OCB s in Small Businesses: A Matter of Leadership?

OCB s in Small Businesses: A Matter of Leadership? Paper presented at the 6 th November 14th 2009 International Conference of the Dutch HRM Network, Jos Mesu, Maarten van Riemsdijk, Karin Sanders Saxion University of Applied Sciences University of Twente

Introduction During the last two decades researchers have developed a greater interest in HRM within small and medium-sized companies (Heneman et al., 2000; Cardon & Stevens, 2004). But since HR and leadership seem closely related, especially within small businesses, it is striking that research on leadership within sme s is almost non-existing. We therefore attempt to take a first step into this particular territory. According to EU-standards small and medium-sized companies have less than 250 employees (http://ec.europa.eu, 2009). In the Netherlands 99,7% of all businesses belong to this category and they count for 58% of all employment within the private sector (MKB Nederland, 2009; www.mkb.nl). In this study we have included fourteen companies with between thirteen and 143 employees, of which eight enterprises have less than 50 employees and are therefore considered to be small. The level of success of perceived leadership behaviour will be measured by the level of the employees Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Organ, 1988), as rated by their direct supervisors. For this we have two reasons. The first reason is that one would expect OCB to be very important for small and mediumsized enterprises. If they wish to survive, and the environment for them seems to be even more competitive than for larger businesses (Mintzberg, 1983; Koch & Van Straten, 1997), then making the extra effort seems vital and all employees should join in this effort. The second reason has to do with a specific characteristic of sme s: their informality. As we know from the literature small and medium-sized companies, including their HR-policies and practices, are less formalised than their larger competitors (Compeer et al., 2005; Hornsby & Kuratko, 1990; Koch & Van Straten, 1997; Little, 1986; Lyles et al., 1993; Matlay, 1999). Job descriptions for example are often very limited or have very little meaning in everyday business. Employees have to be flexible and take up a whole variety of different tasks that hardly fit the formal job description (Koch & Van Straten, 1997). Since Organizational Citizenship Behavior actually means performing above agreed performance levels, it will be very interesting to investigate whether supervisors in sme s make a distinction between this extra-role behaviour and the formal, so-called in-role behaviour (Williams & Anderson, 1991) and how they solicit such behaviour from their subordinates. Especially transformational leadership may enhance Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, since it promises performance beyond expectation (Bass, 1985; Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990). This may be true for large organizations, but we do not know how it works within small and medium-sized companies, since Bass theory has hardly been tested in this context. The object of our study is to investigate the effect of the leadership behaviours as proposed by Bass on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and in-role behaviour in small and medium-sized companies. Our first and main research question is therefore: 1) To what extend do transformational, transactional and laissez faire leadership have an effect on OCB and IRB in small and medium-sized businesses? The relevance of our research is twofold: a) to make a contribution to the scientific knowledge about leadership behaviour and its effectiveness in sme s; b) to be able to provide sound advice for leaders in sme s. In this paper we will start with a brief discussion of the relevant theories, followed by the description of our research methods and the first results. Finally, the limitations, conclusions and implications for future research will be discussed. 1

