Leadership Linkages 2

Webology (ISSN: 1735-188X)
Volume 19, Number 2, 2022
A Study Of Relationship Between Leadership Styles,

Perceived Organizational Support And Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
Fauzia Ahmed1 , Dr. Saubia Ramzan2 , Dr. Jameel Ahmad3
1PH.D Scholar, Institute of Management Sciences, University of Balochistan. Pakistan.
2,3Institute of Management Sciences, University of Balochistan, Pakistan.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to analyze the outcome of leadership styles on OCB, and also
attempts to assess perceived organizational support as a mediator. The current research is set
to answer the question which leadership style has more significant association with
organizational citizenship behavior (either it is transformational leadership style or
transactional leadership style).
Design: This study follows quantitative and cross-sectional approach. Data is gathered from
200 individuals of Pakistan's education sector. Convenient sampling technique is used to
choose individuals working in the higher education sector.
Findings: The findings indicates that association between TFL (transformational leadership)
and T-L (transactional leadership) with OCB (organizational citizenship behavior) was
strengthened by POS (perceived organizational support) and the associational causal
relationship among studied variables increase the rigor of leader-member exchange
relationship theoretical perspectives. The results of this research study showed that the
organizational culture must be consolidated with employees’ strong emotional attachment with
the organization that top management will be accompanied by them whenever they are needed
any resources and support.
Originality: The current study makes a valuable addition to exiting literature on leadership
exploring the mediating role of perceived organizational support between leadership styles and
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in education sector of Pakistan.
Introduction
8763 http://www.webology.org
The shape of the world is continuously changing and one of the foremost reasons behind this
change is leaders. Leaders always play a vital role in human progress (Masood et al., 2020).
Nowadays, both public and private organizations have to face a competitive environment, and
at the same time, they have to maintain the citizenship behavior of employees (Majeed et al.,
2017). Different organizations have different targets and goals, and in order to achieve these
goals, organizations need a positive work attitude and efficient performance of employees. In
organizations, either it is public or private, employees respond to their leaders' behaviors, i.e.,
positive response from employees side for positive behavior of leaders and negative response
from employees side for negative behavior of leaders (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Therefore, this
research study argues that when leaders adopt the positive leading style, it can motivate
employees to improve their behavior as they think the organization care for them and values
them, i.e., employees' organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) will increase.
OCB is explained as behavior possesses by employees that is not the requirement of their job
and neither mentioned in job description and those behavior that are unrelated to any rewards
program. OCB leads to improvement of overall organizational effectiveness (Organ,
1988).leaders working in education sector are facing more challenges as compared to leaders
of other business due to a complex interaction of faculty members and students (Siddique et
al., 2011). Therefore, higher education sector is required to encourage their employees to
overcome the current difficult business phase. Generally, employees are required to play their
part beyond their regular job obligations, such as it is expected that employees will resolve
students' problems by paying extra attention and without any unpleasant incidents (Podsakoff
et al., 2000). However, this behavior of employees (beyond regular obligation) is only possible
if employees consider the organization as their own and work for the organization's well-being
(Kececi, 2017).
This study stresses that organizational citizenship behavior can be improved with the help of
transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Previously, organizations worked in
a constant manner, and there were not many dynamic changes. However, nowadays,
organizations face a lot of dynamic changes (M. R. Moradi et al., 2014). According to
Fakhrossadat and Ali (2016a), in the new decade, different leadership styles are used by leaders
to inspire their followers and to face dynamic changes.
Previously, transformational leadership style and transactional leadership styles were studied
in relation to innovative work behavior (Khan et al., 2020), employees job performance
(Kalsoom et al., 2018; Mahdinezhad & Suandi, 2013), employee retention (Adekanbi, 2016;
Tian et al., 2020), and employee creativity (Ma & Jiang, 2018). There is no study on leadership
styles in the Pakistani context specifically investigating which leadership exerts more
significant impact on the OCB of employees. Therefore, taken together with the importance of
leadership styles for OCB, The research mainly aims to investigate the influence of leadership
styles on OCB, and also assessing the perceived organizational support as a mediator. The
research study is designed to answer the question which leadership style (either it is
transformational leadership style or transactional leadership style) more significantly impact

organizational citizenship behavior. More specifically, the aims of this research are;
● To analyze the link amongst transformational leadership (independent variable) and

organizational citizenship behavior (dependent variable)
● To test the association between transactional leadership and organizational citizenship
behavior
● To analyze the perceived organizational support as mediator variable among leadership
styles and OCB
The remaining sections of this paper are arranged as section two, an overview of the literature
is presented, along with the formulation of the hypotheses of the study. A detailed research
methodology is given in the third section of this paper. The fourth section of this paper
presented a detailed analysis of variables and findings of this research. Lastly, a brief
conclusion, practical implications, study limitations, and future research recommendations are
given.
Literature overview and Hypotheses development
The success of any organization is not possible without the contribution of volunteers who are
eager to contribute to the organization's success. Employees who possess organizational
citizenship behavior are always willing to do more than expected and they possess more energy
for the benefit of the organization as a whole. It can be said that employees prioritize
organizational interest over personal interest. Therefore, it is argued in the literature that OCB
leads to positive outcomes such as improved performance, productivity, better customer
services, reduced costs, better allocation of resources and more efficiency (Ahangari et al.,
2017; Kılınç & Ulusoy, 2014; Sanatjoo & Mahmoudi, 2015). According to Eyupoglu (2016),
OCB is necessary for the survival of higher education institutes. Moreover, organizations can
create novelty and handle unpredictable situations with the help of the organizational
citizenship behavior of employees. Therefore, it is recommended for higher education institutes
that they should create such an environment that leads to the development of citizenship
behavior of employees and improve the performance of employees at work (Waheed &
Ahmad-Shah, 2017). Employees' citizenship behavior leads to an increased level of
commitment which in turn improves the overall performance of higher education institutes.
Consequently, institutes achieve their target goals and are in providing their services in a better
manner (Adewale et al., 2018).
In light of all above mentioned positive implications of organizational citizenship behavior, it

