-
1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND INDIVIDUAL-DIRECTED
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR:
THE MODERATING EFFECT OF LEADER-MEMBER-EXCHANGE
By
Yeung Quenson
10018026
Human Resources Management Concentration
An Honors Degree Project Submitted to the School of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation
Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor Business Administration (Honors)
Hong Kong Baptist University
Hong Kong
April 2013
-
2
Acknowledgement
I would like to show my deepest gratitude to Dr. Alicia Leung for her kind support and invaluable guidance
provided in the past 1 year. As a student without any previous experience in conducting research, it would
not be possible to complete a research in such a short period of time without her support and advice. I am
also thankful to all those corporations and their respective employees for showing their willingness and
spending their time to complete the surveys.
-
3
Abstract
This study attempts to explore how ethical leadership may affect subordinates’ performance of
Individual-Directed Organization Citizenship Behaviour (OCBI) and the moderating role played by
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). 118 valid data were used to analyze and interpret the result. A positive
relationship between ethical leadership and OCBI was found. LMX was also found to be a significant
moderator: ethical leadership was a stronger predictor of OCBI when the quality of relationship between
direct supervisor and subordinates are higher.
-
4
INTRODUCTION
In today’s business world, apart from task performance, contextual performance, is also gaining increasing
importance in organizations. Contextual performance refers to performance not formally required but
performed by employees voluntarily. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour is one of the contextual
performances. Both scholars and management are interested in how to induce the performance of OCBs. As
leaders “provide cues for what behavior is appropriate and make salient the situational needs for prosocial
gestures.”(Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. 1983), leadership, as described as the “process of social
influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common
task.”( Chemers M. ,1997) , is known to have much influence on employees’ behavior which could be
explained through social exchange(Blau, P. 1964) and social learning theory (Bandura, A, 1977). Among all
the leadership styles being recognized and studied, ethical leadership has been the most popular studied in
recent years due to the limited research done on it and the increasing concern and emphasis of the public
have put on business ethics especially after the financial crisis in 2008, people are becoming increasingly
concern about the ethical standards of the leaders in the organizations. It would not be surprised that ethical
leadership could also influence the employees’ behaviour especially of ethical conducts. However, much of
the research done on ethical leadership has been on its descriptive aspect rather than on its effects. Hence,
this study attempted to explore how ethical leadership of which I refer to the top management of the
organization may affect Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) especially Individual-Directed
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCBI) performed by their employees. Also, seldom do leaders treat
their subordinates as the same and the quality of their relationship would affect the trust the followers have
on their leaders which would indeed affect the way they model and learn from their leaders. As a result,
Leader Member Exchange (LMX) has been included in the model so as to explore under what conditions
OCB would be more prominent under the influence of ethical leadership. The purpose of the study is to
examine the relationship between ethical leadership and OCBIs performed by their employees and how
LMX would moderate their relationship.
-
5
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
To examine whether ethical leadership would have an impact on employee’s performance of OCBI
To examine how may LMX, the quality of relationship formed between leaders and subordinates,
moderate their relationship.
To provide practical implications on the importance of ethical leadership training as it would
contribute to prosocial organizational behaviors.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Ethical leadership
Ethical Leadership is defined as the “demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal
actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way
communication, reinforcement, and decision making” (Brown, Trevin˜o, and Harrison, 2005). It captures
how the employees perceive the ethical behaviours inferred from the leaders’ acts. Ethical leaders are
characterized in several ways. Firstly, according to the definition proposed by Brown, Trevin~o and Harrison,
ethical leaders influence their subordinate behaviour in mainly two ways. First of all, they would act as the
role-model by making the ethical standards explicit and act in alignment with them. Also, they would make
ethical standards (required) explicit to the subordinates and would reinforce their subordinates’ behaviour
meeting the predetermined ethical standard by rewarding them and to punish those who failed to do so.
Research has showed that reinforcement plays a critical role in role modeling effectiveness as the followers
usually play special attention to those controlling key resources, making rewards and punishment decisions.