Theoretical Concepts Transformational & Transactional Leadership The transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985) is one of the most recent and most important leadership theories and has reliable scales with which it can be measured (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). It proposes a continuum of three leadership styles with eight dimensions, conceptualised as follows (Bass & Riggio, 2006): Transformational Leadership Idealized Influence/Charisma: the leader provides a sense of mission, wins the respect of followers and instils pride in his following; Inspirational Motivation: the leader articulates a compelling vision, sets attractive goals and is confident employees will achieve them; Intellectual Stimulation: the leader stimulates employees to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions and approaching old situations in new ways; Individualized Consideration: the leader approaches employees as individuals rather than as members of a group, pays special attention to their needs for development by acting as a coach or mentor. Transactional Leadership Contingent Reward: the leader clarifies the targets and rewards the employee when goals are achieved; Management by Exception Active: the leader actively monitors deviances from standards, mistakes and errors and takes corrective action as necessary; Management by Exception Passive: the leader waits passively until deviances from standards, mistakes and errors occur and only then corrects employees. Laissez Faire The leader abdicates from leadership responsibilities. Looking from the bottom to the top the dimensions become more active and more effective. Thus, Laissez Faire should have the least positive or actually negative effect on OCB s and the transformational dimensions the most positive. In the case of transactional leadership, leaders try to reach preset targets by rewarding or correcting their subordinates, whilst transformational leadership is demonstrated when leaders influence their followers in an exceptional way and inspire them to reach beyond the preset goals. Subordinates follow their transformational leader wholeheartedly, whether this is the president of the United States, the football coach, or the supervisor in a small company. Transformational leadership should be indispensable for small companies, whose survival very much depends on the extra-role behaviour of their employees. Although conceptually linked, empirical research shows that Contingent Reward, Management by Exception Active and Management by Exception Passive may differ substantially in their effects (Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Den Hartog et al., 1997). Contingent Reward sometimes almost acts as a dimension of transformational leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003). Management by Exception Passive sometimes seems closer related to Laissez Faire than to Management by Exception Active, at least in the Netherlands (Den Hartog et al., 1997). For this reason we inserted them separately in our models (Diagram 1 and 2), rather than as a combination of transactional leadership. Taking this into account, existing theory would indicate transformational leadership, Contingent 2

Reward and Management by Exception Active to have a positive influence, and Management by Exception Passive and Laissez Faire to have a negative influence on OCB and IRB. With the exception of Idealized Influence, which has a behavioural and an attributed component, all dimensions concern leadership behaviours. The attributed aspect of Idealized Influence is not a part of this study, because one of our aims is to advise leaders concerning their behaviour, which unlike the attributed aspects can be changed by them. OCB Some companies are more successful than others, they have something extra which others do not have. Their employees are proud to work for them, they care just a little bit more and put in some extra effort. We suspect that the extra effort people make depends a lot on the way they are led, in our case by their direct supervisors. Dennis Organ called this extra effort Organizational Citizenship Behavior and defined it as (Organ, 1988: p. 4): 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. He distinguished five dimensions of OCB: Altruism: helping another employee with an organizationally relevant task or problem, at one s discretion; Conscientiousness: discretionary behaviour of the employee that goes well beyond the minimum role requirements, in terms of attendance, taking breaks, obeying rules and regulations, etc.; Courtesy: behaviour of the employee that is aimed at preventing work-related problems with others from occurring; Sportmanship: behaviour of the employee that is demonstrating a willingness to work in less than ideal circumstances without complaining; Civic Virtue: discretionary behaviour of the employee indicating that he/she is taking a genuine interest in the policies and well being of the organisation as a whole. The scales developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990), which have proven to be a sound measure of Organ s five dimensions, will be used for this research. According to the meta-analysis of Podsakoff et al. (2000) leadership behaviours seem to be related to most of the dimensions of OCB, with one exception: Civic Virtue. Only five of thirteen leadership dimensions correlated significantly with Civic Virtue, of which the highest correlation was only.15. For this reason Civic Virtue is not included in our study. IRB As OCB refers to extra-role behaviour, it seems appropriate to make a distinction between OCB and in-role behaviour. Williams & Anderson (1991) constructed a scale which measures the in-role behaviours of employees, defined as behaviors that are recognized by formal reward systems and are part of the requirements as described in job descriptions. In small businesses, however, one may find that jobs are not always that well described. Our definition of in-role behaviours therefore needs to be slightly different: behaviours that are recognized by formal reward systems and are part of the requirements belonging to the job. Following the advice of Anderson & Williams (1991) and Podsakoff et al. (2000) we will measure whether direct supervisors in sme s differentiate between dimensions of OCB and inrole behaviour. Thus, our second research question: 2) Are supervisors in sme s making a distinction between OCB and IRB of their employees? 3