is also necessary to recognize predictors of citizenship behavior. Previously, several studies
have been conducted on predictors of OCB such as organizational trust, organizational
commitment, organizational justice, leadership styles and job satisfaction (Di Fabio &
Palazzeschi, 2012; Ibrahim & Aslinda, 2013; Lian & Tui, 2012; Swaminathan & Jawahar,
2013; Zhang et al., 2010). According to Rezaei et al. (2017), among all of these, the most
challenging variable; leadership style influences the activities of others. In the new era, two
leadership styles, first, transformational leadership and transactional leadership, are widely
used by leaders (Fakhrossadat & Ali, 2016).
Transactional leadership style comes under the concept of leader member exchange theory.
According to this theory, employees who perform better get the reward from leaders, and
employees who are not able to perform in a better way get organizational punishments (Zhang
et al., 2011). Transactional leaders make contracts with their followers and agree upon tangible
rewards in case of improved performance and efficiency. It is also contracted that in case of
non-fulfillment of responsibilities, followers will not be able to get any reward
(Mohammadkhani & Gholamzadeh, 2016). Hence, transactional leaders motivate their
followers through employees’ intention toward rewards. (Zhang et al., 2011). However, we
cannot compel followers for long-term commitment through a transactional leadership style.
Whereas transformational leaders stimulate followers to go beyond expectations (Fakhrossadat
& Ali, 2016).
In today's business world, organizations face new perspectives daily thus they need employees
with superior abilities. In this situation, transformational leaders come to the rescue of
organizations and encourage followers to priorities organizational interests, which in turn
improve organizational effectiveness (Shadraconis, 2013). According to Arefi et al. (2012), a
vital role is played by transformational leaders in improving followers' attitudes and
encouraging them to take an interest in organizational success. Leaders who follow
transformational leadership style impact the emotional state of followers, i.e., transformational
leadership style impacts flowers, values, goals, and beliefs (Saki et al., 2015). Moreover, these
leaders also encourage followers to fulfill their responsibilities beyond expectations (Asgari et
al., 2008). Hence, according to Bahadori and Dahghan (2017) and Fakhrossadat and Ali (2016),
transformational leadership increases employee capabilities, skills, and commitment level; it is
more expected that employees will put more effort to fulfill responsibilities than usual.
Moreover, it is mentioned in the existing literature of leadership that leaders who follow
transformational leadership style are more successful in developing citizenship behavior of
employees as compared to transactional leadership style (Asgari et al., 2008). Additionally,
Moradi et al. (2011) presented the same results. Despite the fact that both leadership styles
strongly and substantially impacts OCB, the OCB of employees is more significantly
influenced by transformational leadership (Moradi et al., 2011). However, Lian and Tui (2012)
presented the negative link between OCB and transactional leadership and positive link
between OCB and transformation leadership. In addition, a research by Ahmad and Jameel
(2020) also confirms that OCB is positively affected by transformational leadership. Further,
Purwanto et al. (2021) also presented that OCB of employees is significantly linked to
transformational leadership.
Another research found that transactional leadership and OCB are insignificantly related to
each other, and the same is in the case of transformational leadership (Anggita & Riyanto,
2021). Considering the contradictory results of earlier studies, the current study proposes to
find out the significance of the direct effect of leadership styles on OCB. Hence, it is
hypothesized;
H1: Transformational leadership positively and significantly impacts Organizational

Citizenship Behavior.
H2: Transactional leadership positively and significantly impacts Organizational Citizenship