Power sharing is another dimension of ethical leaders. De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) claimed that
ethical leaders involve subordinates in decision making process and listen to their ideas and concerns. They
have also found a high correlation between employees’ sense of autonomy and ethical leadership using the
Brown et al. (2005) measurement scale.
Some scholars have once regarded ethical leadership as indifferent with other leadership styles like
transformational leadership and charismatic leadership. Michael E. Brown a, Linda K. Treviño b, David .
Harrison (2006) argued that it’s not untrue that some aspects of ethical leadership are related to other
-
6
leadership styles and characteristics, but none of those leaderships is broad enough to cover all aspects of
ethical leadership. Their differences mainly lie on three areas. Firstly, ethical standard and moral
management are the primary concerns for ethical leaders. Though transformational and spiritual leaders still
consider about ethics, creating shared vision and values are still their primary concerns and emphasis.
Secondly, ethical leaders are themselves ethical while for transformational and charismatic leaders, whether
they are ethical are not depend on themselves (Bass, 1998). Not every transformational and charismatic
leader is ethical in nature and it is not guaranteed that they would use their personal influence to foster an
ethical working environment. Thirdly, ethical leaders are distinct from other leaders through their
transactional styles when reinforcing follower’s ethical behavior ( M.E. Brown, L.K. Treviño ,2006).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)
Decades before Organ gave a formal definition to Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Katz (1964) had
already identified the spontaneous activity that goes beyond role definitions as one of the indispensable
elements for a functional body. He further pointed out that any organizations rely solely on prescribed or
predetermined roles would simply be a fragile social system. Organizational Citizenship behavior is defined
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” (Organ 1988).
There are 7 dimensions of OCB which are altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, sportsmanship
(Organ 1988), peacekeeping and cheerleading (Organ 1990). In short, OCB refers to some spontaneous
behavior performed by employees which are not formally required. Research on OCB further divides it into
OCBO and OCBI. OCBO refers to OCB targeted at organization which includes conscientiousness, civic
virtue, and sportsmanship. OCBI refer to OCB targeted at individuals which include altruism, courtesy,
peacekeeping and cheerleading. A study done by Larry J. Williams and Stella E. Anderson in 1991 has
showed that OCBI and OCBO are two distinct types of performance. Williams and Anderson’s (1991)
categorization of OCB has incorporated most of the OCB constructs available. For OCBI, apart from the 4
dimensions proposed by Organ, it also covers Graham’s(1989) interpersonal helping, Van Scotter and
Motowidlo’s(1996) interpersonal facilitation, and Farh, Earley, and Lin’s (1997) helping coworkers and
-
7
interpersonal harmony construct. According to Organ, altruism refers to voluntary behavior aimed at helping
colleagues in dealing with tasks which are germane to organizations. Courtesy refers to voluntary behaviours
aiming at preventing work-conflict behaviours with colleagues. Peacekeeping refers to acts devoted at
mediating or preventing conflicts with coworkers. Cheerleading refers to verbal encouragements given to
colleagues. Interpersonal helping focuses on helping co-workers. Interpersonal facilitation refers to
interpersonal behaviors aiming at maintaining the organization’s interpersonal environment. Farh, Earley,
and Lin’s constructs are basically similar to those defined above.
When deciding which construct to adopt, we should bear in mind the ‘target similarity effect’ (Lavelle, Rupp,
& Brockner, 2007) and the claims made by Organ in 1994 about the predictor tend to “predict aggregations
of thematically related behaviours.” For this study, I would focus on investigating the effect of ethical
leadership on OCBI and Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCBI scale would be used to evaluate OCBI.
