International Journal of Leadership Studies - Leadership and Teamwork: The Effects of Leadership and Job Satisfaction on Team Citizenship

In what many call the postindustrial age, more and more organizations face high velocity environments which are characterized as dramatically changing, uncertain, and high-risk (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Riolli-Saltzman & Luthans, 2001). In such a dynamic environment, many organizations find the use of teams efficient and productive (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). For example, a recent survey found that most Fortune 1,000 firms use teams with at least some employees and that teams are one of the fastest growing forms of employee involvement (Lawler, Mohrman, & Benson, 2001). One type of behavior that may contribute to the effectiveness of teams is team members’ citizenship behavior. Organ (1988) conceptualized organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and defined it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). OCB includes behaviors like helping coworkers who have high workloads, helping newcomers adjust to the organization, and so forth. Since by definition, OCB is not formally rewarded; it is generally considered extra-role behavior. Indeed, in many respects, team citizenship is the essence of teamwork. Team members’ OCB can indirectly improve team performance through promoting the effective functioning of the team (Organ, 1988). They can cumulatively lubricate the work process (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2005; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).

The purpose of this study is to investigate how to build team organizational citizenship behavior (TOCB). This study examined how TOCB relates to leadership and job satisfaction. More specifically, we investigated whether leader behavior influenced TOCB directly and/or indirectly through job satisfaction. Even though many studies on OCB have been conducted at the individual level (e.g., Lee & Allen, 2002; LePine et al., 2002;Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), there has been less research of citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis (some exceptions include Pearce & Giacalone, 2003; Pearce & Herbik, 2004; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Raver & Gelfand, 2005). Nonetheless, the examination of OCB at the individual level of analysis implicitly assumes the aggregation of individuals’ citizenship behavior to some higher-level group (Organ, 1988; Pearce & Giacalone). Thus, we have taken the natural next step and have examined citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis.

The paper is structured as follows. First, the following section offers a theoretical background for our study. We begin by presenting a review of relevant literature on leadership and citizenship behavior. We then propose team citizenship to be a consequence of leadership, possibly mediated by job satisfaction. We describe the research method: a longitudinal field study over three periods of data collection in which team leadership was measured at time 1, job satisfaction of team members at time 2, and TOCB at time 3. Next, we present the results of the study. To conclude, we discuss the implications of our findings.

This study conceptualized leadership along five archetypes on the basis of literature review. Our theoretical view of leadership was inspired by Manz and Sims and colleagues (e.g., Cox & Sims, 1996; Manz & Sims, 1991, 2001; Pearce et al., 2003; Scully, Sims, Olian, Schnell, & Smith, 1994). Their typology originally included four archetypes. In this paper, we developed extended versions of their archetypes including aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership archetypes. We selected this typology because it is firmly grounded in the current transactional/transformational leadership paradigm (e.g., Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978) yet extends historically to aversive and directive leadership and, more recently, to empowering leadership.

The first type of leader influence is through the use of aversive methods such as punishment, reprimand, and intimidation. Aversive leadership has long been an important topic of leadership (e.g., Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Ball, Trevino, & Sims, 1994). Aversive leadership mainly focuses on their followers’ poor work and wrong or unacceptable behaviors.

The next archetype is directive leadership which might be considered an older, traditional view of leadership. This archetype represents a highly directive leadership style (e.g., Schriesheim, House, & Kerr, 1976). Directive leadership represents a prototypical boss who engages in a highly directive style (e.g., Schriesheim et al.). Relying on a formal position in the organization; directive leaders make decisions, give instructions and commands, and expect followers to carry out the decisions. Based on their own judgment, directive leaders command subordinates and expect their compliance. They clarify followers’ roles and tasks and provide instructions (Howell & Costley, 2001).

Transactional leadership emphasizes the constructing and clarifying of the reward contingencies for subordinates. Transactional leaders engage in instrumental exchange relationships with subordinates by negotiating and strategically supplying rewards in return for achievement of goals. Transactional leadership is based on a rational exchange relationship between leader and subordinate (Bass, 1985; Howell & Costley, 2001). The leader articulates what behaviors are required and what will be rewarded and provides feedback to the subordinate about his or her behavior. The subordinate, in turn, complies with these behavior requirements if rewards are desired.

The transformational leader leads by inspiring and stimulating followers and by creating highly absorbing and motivating visions (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Burns, 1978; Conger, 1989; Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; House, 1977; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Transformational leaders utilize behaviors such as charisma and intellectual stimulation to induce performance of subordinates beyond expectations. Transformational leaders develop a vision and motivate their followers to strive for this vision. Also, they encourage followers to challenge the status quo to be able to pursue that vision.

