 LOCB = -.11 (s.e. = .25) GOCB LOCB = .36** (s.e.= .16)
GBAO R2= .13 =. 34** (s.e. = .15) R2 = .46 = .48** (s.e.=.15) GOCB
Chi-square=62.94; df = 58; p< .32; CFI = .99; GFI= = .85; TLI = .98; RMSEA= .04 ; RMR = .05
B.1. Low Role Models GBAO = .00 (s.e.= .19) = -.04 LOCB (s.e.= .17) GOCB R2 = .00 = .35** (s.e.= .20) R2=.12
B.2. High Role Models GBAO = .72** (s.e.= .14) LOCB =.50** (s.e.= .26) R2 = .51 = .41** (s.e.= .24) R2 = .71 GOCB
Chi-square=63.12; df = 58; p< .30; CFI = .98; GFI=.84; TLI = .98; RMSEA= .04; RMR = .06
C.1. Low Consensus GBAO = .21 (s.e.= .25) R2=.04 = .00 (s.e.= .24) R2=.04 LOCB = .21 (s.e.=.27) GOCB
C.2. High Consensus GBAO = .45** (s.e.= .14) R2=.20 = .77** (s.e.= .16) R2=.67 LOCB = .14 (s.e.= .17) GOCB
Chi-square=61.76; df = 58; p< .42; CFI = .99; GFI=.84; TLI = .99; RMSEA= .03 ; RMR = .05
Figure 3. Conditional effects of leader organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Conditional effects were tested in an unconstrained structural model but a restricted model of measurement invariance across groups (i.e., factor loadings are constrained to equality, but structural paths are free of constraints). Bootstrap standardized paths coefficients are the means of parameter estimates from 2,000 independent samples drawn from the original sample. Bootstrap standard errors are shown in parentheses. Two-tailed significance is determined by bias-corrected confidence intervals. GBAO group belief about OCB; LOCB leader OCB; GOCB group-level OCB. s.e. standard error; df degrees of freedom; CFI comparative fit index; GFI goodness of fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA root-mean-square-error of approximation; RMR root-mean-square residual. p .01.
Second, continuous variables were dichotomized in a common but arbitrary way (i.e., median split).14 To overcome these shortcomings, we applied Preacher et al.'s (2007) SPSS macro to compute bootstrap estimates for a conditional indirect effect in a moderated mediation model in which the indirect paths to and from the mediator (a and b) were moderated by different variables. This macro incorporates Baron and Kenny's (1986) stepwise procedure with the bootstrap method. We used this macro to test the significance of the indirect effect of leader OCB, considering its contingency both on the status of the leader as a role model and on the group consensus about the value of OCB (treated as continuous variables), while controlling for the moderating effect of leader distance. In this analysis we also controlled for group size, leader
tenure, and group tenure, which might theoretically affect grouplevel OCB. Consistent with the conceptualization of OCB as a common factor underlying its dimensions and with the SEM
14 Dichotomizing quantitative measures results in a loss of information and havoc with regard to estimation and interpretation of relationships among variables (MacCallum et al., 2002). A simulation of the methods used by Bissonnette, Ickes, Bernstein, and Knowles (1990) to study moderating effects showed that the dichotomization approach yielded higher Type I error rates, indicating detecting spurious interactions, and less power to detect interactions that were actually present in the population, than did the standard regression approach.
14
Table 3 Conditional Effects of the Leader OCB
Stage Moderator Distance Low (J 37) High (J 30) Role model Low (J 33) High (J 34) Group consensus Low (J 34) High (J 33) First (a) .36 (.16) .36 (.19) .00 (.19) .72 (.14) .21 (.25) .45 (.14)
YAFFE AND KARK
Effect Second (b) .34 (.15) .38 (.16) .35 (.20) .41 (.24) .00 (.24) .77 (.16) Direct (c ) .48 (.15) .11 (.25) .04 (.17) .50 (.26) .21 (.27) .14 (.17) Indirect .12 (.08) .13 (.08) .00 (.07) .30 (.20) .00 (.10) .34 (.12) Total .60 (.12) .03 (.27) .04 (.19) .79 (.11) .21 (.23) .48 (.17)
Note. Bootstrap standardized estimates are the means of parameter estimates based on 2,000 independent samples drawn from the original sample. Bootstrap standard errors are shown in parentheses. The number of work units (J) was determined by the median split, except for the distance moderator, for which the levels were determined by the organization structure. Indirect effects are approximately the multiplication of the bootstrap estimates for indirect paths from the independent variable to the mediator (Stage 1) and from the mediator to the dependent variable (Stage 2). Group consensus is measured by the standard deviation; the higher the score the lower the consensus. Two-tailed significance is based on the bias-corrected confidence intervals. p .05. p .01.
analysis, the latent variables in the model were represented by maximum likelihood factor scores. The results of this analysis (shown in Table 4) indicated that when considered simultaneously, all the moderating effects were significant and support the hypothesized unique contribution of each moderating effect. The macro also provides regions of significance of the bootstrap estimates of the conditional indirect effect (assuming a normal distribution of the indirect effect), as well as bootstrap estimates based on biased-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals. These outputs suggest that the probability of an indirect effect increases with the enhancement both in group consensus about the value of OCB and in group belief that the leader is a highly worthy role model. The indirect effect of leader OCB was the strongest when both of these are high but was also present when the level of at least one of these moderators was high and the level of the other was not low. It is noteworthy that when we considered all the moderators simultaneously, the effects of leader OCB and the belief about OCB were still significant, and group belief about OCB apparently only partially mediated the effect of leader OCB on group OCB. Besides these variables, only leader tenure and group tenure had significant main effects on group-level OCB. However, group size had a marginally significant negative effect on group belief that OCB is worthy. Finally, because distance in this study was defined as betweendepartment differences, it might have confounded other differences between the departments, such as task type. We thus reanalyzed the data with the same macro, excluding the distance and controlling for the department (recoded as two dummy variables). The results were similar, indicating that the indirect effect was dependent both on group consensus and on the belief that the leader was a highly worthy role model. Although the level of group OCB varied between departments, there was no significant department effect when group size and tenure variables were controlled for.
Discussion
The current study explored "leading by example" in work organizations, focusing on the effect of leader OCB on work-group OCB. The results support the hypothesized moderated mediation model and enhance our understanding of the processes underlying leading by example effects, as well as their boundary conditions. This study underscores the importance ascribed to leading by example in leadership theories by providing evidence that exemplary leader behavior may promote group-level behaviors that enhance organizational effectiveness (Organ et al., 2006). The significant effect of leader OCB on group OCB implies that by setting a personal example of contribution to the organization, leaders can promote similar contributions from their groups. We looked at two processes that may explain the leading-byexample effect: a direct process, which presumably involves mere emulation of the leader's behaviors, and an indirect process, by which the leader's OCB enhances the group's belief that OCB is worthy and in turn enhances group OCB. The SEM results supported the mediating role of the group belief that OCB is worthy, in the relationship between leader OCB and group OCB. They also indicated that the extent to which the belief about OCB fully or partially mediates the effect of leader OCB is dependent on the moderators in our model. Furthermore, the moderated mediation patterns indicated that both the direct and the indirect processes may be viable when essential conditions are met. That is, conditions that promote social learning of leader behavior moderated the direct effect of leader OCB, and conditions that promote transformational process through group belief about OCB moderated the indirect effect of leader OCB. In particular, leader proximity and group belief that the leader is a highly worthy role model facilitated the direct effect of leader OCB, presumably by providing preconditions of social learning (i.e., the ability to observe the behaviors and the motivation to emulate them; Bandura, 1977). Leader OCB had no direct effect
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
15
Table 4 Regression Results for Conditional Indirect Effect
Independent variable B SE Mediator variable model (belief about OCB) .03 .22 .09 .03 .18 .14 .22 .12 .11 .30 .12 .30 .22 .12 .09 .37 Dependent variable model (group OCB) .03 .07 .14 .17 .09 .35 .10 .11 .17 .07 .42 Boot SE Boot z t p
Group size Leader tenure Group tenure Distance (D) Role model (RM) Leader OCB (LOCB) LOCB D LOCB RM
0.06 0.03 0.20 0.22 0.30 0.31 0.25 .28
1.78 0.29 1.13 1.03 2.59 2.64 1.13 3.29
.08 .77 .26 .31 .01 .01 .27 .01
Group size Leader tenure Group tenure Distance (D) Role model (RM) Belief variability (BV) Leader OCB (LOCB) OCB is worthy LOCB D LOCB RM BAO BV Belief variability
0.02 0.14 0.28 0.14 0.03 0.38 0.30 0.27 0.46 0.18 1.16
.06 .18 .19 .08 .03 .10 .30 .28 .23 .25 .25 Boot p
0.61 2.05 2.00 0.83 0.31 1.07 3.03 2.54 2.63 2.54 2.73
.55 .05 .05 .41 .76 .29 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 95% bias-corrected CI
Role model
Boot indirect effect
Lower
Upper
1 SD 1 SD 1 SD M M SD 1 SD 1 SD 1 SD
1 SD M.01 .00 1 SD M.08 .00 1 SD M.16 .00
Conditional indirect effect effects at specific values of the moderators, M 1 SD .02 .08 0.23 .82 .04 0.21 .82 .10 .02 0.01 .99 .07 .17 .08 2.02 .04 .05 1.77 .08 .01 .04 0.05 .96 .12 .32 .13 2.48 .01 .08 2.01 .04 .04 .08 0.05 .96 .18 standard deviation; CI
.19 .17 1 .06 .02 .23 M .07 .12 .39 1 .13 confidence interval.
.31 SD .44 1 .73 SD
Note. Preacher et al.'s (2007) macro output is based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. SD
on group OCB when the leader was distant and when the group did not consider the leader to be a highly worthy role model. Both the belief that the leader is a highly worthy role model and a high consensus about the value of OCB facilitated the indirect effect of leader OCB. The status of the leader as a highly worthy role model enhanced the effect of leader OCB on the group belief that OCB is worthy, and high consensus about the value of OCB enhanced the effect of the group belief that OCB is worthy on group OCB. Leader OCB had no indirect effect on group OCB when the group did not view the leader as a highly worthy role model and when the group consensus about the value of OCB was not as high. Although social learning may also be involved in transmitting OCB-related values and beliefs (Bandura, 2003), this process is more closely addressed by transformational and charismatic leadership theories (e.g., Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993). The effect of leaders' OCB on the value that groups ascribe to OCB supports these theories' propositions that role modeling of contributions to the collective is a major means by which effective
leaders transform followers' values and attitudes and change followers' focus from self-interest to collective interest (e.g., Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993). The indirect effect of leader OCB on group OCB, through the group belief that OCB is worthy, is consistent with the process described by Shamir et al. (1993, 1998). In this process, a leader's exemplary contributions enhance the group's collectivistic orientation, so that group members' contributions to the group become self-expressive and intrinsically satisfying. The moderators examined here advance our understanding of the processes underlying the leading-by-example effects and of their boundary conditions. As discussed below, each moderator uniquely shaped the effects of leader OCB. Leader distance significantly reduced the direct effect of leader OCB, supporting the importance of visibility for social learning process. Close leaders' OCB had both direct and indirect effects on group OCB, but the direct effect explained a large portion of the total effect. Distant leaders' OCB had only a minor significant
16
YAFFE AND KARK
indirect effect, which was not sufficient to produce a significant total effect on group OCB.15 The sizable effect of the proximal leader on group-level OCB challenges the assumption that physical proximity and frequent direct interactions limit the outcomes of close leaders to the individual level (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Close leaders apparently can improve group-level outcomes by role modeling behaviors that are directed to this level (Hackman, 1992; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). On the other hand, because distance did not moderate the indirect effect of the leader OCB, our results also imply that physical proximity per se cannot explain the transformational influence that leaders may have on their group OCB-related values and beliefs. In light of the increasing prevalence of "leading at a distance" in virtual organizations, multinational firms and domestic companies with widely dispersed sites (Howell, Neufeld, & Avolio, 2005), this issue merits further study. Group belief that the leader is a highly worthy role model enhanced the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB as well as on the group belief that OCB is worthy and, as a result, on the indirect effect of leader OCB. Leader OCB had significant direct and indirect effects on group-level OCB and thus led to a remarkable total effect for leaders who were highly worthy role models for their groups. Leader OCB had no (direct or indirect) effect on group OCB for leaders who were less admirable role models. This finding suggests that hierarchical status per se does not ensure any impact on group-level OCB. Instead, leaders must be perceived by their groups as highly worthy role models (rather than just good role models) in order to influence not only group-level behaviors but also values and beliefs related to group-level OCB. The OCB of leaders who are not viewed by their group as highly worthy role models is apparently far less informative with regard to appropriate behavior for group members, and it does not have a symbolic value that may shape the group valuation of OCB. As posited by the theory of social identity of leadership, leadership is fundamentally a process of group influence, and a formal leader is really a leader only to those who are willing to follow (Hogg, 2001). In line with the theory of distant leadership (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002), the status of the leader as a role model was not related to the leader distance. It was, however, related to leader OCB, implying that by modeling OCB, leaders may enhance their worthiness as role models, thereby increasing their impact on their groups. Note, however, that despite this positive relationship, the effect of leaders who are viewed by their groups as highly worthy role models also implies emulation of avoidance of low level of the leader OCB (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). The group consensus moderated the effect of the group-level belief that OCB is worthy on the group-level OCB and, as a result, the indirect effect of leader OCB on group OCB. These effects were significant for groups with a high consensus about the value of OCB but were nonsignificant when the group consensus was not as high. This finding is important for several reasons. First, it suggests that the influence process at the group level is dependent not only on the leader's impact on individuals but also on the leader's ability to facilitate group processes (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Second, it supports the idea that the development of a consensual belief in the value of OCB is a process that underlies the indirect effect of leader OCB on group OCB. Third, the consensual nature of the forces that drive OCB in work groups implies that grouplevel OCB may explicitly or implicitly be a collective, coordinated
action (rather than a mere aggregation of individuals' OCB) and thus be qualitatively different from individual-level OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Moreover, the results showed that group beliefs about OCB had a significant effect on group OCB, regardless of the level of leader distance and the group belief about the leader as a role model. However, this belief fully mediated the effect of leader OCB only when the group developed a high consensus about the value of OCB. Thus, the results are indicative about the potential as well as the limitations of modeling behavior to inspire a transformational process that targets collective performance (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Future studies could explore how and when leaders enhance consensual beliefs in their groups by considering structural features beyond the leader's control that shape the frequency and quality of interactions among group members (Luria, 2008).