Behavior.
Perceived organizational support (POS) is considered as "individuals' belief" that the employer
recognizes employees’ contribution and supports and cares about the growth of their employees
(La Mastro, 1999). According to Luxmi and Yadav (2011), this belief of employees pushes
them to fulfill their responsibilities and encourages them to give importance to their
organization. The only way to achieve organizational goals is that employees have the support
of their organization. The perception of employees about organizational support increased their
efficiency, and they tend to work beyond expectation. Employees' anticipation about
organizational support leads to a continuous cycle where employees go above and beyond to
meet organizational objectives. In other words, leaders who focus on employees' needs, provide
support, and maintain good relationships with followers convey that the organization values its
employees, which motivates employees to become more profitable for the organization (Shahi
et al., 2017).
In any case, leadership styles are important in shaping citizenship behavior of employees.
However, it is yet to explore whether this role is direct or indirect. Burns's (1978) theory of
leadership proposed that transactional leaders have more focus on exchange phenomena rather
than focusing on the needs of employees whereas transformational leaders help followers in
creating work motivation and believe in shared responsibility. Given the difference in
characteristics of transformational leadership and transactional leadership, these two can lead
to different outcomes such as organizational support (Salimi, 2015). According to Kaffashpor
et al. (2017), perceived organizational support can predict OCB. It is important to indicate those
factors which strengthen the citizenship behavior of employees, which in turn will help
organizations in improving their performance. Therefore, current study postulates that
perceived organizational support plays a mediating role for leadership styles and employees'
OCB association.
H3: The association between Transformational leadership and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior will be mediated by Perceived Organizational Support.
H4: The association between Transactional leadership and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior will be mediated by Perceived Organizational Support.
Perceived
organizational support
Transformational
leadership
Organizational
citizenship
Behavior
Transactional
leadership
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Methodology
This paper examines the association between leadership styles (i.e., transactional leadership
and transformational leadership) and OCB of employees working in the higher education
sector. In figure 1, the research model of this paper is presented. Transformational leadership
and transactional leadership are independent variables of this study. Organization citizenship
is taken as a dependent variable and perceived organizational support is taken as a mediator
variable among leadership styles and the dependent variable.
In this research, data is collected from individuals of Pakistan's education sector. Convenient
sampling technique is used to choose individuals working in the higher education sector. For
data collection, close-ended questionnaires were asked from the target population. On a seven-
point Likert scale (presenting 1 for "strongly disagree” to 7 for "strongly agree"), the intended
respondents were requested to express their opinions. No personal queries were added in the
questionnaire. Participants were required to show their free consent before expressing their
opinion on the Likert scale. An online survey is conducted with the help of Google forms. A
link is shared on social platforms to reach maximum target participants, i.e., LinkedIn,
Facebook groups. Following the suggestion of Kline (2016), the sample size for current
research is 200 individuals working in the higher education sector. Only valid filled
questionnaires were included in the data analysis process. For data analysis purposes, SPSS
V.25 and AMOS are used for descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, confirmatory factor
analysis, and mediation analysis.
Research questionnaires used in this paper are already developed and used by previous
researchers. There were two parts to the research questionnaire. In the first part, demographic
questions were asked from participants. In the second part, close-ended questions were asked
about research variables.
For leadership styles, a multifactor leadership questionnaire by Bass and Avolio (1996) is used
by many researchers. It is developed in such a way that data about leadership style can be
collected from leaders themselves and also from their subordinates and colleagues (Xiao-xia
& Jing, 2006). The data has been collected from subordinates about their leaders' styles. The
questionnaire established by Bass and Avolio (1996) is not available for free of cost and is
required to be purchased. Due to time and cost limitations in this research study, research
questionnaire for both leadership styles (transformational leadership and transactional
leadership) is taken from Xiao-xia and Jing (2006). Multifactor leadership questionnaire was
modified by Xiao-xia and Jing (2006) for research purposes. Transformational leadership is
studied with the help of its four sub-dimensions named (1) “idealized influence”, (2)
“inspirational motivation”, (3) “intellectual stimulation”, and (4) “individualized
consideration”. There are three scale items for each sub-dimension., i.e., a total of 12 close-
ended questions were asked for transformational leadership style. The transactional leadership
style is studied through its two sub-dimensions: (1) “contingent reward” and (2) “management
by exception.'” There are three scale items for each sub-dimension, i.e., a total of 6 close-ended
questions were asked for transactional leadership style.
Perceived organizational support is measured with the help of a scale taken from the study of
Asgari et al. (2020). Perceived organizational support is measured as a general belief of
employees in their organization, i.e., employees believe that their organization is committed to
them, values their presence in the organization, and cares for employees' well-being. A total of
eight close-ended questionnaires were asked from participants. All questions were asked on a
seven-point Likert scale. In order to measure organizational citizenship behavior, five-sub
dimensions named; courtesy, altruism, sportsmanship, Conscientiousness, and civic virtue are
used. The scale for organizational citizenship behavior is also adopted from a research study
by Asgari et al. (2020), originally established by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1989). A total of
24 close-ended questions were asked for organizational citizenship behavior. All questions for
organizational citizenship behavior were also asked on a seven-point Likert scale.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Demographics Characteristics N
Age (years) 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-above Total

Gender * Age Cross Tabulation
Male 98 22 1 1 122
Female 69 18 1 0 88
Total 167 40 2 1 210
Education Graduation Post graduation PhD Total

Gender*Education Cross tabulation
Male 36 85 1 122
Female 29 59 0 88
Total 65 144 1 210
Work Experience
Gender*Work Experience Cross tabulation
Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years above 5 years Total
Work Experience
Male 11 54 57 122
Female 20 31 37 88
Total 31 85 94 210
There were 210 respondents in which 122 males and 88 females, majority of males fall
under the age of 20 to 30 years old. The larger number of total male respondents have (Post-
graduation= 85, graduation= 36 and PhD= 1) and female respondents were lesser in numbers
as compare to the male respondents (graduation= 29, post-graduation= 59 and PhD= 0).
Moreover, except 11 male respondents, all male respondents have work experience between 1
and 5 years. On the other side, except 20 female respondents, all other female respondents have
more than 5 years of experience in higher education sector of Pakistan.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