Empowering leadership represents a significant paradigm shift and emphasizes follower self-influence rather than external, top-down influence (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1990, 1991). Leaders who use empowering behaviors believe that followers are an influential source of wisdom and direction. These leaders emphasize self-influence; self-management; self-control; or, to use Manz and Sims’ (1990, 1991) term, self-leadership. Historical perspectives that were instrumental for the development of empowering leadership variables are behavioral self-management (e.g., Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978), social learning theory (e.g., Bandura, 1997), and cognitive behavior modification (e.g., Meichenbaum, 1977). Empowering leadership creates followers who are effective self-leaders. Self-leadership, in turn, involves developing actions and thought patterns that we use to influence our own behavior. Several recent studies (Ahearne, Matthieu, & Rapp; 2005; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, in press; Manz & Sims, 1987; Pearce & Sims, 2002, Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004; Yun, Cox, & Sims, 2006; Yun, Faraj, & Sims, 2005) have recognized empowering leadership as distinct from transformational leadership. Pearce et al. (2003) developed a leadership typology based on literature review and analysis of three samples, and argued that empowering leadership is distinct from transformational leadership.

Organ (1988) defined OCB as “behavior [by the employee] that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). Noting that discretionary behaviors vary in the likelihood with which they will be rewarded, Organ (1988) viewed OCBs as “non-required contributions that are regarded by the person as relatively less likely to lead along any clear, fixed path to formal rewards” (p. 5). Hence, the incentive for employees to engage in OCB is not any kind of immediate extrinsic reward. However, Organ (1988) acknowledged that OCB can have a beneficial cumulative effect for an individual and that the individual may consider these long-term benefits.

OCB can also benefit organizations directly and/or indirectly. Examples of directly beneficial OCB include volunteerism, assistance between coworkers, unusual attendance or punctuality, and active participation in organizational affairs (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) stressed the cumulative, indirect benefits of OCB for “lubricat[ing] the social machinery of the organization” (p. 654). They linked OCB to spontaneous behavior that “goes beyond role prescriptions”" (p. 653). Katz (1964) considered such behavior essential for strong organizational social systems. The organization gains a measure of systemic resiliency from these small, spontaneous acts of selfless sensitivity, cooperation, and uncompensated contribution.

Puffer (1987) defined negative or noncompliant behaviors as “non-task behaviors that have negative organizational implications” (p. 615). This is a type of behavior that has been related to general job satisfaction (Fisher & Locke, 1992). Based on preliminary research, Fisher and Locke developed an inductive taxonomy of negative behavioral responses to job dissatisfaction. Subsequent research built on this initial item pool categorized the items into dimensions and developed ratings of the relative “badness” of the items. Dimensions from the Fisher and Locke taxonomy were later conceptualized as examples of anticitizenship behavior (ACB).

It is possible that OCB and ACB; while negatively correlated; may be separate, coexisting dimensions that range from zero to some positive quantity. Accordingly, reduced OCB need not necessitate a corresponding increase in ACB. The absence of OCB, for example, might only signal passivity with respect to positive citizenship. ACB, however, involves active behaviors that have specific negative implications for the organization. Ball, Trevino, and Sims (1994) found a substantial negative (-.60) correlation between OCB and ACB, but their factor analysis supported the conceptual distinctness of these two classes of behavior. This finding offers preliminary support for the separate dimensionalities of OCB and ACB.

While OCB has been extremely important in the traditional organization, the movement toward team-based organizations raises the question of whether OCB can be viewed as an internal team attribute. Citizenship is interactive or social in nature; OCB is typically an act of one person toward another or others. Thus, most OCB can be conceptually extended toward the team level. In addition, the examination of OCB at the individual level of analysis implicitly assumes the aggregation of individuals’ behavior to some higher-level group (Organ, 1988, 1994; Pearce & Giacalone, 2003). Recognizing this, this study examined the effects of leadership on team OCB. TOCB is conceptualized as team members’ citizenship behavior toward other team members as a whole. It is conceptualized as a team level construct in this study. Thus, in this research, we take the natural next step and examine citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis.

This study addresses the question: how do we generate TOCB? There are certainly many ways in which TOCB appears in employees and teams. Among several possible antecedents, we propose and empirically test that leadership can influence TOCB directly and/or indirectly through job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction has long been a central construct in the study of behavior in organizations. Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) stated that “there seems to be general agreement that job satisfaction is an affective (that is, emotional) reaction to a job that results from the incumbent’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired (expected, deserved, and so on)” (p. 1). Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300).

Fisher and Locke (1992) pointed out that research has failed to establish a relationship between job satisfaction and specific behavioral criteria such as turnover or absenteeism. They attributed this result to the attempt to predict specific behaviors from job satisfaction. Behavior measures, they argued, should match the generality of the attitude measure. Further, both developed responses to job satisfaction that are cognitive in nature and affect rather then need-based. Citizenship behavior has these characteristics.