Practical Implications
There is a lack of consensus about the role of formal mechanisms promoting OCB at the organizational level. Some researchers have argued that any behavior that is important for organizational functioning should be included in a formal job description and appraisal system (e.g., Tansik, 1990). Others have pointed out that this could be impossible and is probably undesirable. Many role behaviors, particularly in service firms, are unique ways of problem solving and thus cannot be fully specified in advance (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Morrison, 1996). Moreover, rigid job descriptions, rules, and regulations may reduce intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975) and may impede initiative and flexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies (Smith et al., 1983). For this reason, informal influence processes, such as a leader's role modeling, seem particularly important in cultivating OCB. The results of this study suggest that by modeling OCB, leaders can educate work groups about the importance of contributions in the form of OCB and at the same time make leaders deserving of such contributions (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Thus, organizations seeking to promote OCB should devote special attention to human resource management practices that are likely to enhance OCB through the organization's leaders. To begin with, organizations can adopt selection practices that consider the tendency of applicants to engage in OCB (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Promoting leaders' OCB also requires investment in leadership development programs aimed at competence building. Ready and Conger (2003) observed that many leadership development efforts fail due to their "product-focused quick-fix mentality" instead of a willingness to invest in building leadership competencies. Our results imply a high return on investment that educates leaders to lead by example in general and to set a personal example of OCB in particular. Using high-potential role models as instructors in the leadership development process can help foster exemplary leadership throughout work units and the organization (Day & Halpin, 2001).
The indirect effect of distant leaders may indicate that even if group members do not meet their leader daily, they may develop a shared understanding of the leader's OCB-related values and norms with time and cumulative interactions (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003). Alternatively, the leader may communicate his or her citizenship-related values and beliefs via mediated communication (Avolio, Kahai, Dumdum, & Sivasubramaniam, 2001).
15
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
17
Finally, Morrison's (1996) model suggests that selection, socialization, and other human resource management practices are more apt to ensure leaders' OCB if they emphasize broadly defined obligations and mutual long-term commitment, which are the cornerstones of social-exchange relationships.
Strengths and Limitations
The contribution of the current study should be considered in light of its limitations. Most obvious is the study design, which prevents firm causal conclusions. The effect of the leader's contribution on the group-level OCB is implied in charismatic leadership theory (e.g., Shamir et al., 1993) and has been reported in laboratory studies (Guth et al., 2007; Potters et al., 2007). How- ¨ ever, in natural organizations the relationship observed between leader and group OCB is likely to be reciprocal. Such a reciprocal influence is consistent with Burns's (1978) view of transformational leadership as a process by which "leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation" (p. 20). Longitudinal field study should explore the potential effects of work groups' OCB on leaders. Although using data from a single organization eliminates many potentially confounding factors, such as type of industry, organizational culture, and other systemic factors that may affect OCB (MacKenzie et al., 1999), it may limit the results' generalizability (Ehrhart, 2004). We followed previous studies (e.g., Farh et al., 2001; LePine &Van Dyne, 1998; MacKenzie et al., 1999; Morrison & Phelps, 1999) in using the same measure to assess the level of managers' and employees' OCB. This procedure is vital for the study of modeling OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) and was justified by the similar factorial structure of the measures of leader OCB and group OCB. Nevertheless, we cannot disregard the possibility that at least some OCBs, such as taking charge, are more likely to be expected from managers than employees. This calls for two comments. First, taking charge was regarded by the focal organization as manager OCB according to Organ's (1988) criteria: It was not an explicit part of their job description; they were not trained by the organization to initiate change and were not formally rewarded for doing so. Second, the broad definition of OCB as proactive responsible participation in an organization is theoretically independent of role expectation (Van Dyne et al., 1994). As noted by Organ et al. (2006) and demonstrated by McAllister et al. (2007), the degree to which employees perceive OCB as an expected part of the job (i.e., role breadth) is distinct from the degree to which they feel complete freedom (i.e., discretion) to choose whether or not to engage in OCB. Nevertheless, the fact that we did not assess subjective role perceptions may be considered a limitation of this study, as OCB can be understood and enacted somewhat differently by employees and managers. Future studies could examine whether role perceptions modify the effect of leader OCB. Another limitation of this study is related to the measure of the leader's physical distance. Although in the organization studied, physical distance reliably reflected the leaders' visibility and the frequency and immediacy of leader- group interactions, it might have confounded other between-department differences. However, the unique result pattern increases our confidence that the moderating effect of leader distance involved leader visibility rather than other factors. In particular, the results showed that physical prox-
imity of the leader enhanced the direct effect, but not the indirect effect of the leader OCB on group OCB, which presumably involves a deeper transformational process. Nevertheless, visibility should be assessed with different measure within settings that allow high visibility of physically distant leaders (e.g., via television or the Internet). A clear advantage of this study is that it avoids the problems associated with data from a common source, such as correlation inflation, by gathering data from three different sources (work unit managers, their supervisors, and their subordinates' work unit members). A side effect of this procedure is that the levels of leader and group OCB are not identical to those that might have been reported by group members (Ehrhart, 2004). However, the focus on OCB, which should be visible to any external observer over sufficient time, may have limited the discrepancy among OCB reports from various sources.
Directions for Future Research
The importance ascribed to leading by example in various leadership theories and the importance of OCB for organizational effectiveness justify future study of both. Future study may further explore the transformational process of OCB-related beliefs. We proposed that leader OCB shapes group beliefs about OCB in four complementary ways: by enhancing the salience of shared values, by highlighting the importance of group mission, by communicating acceptable means for goal attainment, and by enhancing trust in the leader. Future studies should examine whether leader OCB affects these constructs and whether they are indeed complementary. It would also be advantageous to explore other important potential outcomes of leader OCB that may mediate its effect on group OCB or separately contribute to a group-level outcome. These include reducing turnover rates within work groups and enhancing positive attitudes toward the organization (MacKenzie et al., 1999), as well as inspiring task cohesiveness and collective efficacy (Bandura, 2003; Zaccaro et al., 2001). Organ et al. (2006) discussed several potential mediators of the effect of modeling OCB by leaders on followers' OCB that merit future attention (i.e., trust in the leader, role clarity, job satisfaction). The leadership literature suggests that trust in the leader and identification with the leader may serve both as mediators and as moderators of the effect of leader OCB (see Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; van Knippenberg, et al., 2005). Researchers may also attempt to identify additional moderators of the effect of leader OCB. One potential important moderator is culture. For example, the cultural dimension of power distance (PD) reflects tolerance of inequalities and status differences. PD affects the prototype of the ideal leader, the acceptability of various leader and follower behaviors (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), and the type of common leader-follower relationship (Organ et al., 2006). Thus, it is possible that in low PD cultures (like the one we studied) in comparison to high PD cultures, (a) leader behaviors may be more informative regarding expected followers' behaviors, (b) leaders may need to demonstrate a higher level of contribution to the group in order to be accepted as highly worthy role models, and (c) leaders and followers may be more equal in their ability to influence each other.
18
YAFFE AND KARK
Another future direction is a cross-level study of the interactive effect of the leader and the group on individual OCB. Although this study suggests that work groups emulate the level of their leader's observable OCB, Bommer et al. (2003) found evidence for social learning of coworkers' OCB. A cross-level study would allow researchers to explore the conditions that determine the relative impact of leader OCB and group OCB on individual group members. Such a study would be valuable, because (a) both managers and coworkers are considered important sources of information and social learning (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992); (b) groups are more likely than individuals to develop values, norms, and expectations that oppose those of the organization (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003); and (c) leaders may exemplify avoidance of citizenship (Bolino & Turnley, 2003, p. 67). Researchers may broaden the study on the outcomes of group OCB to include criteria of group effectiveness other than group performance, such as the contribution of OCB to group existence and the satisfaction of group members (Gladstein, 1984). Several scholars have posited that OCB should have positive effects on such outcomes. For example, Bolino, Turnley, and Bloodgood (2002) argued that OCB should enhance group social capital (e.g., mutual trust and understanding). Thus, group-level OCB may potentially satisfy group members' relational and identity-related needs as well as group members' self-expressive and self-worth needs (Shamir et al., 1998). On the other hand, scholars have also argued that an escalation of OCB may lead to role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Kark & Waismel-Manor, 2005). We are not aware of any study that directly examines the potential benefits and costs of OCB to employee well-being at the group level. A related research topic is identifying potentially negative effects of leader OCB. For example, one may argue that leader innovative OCB may create role ambiguity, role stress, and group resistance if it is inconsistent with formal role require- ments or standard procedures.16 At the same time, modeling of appropriate efforts to correct faulty procedures or practices and to struggle against group thinking may teach employees how to reduce stressful events in their work environment and encour- age them to do so. Finally, future studies could examine the effect of other functional leader behaviors, such as stewardship, teamwork, and peacemaking, as well as the effect of leader dysfunctional and unethical behaviors (Trevino & Brown, 2005) on group-level behavior. Although this study focuses on positive role models who highlight a strategy of pursuing success, negative role models are also important because they exhibit behaviors that employees should avoid (Lockwood, Marshall, & Sadler, 2005) and that may severely damage the organization (Trevino & Brown, 2005). The motivating effects of positive and negative role models are apparently culture dependent (Lockwood et al., 2005), so it would be interesting to examine whether our model applies to different leader behaviors across cultures. In conclusion, the current study explores the potential of leading by example to inspire collective action toward a common goal, the processes that may account for this effect, and the conditions that enhance or limit these processes. Although leader OCB may be a unique rather than a representative case of leading by example, modeling OCB seems particularly relevant to the current challenges of leadership, such as establishing the normative basis for
team functioning, motivating a team to work hard on behalf of the team's common goal, and linking the team to the organization.
16
We thank Reviewer 1 for this insight.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 -211. doi:10.1016/07495978(91)90020-T Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673-704. doi:10.1016/ S1048-9843(02)00155-8 Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identitybased perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Avolio, B., Kahai, S., Dumdum, R., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2001). Virtual teams: Implications for E-leadership and team development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations (pp. 337-358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2003). On the psychosocial impacts and mechanisms of spiritual modeling. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, 167-173. doi:10.1207/S15327582IJPR1303_02 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs: A conception for analyzing group structure, processes, and behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press. Bissonnette, V., Ickes, W., Bernstein, I., & Knowles, E. (1990). Personality moderating variables: A warning about statistical artifact and a comparison of analytic techniques. Journal of Personality, 58, 567-587. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00243.x Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein &S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349 -381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 60 -71. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between employee conscientiousness and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740 -748. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740 Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505-522. doi:10.2307/4134400 Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. (2003). Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 181-196. doi:10.1002/job.187 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
LEADING BY EXAMPLE domain of different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 -246. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.83.2.234 Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376 -399). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers' responses to self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397- 421. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00025-9 Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00104.x Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637- 647. doi:10.2307/258069 Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3-13. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.3 Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2001). Leadership development: A review of industry best practices (Tech. Rep. No. 1111). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Research Institute. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 26, 355-369. doi:10.1108/ 01437730510607853 Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450 - 467. doi:10.1287/ orsc.12.4.450.10640 Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work groups: The role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1084 -1095. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1084 Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22. doi:10.1037/1082989X.12.1.1 Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Annals of Statistics, 7, 1-26. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552 Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960 -974. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960 Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & Van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 1035-1057. doi:10.1002/job.496 Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2001, August). Organizational context and employee citizenship behavior in the PRC: Impact of job function, managerial level, and organization ownership. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175-222. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9 Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282. doi:10.1037/h0056932 George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a
19
service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698 -709. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.698 Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 134 -156. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00051-4 Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499 -517. doi:10.2307/ 2392936 Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 249 -270. doi:10.1007/ BF01385031 Graham, J. W., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Commitment and the covenantal organization. Journal of Managerial Issues, 5, 483-502. Guth, W., Levati, M. V., Sutter, M., & van der Heijden, E. (2007). Leading ¨ by example with and without exclusion power in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1023-1042. doi:10.1016/ j.jpubeco.2006.10.007 Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199 -267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 28 - 84). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Haworth, C. L., & Levy, P. E. (2001). The importance of instrumentality beliefs in the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 64 -75. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1784 Hermalin, B. (1998). Toward an economic theory of leadership: Leading by example. American Economic Review, 88, 1188 -1206. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184 -200. doi:10.1207/ S15327957PSPR0503_1 Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 1-52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189 -207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J., Hanges, P. W., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 273-285. doi:10.1016/j .leaqua.2005.01.004 James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14,475- 498. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00048-1 Kameda, T., Tindale, R. S., & Davis, J. H. (2003). Cognitions, preferences, and social sharedness: Past, present, and future directions in group decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 215-240). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Karam, C., & Kwantes, C. T. (2006, July). Cross-cultural, cross-level OCB research: Understanding work behavior in context. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Greece. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic
20
YAFFE AND KARK MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19 - 40. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. E. (1999). Do citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 396 - 410. doi:10.1177/ 0092070399274001 MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83 Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361-367. doi:10.2307/257111 Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6, 105-113. doi:10.2307/257144 Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031-1056. doi:10.1002/job.406 Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709 -734. doi:10.2307/258792 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, 1200 -1211. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1200 Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175-199. doi:10.1002/job.237 Moon, H., Van Dyne, L., & Wrobel, K. (2005). The circumplex model and the future of organizational citizenship research. In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.), A handbook on organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Nova Science. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism- collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142. doi:10.1002/ job.4030160204 Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 143-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567. doi:10.2307/256798 Morrison, E. W. (1996). Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Management Journal, 35, 493-512. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199624)35: 4 493::AID-HRM4 3.0.CO;2-R Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. (1999). Taking charge: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403419. doi:10.2307/257011 Naumann, S. E., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2005). A unit-level perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.), Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 143-156). New York, NY: Nova Science. Nielsen, T. M., Hrivnak, G. A., & Shaw, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior and performance: A meta-analysis of group-level research. Small Group Research, 40, 555-577. doi:10.1177/ 1046496409339630
review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 67-91). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: JAI Press. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Dependence and empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246 -255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246 Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500 -528. Kark, R., & Waismel-Manor, R. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: What's gender got to do with it? Organization, 12, 889 -917. doi:10.1177/1350508405057478 Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51- 60. doi:10.1177/002200275800200106 Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375- 403. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5 Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3-16. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.3 Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, and why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers' trust in their leader. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 16 -34. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004 LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815- 852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642 LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853- 868. doi:10.1037/00219010.83.6.853 Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model of social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119 -197. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36003-X Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Lockwood, P., Marshall, T., & Sadler, P. (2005). Promoting success or preventing failure: Cultural differences in motivation by positive and negative role models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 379 -392. doi:10.1177/0146167204271598 Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength—How leaders form consensus. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 42-53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.004 Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Button, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
LEADING BY EXAMPLE Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The "good soldier" syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time." Human Performance, 10, 85-97. doi:10.1207/ s15327043hup1002_2 Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849 - 874. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00971.x Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B., Whiting, S., & Podsakoff, P. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141. doi:10.1037/a0013079 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. doi:10.1177/ 014920630002600307 Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Leading-by-example and signaling in voluntary contribution games: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33, 169 -182. doi:10.1007/s00199-006-0186-3 Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ready, D. A., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Why leadership development efforts fail. Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 83- 88. Reicher, S., Haslam, A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547-568. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.007 Rich, G. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 319 -328. Richardson, H. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561-589. doi:10.1002/job.329 Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 283-301. doi: 10.1348/096317903769647184 Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19 -39. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983 .tb00500.x Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1995). Is it "trustworthy?" A contemporary and multi-method examination of an older leadership study, with implications for future new research and theory
21
using the established leadership literature. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 111-145. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90031-4 Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19 - 47. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects charismatic leaders: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577-594. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577 Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations, Organization Studies, 24, 463- 491. doi:10.1177/0170840603024003912 Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387- 409. doi:10.2307/257080 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653- 663. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653 Tansik, D. A. (1990). Managing human resource issues for high-contact service personnel. In D. E. Bowen, R. B. Chase, T. G. Cummings, and Associates (Eds.), Service management effectiveness: Balancing strategy, organization and human resources, operations, and marketing (pp. 152-175). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2005). The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in the workplace. In R. E. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (pp. 69 - 87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384 -399. doi:10.1037/h0022100 Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in Group Processes, 2, 77122. Tyler, T. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identitybased perspective. In L. L. Cummings & B. W. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 201-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765- 802. doi:10.2307/ 256600 van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Research in leadership, self, and identity: A sample of the present and a glimpse of the future. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 495- 499. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.006 Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisory behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 89 -105. doi:10.1016/00305073(77)90056-3 Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601- 617. doi:10.1177/ 014920639101700305 Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451- 483. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01) 00093-5
doc_460147420.docx
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has been studied since the late 1970s. Over the past three decades, interest in these behaviors has increased substantially. Organizational behavior has been linked to overall organizational effectiveness, thus these types of employee behaviors have important consequences in the workplace.