At first stage, confirmatory factor analysis has been performed by using AMOS for knowing
about model fitness for all variables of current study. The CFA is applied to check the validity
of the adopted scales of all used constructs. CFA was run to identify the acceptable range of
each item through factor loading and it was found all the items of all studied variables within
range. It was also found that all used variables in this research work were loaded on expected
latent variables and correlated in the analysis. The factor loading of each item was reported as
significant (p<0.001) for confirmatory factor analysis of first model fitness indices. However,
reported values of each item run by applying CFA found that measurement model fitness is
quite appropriate and meet the standard criteria defined by Hair (2010). The standard values of
model fitness index for the adaptability referred as root mean square error of approximation
below or close to the described cut-off value as (RMSEA = .08), comparative fit index standard
value as (CFI = 0.91), goodness of fit index cut-off value should be greater than (GFI = 0.95),
and normed fit index acceptable value should be greater than (NFI = 0.95) which describes the
acceptability rate of model fit. The below figure is extracted by using AMOS, it presented the
three results named; first, factor loadings, second, composite reliability, and third, average
variance extract results and the table mentioned below establish the two validities results; first
convergent validity and second, discriminant validity as suggested by Hair et al. (2012). For
all items of used variables, it has notified that value of factor loading of each item should fall
in the bracket of 0.6 and 0.4, if values found less than mentioned criteria then the specific item
will be deleted from the measurement model (Awang, 2014). Moreover, default model fitness
index values of CFI and RMSEA were found under acceptable described by Hu et al. (1999).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis:
Transformatio Transaction Perceived Organizational

nal Leadership leadership Style Organizational Citizenship
style Support Behavior
TL1 0.498
TL2 0.591
TL3 0.356
TL4 0.629
TL5 0.651
TL6 0.72
TL7 0.889
T_L1 0.527
T_L3 0.674
T_L4 0.66
TLL5 0.611
T_L6 0.69
POS1 0.694
POS2 0.664
POS3 0.723
POS4 0.725
OCB1 0.504
OCB2 0.516
OCB3 0.781
OCB4 0.641
OCB5 0.544
OCB6 0.667
OCB7 0.614
OCB8 0.651
OCB9 0.626
OCB10 0.578
OCB11 0.644
OCB12 0.504
OCB13 0.553
OCB14 0.566
OCB15 0.675
OCB16 0.543
OCB17 0.643
OCB18 0.548
OCB19 0.465
OCB20 0.737
The measurement model fitness indices include, chi-square model, the IFI, the Tucker Lewis
(TLI) index, the CFI, and the root mean approximate square error (RMSA).in current study,
model had been an excellent fit (CMIN/DF = 1.485, CFI =0.210, TLI (0.170), IFI (0.272), and
RMSEA (0.48) are the values for the coefficients (Hinkin, et al, 1990). In this study, the
acceptable validity of a five-factor model was established by the CFAs. Furthermore, all of the
items had a substantial effect on their respective latent variables.
According to the findings of the CFA, discrimination is justified in this situation. The reason
for this is that all elements loaded on their latent building techniques only follows the thresholds
that are necessary for them to function. Once all of the units have been uploaded into their idea,
the model matches the results fairly well. Because the objects put on some linked concepts are
highly interconnected with one another, it lends further evidence to the convergent significance
hypothesis. Furthermore, element uploading is important, accounting for more than 0.7 percent
of the total (Javed, et al, 2018).
Model CMIN CMIN/DF IFI TLI CFI RMSEA

Default model 1526.202 1.485 .272 .170 .210 .048
Saturated model .000 1.000 1.000
Independence 1711.939 1.584 .000 .000 .000 .053
model
Variables Name AVE CR TF_L T_L PO_S OC_B

Transformational Leadership Style 0.619 0.868 0.619
Transactional Leadership Style 0.632 0.832 .384** 0.632
Perceived Organizational Support 0.702 0.800 .303** .545** 0.702
Organizational Citizenship Behavior 0.600 0.952 .433** .649** .621** 0.600
Correlation and Reliabilities
Variables 1 2 3 4
1 TL (.85)
2 T-L .595*** (.72)
3 POS .542** .585** (.76)
4 OCB .678** .710** .669** (.90)
“Transformational leadership (TL), Transactional leadership (T-L)

Perceived organizational support (POS), Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, reliability values mentioned in brackets”
In the above table, the values of correlations and reliabilities were mentioned.
Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of all variables were acceptable such as (TL= .85, T-L= .72,
POS= .76 and OCB= .90) Cronbach's Alpha value greater than 0.60 indicates greater accuracy,
whereas Cronbach's Alpha (Nunnally, et al, 1994). All of the variables have a value greater
than 0.7, indicating that the consistency and stability of data goodness was found accurate and
we can rely on the results extracted from inferential statistics.
The relationship all studied variables using correlation analysis were examined. The
range of correlation constant value should be in between +1 to -1 (Olsson and Ulf, 1979). The
results of correlation coefficient of TL and T-L as (r= .59, p< .000) indicated there was .59
correlation between transformational leadership and transactional leadership and found high
value of significance. Moreover, the correlation coefficient between TL and POS (r= .542,
p<.001) is an indication of 54% correlation between transformational leadership and perceived
organizational support and p-value was reported as significant. It was further reported that TL
and OCB correlations was found (r= .678, p< .001), it is an indication of 67.8% correlation
between transformational leadership (independent variable) and organizational citizenship
behavior (dependent variable), and p-value was also less than .05. Furthermore, the correlation
coefficient value of T-L and POS (r= .585, p<.001) indicated that 58.5% correlation exists
between transactional leadership and perceived organizational support and p-value was also
positively significant. At the last the correlation coefficient value between POS and OCB (r=
.669. p< .001) showed that 66.9% correlation exits between mediator (perceived organizational
support) and dependent variable (organizational citizenship behavior) and p-value was also
positively significant.
Multiple Regression analysis:
B Std. Error Beta t sig