On similar grounds, Organ (1988) commented on the difficulties in finding a relationship between job satisfaction and performance and hinted that this is because performance has been too narrowly defined and proposed the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. He (1988) also argued that in most research studies, OCB has been ignored though constituting an important part of performance. In a study by Bateman and Organ (1983), a relationship between OCB and job satisfaction was found. Also, Organ and Konovsky (1989) conducted a study in which they tried to predict OCB from both affective and cognitive components of job satisfaction. The study involved the appraisal of jobs and pay by employees. Results showed that pay cognitions were a significant predictor of altruism and OCB as well as compliance behavior. Another study that has found a relationship between job satisfaction and OCB was conducted by Gibbs, Rosenfeld, and Javidi (1994). They studied the relationship between job-related behavior/disposition, trait communication apprehension, its effect on satisfaction with different aspects of the job, and further job satisfaction’s effects on citizenship behavior. They stated that a relationship was “found between workers’ job satisfaction and their self-reported demonstration of organizational citizenship behaviors” (p. 216).

Some researchers have studied job satisfaction at the group or organizational level and have demonstrated that organizational level job satisfaction is positively related to organizational level performance (e.g., Currall, Towler, & Judge, 2005; Harter & Schmidt, 2002; Schneider, Hanges, Smith, & Salvaggio, 2003). Currall et al. provided theoretical justification of collective job satisfaction based on multilevel theory (Morgeson & Hoffmann, 1999). Morgeson and Hoffmann (1999) suggested that individual action and attitude does not exist in a vacuum and collective structures can occur through a process termed double interact where one employee makes a statement to which another employee responds. In turn, the first employee responds back. As a result, collective attitudes can be developed. Following this argument, we examine job satisfaction as a collective construct and suggest that job satisfaction at the team level is positively related to TOCB.

In summary, research has amply demonstrated that job satisfaction is one determinant of OCB (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). One reason that research has been successful in establishing this relationship is because OCB has been defined as an aggregate of behavior, a general type of behavior which is congruent with the general attitude of job satisfaction. In this study, we also suggest that job satisfaction is more likely to increase TOCB and decrease TACB.

H₁: Job satisfaction is positively related to TOCB and negatively related to TACB.

In this manuscript, we suggest leadership as an antecedent of TOCB. Organ (1988) has argued that leader fairness induces OCB because a social exchange relationship develops between employees and their supervisors. Leaders’ fair behavior is reciprocated by employees’ OCB. Konovsky and Pugh (1994) tested the relationship between OCB and social exchange and concluded that “the role of trust in a supervisor as a mediator of the relationship between procedural justice and OCB, suggests that citizenship behaviors occur in a context in which social exchange characterizes the quality of superior-subordinate relationships” (p. 666). Therefore, leadership that elicits feelings of trust and is associated with perceptions of procedural justice will elicit OCB in their employees.

Previous research linking supervisor behavior to OCB has been at the individual level. The key to inducing OCB in employees is trust in the leader caused by leaders’ fair behavior. What happens if we move to the team level? Leader fairness will still be important. But, if trust and fairness are the keys to OCB, why not induce such feelings from a source other than the leader? Perhaps, members of a team who engage in highly interactive tasks, where one person’s actions are effected by and affect another person’s actions, are more likely to trust each other and perceive fairness as a necessary norm for productive and efficient interaction on a team. If so, they are more likely to induce OCB through effective interaction with each other. Therefore, leadership that promotes teamwork, promotes lateral accountability among team members, and gives power to the team will be efficient in fostering TOCB.

Podsakoff et al. (1990) proposed that transformational leadership will have a positive effect on citizenship behavior. The defining characteristic of the transformational leader is to inspire, and this enthusiasm can sometimes be translated into a commitment to the group. Also, transformational leadership develops and provides vision that team members pursue together. This vision can motivate team members to work together. Transformational leaders motivate their followers to work for the team’s future, not only for their current jobs. The vision they provide can facilitate teamwork among team members. In other words, team members under transformational leaders are more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors to achieve their shared goals or visions provided by leaders. Therefore, we hypothesize a positive relationship between transformational leadership and TOCB and a negative relationship between transformational leadership and TACB. We also hypothesize that transformational leadership is positively related to job satisfaction, as previous studies have found (e.g., Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Frost, 1989; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Ross & Offermann, 1997; Sosik, 1997). Alternatively, this leadership style may indirectly influence OCB through job satisfaction.

H₂:       Transformational leadership is positively related to job satisfaction.
H₃^a:     Transformational leadership is positively related to TOCB and negatively related to TACB.
H₃^b:     Transformational leadership is indirectly, positively related to TOCB and indirectly, negatively related to TACB.