Case Study of Leader Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The importance of leading by personal example or role modeling for effective leadership has been recognized in many leadership theories. However, leaders' ability to influence group behavior through exemplary behavior has received little attention in empirical work. This study explores leading by example through theoretical development and empirical testing of a moderated mediation model of the potential effects of leader organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). This model suggests that a leader's OCB may promote group OCB directly and indirectly by enhancing the group's belief that OCB is worthy. It also specifies the moderators of the direct and indirect effects of leader OCB on group OCB. Data from 683 members of 67 intact work groups, 67 group managers, and their supervisors support the hypothesized model. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Keywords: leading by example, organizational citizenship behaviors, role modeling, role model, group-level OCB
Leadership has been defined as "a process of social influence through which an individual enlists and mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal" (Chemers, 2001, p. 376). The importance of leading by example or role modeling for effective leadership has been recognized in many leadership theories, including theories of self-leadership (Manz & Sims, 1980), economic leadership (Hermalin, 1998), self-sacrificial leadership(Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999), authentic leadership (Luthans & Avo- lio, 2003), and ethical leadership (Trevino & Brown, 2005). Trans- formational and charismatic leadership theories in particular posit that role modeling of a contribution to the collective is a major means by which effective leaders encourage followers to do the same (e.g., Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Although leading by example is a central premise of these theories, there is a lack of field studies that directly examined whether leaders' contribution to the collective actually promotes similar contributions by groups.1 Laboratory studies, by contrast, have clearly demonstrated this phenomenon (Guth, Levati, Sutter, ¨ & van der Heijden, 2007; Potters, Sefton, & Vesterlund, 2007), but these studies inevitably omit essential features of real leadership, work groups, and the relationships between them. A theoretical development and empirical study of leading by example in real organizations is still needed if we are to advance our understanding of leadership, particularly at the group level. Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks (2001) argued that "despite the large literature on leadership and groups/teams dynamics, we know surprisingly little about how leaders create and handle effective teams" (p. 452).
In the current study we try to fill this gap by addressing the need for conceptual models of collective performance that integrate leadership influence and group processes in a natural organizational context (Zaccaro et al., 2001). We focus on role modeling of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which typically is not an enforceable requirement of any specific formal job role but in aggregate promotes organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988; Organ, Podsakoff, &MacKenzie, 2006; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). In particular, we examine OCB that is targeted at the entire group or organization and demonstrates loyal and responsible involvement in the organization (Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). There are several reasons why the focus on modeling of OCB by leaders is important for the study of the process and the effectiveness of leading by example. First, OCB should be particularly affected by modeling, as organizations typically cannot rely on formal systems of job description, training, or rewards to cultivate OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000).2 Second, compared to leader behavior that is directed at individuals, leader OCB, which is ambient
1
Tal Yaffe, School of Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel; Ronit Kark, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. We thank Dikla Elisha and Boas Shamir for their thoughtful insights and helpful advice and Gil Luria and Dina Van Dijk for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronit Kark, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Psychology, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]
and is directed at the entire group, is more likely to operate at the group level and has the potential to motivate the group as a whole (Hackman, 1992; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). Finally, both theory and cumulative research suggest that group-level OCB contributes to organizational effectiveness (for recent meta-analyses, see Nielsen, Hrivnak, & Shaw, 2009; Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting, & Podsakoff, 2009). Thus,
1 Studies of transformational leadership typically measure the degree to which the leader is perceived as a role model to follow but not the actual
c o n t r i b u t i o
ns of the leader (e.g., Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005). 2 Modeling may also affect enforceable role behaviors but probably to a lesser degree. Enforceable role behaviors are typically explicitly defined and shaped by formal role description, formal training, and explicit direct rewards and punishments, and this tends to limit their variability within the organization. By contrast, OCB is discretionary and is typically not supported by formal systems of role description, training, and rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Thus, employees are more likely to turn to their role model to determine the desirable or normative level of OCB within the group (Bommer, Miles, & Grover, 2003; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).
2
YAFFE AND KARK
inducing groups to engage in OCB may be an important criterion for leadership effectiveness. Our aims in this study are threefold. First, we attempt to extend existing knowledge on the leading-by-example effect by studying the ways leaders' OCB can enhance OCB of work groups. Second, we seek to identify and empirically examine a potential mediator and the potential moderators of the effect of leader OCB on groupOCB in a natural organizational setting. Third, we hope to con- tribute to the emerging study of the antecedents of group-level OCB. To achieve these goals, we present a theoretical moderated mediation model that clarifies how and when a leader's OCB is likely to promote group-level OCB. This model suggests that a leader's OCB may promote group OCB directly and indirectly by enhancing the group's belief that OCB is worthy. It also specifies features of the organizational context (i.e., leader- group distance), the leader's standing (i.e., the leader as a role model), and the group (i.e., group consensus), each of which is expected to uniquely moderate the direct and/or indirect influence processes and thus the leading-by-example effects. This model is summa- rized in Figure 1.
A Mediation Model of the Effects of Leader OCB
In the following section we define and review the literature on leader OCB and group-level OCB and present the direct and indirect (mediated) relationships between them.
Leader OCB
The construct of OCB refers to the efforts undertaken by employees to behave as good citizens within their organization (Organ, 1988). There is no consensus on the definition and dimensions of the construct (Podsakoff et al., 2000), but Organ's (1988) and Graham's (1991) conceptualizations of OCB are probably the most widely acknowledged. The early definition of OCB (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) built on social psychology theory (Katz &Kahn, 1978) and suggested that OCB was both extra-role and organizationally functional. This definition was criticized for its vague and subjective distinction between in-role and extra-role,
which varies across individuals, jobs, and organizations (Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne et al., 1994). Organ (1997, p. 88) thus recommended excluding reference to extra-role behavior when defining OCB.3 However, in most organizations and jobs, OCB is still not likely to be (a) an explicit part of the formal strict job description; (b) guided by formal training; or (c) formally or explicitly rewarded (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Graham (1991) introduced an alternative approach to OCB, which is theoretically independent of role requirements or expectations and is based on the construct of active civic citizenship in political philosophy. According to this approach, OCB refers to loyal and responsible involvement in the organization through balanced engagement in three interrelated behavioral dimensionsthat make up the "active citizenship syndrome": obedience, loy- alty, and participation (Van Dyne et al., 1994). The operational- ization of the dimensions of the construct was further developed by Moorman and Blakely (1995) to include behaviors such as making persistent efforts to attain organizational goals, promoting and defending the organization's image to outsiders and insiders, and initiating constructive change in the workplace (Moorman & Blakely, 1995).4 These behaviors are the focus of this study. Graham's construct has major advantages for the study of the effect of leader OCB. First, the meaning and dimensions of OCB are theoretically similar across organizations, persons, and jobs (Van Dyne et al., 1994), and thus should be similar for leaders and followers. This point is important, because in order to explore the effect of leader modeling of OCB on group OCB, it is vital to assess leader and group OCB along the same dimensions (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Second, this construct is restricted to forms of OCB that are targeted at the entire organization (OCBO), and excludes forms of OCB that are targeted at individuals (OCBI), such as helping (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Leader OCB which is directed toward the group is more likely to be visible to all group members, and more likely to affect group processes (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Shamir et al., 1998), and thus the group-level OCB. Previous studies on formal leader (i.e., manager) OCB have suggested that it is both possible and important to study its effects on their groups. First, Conway's (1999) meta-analysis indicated that managers' OCB can be distinguished from in-role task behaviors in managerial jobs. Second, several studies showed that man3
Organ (1997) posited that OCB differs from task performance by its degree of discretionariness and by its guarantees of systematic rewards. about OCB Mediator That is, "OCB is less likely to be an enforceable job requirement and less likely to be regarded by the performer as leading confidently to systematic a b H4* rewards" (p. 91). Organ et al. (2006) further clarified that the discretionary H2 H3 nature of OCB is independent of an employee's subjective definition of OCB as in-role or extra-role: "People may feel that certain behaviors are H1 Leader Group 'expected' as part of the job even though they may believe that the c OCB OCB behaviors are discretionary and not formally rewarded by the organization" (p. 143). H5 H7 4 The active citizenship syndrome is multidimensional and includes both H6 Moderators affiliative and challenging OCBs. These may have different antecedents (Van Dyne et al., 1994) but still share a common theoretical factor of loyal Leader Group Distance Consensus and responsible organizational participation (Graham, 1991). Moreover, Role Model responsible citizenship requires engagement in both, in order to balance Figure 1. Moderated mediation model of the effects of leader organizacompeting organizational demands for maintenance and flexibility, cooptional citizenship behavior (OCB) on group-level OCB. H hypothesis. eration and innovation, and quality and efficiency (Miron, Erez, & Naveh; H4 is the mediation hypothesis. 2004; Quinn, 1988).
Group Belief
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
3
agers tend to display some type of OCB (e.g., change initiatives) more than non-managers, but there are also sizeable differences among managers in their level of such behaviors (e.g., Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2001; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison & Phelps, 1999), implying that they are not an enforceable part of a manager's job. Finally, managers' OCB was found to be positively related to managers' performance evaluations by their supervisors (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999) and peers (Conway, 1999). MacKenzie et al. (1999) also found that managers' OCB affects their performance evaluations as much as objective measures of performance, and that OCB better predicts evaluations of managers than nonmanagers. A possible explanation for the amplified valuation of managers' OCB may be its potential effect on their groups' attitudes and behaviors (Conway, 1999; MacKenzie et al., 1999).
Group-Level OCB
Although OCB was originally conceptualized at the individual level (Organ, 1988), scholars have recognized the need for theory and study of OCB at the group level (e.g., George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Schnake & Dumler, 2003). Recent thinking on various group cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes as emergent group properties (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) and on OCB as a normative phenomenon within work groups in particular (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) has set the stage for a study of OCB at the group level. The construct of group-level OCB refers to the normative level of OCB enacted within the work group (Ehrhart, 2004). The essence and dimensions of OCB remain the same, but the group-level construct includes interactive elements that arenot part of the individual-level construct. Although OCB does not require coordination, it usually occurs within work groups that provide a strong social context. This leads group members to develop shared cognition, customs, and knowledge (Moreland &Levine, 1989) as well as a shared social identity (Turner, 1985). A group-level approach to OCB acknowledges the impact of this social context, as well as the group dynamics and processes that make the group more than a mere collection of individuals (Lewin, 1951). Group-level OCB presumably results from mutual learning, mutual adjustment and assimilation, and mutual (informative and normative) influence and is thus qualitatively different from individual-level OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). This implies that group members may explicitly or implicitly coordinate and to some extent synchronize their OCB (e.g., decide to stay together after work hours in order to complete a task or use their lunch break to elaborate on suggestions for improving work methods). The few studies of the antecedents of unit-level OCB have confirmed that leadership is an important antecedent of OCB at this level. Transformational leadership (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005), servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004), supportive leadership (Euwema, Wendt, & Van Emmerik, 2007), and ethical leadership (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009) have all been found to be related to OCB at the unit level.
and expert power) rather than their use of position power (legal, coercive, and reward power; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). According to Yukl (1998), one way in which leaders exercise referent power is through role modeling, which is likely to enhance followers' emulation of leaders' behavior. The idea that modeling of OCB is an important way by which leaders can enhance followers' OCB has long been recognized by OCB researchers (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Conway, 1999; MacKenzie et al., 1999; Organ et al., 2006; Smith et al., 1983). Modeling should be especially important for enhancing behaviors that are not already supported by formal systems of job description, training, or rewards. Naumann and Ehrhart (2005) further argued that modeling of OCB by a leader is likely to be particularly effective and that "given that the leader of the group is a likely role model for group members, his/her performance of OCB should have a large impact on the overall unit-level OCB in the work group" (p. 151). This proposition draws in part on Bandura's (1977) social learning theory, which posits that most human behaviors are learned by observation. Social learning theory suggests that individuals will strive to emulate the behaviors of their role models, leader, and coworkers to ensure that their behavior is in line with accepted norms (Bommer, Miles, & Grover, 2003; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Mayer et al., 2009). The literature on leadership (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1980, 1981; Trevino & Brown, 2005) and organizational socialization alike (e.g., Moreland & Levine, 1989; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Weiss, 1977) suggests that vicarious learning by observing leaders' behaviors plays a key role in shaping followers' conduct and misconduct. Further, the literature on team leadership suggests that vicarious learning may be an important group process (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) by which leader role modeling may enhance team contributions to the common goal (e.g., Zaccaro et al., 2001). Thus, a leader's observable OCB may be emulated by group members and become an emerging group property (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Similarly, through modeling and mimicry, avoidance of OCB can aggregate, spill over, and become a group property (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006). We hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 1: Leader OCB is positively related to group OCB.