Ethical leadership and OCBI
Ethical leaders, as they would perform and demonstrate some normatively appropriate conduct, they would
serve as the role model to the employees and “provide cues for what behavior is appropriate and make
salient the situational needs for prosocial gestures.”(Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. 1983). From the
social learning perspective, modeling would influence the followers’ behavior as they are seen as credible
which may induce them to perform more OCBs. Berkowitz (1970) also strongly suggest that many forms of
prosocial behavior are influenced by models. The reinforcement nature of ethical leaders would also induce
the employees to perform OCBs more frequently and ethical leaders would promote certain ethical
behaviours by using rewards and punishment to reinforce them and according to research, reinforcement
plays critical role in determining modeling effectiveness. This is somewhat similar to the Kelman's (1958)
typology of social influence processes of which the employees would internalize their leader’s conduct and
belief and behave consistently with them. I believe that ethical leaders, as a role model perceived by
employees through demonstrating appropriate and ethical conducts, could exert certain influence on their
employees acts and their reinforcement nature would simply strengthen their influence which could affect
them to perform more OCBs.
-
8
I propose ethical leadership will have a positive association with OCBI but not OCBO mainly due to two
reasons. Firstly according the target similarity effect as proposed by Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner (2007),
constructs’ will have a stronger association when they refer to the same target. Since leaders and followers’
relationship is more interpersonal in nature, Ethical leadership and OCBI’s association would be stronger
than that with OCBO. Also, Organ (1994) also claimed that predictors tend to predict aggregations of
thematically related behaviours, as leader’s influence process on followers and the Leader Member
Exchange of which is included in our study as a moderator are interpersonal in nature, measuring OCBI
would be more appropriate.
Hypothesis 1: Ethical leadership has a positive relationship with Individual- Directed Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour
Role of leader-member exchange (LMX)
Leader Member Exchange (LMX) (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) describes the dynamic relationship
between leaders and followers. It recognizes that leaders do not always view or treat their followers in the
same way. The high quality exchange relationship between leaders and followers is characterized as social
exchange which extends beyond the economic exchange which is specified in contractual agreement.
Followers enjoying this kind of relationship with leaders are regarded as in-group members and they often
has more personal obligation, higher trust in leaders and more interaction with leaders. They would also
receive more promotion opportunities. For low quality exchange relationship, it is characterized as economic
exchange of which their relationship remains only in those specified in the contractual agreements.
Followers enjoying this kind of relationship with leaders are regarded as out-group members of which
fulfilling self-interest is their primary goal and there is little reciprocity with leaders. Blau (1964) also
claimed that only social exchange tends to elicit feelings of personal obligation, gratitude, and trust; while
purely economic exchange does not. Based on social learning theory, followers tend to learn from and model
the leaders who are perceived as credible. As high quality LMX relationship is social exchange in nature
which tends to elicit trust between followers and leaders ( Blau, 1964), the followers would learn from their
-
9
leaders and model their behaviours according to social learning theory. Hence, I believe that followers
enjoying high quality LMX relationship with ethical leaders would tend to learn and model their leaders to
perform OCBI more frequently. Also, according to Kelman's (1958) typology of social influence processes,
followers would internalize their leaders’ belief and act consistently with them. As followers enjoying high
quality LMX relationships have more trust on their leaders, they would tend to be more willing to internalize
the ethical leaders’ believe and act consistently with them which may perform OCBI more frequently. On the
contrary, as low quality LMX relationship is economic exchange in nature, followers may have less
communication and trust on their leaders, they would internalize their leader’s value and model their leaders’
behavior less. Hence, I propose that the association between ethical leadership and OCBI will be stronger
when the leaders and followers are enjoying high quality LMX relationship and vice versa.
I believe that even for ethical leaders, they would still form different kind of relationship with different
followers and hence, the quality of relationship formed would affect their influence on followers’
behaviours.
Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between ethical leadership and OCBI would be stronger when the quality of
leader-member relationship is higher.
Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between ethical leadership and OCBI would be weaker when the quality of
leader-member relationship is lower.
-
10
METHODOLOGY
Sample
151 questionnaires were distributed to various organizations located in Hong Kong. Response rate is 78% of
which 125 questionnaires were collected back while only 118 of them are valid. Some of the questionnaires
are distributed by the supervisors of the respective companies while some are distributed through some
colleagues. Among those valid responses, 67 (57%) of them are male while 51 (43%) of them are female.