Empowering leadership was hypothesized to be positively related with both job satisfaction and TOCB and negatively related to TACB. First, empowering leadership is likely to increase satisfaction because empowering leaders encourage followers to work independently, unrestrictedly, and harmoniously with coworkers. This leadership is more likely to fit with the changing expectation of today’s employees. They increasingly view their jobs as a means of personal fulfillment, not just a paycheck (Sims & Manz, 1996). They increasingly expect more control and influence over their own jobs and decision making. Empowering leadership is more likely to meet this expectation since it emphasizes follower self-initiative.

If the leader is a real empowering leader, he or she recognizes the potential of the followers to be self-leaders as well as the importance of the team process, interaction, and collaboration among the members in the team-based context. This recognition makes the empowering leader emphasize teamwork, collaboration, or interaction among team members as well as individual self-initiative in doing their work. Also, empowering leaders influence followers to recognize the importance of teamwork, interaction, collaboration, or extra-role behaviors which can make teamwork more harmoniously in the team-based context. Thus, empowering leaders can increase team citizenship behaviors directly or indirectly through job satisfaction.

H₅^a: Empowering leadership is positively related to TOCB and negatively related to TACB.
H₅^b: Empowering leadership is indirectly, positively related to TOCB and indirectly, negatively related to TACB.

Some types of leadership may not be able to promote employee satisfaction and OCB. For instance, leaders who behave in an arbitrary and capricious way, like aversive leaders, are less likely to develop a sense of team commitment and positive affective response from followers. Further, aversive leaders may indeed generate active resistance that breeds TACB. That is, we propose that aversive leader’s behaviors such as threat and intimidation may generate negative affective response which, in turn, generates behaviors such as complaining and withdrawal. Therefore, we hypothesize that this leadership style is negatively related to job satisfaction and TOCB. Alternatively, job satisfaction may mediate the effect of aversive leadership on TACB.

H₆:       Aversive leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction.
H₇^a:      Aversive leadership is negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB.
H₇^b:      Aversive leadership is indirectly, negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB through job satisfaction.

Similarly, directive leadership was assumed to be negatively related to job satisfaction and OCB. Directive leaders are those who dictate or direct their followers regarding tasks. They seize the situation, and their subordinates are passively expected to follow the leaders. This leadership style is less likely to fit the changing expectation of today’s employees who increasingly view their jobs as a means of personal fulfillment, not just a paycheck (Sims & Manz, 1996). They increasingly expect more control and influence over their own jobs and decision making. Directive leadership, as well as aversive leadership, is contradictory to this changing expectation. Therefore, directive leadership has a negative relationship with job satisfaction. Also, since directive leaders mainly assign goals regarding tasks and instruct and command their followers, they make subordinates focus. Therefore, followers are less likely to engage in extra-role behaviors. Alternatively, directive leadership indirectly influences OCB through job satisfaction.

H₈:       Directive leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction.
H₉^a:      Directive leadership is negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB.
H₉^b:      Directive leadership is indirectly, negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB through job satisfaction.

The relationship between transactional leadership and TOCB seems unclear. At the individual level, contingent reward patterns of leadership may create perceptions of a fair exchange and good will which, in turn, may produce a positive citizenship response. However, reward policies can sometimes generate only calculating compliance such that individuals do only what they are paid to do. Under these conditions, compliance may not extend into good citizenship or extra-role behaviors. Transactional behavior may be neutral at best, perhaps even deleterious when it comes to TOCB. Therefore, we did not develop specific hypotheses regarding transactional leadership and TOCB.

However, we hypothesized a positive relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction. This type of leadership emphasizes contingent reward which may create perceptions of a fair exchange which, in turn, may produce job satisfaction. Followers clearly understand what they are expected to do and what they will get as a result of their performance. In other words, transactional leaders eliminate uncertainty that their followers may encounter in their job. Therefore, we hypothesized a positive relationship between job satisfaction and transactional leadership.

Data gathered in this study were part of field research conducted at a large defense firm located in the mid-Atlantic United States. The sampling unit consisted of (a) the leader (midlevel managers or supervisors) and (b) the main focal unit, the team (direct report subordinates of the leader). The original sample consisted of 526 subordinates and 73 leaders. After attrition and aggregation to the team level, a final sample of 45 teams resulted with full data across all three time periods.

Team members averaged 40 years in age (SD = 10.8) and had worked in the host organization for an average of 14 years (SD = 9.51), 4 of which were spent with their present supervisor (leader). In addition, responding team members were predominantly male and generally well educated, having completed a bachelors degree with some additional postcollege training. Quantitative data were collected in three waves. There were 10 weeks between the first and second waves and 20 weeks between the second and third waves.