1 (Constant) 1.047 .213 4.923 .000
TF_L .357 .049 .395 7.273 .000
T_L .413 .047 .475 8.753 .000
a. Dependent Variable: OCB
As per the results, independent variable (transformational leadership) and dependent

variable named, OCB are positively and significantly interrelated, (β= .357, p< .000) beta value
reported that 35.7% effect of TL on OCB. Furthermore, independent variable (transactional
leadership) and dependent variable named, OCB are positively and significantly interrelated
(β=.413, p< .000), beta value showed the effect 41.3% effect of T-L on OCB. These values
appear to have a statistically significant link with favorable indicators. According to the t-
statistics of the model, the variables in the current model are significantly and positively
interrelated. All of the factors are proven to be statistically significant in the table. This table
shows that both independent variable, first, transformational leadership (TL) and second,
transactional leadership (T-L) styles positively linked to Organizational Citizenship Behavior
(OCB).
Y = b1x1 + b2x2
Y= OCS (1.047) + TF_L (0.3557) + TL (0.413)
Mediation analysis:
Model Coeff SE t P LLCI ULCI

1 (Constant) 1.1915 0.2124 5.6099 0.000 0.7728 1.6102
TF_L (X) 0.4033 0.480 8.4050 0.000 0.3087 0.4979
T_L (X) 0.4212 0.470 8.9669 0.000 0.3286 0.5138
PO_S (M) 0.3375 0.419 8.0540 0.000 0.2549 0.4201
a. Dependent Variable: OCB
Transformational leadership style and transactional leadership style both have a

positive impact on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and a positive indirect impact on
Perceived Organizational Support, as shown in the table above. According to Preacher and
Hayes (2007) described the standard criteria for full-mediation existence such as direct effect
is insignificant and indirect effect is significant and values of LCL and UCL should be in same
direction either in positive magnitude or negative magnitude. In the above mentioned table, it
showed that direct effect is significant but it showed be insignificant and indirect effect is
significant (SE= .419, LCL= .25, UCL= .42, p=sig) this assumption for mediation is according
to the described rule mentioned by preacher and Hayes (2007). So, the results showed there
was a partial mediation of perceived organizational support between the relationship of
transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, moreover, partial
mediation was also found in the relationship of transactional leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior.
Discussion
Burns (1978) published his inspiring research work acquaint with the concepts of transactional
and transformational styles of leadership. Difference between transformational and
transactional leadership is exemplify as what you can do for organization or country

(transformational style of leadership) and what your organization or country can do for you
i.e., transactional leadership approach. Hence, individual having transformational leadership
style uplift employee’s self-recognition, motivation, morale of the followers. Transactional
leaders furnish their followers that how to cater self-interest on immediate basis. Transactional
leadership approach is more based on give and take relationship between two parties. A
substantial amount of these empirical research findings of the study has fulfilled conceptual
and operational perspectives of LMX theory. Such as, previous study investigated that (Bass,
1999; Judge and Piccolo, 2004) Leaders have always been encouraged to motivate their
subordinates by increasing employee creativity, organizational change and teams focused on
quality, service, cost-effectiveness, and quantity of output (Groves, 2006; Bass, 1999; Cheung
and Wong, 2011). transformational leadership can fetch real change in organizations, albeit
through different means (Groves, 2006). When subordinates realize that leader is fair with
followers than it decreases uncertainties and escalate long-term success and organization’s
profitability (Braham, 1999).
The main purpose of this study was to improve instructional practices in the Pakistan
education sector along with the OCB level of followers. This study developed the conceptual
framework to understand that transformational and transactional leadership styles create the
essence of organizational citizenship behavior in Pakistani education sector. Particularly, this
research work examined that perceived organizational support partially mediated in the
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.
Moreover, partial mediation also existed between transactional leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior. The study contributed to describe the transformational and transactional
leadership style are playing pivotal role to increase the credibility of the organizations. The
basic aim of any organization is to uplift the performance standards at individual and
organizational level. This achievement can be made once employees of that organization have
higher level of OCB. According to the LMX theory, OCB level of employees can be increased
when leader has fair relationship with subordinates. Leader member exchange relationship
stands on equitable relationship between both parties (leader and subordinates). If this
reciprocal exchange relationship is not based on fairness and justice than contributor will not
reciprocate in a desired manner. Present practices reveal that good organizations take its
employees as internal customers because they found that we cannot satisfy the actual customer
of the organization unless internal customer as employee is not satisfied. Good leadership style
is very important to increase the level of employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. There
is intense requirement of present time to create a strong emotional bond between employees
and organization. Moreover, the relationship between transformational and transactional styles
of leadership with organizational citizenship behavior strengthens through the perceived
organizational support. The results of this study showed that the culture of an organization must
be consolidated with employees’ strong emotional attachment with the organization that top
management will be accompanied by them whenever they are needed any resources and
support. In short, it was found the relationship between TFL (transformational leadership) and
T-L (transactional leadership) with OCB (organizational citizenship behavior) was
strengthened by POS (perceived organizational support) and the associational causal