94% of the valid respondents are full time workers. The age of the respondents ranges from 19 to 56 years
old with a mean of 31 years old. The respondents’ working experience ranges from 1 to 360 months with a
mean of 41 months.
Procedures
Some of the questionnaires are distributed by the supervisors of the respective companies while some are
distributed through some colleagues. For both group of respondents, a cover letter explaining about the
purpose of the research was attached in order to let them have a thorough understanding of the study as well
as to minimize or eliminate their suspicions towards the survey to obtain the most honest response. Verbal
explanation regarding the purpose of the study was also delivered by the supervisors or colleagues
representatives to the respondents.
Survey Measures
As required by the respondents’’ organizations, all the survey measures were administered in Chinese.
Ethical Leadership (ELS)
.The Brown et al.’s (2005) 10-item ethical leadership scale was employed to ask the respondents to rate their
leaders. The scale contains questions like “The leader listens to what employees have to say” and the
respondents were asked to rate from scale 1(Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree). The reliability of ELS
scale of the present study was 0.94.
Individual-Directed Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCBI)
Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCBI scale was used to ask the respondents to evaluate their own
-
11
performance of OCBI from 1(Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree). It contains questions like “I take time
to listen to co-workers’ problems and worries”. The reliability of the OCBI scale in the present study was
0.83.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
To measure the quality of relationship between the respondents and their leaders, the Liden, R. C., & Maslyn,
J. M. (1998) Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange scale was used and it contains questions like
“My supervisor understands my problems and needs well enough.” Respondents then rated the quality of
their relationships with their leadership from 1(Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree). The reliability of the
LMX scale in the present study was 0.81.
-
12
Analysis
SPSS was used to run and analyze the data. A hierarchical regression analyses was carried out to test the
hypotheses as specified of this study. To test the moderating effect of LMX on the effects of ethical
leadership on employees’ performance of OCBIs, the independent variable ( ELS) and moderator (LMX)
were standardized to reduce the problem of collinearity. Continuous controlled variables are standardized as
well. The standardized ethical leadership and standardized LMX were then multiplied to obtain the
interaction term so as to show the synergy between them. A two way interaction model was also plotted by
using the procedures of Aiken and West (1991) and Dawson and Richter (2006) to show the two way
moderating effect.
Results
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 30.90 8.39
2. Working Status .94 .24 .14
3.Working Experience 41.01 53.32 0.065** .081
4. Gender .43 .50 -.075 .002 -.032
5. ELS 3.68 .76 -.057 .084 -.048 .084 (0.936)
6. LMX 3.63 .58 -.091 .034 -.148 .094 .666**
(0.814)
7. OCBI 3.97 .54 .081 -.033 .129 .086 .313**
.233* (0.832)
Note:N=118 *p
-
13
higher than 0.7 which implies that all of them are fully accepted
-
14
Table 2
Results for Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Hypotheses Testing:
The Moderation Model
DV: Organizational Citizenship Behaviour-Individual Directed
M1 M2 M3
Control Variables:
Gender 0.09 0.06 0.06
Age 0.02 0.03 0.09
Working Status -0.05 -0.08 -0.09
Working Experience (in months) 0.12 0.14 0.11
IV
Ethical Leadership
0.28** 0.30**
Moderator
LMX
0.07 0.19
IV x Moderator
Ethical Leadership x Moderator
0.37***
R²
0.13** 0.25***
d.f. 4,113 6,111 7,110
ΔR² 0.11** 0.11***
Note: N=118(standardized coefficients are reported) *p
-
15
Gender:(Male=1, Female=0)
Table 2 shows the results for hierarchical regression analyses of which our hypotheses were
tested. In step 1, I firstly controlled those control variables. TheΔR² was 0.027 but not
significant. In step 2, I entered the standardized independent variable (ELS) and
standardized moderator (LMX). The ΔR² was 0.105 with p
-
16
LMX As A Moderator Between Ethical Leadership and Individual-Directed
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Meanwhile, a two way interaction model was also plotted by using the procedures of Aiken and West (1991)
and Dawson and Richter (2006) to show the two way moderating effect. The values plotted represent high
(Plus 1 SD above mean) and low (Minus 1 SD from the mean) levels of LMX in terms of Ethical Leadership
and OCBI. As shown in Figure 1, the positive association between Ethical Leadership and OCBI was
stronger when LMX was higher. The positive association between Ethical Leadership and OCBI was weaker
when LMX was weaker. All in all, LMX is a significant moderator for the relationship between Ethical
Leadership and OCBI.