Leader behaviors. Perceptions of leader behavior were collected using the short version of the Leadership Strategies Questionnaire II (LSQII) at time 1. The LSQII was an extended version of the Leadership Strategies Questionnaire (LSQ) used most recently by Scully et al. (1994) and Ball et al. (1994). The instrument, however, is deeply rooted in a long line of leader behavior measures (Cox & Sims, 1996). All items were measured using a five-point response format [1 (definitely not true), 2 (not true), 3 (neither true nor untrue), 4 (true), 5 (definitely true)].

An exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood rotation provided a five-factor solution which supported our theoretical typology of five leadership types (see Table 1). This solution is similar to that found by Pearce et al. (2003). As Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) suggested, factor scores were estimated through the regression approach rather than averaging the items. Factor loadings were used as item weights to create factor scores. This approach was recommended in order to cope with multicollinearity issue (Basilevsky, 1994). These five factor scores were used as variables for further analysis. The leadership variables were aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering.

For each leadership variable; we utilized the James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) coefficient (r_WG(J)) to assess team member consensus within a team and confirm the within-unit aggregatability of the data. All r_WG(J) were larger than .70 which is considered evidence of within-group consensus (George, 1990). Table 1 also shows the internal reliabilities and r_WG(J).

Job satisfaction. The job satisfaction measure was measured with 6 items which were adapted from Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey. Participants responded to each item using a five-point scale [1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (slightly dissatisfied), 3 (neutral), 4 (slightly satisfied), 5 (very satisfied)]. Examples items include “My job as a whole. . .” and “The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job. . . .” Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency and was found to be in the acceptable range (.94). The James et al. (1984) coefficient was .70.

Citizenship behavior. Team member perceptions of TOCB and TACB were measured with 13 items, a short form of the Team Citizenship Questionnaire (TCQ; Ball et al., 1994). The TCQ was a variation of a citizenship behavior questionnaire by Ball et al. (1994) that the authors successfully used to demonstrate relationships between supervisor punishment incidents and subordinate citizenship. Ball et al.’s questionnaire was based on an earlier OCB measure by Podsakoff et al. (1990) that was validated in a large-scale field study. The factor analysis produced a two-factor solution, TOCB and TACB. Table 2 shows the factor analysis results along with alpha coefficients and James et al. (1984) coefficients which were larger than .70.