The Mediating Role of Group Belief in the Value of OCB
Although social learning is not limited to level of behaviors, one of our goals is to differentiate the process of learning by behavioral modeling and imitation from a presumably deeper, indirect process that may involve the transformation of group-level OCB-related beliefs. The term beliefs refers to convictions held to be true by individuals and groups and can refer to various content, including values, goals, and preferable modes of conduct (Bar-Tal, 2000; Rokeach, 1973). Researchers acknowledge that beliefs, judgments, and attitudes are socially constructed and are likely to be shared by group members who have common experiences and social interactions through social processes in which collective meaning is established (e.g., Bar-Tal, 1990; Hardin & Higgins, 1996; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). We focus on the group-value-laden belief that OCB is worthy, though not formally rewarded, as a potential mediator of the effect of
The Relationship Between Leader OCB and Group OCB
It has been argued that the influence of leaders on their followers stems from their use of personal idiosyncratic power (referent
4
YAFFE AND KARK
manager OCB on group OCB. Haworth and Levy (2001) addressed a related individual-level belief, namely, the "belief that OCB is in general worthwhile." They built on Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory, arguing that an individual's decision to enact OCB draws on the belief that OCB yields a "valent outcome which may be instrumental in achieving some greater goal" (p. 65).5 Haworth and Levy distinguished this belief from the "belief that OCB is formally rewarded," reporting that the former is related to perceived indirect psychological benefits and the latter is related to perceived direct tangible rewards. We sharpen this distinction by emphasizing the evaluative and valueladen nature of the belief that OCB is worthy (Rokeach, 1973)6 and conceptualize it as an emergent group property (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The belief that OCB is worthy is general enough to include any discretionary contribution that may benefit the organization (allowing team members the flexibility to deal effectively with unpredictable situations and demands), and it does not specify the potential benefits of OCB performance. The unspecified nature of returns for contributions characterizing this belief is a defining feature of the type of relationship that promotes OCB (Graham & Organ, 1993). This feature also makes this belief relevant to work groups, as group members may come to value OCB due to its contribution to their group and organization (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Shamir et al., 1993).7 According to Schein (2004), deliberate role modeling is one of the primary embedding mechanisms by which leaders create, maintain, and sometimes change their group culture (i.e., its shared basic assumptions, beliefs, and values). The leader's assumptions that help the group solve its problems of external adaptation and internal integration gradually become shared assumptions and are taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. Similarly, leadership theories view role modeling as an important means by which work group leaders transmit their belief systems to their groups (Dragoni, 2005). Because leaders are expected to represent group identity and values in their personal behavior (Shamir et al., 1998), the leader's behaviors provide influential input for collective sense making about what is really of value in the work group. Moreover, leaders' exemplary behaviors often aimed to actively foster shared values that leaders wish their followers to adopt (House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1998). Transformational and charismatic leadership theory posits that role modeling is a major way in which leaders transform followers' values, goals, and aspirations (e.g., Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993). Exemplary behaviors refer to the leader's display of a commitment to the shared values, identity, and goals that aim to increase the intrinsic valence of group efforts on behalf of the collective goal (Shamir et al., 1993, 1998). We propose that leader OCB, which represents loyal and responsible involvement in an organization (Graham &Organ, 1993), suits this purpose well. A leader's role modeling of OCB may serve four interrelated functions, which together are likely to enhance the group belief that OCB is worthy. First, a leader's OCB demonstrates commitment and loyalty to the group and the organization, thus enhancing the feeling of unit pride and the salience of collective identity and values (e.g., De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005; Shamir et al., 1998). Group members are more likely to value a contribution in the form of OCB when unit pride and the salience of collective identity are elicited (Turner, 1985; Tyler, 1999). Second, by modeling OCB the leader displays goal dedication, communicating to the group
that the group's mission is important and worthy of members' extra efforts (e.g., De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Shamir et al., 1993). Group members are more likely to value OCB when they have a sense of mission and when they recognize the importance of their task (Shamir et al., 1998). Third, leader behavior "models the way" organizational/ group goals should be pursued (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). It clarifies role expectations, norms of conduct, and the acceptable means for accomplishing the group's goals (e.g., Ostroff &Kozlowski, 1992). Thus, by modeling OCB a leader links shared identity, values, and goals with the expected group behaviors (i.e., OCB) for goal attainment and group success (Schein, 2004; Shamir et al., 1998). Group members are more likely to value OCB when they realize the importance of OCB to group survival and success (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Finally, by setting a personal example of the efforts the leader expects from the group, the leader demonstrates credibility (Kouzes & Posner, 2003) and trustworthiness (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), thereby building trust in the leader (Organ et al., 2006; Rich, 1997) and the organization he or she represents (Lapidot, Kark, & Shamir, 2007; Shamir &Lapidot, 2003). Group members are more likely to value OCB when they trust their leader and are not afraid of being exploited (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005). For all these reasons, leader OCB should increase the likelihood that the group will come to value OCB. We made the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: Leader OCB is positively related to the group belief that OCB is worthy. The study of individual-level OCB suggests that individual display of OCB is correlated with individual OCB-related beliefs, such as instrumentality that links OCB to valued outcomes (Haworth & Levy, 2001), self-efficacy belief (Bandura, 1986), and perceived role breadth (Morrison, 1994; see McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007). However, because group-level OCB involves interactive elements that are not included in the individual-level construct (Ehrhart, 2004), it is more likely to be guided by group-level constructs, such as shared beliefs (Karam & Kwantes, 2006; Leung & Bond, 2004) and particularly by behavioral beliefs or attitudes (Ajzen, 1991) that specifically address the value of OCB.
5 Haworth and Levy (2001), building on Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory, referred to OCB as an instrumental belief, but the construct addresses the valence of the behavior and thus may represent a behavioral attitude. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) defines attitude toward the behavior as the degree to which the performance of the behavior is positively or negatively valued. 6 Rokeach (1973) defined value as "an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence" (p. 5). 7 The evaluative nature of this belief (i.e., the focus on what is worthy of doing) distinguishes it from a group climate that promotes OCB, because the climate construct is mainly descriptive (i.e., describes "how things are done"; Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Moreover, Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) argued that the climate construct addresses formal organizational practices, procedures, and rewards but that "OCB generally occurs outside the formal requirements and rewards in the organization" (p. 962).
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
5
Shared beliefs and attitudes serve important functions for individuals as group members and for the group as a whole (Bar-Tal, 2000; Hardin & Higgins, 1996). Festinger (1950) argued that people experience their personal beliefs as being valid when these beliefs are shared by others who are sufficiently similar to themselves. Bar-Tal (2000) clarified that shared beliefs exist in the individual's mind, but the recognition that they are shared tends to arouse high confidence in their content. He further argued that shared beliefs play an important role in the formation and maintenance of social identities as well as collective reality. Shared beliefs may provide the basis for a sense of unity, solidarity, and interdependence, and they may guide, support, and coordinate group-level actions. In general, when a behavior is within their control, group members tend to act upon their shared beliefs (Bar-Tal, 1990, 2000). Thus, the shared belief that OCB is worthy is likely to be positively related to a group-level display of OCB. Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) argued that when OCB is aggregated over time, group members tend to view OCB as a standard behavior in the group and may develop prescribed norms to regulate OCB if they realize the contributions of OCB to the group. In sum, leader OCB may enhance the level of group OCB indirectly by enhancing the group belief that OCB is worthy. We hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 3: Group belief that OCB is worthy is positively related to group OCB. Hypothesis 4: Group belief that OCB is worthy mediates the relationship between leader OCB and group OCB.
Moderated Mediation Model of the Effect of Leader OCB
Figure 1 depicts the two influence processes discussed above. It also specifies the moderating role of leader distance, group belief about the leader as a role model, and group consensus about the value of OCB, each of which is expected to uniquely shape the direct and/or indirect effects of leader OCB. The direct effect of the leader's OCB (Path c) presumably represents observational learning of the leader's OCB and thus should be affected by the conditions for such learning (Bandura, 1977). The leader's distance should reduce the opportunity to observe the leader's behaviors, whereas the group belief that the leader is a worthy role model should boost the motivation to emulate him or her. The indirect effect of the leader OCB involves enhancement of the value that the group ascribes to OCB. This process requires a significant effect of leader OCB on the group's belief in the value of OCB (Path a), as well as a significant effect of this belief on group OCB (Path b). The former effect (Leader OCB3 Group belief about OCB) is more likely to be evident when the group believes that the leader is a highly worthy role model, whereas the second effect (Group belief3 Group belief about OCB) is more likely to be evident when there is a high level of consensus in the group about the value of OCB. We clarify these propositions below.
as role models and leaders" (p. 399). We intentionally distinguish leader visibility from the potential impact of the leader as a role model for two reasons. First, distance leadership theory suggests that visibility is neither sufficient nor essential for the leader to be perceived a role model (e.g., Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Shamir, 1995). Second, visibility is closely associated with social learning processes (Bandura, 1977) that underpin the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB, while the status of the leader as a worthy role model is closely associated with the transformational process that underlies its indirect effect. In the organizational context, the leader's visibility is highly related to physical leader- group distance.8 The theory of substitutes for leadership regards the leader distance as a neutralizer of leadership, arguing that physical distance creates "circumstances in which effective leadership may be impossible" (Kerr & Jermier, 1978, p. 396). Antonakis and Atwater (2002), in contrast, argued that the dynamics of influence differ depending on the leaderfollower distance and that "leader-follower distance can contribute to or detract from leader effectiveness" (p. 697). Although groups may perceive distant leaders as role models, Shamir (1995) con- cluded that the influence of distant leaders relies more on their vision and rhetorical skills, and the influence of close leaders derives to a greater extent from their personal example and ob- servable behaviors. Thus, the direct effect of leader OCB should be more salient for close than for distant leaders. Further, if observa- tional learning is involved in the effect of the leader OCB, as suggested by Naumann and Ehrhart (2005), the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB may not be evident for distant leaders, as an opportunity to closely observe a model's behavior is a crucial condition for social learning (Bandura, 1977). In other words, a leader's physical proximity increases his or her visibility and thus the likelihood that the level of leader OCB will be more adequately emulated by the group. However, the social learning process that presumably underlies this effect does not necessarily involve transformation of OCB-related values and beliefs. Leaders are prominent role senders in the role set of group members (Katz & Kahn, 1978), their behaviors convey role expectations and norms of conduct. Thus, group members may feel expected to perform the OCB the leader exhibits (Organ et al., 2006) or simply mimic these behaviors without recognizing their value to the group. In terms of Kelman's (1958) theoretical model of social influence processes, a leader's physical proximity is likely to encourage compliance but is not a sufficient condition for identification and internalization of the leader's values and beliefs. The ability of the leader's OCB to influence group beliefs and values may thus be dependent on other factors, which are discussed in the following section. Therefore, we contend that the leader's physical distance should mainly reduce the direct effect of leader OCB. In Edwards and Lambert's (2007) terms, the moderating effect of distance should conform to a pattern of a direct effect moderated mediation model (i.e., applied to Path c). We hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 5: Leader distance reduces the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB.
8 There are settings in which distant leaders are highly visible, for instance, on TV or the Internet (e.g., political leaders).
The Leader's (Physical) Distance
MacKenzie et al. (1999) argued that one reason for the amplified importance of OCB at the managerial level "has to do with the fact that managers are in highly visible positions, affecting more people
6 Group Belief That the Leader Is a Worthy Role Model
YAFFE AND KARK
The term role model draws on the concept of role, the human tendency to identify with and emulate other people occupying important social roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978), and the concept of behavioral modeling (Bandura, 1977). Gibson (2004, p. 134) defined a role model as a cognitive construction based on the attributes of people in social roles to which an individual desires to increase similarity by emulating those attributes. This definition emphasizes the distinction between the cognitive construction of role model and the role model's behaviors. Gibson's review suggests that the cognitive construction of role models involves identification and social-comparison processes and that it serves the interrelated psychological functions of learning, inspiration and motivation, and self-concept definition. Follower perception of the leader as a worthy role model is conceptually different from exemplary behaviors that the leader may exhibit, including OCB (Organ et al., 2006). Thus, although setting a personal example should facilitate the social learning process (Manz & Sims, 1981), it should have a stronger effect on unit-level behavior when group members share the belief that the leader is a worthy role model. From a social learning perspective, this belief is likely to enhance both the group's attention to the leader's behaviors and the group's motivation to emulate them. In line with this argument, Jaussi and Dionne's (2003) laboratory study showed that the interaction between leader creative behavior and follower perceptions of the leader as a role model for creativity contributes to the prediction of follower creativity. The study of the cognitive construction of role models implies that mere organizational status does not ensure that a leader will be perceived by the group as a role model. In fact, depending on individual needs and aspirations, each group member may identify with various role models inside and outside the organization (Gibson, 2004). However, leaders who are viewed by their groups as worthy role models should have profound inspirational effects on their groups' values and beliefs, because they do not merely convey role expectations but also represent what people would like to be and to achieve (Gibson, 2004). Thus, internalizing leaders' values and beliefs as well as emulating leaders' behaviors helps group members define and develop aspects of their self-concept, including their role identity and social identity (Ashforth, 2001; Kark & Shamir, 2002). This idea is a main theme in charismatic and transformational leadership theories, which posit that the influence of leaders on followers' identity, values, beliefs and behaviors is to a large degree dependent on their ability to earn the status of role models "worthy of identification and imitation" (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kark et al., 2003). In Kelman's (1958) terms, the influence of a highly worthy role model relies on identification and internalization processes. The social identity theory of leadership (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003) addresses this phenomenon by focusing on group members' collective self-conception and social identity processes, which underlie the leadership influence in salient groups. According to the theory, social influence in salient groups reflects and is driven by prototypicality, the degree to which a member of the group defines the group as a whole (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2005). In the terms of this theory, leaders who are viewed by their groups as role models worthy of identification are
likely to be highly prototypical; that is, they embody central and desirable attributes of the group and are representative of group members' collective identity (van Knippenberg et al., 2005). Because these leaders are seen as the best representatives of the group's attributes and shared social identities, they are better able to redefine group identity and thereby influence group members to internalize and act on new values, beliefs, and norms (Reicher, Haslam, &Hopkins, 2005). Thus, the group belief that the leader is a worthy role model should enhance the effect of leader OCB not only on the group OCB but also on the value the group ascribes to OCB. In Edwards and Lambert's (2007) terms, the moderating effect of this belief should conform to a pattern of a first stage and direct effect moderated mediation model (applied to Paths c and a). We hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 6: The group belief that the leader is a worthy role model enhances the effect of leader OCB both on group OCB and on the group belief that OCB is worthy.
Group Consensus About the Value of OCB
The indirect effect of the leader's OCB is dependent not only on the impact of the leader on the group belief that OCB is worthy but also on the impact of this belief on group OCB. Because the impact of group belief on group behavior is dependent on its "sharedness" (Kameda, Tindale, & Davis, 2003), the belief- behavior relationship at the group level should increase with the level of the group consen- sus about the value of OCB. Kameda et al.'s (2003) review of the group decision-making literature suggests that groups tend to define "correctness" by consensus and that shared information, beliefs, and preferences within groups exert an extraordinary influence on grouplevel decision processes and outcomes. Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) addressed the importance of consensual beliefs (i.e., norm strength) and argued that the level of within-group agreement about descriptive OCB norms (i.e., shared recognition that OCB is considered to be standard or "correct" within the group) should enhance the impact of the group norm on group members' OCB. Note that sufficient within-group agreement about the belief in the value of OCB is a prerequisite for analyzing this belief as a group-level property when the consensus model is applied (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).9 Yet, even groups with sufficient agreement (indicated by adequate statistical measures) are still likely to vary in their degree of consensus about the value of OCB, due to between-group differences in social interaction among group members (Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001), group cohesiveness (Luria, 2008), and the group development stage (Tuckman, 1965). Because the development of consensual beliefs about the value of OCB is assumed to be the process underlying the indirect effect of the leader's OCB on group OCB, the model clearly suggests that the group should reach high rather than sufficient consensus about the value of OCB. In other words, the consensus about the value of OCB should be high in order for OCB to become a collective — explicitly or implicitly— coordinated action (instead of a mere aggregation of individuals'
9 The requirement for within-group agreement depends on the aggregation model being used (Chan, 1998). When an additive model rather than a consensus model is assumed, it is not necessary to demonstrate withingroup agreement. (For an example, see Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002.)