DISCUSSION
The study has made several contributions. Firstly, it demonstrates the effects of ethical leadership. Howell
and Hall Merenda in 1999 claimed that in the leadership research field, there is a kind of association
between leaders and followers behaviour. Our study shows how ethical leaders affect their followers’
behavior. A β= 0.28 was reported between ethical leadership and the followers’ performance of OCBI in our
study which shows that ethical leadership is positively related to their followers’ performance of OCBI. This
phenomenon could be attributed to Kelman’s (1958) typology of social influence process. Due to ethical
leaders’ ability to form and perform a high ethical standard and to articulate a vision of which are admired
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Ethical Leadership High Ethical Leadership
OC
BI
Low LMX
High LMX
-
17
by their followers, the followers may have a personal identification formed. Then, the followers internalize
the beliefs and values of the ethical leaders and behave consistently with them. This kind of association
could also be explained by the social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) which suggests that people learn by
observing others’ behaviour. Since ethical leaders set ethical standard explicitly and act according with them
(Brown, Trevin~o and Harrison, 2005), their followers would simply learn by observing the ethical conducts
performed by their leaders.
Apart from that, this study also highlights the role played by LMX in the association between leadership and
their followers’ behaviour. LMX has been found to be positively related to OCBs. Podsakoff et al. (2000)
also found that LMX was positively associated with altruism and an overall composite measure of OCB.
This study shows that LMX is a significant moderator between ethical leadership and their followers’
performance of OCBI (β =0.37) of which it strengthens the relationship between ethical leadership and
followers’ OCBI when LMX score is high and vice versa. This could be explained by the fact that those
followers enjoying higher quality relationship with their leaders have more trust on their leaders (Blau, 1964)
and they model from their leaders based so social learning theory.
-
18
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Our study offers several implications for practical managers. Firstly, it demonstrates the importance of
leadership behavior. As shown by our present study, there is a positive association between ethical
leadership and subordinates’ performance of OCBI. The ethical leaders induce the performance of
subordinates’ OCBI in two ways which are setting up the role-model and to use transactional styles to
reinforce those desirable and ethical behaviors. Previous research has also shown the effects of OCBs to
organizations. Research done by Mossholder,Settoon, & Henagan in 2005 have shown that the actual and
intended turnover rate are lower when the performance of OCBs are higher or demonstrated more
frequently. OCBs were also positively associated with customer satisfaction (Nathan P. Podsakoff, Steven W.
Whiting, & Philip M. Podsakoff, 2009). Hence, having ethical leaders would indirectly improve the
organization’s effectiveness and performance by inducing the performance of OCBs. As corporate social
responsibility (CSR) has become an indispensable part of any businesses or organizations, having ethical
leaders could help building an ethical culture within the company and capture the CSR opportunities.
Besides, this study also highlights the quality of relationship between leaders and subordinates. Leaders who
want to elicit more OCBs performed by their subordinates should try to build relationship with better quality
which goes beyond the economic exchange. Enjoying a high quality relationship which is characterized as
social exchange elicit trust between followers and leaders (Blau, 1964) and the followers would learn from
their leaders and model their behaviours according to social learning theory. Hence, once the leaders are
ethical themselves who perform ethical conducts and probably OCBs, their subordinates would model their
behaviour and perform more OCBs as well.