Factor names/		Factor loadings					Communalities
Item content		I	II	III	IV	V	Communalities
Transformational leadership
He/she is not afraid to “break the mold” to find different ways of doing things.		.82	.16	.18	-.04	-.05	.53
He/she isn't bound by tradition when it comes to getting things done.		.82	.17	.16	.01	-.07	.56
He/she isn't afraid to “buck the system” if he/she thinks it is necessary.		.80	.13	.15	.05	-.06	.68
He/she is a non-traditional type who "shakes up the system" when necessary.		.70	.07	.06	.22	-.06	.74
He/she challenges established ways of doing things.		.70	.05	.17	.10	.03	.72
He/she strives towards higher purposes or ideals.		.70	.23	.15	-.04	.16	.59
He/she has a strong personal dedication to higher purposes or ideals.		.65	.25	.18	-.08	.14	.55
He/she provides a clear vision of who and what we are.		.63	.25	.24	-.09	.18	.56
Because of him/her, I have a clear vision of our organization.		.59	.32	.20	.08	.22	.55
He/she is driven by higher purposes or ideals.		.57	.23	.17	-.03	.19	.50
He/she provides a clear vision of where we are going.		.55	.22	.26	-.13	.19	.62
He/she provides his/her vision of our organization to me.		.48	.33	.26	.03	.14	.70
Empowering leadership
He/she urges me to work as a team with other mangers/supervisors who report to him/her.		.14	.82	.15	.03	.17	.74
He/she encourages me to work together with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her.		.21	.81	.16	.04	.13	.74
He/she advises me to work together with other managers/supervisors who report to hem/her as a team.		.21	.79	.09	-.01	.17	.43
He/she advises me to coordinate my efforts with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her.		.21	.71	.15	-.02	.22	.54
He/she has a strong conviction in his/her own beliefs and ideals.		.10	.67	.13	-.05	.16	.56
He/she urges me to search for solutions to my problems on the job without his/her supervision.		.22	.64	.26	-.10	-.15	.57
He/she advises me to solve problems when they pop up without always getting his/her stamp of approval.		.23	.63	.23	-.20	-.21	.53
He/she advises me to make improvements in how I do my work on my own initiative without being told to do so.		.33	.58	.30	-.03	-.04	.70
He/she encourages me to find solutions to my problems at work without seeking his/her direct input.		.24	.57	.10	-.06	-.17	.61
He/she urges me to assume responsibilities on my own.		.30	.55	.30	-.10	-.06	.67
Transactional leadership
If I perform well, he/she will recommend more compensation.		.22	.13	.80	-.09	.06	.68
He/she will recommend that I am compensated more if I perform well.		.23	.13	.78	-.09	.84	.55
He/she will recommend that I am compensated well if I perform well.		.24	.12	.76	-.10	.02	.61
He/she gives me positive feedback when I perform well.		.21	.35	.70	-.03	.09	.64
His/her recommendations regarding my compensation depend on my performance.		.20	.12	.69	-.08	.06	.62
He/she commends me when I do a better-than-average job.		.22	.36	.68	-.09	.14	.40
He/she gives me special recognition when my work performance is especially good.		.31	.20	.67	-.07	.11	.48
When I do a job well, he/she tells me about it.		.21	.39	.64	-.06	.15	.66
Aversive leadership
He/she reprimands me when my performance is not up to par.	.02		.15	.07	.72	.09	.68
He/she can be quite intimidating.	.05		-.14	-.19	.71	.08	.54
I feel intimidated by his/her behavior.	-.04		-.27	-.35	.70	.10	.72
He/she behaves in a threatening manner.	-.08		-.30	-.34	.69	.04	.44
He/she reprimands me if my work is below standard.	-.05		.19	.14	.67	.10	.43
He/she tries to influence me through threat and intimidation.	-.09		-.35	-.29	.67	.07	.47
He/she is often critical of my work, even when I perform well.	-.06		-.31	-.36	.61	.07	.50
When my work is not up to par, he/she points it out to me.	.17		.24	.27	.61	.15	.58
I frequently am reprimanded by him/her without knowing why.	-.11		-.32	-.30	.57	-.08	.60
He/she lets me know about it when I perform poorly.	.10		.20	.18	.55	.06	.67
He/she often displeased with my work for no apparent reason.	-.08		-.38	-.37	.46	.07	.66
Directive leadership
He/she establishes my performance goals.	-.02		.15	.09	.05	.78	.64
He/she sets the goals for my performance.	-.02		.08	.08	.05	.78	.55
He/she establishes the goals for my work.	.03		.13	.11	.10	.75	.52
He/she established my goals for me.	.04		-.06	.02	.01	.74	.55
He/she gives me orders about my work.	.09		-.10	-.12	.38	.56	.39
When it comes to my work, he/she gives me instructions on how to carry it out.	.30		.28	.18	.14	.51	.51
He/she provides commands in regard to my job.	.19		-.10	.02	.32	.45	.36
He/she gives me instructions about how to do my job.	.25		.10	.34	.12	.39	.35
Eigenvalue	14.29		5.93	3.22	2.64	2.12

Reliability	.80		.82	.74	.77	.74

James et al. (1984) coefficients	.70		.69	.65	.70	.69

Table 2. The Results of the Factor Analysis of Team Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Factor names/	Factor loadings		Communalities
Item content	I	II	Communalities
TOCB
My colleagues consider the impact of their actions on coworkers.	.82	-.19	.70
My colleagues work together as a team.	.80	-.30	.73
My colleagues work together.	.79	-.29	.71
My colleagues try to avoid creating problems for coworkers.	.73	-20	.57
My colleagues are mindful of how their behavior affects other people’s jobs.	.73	-.18	.56
My colleagues willingly help others who have work-related problems.	.71	-.22	.56
My colleagues help orient new people even though it is not required.	.68	-.23	.52
TACB
My colleagues take frequent or extra long breaks to avoid doing work.	-.24	.82	.73
My colleagues make frequent and/or long trips to the water fountain, vending machines, or restroom to avoid work.	-.27	.77	.66
My colleagues tend to “make mountains out of molehills.”	-.30	.77	.67
My colleagues focus on what’s wrong, rather than the positive side.	-.17	.74	.57
My colleagues avoid their jobs by coming in late or leaving early.	-.23	.73	.58
My colleagues consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.	-.19	.71	.54

Eigenvalue	6.34	1.77

Intraclass correlation	.19	.36

James et al. (1984) coefficients	.90	.84

Table 3 contains means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelation matrix of all variables. We utilized path analysis as our main approach to test our hypotheses. Three sets of ordinary least squares regressions were conducted (see Table 4 and Figure 1). First, TOCB and TACB were separately regressed against the set of leadership styles and job satisfaction. Second, job satisfaction was regressed against leadership.

^a These variables (factor scores) are estimated through the regression analysis at the individual level and aggregated to the group level.
* p < .05. ** p < .01, one-tailed.

Hypothesis 1 concerned the effects of job satisfaction on TOCB and TACB. The results showed that job satisfaction was positively related to TOCB (ß = .38, α < .05), and job satisfaction is negatively related to TACB (ß = -.35, α < .05). Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported.