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
7
OCB). In Edwards and Lambert's (2007) terms, the moderating role of group consensus should show a pattern of a second stage moderated mediation model (i.e., applied to Path b). Hypothesis 7: Group consensus about the value of OCB moderates (enhances) the effect of the belief that OCB is worthy on the unit-level OCB.
Method Sample and Procedure
The study was carried out in a large Israeli communication organization. The sample was composed of 67 work units from three departments: service (37 units), technical (21 units), and sales (9 units). Basic task activities in these three departments included responses to customer calls, equipment installations and repairs, and sales of communication packages. The department managers supported the study and provided a letter requesting the employees' cooperation and assuring the confidentiality of responses. To avoid a common source bias, we collected data from three different sources (roughly at the same time). First, work unit managers were rated by their immediate (regional) managers for their level of OCB. Second, group members (employees) of these work units rated their beliefs that OCB is worthy and their beliefs that the leader is a worthy role model. Last, unit managers rated the level of OCB of their group as a whole. Participation in the study was voluntary, to encourage honest responses, and surveys were returned directly to the research staff. Usable surveys were obtained from 683 employees, representing an average response rate of 73% within units. Response rate varied considerably between groups (38%-100%) and tended to be lower for shift employees. However, we did not find any significant relationship between response rate and the study variables, except for a positive relationship with group age. An average work unit had 14 employees (SD 3.2). For managers, average age was 30.5 years (SD 5.0), average organizational tenure was 3.4 years (SD .74), and average job tenure was 2.0 years (SD 1.2). About 33 percent of the managers were women. For employees, average age was 26.6 years (SD 2.4), average job tenure was 1.3 years (SD 0.64), and 42.5% were women. 10
Measures
All the scales in this study were 7-point scales (ranging from 1 strongly disagree or not typical at all to 7 strongly agree or very typical). Leader OCB. Area managers rated the degree to which each of their subordinate group managers engaged in OCB directed toward the organization. The construct of OCB included three scales that were chosen based on theoretical considerations (i.e., OCB that is likely to be observed by group members) as well as their psychometric qualities. Two 5-item scales from Moorman and Blakely's (1995) instrument were used to assess managers' "loyal boosterism" and "personal industry." Loyal boosterism re- fers to active defending and promoting of the organizational image to outsiders and insiders (e.g., "Defends the organization when other employees criticize it," "Shows pride when representing the
organization in public"). Industry refers to performance above and beyond the call of duty and high attention to quality (e.g., "Always meets or beats deadlines for completing work," "Performs his/her duties with extra-special care"). Change-oriented OCB, also referred to as innovative OCB (Moon, Van Dyne, & Wrobel, 2005), was assessed by Morrison and Phelps' (1999) Taking Charge Scale, which is somewhat more comprehensive than the parallel Individual Initiative Scale developed by Moorman and Blakely. Taking charge refers to employees' initiatives to bring about functional change in the workplace (e.g., "Tries to correct a faulty procedure or practice," "Makes constructive suggestions for improving how things operate within the organization"). On the basis of a pilot study, which is described in the preliminary analysissection, we used 8 items out of the 10 of the Taking Charge Scale. Work group OCB. Following the procedure applied by Ehrhart (2004) and Richardson and Vandenberg (2005), group managers rated the level of their groups' OCB along the same scales, which were refined to address the group as a whole rather than the individual's OCB. Group belief about OCB. Group members' beliefs that OCB is worthy were assessed by three items adapted from Haworth and Levy (2001). The items were modified to reflect group belief and to focus on the worthiness of OCB and not on OCB being worthwhile (i.e., "Behaviors above and beyond the job requirements areworthy although not formally rewarded," "Performance above and beyond the formal job requirements is in general valuable," and "It is worthy to devote efforts far beyond job requirements, even if these efforts are not paid for"; .84). The focus on the group was aimed to make sure that all unit members would address the same referent, and it is consistent with the concept of shared beliefs as an emergent group property (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) and with Chan's (1998) referent-shift consensus model. Leader distance. The firm's policy dictated uniform communication procedures aimed at enhancing efficient management of its highly geographically dispersed sites. Thus, there were considerable structural differences between the departments with regard to leaders' physical distance and the frequency of leadergroup interactions, which were mainly determined by the firm's procedures. In the service department (37 work units), employees worked daily in the vicinity of their leader in the same office. In the other departments (30 work units), employees worked in the field in dispersed geographical locations and met their manager once a week at the work unit meeting held at the firm's headquarters. Thus, leader distance was coded as a dummy variable (distant leader 1; close leader 0). Group belief about the leader. Group beliefs that the leader is a worthy role model were assessed with three items from Rich's (1997) Role Model Scale and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) "providing an appropriate model" scale. In line with the referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998), the items were modified to reflect the belief about the degree to which the group leader is a worthy model for the group as a whole (i.e.,
10 Work units had between 7 and 23 employees. For managers, age ranged from 23 to 50 years, organizational tenure ranged from1.0 to 5.0 years, and job tenure ranged from 0.4 to 4.0 years. For group members, mean age ranged from 23 to 50 years and mean job tenure ranged from 0.4 to 4.0 years.
8
YAFFE AND KARK
"provides us a good model to follow," "leads us by example," and "acts as role model worthy of imitation"; .91). Group consensus. In line with the conceptualization of within-group variability as indicative of the strength of group beliefs (Chan, 1998) and with previous studies on group consensus (see Luria, 2008), the level of within-group agreement/ disagreement on the value of OCB was assessed by the withingroup standard deviation in the scores of this belief (higher values signify lower consensus). Note that in this study we were interested both in the average level of belief about OCB and in within-group variability in this belief. Thus, in Chan's terms we first applied a consensus model, in which sufficient level of agreement is a prerequisite for the emergence of group property and shared meaning, and then a dispersion model, in which the level of within-group agreement is the group characteristic of interest. Controls. Our main analysis method, structural equation modeling (SEM), and the sample size limited the ability to control for potential covariates of OCB. However, in our complementary regression analysis we controlled for leader and group tenure, which are theoretically related to the development of relationships that enhance OCB (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 1994), and for group size, which may affect social integration, social coordination, or social loafing (e.g., Karau & Williams, 1993) and consequently grouplevel OCB.
First, the separate testing of each moderator without adequate controls hinders conclusions about unique contribution of the hypothesized moderator. Second, dichotomizing quantitative measures results in a loss of information and havoc with regard to estimation and interpretation of relationships among variables (MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). We therefore applied a complementary analysis using Preacher et al.'s SPSS (regression-based) macro, to assess the combined effect of all the hypothesized moderators and the unique contribution of each continuous moderator, when other interactions and potential covariates of OCB are controlled for.
Results Preliminary Analysis: Examining the Adequacy of the Study Measures
683) ratings of their beliefs about the leader and about OCB were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using the maximum likelihood method. The hypothesized two-factor model fit the data well. The chi-square was 14.3 (df 8, ns), the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.99, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) was 0.99, and the root- meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA) was .03. All scale loadings on their intended factors were high (.73-.91) and significant ( p .001), and the correlation between the factors was moderate (r .37). This model was superior to a one-factor model, which significantly decreased the model fit ( 2 150.4, 1 p .001). Following Kozlowski and Klein (2000), the interrater agreement coefficient (rwg(J); James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC(1) and ICC(2); Bliese, 2000) were examined to determine whether group members' beliefs could be analyzed as group-level constructs. The rwg(J) index compares the observed variance in group ratings to the expected variance of random response. Leadership researchers have concluded that a slightly negatively skewed distribution is a reasonably good approximation of a random response to leadership and attitude questionnaires (e.g., Schriesheim, Cogliser, & Neider, 1995; Shamir et al., 1998). Such a distribution is theoretically defensible, given the common social desirability and leniency biases in attitude studies (James et al., 1984). Our descriptive statistics indeed indicated mildly negatively skewed responses in the item ratings. We thus computed the rwg(J) index based on expected distributions possessing a small skew. For the belief about the leader, the rwg(J) values ranged from .71 to .99, and the median rwg(J) value was .90. For the belief about OCB, the rwg(J) values ranged from .58 to .98, and the median rwg(J) value was .85. Although two groups showed an interrater agreement below .70 with regard to the belief about OCB, rwg(J) values generally indicated a meaningful within-group consensus regarding both beliefs.
11 This resampling procedure creates multiple independent subsamples from the original database, which operates as an empirical rather than theoretical sampling distribution, and is free from restricting assumptions inherent to classic inferential statistics. In contrast to other tests of mediation, the bootstrap method does not rest on the assumption that the indirect effect is normally distributed, which is rarely true (Preacher et al., 2007).
Group beliefs. Group members' (n
Analytical Approach to Hypothesis Testing
We examined measurement adequacy and the study hypotheses by SEM analysis, using AMOS 7.0 software (Arbuckle, 2006). SEM is the preferred method for mediation analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Unlike regression analysis, SEM estimates the relationship between the theoretical (latent) constructs in a structural path model that takes into account the imperfect reliability of the study measures and corrects for random measurement error. In addition, SEM enables the simultaneous estimation of all the paths in a mediation model and the degree of fit of the entire mediation model, by comparing it to the fit of alternative plausible models. By contrast, regression analysis provides only separate and partial tests of model components conducted on an equation-by-equation basis. AMOS software also provides bootstrap estimates for all the parameters in a path model and significance tests of the direct, indirect, and total effects based on bias-corrected confidence intervals. The bootstrap method (Efron, 1979) is regarded the most powerful test of the size and significance of indirect effects (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). 11 We began with preliminary tests of the adequacy of our measurement model and then applied nested structural model comparisons and bootstrap analysis to draw conclusions about the direct and indirect effects of leader OCB on unit-level OCB and the mediating role of the belief about the value of OCB. We then used SEM multigroup analyses and the bootstrap method to test the specific moderating role of each potential moderator of the effect of leader OCB. Given the limitation of the sample size and the complexity involved in estimating interactions with continuous latent variables in structural equation modeling (Preacher et al., 2007), each moderation hypothesis was examined in a different SEM multigroup analysis, and continuous moderators were categorized by the median split. This procedure has two limitations.
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
9
We also looked at the range of rwg values when calculated against other plausible null distributions, as recommended by James et al. (1984) and LeBreton and Senter (2008). For the belief about the leader, median rwg(J) values ranged between .93 when the uniform null distribution applied and .72 when the heavy skew null distribution applied. For the belief about OCB, median rwg(J) values ranged between .90 when the uniform null distribution applied and .52 when the heavy skew null distribution applied. 12 We regard both extremes as a less reasonable approximation for the expected random variance. A uniform distribution neglecting common biases most likely leads to overestimation of agreement, whereas a heavy skew null distribution most likely provides an underestimation of agreement. Moreover, applying this null distribution resulted in negative rwg(J) in several groups, which often indicates that the random response null distribution has been incorrectly specified (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). ICC(1) values for the belief about the leader (ICC(1) .26, p .001), and for the belief about OCB (ICC(1) .16, p .001), indicated that a significant percent of the variance in both beliefs could be explained by membership in a particular work group. ICC(2) values (.67 and .78, respectively) indicated that for both beliefs, the group means were fairly stable. Taken together, these results suggested sufficient justification for the aggregation of both beliefs to the group level. OCB measures. On the basis of Graham's (1991) theory, we treated OCB as a second-order latent construct reflecting an active citizenship syndrome, indicated by the three dimensions (firstorder factors) of loyalty, industry, and constructive initiative (i.e., taking charge). Because the number of groups in this study (J 67) was not suitable for CFA at the item level, we obtained supporting evidence by using a different sample of 1,387 employees from the same industry who rated their coworkers along these scales. Following exploratory factor analysis we omitted two items of the Taking Charge Scale that had low loadings on their latent factor. After omission of these items, a second-order-factor model fit the data rather well (CFI 0.94, TLI 0.93, RMSEA .08). CFA indicated adequate loadings of scale items on their latent dimensions, the first-order factors (.74 -.91), and adequate loadings of the dimensions on the second-order factor, presumably representing OCB (loyalty .86, industry .85, initiative .78). The dimensions were separable, but a large portion of their vari- ance (61%-74%) was explained by the shared general OCB con- struct. Although we could not analyze the current data in the same manner, the moderately high correlations among the dimensions (.67-.69 and .64 -.70 for the leader and the group OCB, respectively) supported the assumed second-order latent factor. We thus assessed a simplified measurement model that represents the leader and group OCB as two distinct but related second-order latent factors, each reflected by three indicators (i.e., the three scale means). The reliabilities of the dimensions for the leader OCB (initiative, .91; loyalty, .88; and industry, .89) and for the group OCB (initiative, .81; loyalty, .84; and industry, .86) minimize the risk that parceled scales masked problems with individual items. CFA results showed that this 7.1, ns, CFI 1.0, TLI 1.0, model fit the data well ( 2 8 RMSEA .00). All the scale loadings on their intended factors were high (.73-.87) and significant ( p .001). We further compared this general measurement model to several restricted models,
in order to establish the invariance of measurement across the ratings of leaders and group OCB, to control for similarity of meaning of the two latent factors (see Byrne, 2001). Nested model comparisons indicated that (a) imposing equality constraints on the factor loadings of the three scales on their intended latent factors— work-unit OCB and leader OCB— did not decrease the measure2 4.1, ns, and 0.51, ns), ment model fit to the data ( 2 2 2 respectively, implying that the three scales can be considered parallel measures of both latent constructs; (b) equality constraints on the loadings of parallel scales of the same leader and group behaviors (e.g., leader loyalty and group loyalty) on their respective latent factors, leader and group OCB, did not decrease the fit of the measurement model to the data ( 2 2 2.7, ns); and (c) a restricted model that enforced the three scales to be parallel measures of the latent constructs of leader and group OCB, as well as invariance across the ratings of group and leader OCB, seemed useful. Both fit indices ( 2 12 11.7, ns, CFI 1.0, TLI 1.0, RMSEA .00), and nested model comparisons ( 2 4.6, ns), 4 suggested that this model adequately combined parsimony and fit. These results support the construct validity and the similar- ity of the factorial structure of the leader and the group OCB.13 Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables are shown in Table 1.
Tests of Mediation
Given that at least in some conditions, the belief about OCB may not fully account for the effect of the leader OCB on the group OCB, our basic model (see Figure 1) is a partial mediation model. In this model the total effect of the leader OCB (X) on the unit OCB (Y) is the sum of the direct effect (c ) and the indirect yx.m effect of the leader OCB through the mediator (M; group belief about OCB), which is equal to the product of the a and b paths ( mx ). The measurement part of this model, where all ym.x structural paths between the three variables are free (but the leader and the group OCB have a similar factorial structure), fit the data 32.9, ns, CFI 0.98, TLI 0.98, RMSEA .05). well ( 2
28
Hypotheses 1- 4 concerning the mediating role of the belief about OCB were examined by comparing three structural models. The direct effect model included only the direct effect of the leader OCB on group OCB, omitting its indirect effect through the group belief about the value of OCB. The full mediation model included the indirect effect of leader OCB, omitting its direct effect. These two models are nested in the partial mediation model, which included both the indirect and direct effects of leader OCB. The direct effect model indicated a significant effect of leader OCB on group-level OCB ( .34, p .01), implying that there is a relationship between these variables that may be mediated (Baron
12
Expected variances for a 7-point scale were adapted from LeBreton
and Senter (2008). The median rwg values for the belief about the leader and about OCB were .93 and 90 for the uniform null distribution ( 2 4); .90 and .85 for the slightly skewed distribution ( 2 2.90); .85 and .77 for moderately skewed distribution ( 2 2.14); .84 and .76 for the triangular distribution ( 2 2.10); and .72 and .52 for the heavily skewed distribution ( 2 1.39). 13 Although our hypotheses refer to the general construct of OCB, it is worth noting that the correlations of the OCB dimensions with the other study variables, although not identical, are generally in the same direction.