LIMITATIONS
There are some limitations regarding this study. Firstly, due to time constraint, only 150 surveys were
distributed and 125 were collected. The sample size may not be large or representative enough to show the
actual situation in the companies. Meanwhile, the whole questionnaires are for employees self-reported.
Leniency effect may occur in the self-evaluated OCBI part. Nevertheless, some of the surveys are distributed
to the employees through their direct supervisors, the employees may intend to produce some social
desirable responses which may inflate the ratings in the ethical leadership part. Some of them may also tend
-
19
to inflate their supervisors’ rating in the ethical leadership part being afraid that the survey may be used in
their performance evaluation. A better to do this is to distribute the surveys to employees by myself after
gaining permission from the company and to set up a survey collection box in the companies to minimize
employees’ suspicion. Also, employees should be responsible for responding to ethical leadership and LMX
scale part while their supervisors would be responsible for rating the followers’ performance of OCBI so as
to obtain more honest responses.
Besides, this study attempts to explore how the direct supervisors may affect subordinates’ behaviour,
specifically OCBI. However, the organizations’ leaders like the CEO may also play a part in affecting or
influencing the employees’ behaviour. The influence of the organizations’ leaders has not been addressed in
this study.
In addition, we may have neglected other factors like organizational culture and justice which are proved to
affect the performance of OCBs. It is possible that factors like organizational culture, instead of ethical
leadership accounts for the occurrence of OCBI. If the culture of the companies where we distribute
questionnaires is extremely caring, even with the absence of ethical leaders, respondents’ ratings of OCBI
will still be very high, Spurious correlation may be resulted.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In addition to the points addressed above, there are several avenues that future research could address.
Firstly, the effects of ethical leadership on Organization-Directed Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
(OCBO) could be studied as well since supervisor may sometimes serve as a proxy of the organization (Joy
H. Karriker and Margaret L. Williams, 2009) so that the employees may perform more OCBO in return if
the leaders are ethical.
Besides, in this study, LMX is studied as a moderator between ethical leadership and OCBI. For future
research, LMX could be studied as a mediator between ethical leadership and OCBI. Previous research has
already shown a positive relation between LMX and OCBI. This could contribute more to ethical leadership
of whether being ethical leaders could enjoy or build a relationship with subordinates of better quality.
-
20
Also, future study could examine whether other senior figures like the CEOs but not the direct supervisors of
the employees may have an influence on the employees’ behaviour or OCBs.
-
21
CONCLUSION
This study attempts to examine the relationship between ethical leadership and the performance of their
direct subordinates’ performance of OCBI. It also examines the moderating effect of LMX on the
relationship specified above. This study has shown the positive association between ethical leadership and
subordinates’ performance of OCBI. Nevertheless, LMX has also been found to be a significant moderator
of their relationship. It gives some clues to leaders and organizations on how to induce their employees to
perform more OCBs to ultimately improve the organization performance and effectiveness.
-
22
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press.
Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Berkowitz, L 1970. The self, selfishness, and altruism In J Macauley & L Berkowitz (Eds), Altruism and
helping behavior New York Academic Press.
Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for
construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117−134.
Brown, M. E., & Trevin˜o, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 595–616.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc..
Chemers M. 1997. An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
De Hoogh, A. H. B.,&Den Hartog, D. N. 2008. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s
social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study.
The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297–311.
-
23
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444.
Graham, J. W. 1989. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and
validation. Unpublished working paper, Loyola University of Chicago.
Joy H. Karriker and Margaret L. Williams 2009. Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: A Mediated Multifoci Model? Journal of Management, 35:112.
Katz, D 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science 9, 131-133.
Kelman, H. C. 1958. Compliance, identification, and in ternalization: Three processes of attitude change.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 51-56.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. 2007. Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social
exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 3,
841–866.