relationship among studied variables increase the rigor of leader-member exchange
relationship theoretical perspectives.
Within the scope of LMX, the results of this study are aligned with the previous researchers
(Kaffashpor et al., 2017; Bahadori and Dahghan, 2017; Putra et al., 2020), such as, all the
Leader member exchange relationship conceptually designed hypotheses that shows the causal
relationship among all studied variables.
Practical and Managerial Implication
The main objective of this study was to examine the leadership styles and its effect on
employees’ OCB working in education sector of Pakistan. However, some principles are
suggested that can improve the education system in Pakistan under the light of theorized styles
of leadership. For instance, it should be the prime responsibility of transformational and
transactional leader to have instructional focus on followers in the education sector. Secondly,
there should be supportive environment for the faculty members through which they can get
motivation, inspiration, maintain reciprocal relationship in term of routinize the accountability
of follower’s performance and leader’s contribution in exchange relationship. Thirdly,
organization should heavily rely on face-to-face relationship rather than following the current
prevailing bureaucratic style of leadership. Finally, transformational leader must inspire
followers in the education sector of Pakistan that how to act and think around learning for
continuous improvement and thrive for mutual respect that can be gained through required
skills for job and knowledge.
Previous studies indicated that positive style of leadership used by the top management
of any an organization especially academic institute always left positive outcomes on
individuals and organizations such as (mindfulness, less intention to quit, lower level of actual
turnover, mental and psychological issues). The major concern of this study was to increase
the organizational citizenship behavior with the suitable adoption of leadership style such as
transformational and transactional from the higher education sector of Pakistan. Preceding
research indicated that service sector does not have high level of employees’ organizational
citizenship behavior because of high uncertainty of jobs particularly in private sector (Fischer
et al., 2019). As mentioned earlier, the approximate cost of poor leadership style used in service
sector increased 32% turnover intentions of the employees (Abbasi and Hollman, 2000) and on
the other hand good leadership style helped in increasing 3 to 4% employees’ job satisfaction
and correspondingly 1.5% increase in annual revenue growth. But bad leadership style caused
a service sector more than $ 126,000 in one year along with low employees’ productivity, high
rate of turnover and staff dissension. However, there are found bad results of poor leadership
in term of financial loss of an organization and it is directly has positive significant relationship
with organizational failure to achieve its long term and short term goals. Eventually, it is
identified that good leadership style in higher education sector of Pakistan is closely related to
increase OCB level of the employees. This research suggested to education sectorial managers
that employees do not want decrease the level of job satisfaction, because previous study
investigated that good leadership style increase the job satisfaction (Long et al., 2014) which
ultimately leads to high level of OCB. Finally, the suggestions were reported under the ample
light of this research findings if higher education sector of Pakistan is serious to increase of
OCB level of the employees than they should have to comply transformational and
transactional style of leadership in education and there is also a need of the time to create
organizational supportive environment at workplace. Moreover, managers and human resource
department can encourage those employees who have low level of OCB to use other behavioral
strategies to manage negative perceptions, reactions and intentions.
Future Research Directions and Conclusion
There are some aspects that can be considered theoretically and practically in the
domain of this research work. First of all, contextual ground of this research was higher
education sector of Pakistan. As Pakistan is situated in central Asia and Pakistan is high power
distant culture so the same research model can also be replicated in other Asian countries such
as Malaysia, China, UAE, and western countries as well to have insightful understanding of
same research model. Data was collected from the service sector of Pakistan; it is also
suggested to collect data of manufacturing sector of Pakistan such as textile sector and other
sector as well. Moreover, theoretical perspective is concerned, POS partially mediates between
the leadership styles and OCB. In the area of transformational and transactional styles of
leadership future research can also postulate other styles of leadership such as Taoist
leadership, autocratic leadership. Personality traits, opportunity for career development,
interpersonal conflict, and workplace incivility can be investigated as mediating mechanism
and types of psychological contract (relational and transactional) can be investigated as
moderating variables. Based on the findings, it is recommended that above mentioned variables
will be studied with different mediated-moderating relationship with employee’s OCB and
other job outcomes.
References
Abbasi, S. M., & Hollman, K. W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public Personnel
Management, 29(3), 333-342.
Adekanbi, A. (2016). An Investigation into the Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee

Retention: Identifying which Leadership Style best encourages Employee Retention in
the Nigerian Banking Sector: A Case study of Zenith Bank Plc., Nigeria.
Adewale, A. S., Ghavifekr, S., & Daud, M. A. K. M. (2018). Predictors of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior in Higher Education Institutions: Implication for Effective
Leadership. Educational Leader (Pemimpin Pendidikan), 6, 19–49.
Ahangari, N., Hajinejad, S., & Khanmohamadi, N. (2017). The role of communication skills
urban Managers of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Staff (Case Study of Karaj
Municipality). Urban Management Studies, 9(30), 21–34.
Ahmad, A. R., & Jameel, A. S. (2020). Job Satisfaction as a Mediator between

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours. International
Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(5), 10163–10174.
Anggita, D., & Riyanto, S. (2021). The Effect of a Transformational Leadership Style,
Organizational Commitment and Working Environment on Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB) with Work Satisfaction as an Intervening Variable. The International
Journal of Business & Management, 9.
https://doi.org/10.24940/theijbm/2021/v9/i1/BM2101-059
Arefi, M., Rashid, S., & Abochenari, A. (2012). Transformational leadership and its role in
improving organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Public Administration
Perspective, 12, 147–167.
Asgari, A., Mezginejad, S., & Taherpour, F. (2020). The role of leadership styles in
organizational citizenship behavior through mediation of perceived organizational
support and job satisfaction. Innovar, 30(75), 87–98.
https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v30n75.83259
Asgari, A., Silong, A., Ahmad, A., & Sama, B. (2008). The Relationship between
Transformational Leadership Behaviors, Leader-Member Exchange and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. European Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 140–
151.
Bahadori, S., & Dahghan, M. (2017). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Change-
Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Case Study: The ICT Organization of
Tehran Municipality). Public Policy In Administration, 8(26), 29–40.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1996). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Braham, J. (1999). THE Spiritual SIDE. Industry Week/IW, 248(3), 48-54.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed). Harper & Row.