10
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Leader OCB Work group OCB Group size
Leader tenure Group tenure Distancea Role model Group consensus (belief variability)b Belief about OCB M 5.32 4.65 14.01 1.98 1.34 6.21 0.97 6.00 SD 0.84 0.63 3.32 1.19 0.64 0.50 0.24 0.47YAFFE AND KARK
1 — .35 .12 .06 .17 .07 .40 .20 .37
2 — .30 .24 .33 .38 .09 .29 .46
3
4
5
6
7
8
— .02 .44 .34 .06 .25 .16
— .05 .19 .14 .05 .11
— .21 .23 .09 .06
— .03 .12 .23
— .12 .38
— .32
Note. N 67 work units. Latent variables are represented by maximum likelihood factor scores. Descriptive statistics are based on raw scores. SD standard deviation; OCB organizational citizenship behavior. a Distant leader 1; Close leader 0. b Group consensus is measured by the within-group standard deviation in the belief about OCB; the higher the score the lower the consensus. p .05. p .01.
& Kenny, 1986), and supported Hypothesis 1. Although some fit indices showed a reasonable model fit (CFI 0.94, TLI 0.93), other fit indices indicated that the fit of the direct effect model to 48.9, p .02, RMSEA .09). data is deficient ( 2 30 32.9, ns, The partial mediation model fit the data well ( 2 28 CFI 0.98, TLI 0.98, RMSEA .06), and showed significantly better fit than the direct effect model ( 2 16, p .001). 2 ng hypotheses were examined in a restricted measurement model of However, although yielding somewhat better fit indices, it did not show significantly better fit than the full mediation model ( 2 1 34.9, ns; CFI 0.99, TLI 0.98, RMSEA .05), 2.0, ns; 2 29 implying that the more parsimonious full mediation model was preferable (Mathieu & Taylor, 2006). Inspection of the path coefficients in the partial mediation model indicated a significant effect of leader OCB on group belief that OCB is worthy ( .38, p .005) and a significant effect of this belief on group OCB ( .39, p .05), thus supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3, respectively. However, the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB, which was significant in the direct effect model, became nonsignificant when the effect of the belief about OCB was introduced in the partial mediation model ( .20, ns). Moreover, bootstrap estimates (means estimates across 2,000 independent samples drawn from the original data) revealed that the indirect effect of leader OCB on ym.x .15, SE .07, p group OCB was significant ( mx .01), as was the total effect (.35, SE 35, p .05), but the direct .20, SE .16, ns). effect of leader OCB was not ( yx.m Together, these results satisfy Baron and Kenny's criteria for establishing full over partial mediation, thus partially supporting Hypothesis 4. See Figure 2.
moderation analysis began with tests of the invariance of the factorial structure of the study measures across the levels of the moderator, and invariant measures were constrained equal while subsequent tests of the structural parameters were conducted. The results of these preliminary tests indicated a reasonable similarity in the measurement model across the levels of the three moderators, and thus the moderati group invariance. The potential moderating effects of each moderator were examined by comparing the unconstraint structural model to three nested models; each constrained a different path coefficient in the mediation model to equality across the levels of the moderator (see Table 2). A significant decrease in the unconstrained model fit to the data implies a significant difference between the levels of the moderator in the path coefficient that was constrained to equality, thus indicating that the foci variable moderates the path of interest (Kline, 1998). We further looked at the effects at each level of the moderator, to examine whether the moderating pattern was consistent with our hypotheses. Figure 3 shows the basic mediation model at the two levels of each moderator (factor loadings are constrained to equality, but structural paths are free of constraints). Note that for each level of the moderator, the path (a, b, c) coefficients in the mediation model represent conditional effects. That is, the magnitude of each path coefficient in the mediation model is conditioned (or dependent) on the particular level (high or low) of the moderator. Hence, although a significance test of the difference between equivalent path coefficients at the two levels of the moderator investigates whether the effects in the mediation model vary systematically as a function of the moderator, the magnitude and direction of these conditional effects indicate how they vary. Bootstrap estimates of these conditional paths as well as the conditional indirect and total effects for each moderator are presented in Table 3. Leader distance. Figure 3a depicts the unconstrained structural mediation model for close leaders who have daily direct interactions with their groups (n 37) and for distant leaders who interact with their groups in a formal meeting once a week (n 31). Nested model comparisons (see Table 2) supported Hypothesis 5, showing that the only significant difference between close and distant leaders is in the direct path from the leader OCB to the
Tests of Moderated Mediation
Given the limitation of the sample size and the complexity involved in estimating interactions with continuous latent variables in structural equation modeling (Preacher et al., 2007), each moderation hypothesis was examined in a different SEM multigroup analysis, and continuous moderators were categorized by the median split. Note that although the full mediation model better fit the data from the entire sample, the test of the hypotheses on the specific role of each moderator required the assessment of the saturated (partial mediation) model at both levels. Following Byrne's guidelines (2001), each
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
11
Model: Partial Mediation
e4
.80 .89
e5
.65 .81 .90
e6
. 81
Value1
Value2
Group belief about OCB
Value3 R2=.14 .39* (s.e.=.15)
Z2
e1 e2
.73
Initiative
.86
.38** (s.e.=.13)
Leader OCB
.78 R2=. 25 .88 .80 .74
Initiative Loyalty e7
Z1
Loyalty .68 .82
.20 (s.e.=.16)
.80 .65
e3 Industry
Group OCB
.63 .55
e8
Industry
e9
Chi-square = 32.94; df = 28; p< .24; CFI = .99; GFI = .90; TLI = .98; RMSEA = .05; RMR = .04 Model: Full Mediation
e4 e5 e6
.80 .89
.65 .81 .90
.81
Value1
Value2
Group belief about OCB
Value3 R2=.15 .47* (s.e.=.15)
Z2
e1 e2
Initiative
.73 .86
Leader OCB
.38** (s.e.=.13)
Z1
R2=.22 .00
Group OCB
.88 Initiative
.78 e7
Loyalty .67 .82 .81 .65 Industry
.80 Loyalty .63 e8 .74 Industry .55
e9
e3
Chi-square = 34.97; df = 29; p< .22; CFI = .98; GFI =.90; TLI = .98; RMSEA = .05; RMR = .06
Figure 2. Partial and full mediation models of the leader organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Standardized path coefficients are the means of bootstrap parameter estimates from 2,000 independent samples drawn from the original sample. Bootstrap standard errors are shown in parentheses. All factor loadings are significant at the .005 or .001 level. Two-tailed significance is determined by bias-corrected confidence intervals. s.e. standard error; df degrees of freedom; CFI comparative fit index; GFI goodness of fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA root-mean-square-error of approximation; RMR root-mean-square residual. p .05. p .01.
group OCB. This implies a pattern of a direct effect moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). That is, enforcing the equality constraint on the direct path from leader OCB to group across the levels of leader distance significantly decreases the model fit to the data ( 2 5.6, p .05). However, equality 1 constraints on the path from the leader OCB to the group belief about OCB ( 2 .06, ns), and from the group belief to the group 1 .38, ns), did not decrease the model fit to the data OCB ( 2 1 (see Table 2). In line with the role of visibility in a social learning process, the direct effect of leader OCB was significant only for close leaders. Figure 3a and Table 3 show that close leaders' OCB significant direct effect (.48, p .001) as well as a significant indirect effect (.12, p .001), which together produced a significant total effect on group-level OCB (.60, p 001). Distant leaders' OCB had a significant indirect effect on group OCB
through the group belief about OCB (.13, p .001), but this effect did not yield a significant total effect. Group belief that the leader is a worthy role model. Fig- OCB ure 3b depicts the unconstrained structural mediation model for leaders who were seen by their groups as highly worthy role models to follow (n 34; factor M 0.75) and for leaders who were rated less favorably on this leadership quality (n 33; factor M 0.77). We use relative terms to describe the two groups because the raw score rating of the leaders in our sample were generally favorable (ranging between 4.46 and 6.97 ), consistent with the typical leniency bias in leadership studies (e.g., had a Schriesheim et al., 1995; Shamir et al., 1998). Thus, the less favorable role models still rated rather high on this quality (raw score M 5.8), although meaningfully lower that the highly worthy role models (raw score M 6.6).
12
YAFFE AND KARK
Table 2 Nested Model Comparisons Testing the Differences Between Path Coefficients Across the Levels of the Moderators
Moderator Model 1. Unrestricted measurement model 2. Unrestricted structural model
a 2 48
Distance 56.1, ns, CFI 0.97, TLI 0.96, RMSEA .05 2 62.7, ns, CFI 0.99, TLI 58 0.98, RMSEA .04 2 6.60 10 2 0.06 1 2 0.38 1 5.6 2
1 2 48
Role model 54.7, ns, CFI 0.98, TLI 0.97, RMSEA .05 2 63.1, ns, CFI 0.98, TLI 58 0.97, RMSEA .04 2 8.42 10 2 5.6 1 2 0.84 1 3.8 2
1 2 48 2 58
Group consensus 52.3, ns, CFI 0.98, TLI 0.98, RMSEA .04 61.8, ns, CFI 0.99, TLI 0.99, RMSEA .03 2 9.43 10 2 1.6 8.6 1 2 0.00
1 2 1
3. AL 4. BL 5. CL
AHb BH CH
Note. ns nonsignificant; CFI comparative fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation. a In the unrestricted measurement model, all the parameters are free to vary. In the unrestricted structural model, structural path coefficients are free to vary, but the measurement model is restricted in two ways. First, as in the mediation test, at each level of the moderator the three scales are enforced to be parallel measures of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and invariant across the rating of the group and the leader OCB. Second, the factor loadings in the latent factors are enforced to be equal across the level of the moderator. b In Models 3-5, the structural paths (a, b, c) on the mediation model are constrained to equality across the two levels of the moderator (L low, H high). p .05. p .01.
Nested model comparisons (see Table 2) indicated significant differences across the levels of this moderator in the effects of leader OCB both on group belief and on group behavior, implying a pattern of a first stage and direct effect moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). That is, equality constraints both on the path from leader OCB to group belief about OCB ( 2 5.6, p .05), and on 1 the path from leader OCB to group OCB ( 2 3.8, p .05), across 1 the role model levels, significantly decreased the model fit to the data, but the equality constraint on the paths from group belief to group OCB did not ( 2 1 0.84, ns). Figure 3b shows that the effect of group belief that OCB is worthy on group OCB was significant for both higher and lower role models ( .41, p .01 and .35, p .01, respectively). However, the effects of leader OCB on belief about OCB and on group OCB were significant only for those leaders who were seen by their groups as highly worthy role models ( .72, p .001 and .50, p .005, respectively). These results support Hypothesis 6. Table 3 shows that for leaders who were seen by their groups as highly worthy role models, leader OCB had a significant direct effect (.50, p .005) as well as a significant indirect effect (.30, p .005), which together produced a significant total effect on group OCB (.79, p .005). Modeling of OCB did not seem to exert any (direct or indirect) effect on group behavior for leaders who were not seen by their groups as highly worthy role models. Group consensus about the value of OCB. Figure 3c depicts the unconstrained structural mediation model for groups with high (n 34; mean SD 1.16) and relatively low (n 33; mean SD .78) levels of consensus about the value of OCB. The group consensus was determined based on group within-group variability (i.e., standard deviation) in the group belief that OCB is worthy. Nested model comparisons (see Table 2) indicated that the only significant difference between the levels of group consensus was in the effect of the group belief on group behavior, implying a pattern of a second stage moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). That is, equality constraints on the path from group belief about OCB to group-level OCB across the levels of group consensus significantly decreased the model fit to the data ( 2 1 8.6, p .01), whereas equality constraints on the path from leader OCB to group belief about OCB ( 2 1.6, ns), and to group OCB ( 2 .00), did not.
1 1
In support of Hypothesis 7, Figure 3c indicates that the positive effect of the group belief that OCB is worthy on group OCB was significant when the group consensus about the value of OCB was high ( .77, p .001) rather than merely sufficient ( .00). Table 3 also shows that when the group consensus was high, leader OCB had a significant indirect effect (.34, p .01), thus yielding a significant total effect (.48, p .05) on group OCB. When the group consensus about the value of OCB was lower, leader OCB had no significant effect on group OCB. Although we did not formulate hypotheses about the dependence of indirect effects and the mediation pattern on the moderators, Table 3 reveals several interesting findings. First, the direct effect of the leader was significant in two conditions: when the leader was close and when the leader was seen by the group as a highly worthy role model. In both cases, the leader's OCB had significant direct and indirect effects, implying that the group belief about OCB only partially mediates the effect of the leader's OCB. Second, the indirect effect of the leader's OCB was not significant in two conditions: when the leader was not seen by the group as a highly worthy role model and when the consensus about the value of OCB was low. Third, the criteria for establishing full mediation were satisfied only in the high consensus condition. That is, this is the only case in which leader OCB had significant indirect and total effects but a nonsignificant direct effect (see Mathieu & Taylor, 2006). Thus, although the mediational analysis of the entire sample data indicated that the belief about OCB may fully account for the effect of leader OCB on group OCB, the moderated medi- ation analyses suggested that the extent to which the belief in the value of OCB fully or partially mediates the effect of leader OCB is dependent on the moderators in our model.
Complementary Analyses
Despite the advantages of SEM, the multigroup analysis has two shortcomings. First, each moderator was examined separately without controlling for the other moderators; thus, the unique contribution of each moderating effect to group OCB is unclear.