Both transformational leadership and empowering leadership had a positive influence on job satisfaction (ß = .21, α < .05; ß = .23, α < .05). Thus, hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported. The multiple regression analyses showed no direct effects of transformational leadership (hypotheses 3^a and 3^b) or empowering leadership on TOCB and TACB (hypotheses 5^a and 5^b). In summary, the results in Table 4 show that transformational and empowering leadership have an indirect, positive effect on TOCB (.08 = .21 * .38, .09 = .23 * .38, respectively). Furthermore, job satisfaction has an indirect, negative influence on TACB (-.07 = .21 * -.35, -.08 = .23 * - .35, respectively) also through job satisfaction (hypotheses 3^b and 5^b).

The Table 4 results also indicate that aversive leadership is directly, negatively related to job satisfaction (ß = -.17, α < .10; hypothesis 6). Thus, hypothesis 7^a was supported. That is, aversive leadership was directly, negatively related to TOCB (ß = -.22, α < .10). There was also an indirect, negative effect of aversive leadership on TOCB (-.06 = -.17 * 38). Results provide no support for the direct, positive relationship between aversive leadership and TACB (hypothesis 7^b). However, the indirect effect of aversive leadership on TOCB and TACB (.06 = -.17 * -.35), was supported. On the basis of these results, we can conclude that aversive leadership has both direct and indirect negative effects on TOCB and an indirect, positive effect on TACB through job satisfaction.

The results demonstrate that there is no significant effect of directive leadership on job satisfaction, TOCB, and TACB. Hypotheses 8, 9^a, and 9^b were not supported. Also, transactional leadership did not affect job satisfaction (hypotheses 8 and 10).

Note. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors are in parentheses.
*p < .05. **p < .01, one-tailed.

Finally, the overall results are summarized by the path diagram in Figure 1. Note that while aversive leadership works directly on TOCB, both transformational leadership and empowering leadership influence both TOCB and TACB indirectly through job satisfaction.

The purpose of our study was to examine how leadership relates uniquely to TOCB. Job satisfaction was tested as a possible mediator. George and Bettenhausen (1990), who investigated prosocial behavior (a broader class of behavior that includes a form of OCB at the group level of analysis), stated that “research in this area [prosocial and citizenship research] has been focused on prosocial behavior at the individual level of analysis, with very few exceptions” (p. 699). They concluded that it is meaningful to study phenomena like citizenship behavior and other types of prosocial behavior at the group level of analysis.

Previous research has linked leader behaviors such as fairness, consideration, and participation as evoking OCB at the individual level. In this study, we tested whether various forms within a leadership typology also related to TOCB. We also tested the mediating role of job satisfaction (Organ, 1988). In general, our study supports the idea that leader behaviors affect TOCB both directly as well as indirectly through job satisfaction, and different types of leader behaviors were formed to influence both TOCB and TACB. The results indicate that only aversive leadership has both direct as well as indirect relationships to TOCB as expected. Finally, both transformational leadership and empowering leadership have indirect effects to TOCB and TACB through job satisfaction.

Figure 1. Path diagram, the influence of leadership on job satisfaction and citizenship.

It is easy to explain the negative effects of aversive type behavior on TOCB. As McCroskey and Richmond (1979) explained it, “if people are forced to do something they don’t like, it follows they will be less satisfied than will other people” (p. 59). Also, the aversive leader will not produce unhappy employees and cause employees to do only as much as they have to do and nothing extra. As the power is in the hands of the aversive leader, employees do the work for him or her; hence, only the absolute minimum will be worked for a person who behaves arbitrarily and capriciously.

Transactional leadership has no effect on job satisfaction, but transformational leadership did have a positive effect which is consistent with previous studies that found an augmenting capacity of transformational leadership (e.g., Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Sosik, 1997; Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990). The results for the transformational leader and empowering leader are very straightforward. They influence TOCB through increasing the team member’s job satisfaction. Overall, we conclude that job satisfaction does have an influence on TOCB apart from leadership.

Based on these results, leaders might be encouraged to use both transformational leadership and empowering leadership in order to make the group effective. Leaders have to provide vision which their followers can agree on and pursue together to enhance job satisfaction and TOCB. Also, they need to empower their followers. By empowering their followers, leaders can make followers more satisfied with their jobs and enhance their TOCB.

If leaders engage in aversive leadership, it is likely to reduce followers’ job satisfaction and TOCB. Aversive leadership style hurts team process in two ways. First, it directly suppresses TOCB because followers mainly focus on their own tasks. In other words, they are engaged in micromanagement, not extra-role behaviors. Also, it indirectly influences TACB. In other words, aversive leadership increases team members’ negative behavior which is not related to a task but to group process. Therefore, leaders should not display aversive leadership.