Cheung, M. F., & Wong, C. S. (2011). Transformational leadership, leader support, and
employee creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2012). Organizational Justice: Personality Traits or Emotional
Intelligence? An Empirical Study in an Italian Hospital Context. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 49(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-
1920.2012.00004.x
Eyupoglu, S. Z. (2016). The Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of Academic Staff in North
Cyprus. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 701–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-
5671(16)30280-5
Fakhrossadat, N. V., & Ali, E. P. S. (2016a). The Relationship between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership Style with the Employees' Job Satisfaction. 24(79), 101–118.
Fakhrossadat, N. V., & Ali, E. P. S. (2016b). The Relationship between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership Style with the Employees' Job Satisfaction. 24(79), 101–118.
Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Van Meurs, N., Gok, K., Jiang, D. Y., Fontaine, J. R., &
Abubakar, A. (2019). Does organizational formalization facilitate voice and helping
organizational citizenship behaviors? It depends on (national) uncertainty
norms. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(1), 125-134.
Groves, K. S. (2006). Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership, and organizational
change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
Ibrahim, Muh. A., & Aslinda, A. (2013). Relationship Between Organizational Commitment
and Organisational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) At Goverment-Owned Corporation
Companies. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 3(3), 35.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v3i3.4379
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of applied psychology, 89(5), 755.
Kaffashpor, A., Shojaean, A., & Alaghebandi Hosieni Toosi, M. (2017). Effect of Perceived
Organizational Support on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors with emphasis on the
mediating role of Job Satisfaction. Iranian Journal of Nursing Research, 12(1), 42–49.
https://doi.org/10.21859/ijnr-12017
Kalsoom, Z., Khan, M. A., & Zubair, D. S. S. (2018). Impact of transactional leadership and
transformational leadership on employee performance: A case of FMCG industry of
Pakistan. Industrial Engineering Letters, 8(3), 23–30.
Kececi, M. (2017). The impact of individualism and collectivism on the relationship between
leadership styles and organizational citizenship behaviour. Pressacademia, 4(4), 469–
484. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.755
Khan, M. A., Ismail, F. B., Hussain, A., & Alghazali, B. (2020). The Interplay of Leadership
Styles, Innovative Work Behavior, Organizational Culture, and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior. SAGE Open, 10(1), 215824401989826.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019898264
Kılınç, E., & Ulusoy, H. (2014). Investigation of organizational citizenship behavior,
organizational silence and employee performance at physicians and nurses, and the
relationship among them. Business Management Dynamics, 3, 25–34.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Fourth edition).
The Guilford Press.
LaMastro, V. (1999). Commitment and perceived organizational support. 12(3), 1–13.
Lian, L. K., & Tui, L. G. (2012). Leadership Styles and Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
The Mediating Effect of Subordinates' Competence and Downward Influence Tactics.
Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 13(2), 59–96.
Luxmi, & Yadav, V. (2011). Reciprocation Effect of Perceived Organizational Support on

Organizational Commitment: A Study of School Teachers. Management and Labour
Studies, 36(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X1103600204
Ma, X., & Jiang, W. (2018). Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and
Employee Creativity in Entrepreneurial Firms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 54(3), 302–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318764346
Mahdinezhad, M., & Suandi, B. (2013). Transformational, transactional leadership styles and
job performance of academic leaders. International Education Studies, 6(11), 29–34.
Majeed, N., Ramayah, T., Mustamil, N., Nazri, M., & Jamshed, S. (2017). Transformational
Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Modeling: Emotional
Intelligence as a Mediator. Management & Marketing: Challenges for the Knowledge
Society, 12. https://doi.org/10.1515/mmcks-2017-0034
Masood, S., Siddiqui, G. K., Lodhi, H., & Shahbaz, S. (2020). Effect of Leadership Styles on
Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Employee Turnover Intention. Journal of
Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies, 6(2), 487–495.
https://doi.org/10.26710/jafee.v6i2.1200
Mohammadkhani, F., & Gholamzadeh, D. (2016). The Influence of Leadership Styles on the
Women's Glass Ceiling Beliefs. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 276–282.
https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.4.4.276-282
Moradi, M., Hamidi, M., Sajjadi, N., Jafari, A., & Moradi, J. (2011). The Relationship between
Transformational Transactional Leadership Styles and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Physical Education Organization of Iran. Journal of Sport Management,
3(8). https://jsm.ut.ac.ir/article_23780.html
Moradi, M. R., Jafari, A., Omidi, A., & Alidoust Ghahfarokhi, E. (2014). Modeling the Effect
of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Justice on Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors in Employees of Ministry of Sport and Youth of Iran. Journal of
Sport Management, 5(4), 107–124.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome (pp.
xiii, 132).
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mac Kenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational
citizenship behavior.
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(3), 513–563.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
Purwanto, A., Purba, J. T., Bernarto, I., & Sijabat, R. (2021). Effect of Transformational
Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitments on Organizational
Citizenship Behavior. Inovbiz: Jurnal Inovasi Bisnis, 9(1), 61–69.
https://doi.org/10.35314/inovbiz.v9i1.1801
Putra, A. S., Waruwu, H., Asbari, M., Novitasari, D., & Purwanto, A. (2020). Leadership in
the Innovation Era: Transactional or Transformational Style?. International Journal of