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
13
A.1. Distant Leaders
A.2. Close Leaders
GBAO R2 = .13 = .36** (s.e .= .19) = .38** (s.e .= .16) R2 = .12 LOCB = -.11 (s.e. = .25) GOCB LOCB = .36** (s.e.= .16)
GBAO R2= .13 =. 34** (s.e. = .15) R2 = .46 = .48** (s.e.=.15) GOCB
Chi-square=62.94; df = 58; p< .32; CFI = .99; GFI= = .85; TLI = .98; RMSEA= .04 ; RMR = .05
B.1. Low Role Models GBAO = .00 (s.e.= .19) = -.04 LOCB (s.e.= .17) GOCB R2 = .00 = .35** (s.e.= .20) R2=.12
B.2. High Role Models GBAO = .72** (s.e.= .14) LOCB =.50** (s.e.= .26) R2 = .51 = .41** (s.e.= .24) R2 = .71 GOCB
Chi-square=63.12; df = 58; p< .30; CFI = .98; GFI=.84; TLI = .98; RMSEA= .04; RMR = .06
C.1. Low Consensus GBAO = .21 (s.e.= .25) R2=.04 = .00 (s.e.= .24) R2=.04 LOCB = .21 (s.e.=.27) GOCB
C.2. High Consensus GBAO = .45** (s.e.= .14) R2=.20 = .77** (s.e.= .16) R2=.67 LOCB = .14 (s.e.= .17) GOCB
Chi-square=61.76; df = 58; p< .42; CFI = .99; GFI=.84; TLI = .99; RMSEA= .03 ; RMR = .05
Figure 3. Conditional effects of leader organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Conditional effects were tested in an unconstrained structural model but a restricted model of measurement invariance across groups (i.e., factor loadings are constrained to equality, but structural paths are free of constraints). Bootstrap standardized paths coefficients are the means of parameter estimates from 2,000 independent samples drawn from the original sample. Bootstrap standard errors are shown in parentheses. Two-tailed significance is determined by bias-corrected confidence intervals. GBAO group belief about OCB; LOCB leader OCB; GOCB group-level OCB. s.e. standard error; df degrees of freedom; CFI comparative fit index; GFI goodness of fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA root-mean-square-error of approximation; RMR root-mean-square residual. p .01.
Second, continuous variables were dichotomized in a common but arbitrary way (i.e., median split).14 To overcome these shortcomings, we applied Preacher et al.'s (2007) SPSS macro to compute bootstrap estimates for a conditional indirect effect in a moderated mediation model in which the indirect paths to and from the mediator (a and b) were moderated by different variables. This macro incorporates Baron and Kenny's (1986) stepwise procedure with the bootstrap method. We used this macro to test the significance of the indirect effect of leader OCB, considering its contingency both on the status of the leader as a role model and on the group consensus about the value of OCB (treated as continuous variables), while controlling for the moderating effect of leader distance. In this analysis we also controlled for group size, leader
tenure, and group tenure, which might theoretically affect grouplevel OCB. Consistent with the conceptualization of OCB as a common factor underlying its dimensions and with the SEM
14 Dichotomizing quantitative measures results in a loss of information and havoc with regard to estimation and interpretation of relationships among variables (MacCallum et al., 2002). A simulation of the methods used by Bissonnette, Ickes, Bernstein, and Knowles (1990) to study moderating effects showed that the dichotomization approach yielded higher Type I error rates, indicating detecting spurious interactions, and less power to detect interactions that were actually present in the population, than did the standard regression approach.
14
Table 3 Conditional Effects of the Leader OCB
Stage Moderator Distance Low (J 37) High (J 30) Role model Low (J 33) High (J 34) Group consensus Low (J 34) High (J 33) First (a) .36 (.16) .36 (.19) .00 (.19) .72 (.14) .21 (.25) .45 (.14)
YAFFE AND KARK
Effect Second (b) .34 (.15) .38 (.16) .35 (.20) .41 (.24) .00 (.24) .77 (.16) Direct (c ) .48 (.15) .11 (.25) .04 (.17) .50 (.26) .21 (.27) .14 (.17) Indirect .12 (.08) .13 (.08) .00 (.07) .30 (.20) .00 (.10) .34 (.12) Total .60 (.12) .03 (.27) .04 (.19) .79 (.11) .21 (.23) .48 (.17)
Note. Bootstrap standardized estimates are the means of parameter estimates based on 2,000 independent samples drawn from the original sample. Bootstrap standard errors are shown in parentheses. The number of work units (J) was determined by the median split, except for the distance moderator, for which the levels were determined by the organization structure. Indirect effects are approximately the multiplication of the bootstrap estimates for indirect paths from the independent variable to the mediator (Stage 1) and from the mediator to the dependent variable (Stage 2). Group consensus is measured by the standard deviation; the higher the score the lower the consensus. Two-tailed significance is based on the bias-corrected confidence intervals. p .05. p .01.
analysis, the latent variables in the model were represented by maximum likelihood factor scores. The results of this analysis (shown in Table 4) indicated that when considered simultaneously, all the moderating effects were significant and support the hypothesized unique contribution of each moderating effect. The macro also provides regions of significance of the bootstrap estimates of the conditional indirect effect (assuming a normal distribution of the indirect effect), as well as bootstrap estimates based on biased-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals. These outputs suggest that the probability of an indirect effect increases with the enhancement both in group consensus about the value of OCB and in group belief that the leader is a highly worthy role model. The indirect effect of leader OCB was the strongest when both of these are high but was also present when the level of at least one of these moderators was high and the level of the other was not low. It is noteworthy that when we considered all the moderators simultaneously, the effects of leader OCB and the belief about OCB were still significant, and group belief about OCB apparently only partially mediated the effect of leader OCB on group OCB. Besides these variables, only leader tenure and group tenure had significant main effects on group-level OCB. However, group size had a marginally significant negative effect on group belief that OCB is worthy. Finally, because distance in this study was defined as betweendepartment differences, it might have confounded other differences between the departments, such as task type. We thus reanalyzed the data with the same macro, excluding the distance and controlling for the department (recoded as two dummy variables). The results were similar, indicating that the indirect effect was dependent both on group consensus and on the belief that the leader was a highly worthy role model. Although the level of group OCB varied between departments, there was no significant department effect when group size and tenure variables were controlled for.
Discussion
The current study explored "leading by example" in work organizations, focusing on the effect of leader OCB on work-group OCB. The results support the hypothesized moderated mediation model and enhance our understanding of the processes underlying leading by example effects, as well as their boundary conditions. This study underscores the importance ascribed to leading by example in leadership theories by providing evidence that exemplary leader behavior may promote group-level behaviors that enhance organizational effectiveness (Organ et al., 2006). The significant effect of leader OCB on group OCB implies that by setting a personal example of contribution to the organization, leaders can promote similar contributions from their groups. We looked at two processes that may explain the leading-byexample effect: a direct process, which presumably involves mere emulation of the leader's behaviors, and an indirect process, by which the leader's OCB enhances the group's belief that OCB is worthy and in turn enhances group OCB. The SEM results supported the mediating role of the group belief that OCB is worthy, in the relationship between leader OCB and group OCB. They also indicated that the extent to which the belief about OCB fully or partially mediates the effect of leader OCB is dependent on the moderators in our model. Furthermore, the moderated mediation patterns indicated that both the direct and the indirect processes may be viable when essential conditions are met. That is, conditions that promote social learning of leader behavior moderated the direct effect of leader OCB, and conditions that promote transformational process through group belief about OCB moderated the indirect effect of leader OCB. In particular, leader proximity and group belief that the leader is a highly worthy role model facilitated the direct effect of leader OCB, presumably by providing preconditions of social learning (i.e., the ability to observe the behaviors and the motivation to emulate them; Bandura, 1977). Leader OCB had no direct effect
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
15
Table 4 Regression Results for Conditional Indirect Effect
Independent variable B SE Mediator variable model (belief about OCB) .03 .22 .09 .03 .18 .14 .22 .12 .11 .30 .12 .30 .22 .12 .09 .37 Dependent variable model (group OCB) .03 .07 .14 .17 .09 .35 .10 .11 .17 .07 .42 Boot SE Boot z t p
Group size
Leader tenure Group tenure Distance (D) Role model (RM) Leader OCB (LOCB) LOCB D LOCB RM0.06 0.03 0.20 0.22 0.30 0.31 0.25 .28
1.78 0.29 1.13 1.03 2.59 2.64 1.13 3.29
.08 .77 .26 .31 .01 .01 .27 .01
Group size
Leader tenure Group tenure Distance (D) Role model (RM) Belief variability (BV) Leader OCB (LOCB) OCB is worthy LOCB D LOCB RM BAO BV Belief variability0.02 0.14 0.28 0.14 0.03 0.38 0.30 0.27 0.46 0.18 1.16
.06 .18 .19 .08 .03 .10 .30 .28 .23 .25 .25 Boot p
0.61 2.05 2.00 0.83 0.31 1.07 3.03 2.54 2.63 2.54 2.73
.55 .05 .05 .41 .76 .29 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 95% bias-corrected CI
Role model
Boot indirect effect
Lower
Upper
1 SD 1 SD 1 SD M M SD 1 SD 1 SD 1 SD
1 SD M.01 .00 1 SD M.08 .00 1 SD M.16 .00
Conditional indirect effect effects at specific values of the moderators, M 1 SD .02 .08 0.23 .82 .04 0.21 .82 .10 .02 0.01 .99 .07 .17 .08 2.02 .04 .05 1.77 .08 .01 .04 0.05 .96 .12 .32 .13 2.48 .01 .08 2.01 .04 .04 .08 0.05 .96 .18 standard deviation; CI
.19 .17 1 .06 .02 .23 M .07 .12 .39 1 .13 confidence interval.
.31 SD .44 1 .73 SD
Note. Preacher et al.'s (2007) macro output is based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. SD
on group OCB when the leader was distant and when the group did not consider the leader to be a highly worthy role model. Both the belief that the leader is a highly worthy role model and a high consensus about the value of OCB facilitated the indirect effect of leader OCB. The status of the leader as a highly worthy role model enhanced the effect of leader OCB on the group belief that OCB is worthy, and high consensus about the value of OCB enhanced the effect of the group belief that OCB is worthy on group OCB. Leader OCB had no indirect effect on group OCB when the group did not view the leader as a highly worthy role model and when the group consensus about the value of OCB was not as high. Although social learning may also be involved in transmitting OCB-related values and beliefs (Bandura, 2003), this process is more closely addressed by transformational and charismatic leadership theories (e.g., Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993). The effect of leaders' OCB on the value that groups ascribe to OCB supports these theories' propositions that role modeling of contributions to the collective is a major means by which effective
leaders transform followers' values and attitudes and change followers' focus from self-interest to collective interest (e.g., Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993). The indirect effect of leader OCB on group OCB, through the group belief that OCB is worthy, is consistent with the process described by Shamir et al. (1993, 1998). In this process, a leader's exemplary contributions enhance the group's collectivistic orientation, so that group members' contributions to the group become self-expressive and intrinsically satisfying. The moderators examined here advance our understanding of the processes underlying the leading-by-example effects and of their boundary conditions. As discussed below, each moderator uniquely shaped the effects of leader OCB. Leader distance significantly reduced the direct effect of leader OCB, supporting the importance of visibility for social learning process. Close leaders' OCB had both direct and indirect effects on group OCB, but the direct effect explained a large portion of the total effect. Distant leaders' OCB had only a minor significant
16
YAFFE AND KARK
indirect effect, which was not sufficient to produce a significant total effect on group OCB.15 The sizable effect of the proximal leader on group-level OCB challenges the assumption that physical proximity and frequent direct interactions limit the outcomes of close leaders to the individual level (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Close leaders apparently can improve group-level outcomes by role modeling behaviors that are directed to this level (Hackman, 1992; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). On the other hand, because distance did not moderate the indirect effect of the leader OCB, our results also imply that physical proximity per se cannot explain the transformational influence that leaders may have on their group OCB-related values and beliefs. In light of the increasing prevalence of "leading at a distance" in virtual organizations, multinational firms and domestic companies with widely dispersed sites (Howell, Neufeld, & Avolio, 2005), this issue merits further study. Group belief that the leader is a highly worthy role model enhanced the direct effect of leader OCB on group OCB as well as on the group belief that OCB is worthy and, as a result, on the indirect effect of leader OCB. Leader OCB had significant direct and indirect effects on group-level OCB and thus led to a remarkable total effect for leaders who were highly worthy role models for their groups. Leader OCB had no (direct or indirect) effect on group OCB for leaders who were less admirable role models. This finding suggests that hierarchical status per se does not ensure any impact on group-level OCB. Instead, leaders must be perceived by their groups as highly worthy role models (rather than just good role models) in order to influence not only group-level behaviors but also values and beliefs related to group-level OCB. The OCB of leaders who are not viewed by their group as highly worthy role models is apparently far less informative with regard to appropriate behavior for group members, and it does not have a symbolic value that may shape the group valuation of OCB. As posited by the theory of social identity of leadership, leadership is fundamentally a process of group influence, and a formal leader is really a leader only to those who are willing to follow (Hogg, 2001). In line with the theory of distant leadership (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002), the status of the leader as a role model was not related to the leader distance. It was, however, related to leader OCB, implying that by modeling OCB, leaders may enhance their worthiness as role models, thereby increasing their impact on their groups. Note, however, that despite this positive relationship, the effect of leaders who are viewed by their groups as highly worthy role models also implies emulation of avoidance of low level of the leader OCB (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). The group consensus moderated the effect of the group-level belief that OCB is worthy on the group-level OCB and, as a result, the indirect effect of leader OCB on group OCB. These effects were significant for groups with a high consensus about the value of OCB but were nonsignificant when the group consensus was not as high. This finding is important for several reasons. First, it suggests that the influence process at the group level is dependent not only on the leader's impact on individuals but also on the leader's ability to facilitate group processes (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Second, it supports the idea that the development of a consensual belief in the value of OCB is a process that underlies the indirect effect of leader OCB on group OCB. Third, the consensual nature of the forces that drive OCB in work groups implies that grouplevel OCB may explicitly or implicitly be a collective, coordinated
action (rather than a mere aggregation of individuals' OCB) and thus be qualitatively different from individual-level OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Moreover, the results showed that group beliefs about OCB had a significant effect on group OCB, regardless of the level of leader distance and the group belief about the leader as a role model. However, this belief fully mediated the effect of leader OCB only when the group developed a high consensus about the value of OCB. Thus, the results are indicative about the potential as well as the limitations of modeling behavior to inspire a transformational process that targets collective performance (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Future studies could explore how and when leaders enhance consensual beliefs in their groups by considering structural features beyond the leader's control that shape the frequency and quality of interactions among group members (Luria, 2008).
Practical Implications
There is a lack of consensus about the role of formal mechanisms promoting OCB at the organizational level. Some researchers have argued that any behavior that is important for organizational functioning should be included in a formal job description and appraisal system (e.g., Tansik, 1990). Others have pointed out that this could be impossible and is probably undesirable. Many role behaviors, particularly in service firms, are unique ways of problem solving and thus cannot be fully specified in advance (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Morrison, 1996). Moreover, rigid job descriptions, rules, and regulations may reduce intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975) and may impede initiative and flexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies (Smith et al., 1983). For this reason, informal influence processes, such as a leader's role modeling, seem particularly important in cultivating OCB. The results of this study suggest that by modeling OCB, leaders can educate work groups about the importance of contributions in the form of OCB and at the same time make leaders deserving of such contributions (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Thus, organizations seeking to promote OCB should devote special attention to human resource management practices that are likely to enhance OCB through the organization's leaders. To begin with, organizations can adopt selection practices that consider the tendency of applicants to engage in OCB (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Promoting leaders' OCB also requires investment in leadership development programs aimed at competence building. Ready and Conger (2003) observed that many leadership development efforts fail due to their "product-focused quick-fix mentality" instead of a willingness to invest in building leadership competencies. Our results imply a high return on investment that educates leaders to lead by example in general and to set a personal example of OCB in particular. Using high-potential role models as instructors in the leadership development process can help foster exemplary leadership throughout work units and the organization (Day & Halpin, 2001).