In summary, organizations using team-based structures should encourage leaders to engage in transformational and empowering leadership and avoid aversive leadership. To do so, they need to develop training programs which emphasize these forms of leadership. Also, transformational and empowering leadership capability should be considered a factor in promotion to positions that entail leadership responsibilities.

One limitation that is cited in many research studies that try to identify causal relationships is the issue of reverse causality. It might be that a team who behaves in a very cooperative manner and exhibits TOCB causes satisfaction in the team members and causes the leader to engage in behavior that gives even more power to the team. This might simply be due to the observation by the leader that the team is capable of carrying that responsibility. Scully et al. (1994) addressed reciprocal causality in their paper “Tough times make tough bosses.” They argued that the leader’s environment, specifically the performance of a leader’s unit, affects the way a leader will behave. If performance is low, authoritarian behavior will be exhibited; if performance is high, more participative type of behaviors will be used. This might also be the case when a leader is guiding a team. The research reported here has the advantage of a time-lagged arrangement of variables which enhances the capability to infer causality.

Another limitation is that our study measured all the variables from team members, possibly leading to same source bias. However, our study had a longitudinal design which somewhat reduces this bias by measuring different variables in different waves. In addition, aggregation reduces the effect of same source bias. Nevertheless, future study using different data sources are required.

We found that job satisfaction mainly mediates the effects of leadership on TOCB. However, different time lags might cause different results. There were 20 weeks between measuring job satisfaction and TOCB. Leadership style was measured 30 weeks before measuring TOCB. Therefore, the difference of time lag may enhance the effect of job satisfaction but reduce the effect of leadership on TOCB when they are considered simultaneously. However, the direct effect of aversive leadership on TOCB shows that this limitation may not have a high effect on our results. However, future study has to deal with this issue.

This study sets itself apart from traditional research on OCB because we focused on TOCB. Very little research on this behavioral construct has been done at the group level of analysis (George, 1990; George & Bettenhausen, 1990). Our results demonstrate that there is a need for further research at the group level of analysis because different processes might exist due to the different kinds of interdependencies that exist in teams. This becomes even more relevant since more and more organizations are moving toward a team-based structure.

Our results suggest that transformational and empowering leadership are the most effective types for the guidance of teams. All other leadership styles either had no effects (as in directive and transactional leadership) or a negative effect (as in aversive leadership) on TOCB. Indeed, the research significantly supports the notion that both transformational and empowering leadership can enhance teamwork through the influence of job satisfaction.

Dr. Seokhwa Yun is an assistant professor at the College of Business Administration at Seoul National University. He received his Ph.D. in management from the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park. Areas of research interest include leadership, top management teams, employees’ extra-role behaviors, impression management, expatriation issues, and knowledge management. His work has been featured in journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, and International Journal of Human Resource Management.
E-mail: syun@snu.ac.kr

Dr. Jonathan F. Cox is a consultant with MRE Consulting, Inc.; serving clients in the energy and energy services industries. He earned his Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of Maryland. Dr. Cox’s areas of expertise include leadership, teamwork, project management, and organizational change management. His work has been featured in Journal of Applied Psychology, Group and Organization Management, Advances in the Interdisciplinary Study of Work Teams (JAI Press), and other publications.
E-mail: jcox@mre-consulting.com

Dr. Henry P. Sims, Jr. is professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park. He earned his Ph.D. from the College of Business, Michigan State University. His area of research is leadership and teams. He has published 7 books and over 130 articles in such journals as Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, and Administrative Science Quarterly.
E-mail: hsims@rhsmith.umd.edu

Dr. Sabrina Salam received her Ph.D. from the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park. Unfortunately, Dr. Salam lost her life in a tragic automobile accident. Her colleagues mourn her passing.

Note: This study was supported by the Institute of Management Research of Seoul National University, Korea and by Grants from the R. H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland. We dedicate this paper to our late colleague Sabrina Salam.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

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.

Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among commission sales people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615-621.

Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 387-400.

Riolli-Saltzman, L., & Luthans, F., (2001). After the bubble burst: How small high-tech firms can keep in front of the wave. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 114-124.

Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1078-1086.

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80.

Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B., & Salvaggio, A. N. 2003. Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 836-851.

Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 197-321.

Scully, J. A., Sims, H. P., Jr., Olian, J. D., Schnell, E. R., & Smith, K. A. (1994). Tough times make tough bosses: A meso analysis of CEO leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 59-83.

Sims, H. P., Jr, & Manz, C. C (1996). Company of heroes: Unleashing the power of self-leadership. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.

Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effect of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Group and Organization Management, 22, 460-487.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-103.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 381- 394.

Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency model of leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 374-388.

Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2005). Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1288-1296.