Social and Management Studies, 1(1), 89-94.
Rezaei, B., Yarmohammadian, M. H., & Mahmoodzadeh Ardakani, H. (2017). The

Relationship Between Nurse Managers' Leadership Styles and Procrastination in
Nursing Staff in Isfahan Social Welfare Hospitals. Avicenna Journal of Nursing and
Midwifery Care, 25(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.21859/nmj-25018
Saki, R., Dasti, M., & Nasri, S. (2015). Study of Principals Leadership Style with
Organizational Silence. Organizational Resources Management Researchs, 5(1), 85–
108.
Salimi, H. (2015). The relationship between transformational leadership and perceived
organizational support among employees of the Sports and Youth Department of East
Azarbaijan province (Master degree thesis). Faculty of Physical Education and Sport
Sciences, Urmia University, West Azerbaijan, Iran.
Sanatjoo, A., & Mahmoudi, H. (2015). Investigating the Relationship between the
Organizational Justice and the Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Libraries of
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Library and Information Science Research, 5(1),
235–254.
Shadraconis, S. (2013). Organizational Leadership in Times of Uncertainty: Is
Transformational Leadership the Answer? LUX: A Journal of Transdisciplinary
Writing and Research from Claremont Graduate University, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.5642/lux.201301.28
Shahi, S., Andarz, S., Andarz, K., & Yasini, M. (2017). The relationship between
organizational justice and Perceived Organizational Support with the desire to leave the
occupation knowledge workers. Organizational Resources Management Researchs,
7(2), 105–127.
Siddique, A., Aslam, H., Khan, M., & Fatima, U. (2011). Impact of academic leadership on
faculty's motivation, and organizational effectiveness in higher education system.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH, 3, 730–737.
Swaminathan, S., & Jawahar, P. D. (2013). Job Satisfaction as a Predictor of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior: An Empirical Study. Global Journal of Business Research, 7(1),
71–80.
Tian, H., Iqbal, S., Akhtar, S., Qalati, S. A., Anwar, F., & Khan, M. A. S. (2020). The impact
of transformational leadership on employee retention: Mediation and moderation
through organizational citizenship behavior and communication. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 314.
Waheed, S., & Ahmad-Shah, A. (2017). Organisational citizenship behaviour among university
teachers: An empirical study. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and
Multidisciplinary Studies, 4(3), 248–253.
Xiao-xia, P., & Jing, W. (2006). Transformational Leadership VS: Transactional Leadership.
The Influence of Gender and Culture on Leadership Styles of SMEs in China and
Sweden.
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity
in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5),
851–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007
Zhang, H., Zhao, S. M., & Fang, H. B. (2010). The impact of job security on the behavior of
organizational citizens: The mediating effect of organizational trust. Journal of
Business Economics, 9, 33–38.

Leadership Linkages 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership Linkages 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership Linkages 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Webology (ISSN: 1735-188X)

Volume 19, Number 2, 2022

A Study Of Relationship Between Leadership Styles,

Fauzia Ahmed1 , Dr. Saubia Ramzan2 , Dr. Jameel Ahmad3

1PH.D Scholar, Institute of Management Sciences, University of Balochistan. Pakistan.

2,3Institute of Management Sciences, University of Balochistan, Pakistan.

transformational leadership style or transactional leadership style) more significantly impact

● To analyze the link amongst transformational leadership (independent variable) and

Literature overview and Hypotheses development

In light of all above mentioned positive implications of organizational citizenship behavior, it

H1: Transformational leadership positively and significantly impacts Organizational

H2: Transactional leadership positively and significantly impacts Organizational Citizenship

H3: The association between Transformational leadership and Organizational Citizenship

H4: The association between Transactional leadership and Organizational Citizenship

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Age (years) 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-above Total

Education Graduation Post graduation PhD Total

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

Transformatio Transaction Perceived Organizational

Model CMIN CMIN/DF IFI TLI CFI RMSEA

Variables Name AVE CR TF_L T_L PO_S OC_B

Correlation and Reliabilities

“Transformational leadership (TL), Transactional leadership (T-L)

Multiple Regression analysis:

B Std. Error Beta t sig

As per the results, independent variable (transformational leadership) and dependent

Y= OCS (1.047) + TF_L (0.3557) + TL (0.413)

Model Coeff SE t P LLCI ULCI

Transformational leadership style and transactional leadership style both have a

transactional leadership is exemplify as what you can do for organization or country

strengthened by POS (perceived organizational support) and the associational causal

Practical and Managerial Implication

Future Research Directions and Conclusion

Management, 29(3), 333-342.

Adekanbi, A. (2016). An Investigation into the Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee

Ahmad, A. R., & Jameel, A. S. (2020). Job Satisfaction as a Mediator between

leadership. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

Braham, J. (1999). THE Spiritual SIDE. Industry Week/IW, 248(3), 48-54.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed). Harper & Row.

employee creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Groves, K. S. (2006). Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership, and organizational

change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Luxmi, & Yadav, V. (2011). Reciprocation Effect of Perceived Organizational Support on

the Innovation Era: Transactional or Transformational Style?. International Journal of

Rezaei, B., Yarmohammadian, M. H., & Mahmoodzadeh Ardakani, H. (2017). The

You might also like