The indirect effect of distant leaders may indicate that even if group members do not meet their leader daily, they may develop a shared understanding of the leader's OCB-related values and norms with time and cumulative interactions (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003). Alternatively, the leader may communicate his or her citizenship-related values and beliefs via mediated communication (Avolio, Kahai, Dumdum, & Sivasubramaniam, 2001).
15
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
17
Finally, Morrison's (1996) model suggests that selection, socialization, and other human resource management practices are more apt to ensure leaders' OCB if they emphasize broadly defined obligations and mutual long-term commitment, which are the cornerstones of social-exchange relationships.
Strengths and Limitations
The contribution of the current study should be considered in light of its limitations. Most obvious is the study design, which prevents firm causal conclusions. The effect of the leader's contribution on the group-level OCB is implied in charismatic leadership theory (e.g., Shamir et al., 1993) and has been reported in laboratory studies (Guth et al., 2007; Potters et al., 2007). How- ¨ ever, in natural organizations the relationship observed between leader and group OCB is likely to be reciprocal. Such a reciprocal influence is consistent with Burns's (1978) view of transformational leadership as a process by which "leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation" (p. 20). Longitudinal field study should explore the potential effects of work groups' OCB on leaders. Although using data from a single organization eliminates many potentially confounding factors, such as type of industry, organizational culture, and other systemic factors that may affect OCB (MacKenzie et al., 1999), it may limit the results' generalizability (Ehrhart, 2004). We followed previous studies (e.g., Farh et al., 2001; LePine &Van Dyne, 1998; MacKenzie et al., 1999; Morrison & Phelps, 1999) in using the same measure to assess the level of managers' and employees' OCB. This procedure is vital for the study of modeling OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) and was justified by the similar factorial structure of the measures of leader OCB and group OCB. Nevertheless, we cannot disregard the possibility that at least some OCBs, such as taking charge, are more likely to be expected from managers than employees. This calls for two comments. First, taking charge was regarded by the focal organization as manager OCB according to Organ's (1988) criteria: It was not an explicit part of their job description; they were not trained by the organization to initiate change and were not formally rewarded for doing so. Second, the broad definition of OCB as proactive responsible participation in an organization is theoretically independent of role expectation (Van Dyne et al., 1994). As noted by Organ et al. (2006) and demonstrated by McAllister et al. (2007), the degree to which employees perceive OCB as an expected part of the job (i.e., role breadth) is distinct from the degree to which they feel complete freedom (i.e., discretion) to choose whether or not to engage in OCB. Nevertheless, the fact that we did not assess subjective role perceptions may be considered a limitation of this study, as OCB can be understood and enacted somewhat differently by employees and managers. Future studies could examine whether role perceptions modify the effect of leader OCB. Another limitation of this study is related to the measure of the leader's physical distance. Although in the organization studied, physical distance reliably reflected the leaders' visibility and the frequency and immediacy of leader- group interactions, it might have confounded other between-department differences. However, the unique result pattern increases our confidence that the moderating effect of leader distance involved leader visibility rather than other factors. In particular, the results showed that physical prox-
imity of the leader enhanced the direct effect, but not the indirect effect of the leader OCB on group OCB, which presumably involves a deeper transformational process. Nevertheless, visibility should be assessed with different measure within settings that allow high visibility of physically distant leaders (e.g., via television or the Internet). A clear advantage of this study is that it avoids the problems associated with data from a common source, such as correlation inflation, by gathering data from three different sources (work unit managers, their supervisors, and their subordinates' work unit members). A side effect of this procedure is that the levels of leader and group OCB are not identical to those that might have been reported by group members (Ehrhart, 2004). However, the focus on OCB, which should be visible to any external observer over sufficient time, may have limited the discrepancy among OCB reports from various sources.
Directions for Future Research
The importance ascribed to leading by example in various leadership theories and the importance of OCB for organizational effectiveness justify future study of both. Future study may further explore the transformational process of OCB-related beliefs. We proposed that leader OCB shapes group beliefs about OCB in four complementary ways: by enhancing the salience of shared values, by highlighting the importance of group mission, by communicating acceptable means for goal attainment, and by enhancing trust in the leader. Future studies should examine whether leader OCB affects these constructs and whether they are indeed complementary. It would also be advantageous to explore other important potential outcomes of leader OCB that may mediate its effect on group OCB or separately contribute to a group-level outcome. These include reducing turnover rates within work groups and enhancing positive attitudes toward the organization (MacKenzie et al., 1999), as well as inspiring task cohesiveness and collective efficacy (Bandura, 2003; Zaccaro et al., 2001). Organ et al. (2006) discussed several potential mediators of the effect of modeling OCB by leaders on followers' OCB that merit future attention (i.e., trust in the leader, role clarity, job satisfaction). The leadership literature suggests that trust in the leader and identification with the leader may serve both as mediators and as moderators of the effect of leader OCB (see Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; van Knippenberg, et al., 2005). Researchers may also attempt to identify additional moderators of the effect of leader OCB. One potential important moderator is culture. For example, the cultural dimension of power distance (PD) reflects tolerance of inequalities and status differences. PD affects the prototype of the ideal leader, the acceptability of various leader and follower behaviors (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), and the type of common leader-follower relationship (Organ et al., 2006). Thus, it is possible that in low PD cultures (like the one we studied) in comparison to high PD cultures, (a) leader behaviors may be more informative regarding expected followers' behaviors, (b) leaders may need to demonstrate a higher level of contribution to the group in order to be accepted as highly worthy role models, and (c) leaders and followers may be more equal in their ability to influence each other.
18
YAFFE AND KARK
Another future direction is a cross-level study of the interactive effect of the leader and the group on individual OCB. Although this study suggests that work groups emulate the level of their leader's observable OCB, Bommer et al. (2003) found evidence for social learning of coworkers' OCB. A cross-level study would allow researchers to explore the conditions that determine the relative impact of leader OCB and group OCB on individual group members. Such a study would be valuable, because (a) both managers and coworkers are considered important sources of information and social learning (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992); (b) groups are more likely than individuals to develop values, norms, and expectations that oppose those of the organization (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003); and (c) leaders may exemplify avoidance of citizenship (Bolino & Turnley, 2003, p. 67). Researchers may broaden the study on the outcomes of group OCB to include criteria of group effectiveness other than group performance, such as the contribution of OCB to group existence and the satisfaction of group members (Gladstein, 1984). Several scholars have posited that OCB should have positive effects on such outcomes. For example, Bolino, Turnley, and Bloodgood (2002) argued that OCB should enhance group social capital (e.g., mutual trust and understanding). Thus, group-level OCB may potentially satisfy group members' relational and identity-related needs as well as group members' self-expressive and self-worth needs (Shamir et al., 1998). On the other hand, scholars have also argued that an escalation of OCB may lead to role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Kark & Waismel-Manor, 2005). We are not aware of any study that directly examines the potential benefits and costs of OCB to employee well-being at the group level. A related research topic is identifying potentially negative effects of leader OCB. For example, one may argue that leader innovative OCB may create role ambiguity, role stress, and group resistance if it is inconsistent with formal role require- ments or standard procedures.16 At the same time, modeling of appropriate efforts to correct faulty procedures or practices and to struggle against group thinking may teach employees how to reduce stressful events in their work environment and encour- age them to do so. Finally, future studies could examine the effect of other functional leader behaviors, such as stewardship, teamwork, and peacemaking, as well as the effect of leader dysfunctional and unethical behaviors (Trevino & Brown, 2005) on group-level behavior. Although this study focuses on positive role models who highlight a strategy of pursuing success, negative role models are also important because they exhibit behaviors that employees should avoid (Lockwood, Marshall, & Sadler, 2005) and that may severely damage the organization (Trevino & Brown, 2005). The motivating effects of positive and negative role models are apparently culture dependent (Lockwood et al., 2005), so it would be interesting to examine whether our model applies to different leader behaviors across cultures. In conclusion, the current study explores the potential of leading by example to inspire collective action toward a common goal, the processes that may account for this effect, and the conditions that enhance or limit these processes. Although leader OCB may be a unique rather than a representative case of leading by example, modeling OCB seems particularly relevant to the current challenges of leadership, such as establishing the normative basis for
team functioning, motivating a team to work hard on behalf of the team's common goal, and linking the team to the organization.
16
We thank Reviewer 1 for this insight.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 -211. doi:10.1016/07495978(91)90020-T Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673-704. doi:10.1016/ S1048-9843(02)00155-8 Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identitybased perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Avolio, B., Kahai, S., Dumdum, R., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2001). Virtual teams: Implications for E-leadership and team development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations (pp. 337-358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2003). On the psychosocial impacts and mechanisms of spiritual modeling. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, 167-173. doi:10.1207/S15327582IJPR1303_02 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs: A conception for analyzing group structure, processes, and behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press. Bissonnette, V., Ickes, W., Bernstein, I., & Knowles, E. (1990). Personality moderating variables: A warning about statistical artifact and a comparison of analytic techniques. Journal of Personality, 58, 567-587. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00243.x Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein &S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349 -381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 60 -71. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between employee conscientiousness and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740 -748. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740 Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505-522. doi:10.2307/4134400 Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. (2003). Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 181-196. doi:10.1002/job.187 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
LEADING BY EXAMPLE domain of different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 -246. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.83.2.234 Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376 -399). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers' responses to self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397- 421. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00025-9 Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00104.x Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637- 647. doi:10.2307/258069 Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3-13. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.3 Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2001). Leadership development: A review of industry best practices (Tech. Rep. No. 1111). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Research Institute. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 26, 355-369. doi:10.1108/ 01437730510607853 Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450 - 467. doi:10.1287/ orsc.12.4.450.10640 Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work groups: The role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1084 -1095. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1084 Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22. doi:10.1037/1082989X.12.1.1 Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Annals of Statistics, 7, 1-26. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552 Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960 -974. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960 Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & Van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 1035-1057. doi:10.1002/job.496 Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2001, August). Organizational context and employee citizenship behavior in the PRC: Impact of job function, managerial level, and organization ownership. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175-222. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9 Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282. doi:10.1037/h0056932 George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a
19
service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698 -709. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.698 Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 134 -156. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00051-4 Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499 -517. doi:10.2307/ 2392936 Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 249 -270. doi:10.1007/ BF01385031 Graham, J. W., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Commitment and the covenantal organization. Journal of Managerial Issues, 5, 483-502. Guth, W., Levati, M. V., Sutter, M., & van der Heijden, E. (2007). Leading ¨ by example with and without exclusion power in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1023-1042. doi:10.1016/ j.jpubeco.2006.10.007 Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199 -267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 28 - 84). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Haworth, C. L., & Levy, P. E. (2001). The importance of instrumentality beliefs in the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 64 -75. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1784 Hermalin, B. (1998). Toward an economic theory of leadership: Leading by example. American Economic Review, 88, 1188 -1206. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184 -200. doi:10.1207/ S15327957PSPR0503_1 Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 1-52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189 -207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J., Hanges, P. W., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 273-285. doi:10.1016/j .leaqua.2005.01.004 James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14,475- 498. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00048-1 Kameda, T., Tindale, R. S., & Davis, J. H. (2003). Cognitions, preferences, and social sharedness: Past, present, and future directions in group decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 215-240). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Karam, C., & Kwantes, C. T. (2006, July). Cross-cultural, cross-level OCB research: Understanding work behavior in context. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Greece. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic
20
YAFFE AND KARK MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19 - 40. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. E. (1999). Do citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 396 - 410. doi:10.1177/ 0092070399274001 MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83 Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361-367. doi:10.2307/257111 Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6, 105-113. doi:10.2307/257144 Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031-1056. doi:10.1002/job.406 Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709 -734. doi:10.2307/258792 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, 1200 -1211. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1200 Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175-199. doi:10.1002/job.237 Moon, H., Van Dyne, L., & Wrobel, K. (2005). The circumplex model and the future of organizational citizenship research. In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.), A handbook on organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Nova Science. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism- collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142. doi:10.1002/ job.4030160204 Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 143-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567. doi:10.2307/256798 Morrison, E. W. (1996). Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Management Journal, 35, 493-512. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199624)35: 4 493::AID-HRM4 3.0.CO;2-R Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. (1999). Taking charge: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403419. doi:10.2307/257011 Naumann, S. E., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2005). A unit-level perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.), Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 143-156). New York, NY: Nova Science. Nielsen, T. M., Hrivnak, G. A., & Shaw, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior and performance: A meta-analysis of group-level research. Small Group Research, 40, 555-577. doi:10.1177/ 1046496409339630
review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 67-91). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: JAI Press. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Dependence and empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246 -255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246 Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500 -528. Kark, R., & Waismel-Manor, R. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: What's gender got to do with it? Organization, 12, 889 -917. doi:10.1177/1350508405057478 Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51- 60. doi:10.1177/002200275800200106 Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375- 403. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5 Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3-16. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.3 Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, and why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers' trust in their leader. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 16 -34. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004 LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815- 852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642 LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853- 868. doi:10.1037/00219010.83.6.853 Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model of social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119 -197. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36003-X Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Lockwood, P., Marshall, T., & Sadler, P. (2005). Promoting success or preventing failure: Cultural differences in motivation by positive and negative role models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 379 -392. doi:10.1177/0146167204271598 Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength—How leaders form consensus. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 42-53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.004 Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Button, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
LEADING BY EXAMPLE Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The "good soldier" syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time." Human Performance, 10, 85-97. doi:10.1207/ s15327043hup1002_2 Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849 - 874. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00971.x Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B., Whiting, S., & Podsakoff, P. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141. doi:10.1037/a0013079 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. doi:10.1177/ 014920630002600307 Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Leading-by-example and signaling in voluntary contribution games: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33, 169 -182. doi:10.1007/s00199-006-0186-3 Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ready, D. A., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Why leadership development efforts fail. Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 83- 88. Reicher, S., Haslam, A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547-568. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.007 Rich, G. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 319 -328. Richardson, H. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561-589. doi:10.1002/job.329 Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 283-301. doi: 10.1348/096317903769647184 Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19 -39. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983 .tb00500.x Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1995). Is it "trustworthy?" A contemporary and multi-method examination of an older leadership study, with implications for future new research and theory
21
using the established leadership literature. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 111-145. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90031-4 Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19 - 47. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects charismatic leaders: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577-594. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577 Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations, Organization Studies, 24, 463- 491. doi:10.1177/0170840603024003912 Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387- 409. doi:10.2307/257080 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653- 663. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653 Tansik, D. A. (1990). Managing human resource issues for high-contact service personnel. In D. E. Bowen, R. B. Chase, T. G. Cummings, and Associates (Eds.), Service management effectiveness: Balancing strategy, organization and human resources, operations, and marketing (pp. 152-175). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2005). The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in the workplace. In R. E. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (pp. 69 - 87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384 -399. doi:10.1037/h0022100 Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in Group Processes, 2, 77122. Tyler, T. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identitybased perspective. In L. L. Cummings & B. W. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 201-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765- 802. doi:10.2307/ 256600 van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Research in leadership, self, and identity: A sample of the present and a glimpse of the future. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 495- 499. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.006 Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisory behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 89 -105. doi:10.1016/00305073(77)90056-3 Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601- 617. doi:10.1177/ 014920639101700305 Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451- 483. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01) 00093-5
doc_460147420.docx