Nathan P. Podsakoff, Steven W. Whiting, & Philip M. Podsakoff 2005. Individual- and Organizational-Level
Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, 122-141.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The "good soldier" syndrome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
-
24
Cummings (Eds.), motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 12: 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. 1994. Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20,
465–478.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation
140 PODSAKOFF, WHITING, PODSAKOFF, AND BLUME and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.
-
25
Appendix A
Questionnaire for ethical
leadership, LMX and
OCBI
-
26
敬啟者:
您好,本人是香港浸會大學工商管理學院人力資源管理學系三年級學生,現正進行一項學術
研究,完成這項研究報告是我獲取工商管理學士(榮譽)學位資格的其中一項重要的要求。非常感謝您
能撥冗幫忙填寫本問卷,不勝感激。
此研究報告本問卷有關您對自己以及直屬上司的看法。填寫這問卷大約需要 10-15 分鐘。您的回答沒
有對錯之分,請依據實際情況回答。您填寫的資訊是完全保密的,並僅用於學術研究。所有資料只做
總體分析,不會披露和彙報個人資料,請您放心填答。完成問卷後,請於 2013年 3月 1日前電郵至
[email protected]。如有任何問題,可致電 9759-0306 或以電郵與我聯絡。
最後,我在此致上最誠摯的謝意,並祝您身體健康,事業成功!
楊觀笙 謹啟
香港浸會大學人力資源管理學系三年級學生
-
27
第一部份: 評估直屬上司
(一) 請判斷您是否同意以下對您現職工作的直屬上司的
描述,並在右欄中(1 至 5)圈選出代表您意見的數
字。
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
不
確
定
同
意
非
常
同
意
1. 聆聽我們的意見。………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
2. 經常顧及我們利益。……………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
3. 作出公平決定。…………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
4. 是可信的。………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
5. 與我們討論商業道德。…………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
6. 示範如何以道德方式完成事情。………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
7. 懲罰違反道德標準的員工。……………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
8. 以道德方式生活。………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
9. 以工作成果及其達到的方法去決定工作是否成功。………… 1 2 3 4 5
10. 在作出決定時會問/考慮什麼才是正確要做的事。………….. 1 2 3 4 5
-
28
第二部份: 自我評估
(一) 請判斷您是否同意以下對您的描述,並在右欄中(1
至 5)圈選出代表您意見的數字。
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
不
確
定
同
意
非
常
同
意
1. 一般來說,我很清楚我的上司是否滿意我的工作表現。……….. 1 2 3 4 5
2. 上司對我工作上的問題和需要有足夠的了解。……………….. 1 2 3 4 5
3. 上司非常清楚我的潛力。………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
4. 上司會運用個人的權力來幫我解決我工作上的問題。…….….. 1 2 3 4 5
5. 我知道當我有需要時,即使對上司不利,他/她都會保我周
全。………………………………………………………………......
1 2 3 4 5
6. 我深信任我不在場時,上司會維護和支持我的決
定。…………………………………….…………………………….
1 2 3 4 5
7. 我和上司的工作關係非常有效。………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
(二) 請判斷您是否同意以下對您的描述,並在右欄中(1
至 5)圈選出代表您意見的數字。
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
不
確
定
同
意
非
常
同
意
1. 我會協助缺席的同事。……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
2. 我會協助工作量龐大的同事。……………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
3. 我會自發地協助上司完成工作。………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
4. 我會抽出時間聆聽同事所遇到的問題及擔憂。…….…………. 1 2 3 4 5
5. 我會竭盡所能地幫助新入職同事。……………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
-
29
6. 我會高度關心其他同事。………………………………….………. 1 2 3 4 5
7. 我會傳遞資訊予同事。…………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
個人背景資料
性別 □ 男性 □ 女性
年齡 歲
現任工作狀況 □ 全職
□ 兼職
現任工作年資 ________________ 年 ______________ 個月
- 謝謝您熱心的參與 -
-
30
Appendix B
SPSS Output
-
31
1. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Age 30.8983 8.39046 118
WorkingStatusF1 .9407 .23723 118
WorkingExp 41.0169 53.31586 118
GenderM1 .4322 .49749 118
TotalELS 3.6805 .75992 118
TotalLMX 3.6295 .58209 118
TotalOCBI 3.9697 .53708 118
-
32
Correlations
Age WorkingStatusF1 WorkingExp GenderM1 TotalELS TotalLMX TotalOCBI
Age Pearson Correlation 1 .139 .605** -.075 -.057 -.091 .081
Sig. (2-tailed) .134 .000 .417 .540 .326 .386
WorkingStatusF1 Pearson Correlation .139 1 .081 .002 .084 .034 -.033
Sig. (2-tailed) .134 .382 .984 .368 .715 .720
WorkingExp Pearson Correlation .605** .081 1 -.032 -.048 -.148 .129
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .382 .735 .604 .109 .165
GenderM1 Pearson Correlation -.075 .002 -.032 1 .084 .094 .086
Sig. (2-tailed) .417 .984 .735 .369 .312 .355
TotalELS Pearson Correlation -.057 .084 -.048 .084 1 .666** .313
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .540 .368 .604 .369 .000 .001
TotalLMX Pearson Correlation -.091 .034 -.148 .094 .666** 1 .233
*
Sig. (2-tailed) .326 .715 .109 .312 .000 .011
TotalOCBI Pearson Correlation .081 -.033 .129 .086 .313** .233
* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .386 .720 .165 .355 .001 .011
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
-
33
2. Cronbach alpha coefficient table
Case Processing Summary (Ethical Leadership)
N %
Cases Valid 118 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 118 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.931 10
Case Processing Summary (LMX)
N %
Cases Valid 118 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 118 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.815 7
-
34
Case Processing Summary (OCBI)
N %
Cases Valid 118 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 118 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.836 7
-
35
3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .164a .027 -.008 .53911 .027 .780 4 113 .540
2 .363b .132 .085 .51385 .105 6.690 2 111 .002
3 .495c .245 .197 .48125 .114 16.552 1 110 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age), Zscore: TotalELS, Zscore: TotalLMX
c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age), Zscore: TotalELS, Zscore: TotalLMX,
interaction
-
36
ANOVAd
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .907 4 .227 .780 .540a
Residual 32.842 113 .291
Total 33.749 117
2 Regression 4.440 6 .740 2.802 .014b
Residual 29.309 111 .264
Total 33.749 117
3 Regression 8.273 7 1.182 5.103 .000c
Residual 25.476 110 .232
Total 33.749 117
a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age), Zscore: TotalELS, Zscore: TotalLMX
c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(WorkingExp), GenderM1, WorkingStatusF1, Zscore(Age), Zscore: TotalELS, Zscore: TotalLMX,
interaction
d. Dependent Variable: TotalOCBI
-
37
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 4.026 .210 19.200 .000
GenderM1 .099 .100 .091 .981 .328
Zscore(Age) .010 .063 .019 .161 .872
WorkingStatusF1 -.105 .212 -.046 -.493 .623
Zscore(WorkingExp) .067 .063 .124 1.063 .290
2 (Constant) 4.099 .201 20.401 .000
GenderM1 .068 .096 .063 .711 .479
Zscore(Age) .018 .060 .033 .293 .770
WorkingStatusF1 -.170 .203 -.075 -.835 .405
Zscore(WorkingExp) .076 .060 .141 1.253 .213
Zscore: TotalELS .154 .066 .277 2.315 .022
Zscore: TotalLMX .038 .066 .069 .577 .565
3 (Constant) 4.050 .189 21.476 .000
GenderM1 .067 .090 .062 .745 .458
Zscore(Age) .050 .057 .093 .876 .383
WorkingStatusF1 -.200 .190 -.088 -1.050 .296
Zscore(WorkingExp) .058 .057 .108 1.023 .309
Zscore: TotalELS .166 .062 .299 2.668 .009
Zscore: TotalLMX .104 .064 .190 1.634 .105
interaction .124 .031 .366 4.068 .000
a. Dependent Variable: TotalOCBI