Trust in the supervisor As said before, we expect leadership to influence the occurrence of OCB. But next to leadership there may be another important factor influencing OCB, which is trust in the leader. Because even when the leader seems to do a good job, a lack of trust in the leader may prevent OCB from occurring. One cannot expect an employee, who does not trust his supervisor, to spontaneously walk the extra mile. This makes things slightly more complicated, since trust and leadership may not only be related to OCB, but also to each other. Where this is concerned, we can think of three different scenarios. The first one being that (transformational) leadership does not have the wished for effect unless the leader is trusted by his employees. Secondly, trust could be enhancing the positive effects of leadership behaviour, but is not a sine qua non. Thirdly, trust in small companies might be something which is already established at the moment employees are hired and is not related to leadership at all. Diagram1: Conceptual model with trust as a moderator Transformational Leadership + Trust Contingent Reward + OCB MBE Active MBE Passive Laissez Faire + IRB Research shows that trust in the supervisor influences the relationship between leadership and OCB s (Deluga, 1994; Deluga, 1995; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al.,1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996). However, the results are inconclusive. Some scholars find weak associations (Podsakoff, 1996), others very strong ones, sometimes indicating that trust acts as a mediator between leadership and OCB s (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Our third research question is therefore: 3) What is the role of trust in the leader, where the relation between leadership on the one hand and OCB and IRB on the other hand is concerned? 4

Diagram 2: Conceptual model with trust as a mediator Transformational Leadership Contingent Reward + + OCB MBE Active + _ Trust MBE Passive _ IRB Laissez Faire Methods Sample and procedure The sample was taken from fourteen small and medium-sized companies, of which 30 departments all involved in the core business participated. The smallest company employed thirteen, the biggest company 143 persons. Eight companies had less than 50 employees, three had between 50 and 100, and three had 100 or more employees. The companies were very diverse: three were operating in health care business, three are ITcompanies, four are service and/or consultancy organisations (one financial, two HR, one HR & technical), one is a wholesale business in ponds, fishes and related products, two are active in the production of machinery (one in agricultural machines, one in boilers and the like), and the last one is operating in the tourist industry (a hotel booking agency). For measuring the different concepts we used two different sources. Employees rated leadership behaviour of their direct supervisor as well as trust in their direct supervisor. Supervisors rated the in-role behaviour and Organizational Citizenship Behavior of their particular employees. For practical reasons supervisors did not rate IRB s and OCB s of all 5

their employees, but of three employees instead: their best, their worst and a moderately performing employee. In total 30 questionnaires from direct supervisors and 206 questionnaires from their employees were collected. Of these, 30 and 200 questionnaires respectively were usable for analysis. In principal all of the employees of every department were asked to cooperate in the research. When this was not possible, a random sample was taken. Questionnaires were filled out at work and at prearranged times. So, employees who were ill that day for example, or were on a holiday did not participate. On average almost seven employees rated their supervisor, with a minimum of three and maximum of fourteen employees. During the rating sessions at least one trained researcher was present to answer questions concerning the questionnaire. The average age of the employees was approximately 35 years, the average age of the supervisors was 40 years. On average both employees and supervisors were working for about seven years within their company. Of the employees 42% had bachelor s and 9% a master s degree, whilst 63% of the supervisors had a bachelor s and 7 % a master s degree. Among supervisors there were 4 women and 26 men, among employees 42% were women and 58% were men. Measures Leadership was measured by the MLQ, Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Since we are mainly interested in leadership behaviour the attributed items of Idealized Influence were discarded. As mentioned before, we used Podsakoff et al. s scale of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1990), with the exception of the Civic Virtue items. Followers trust in the supervisor was also measured with a scale of Podsakoff et al. (1990). All scales were translated into Dutch by two experienced researchers in the field of social sciences and one PhD-student. When after discussion all agreed, translated items were added to the final questionnaire. Employees were asked how frequently their supervisors demonstrated certain leadership behaviour on a five-point scale (from not at all to frequently, if not always ). Trust, IRB and OCB were measured by asking respondents to what extend they agreed with certain statements, using a five-point scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree ). Employees rated trust in their direct supervisor, supervisors rated OCB and IRB of their particular employees. Results Reliability of the scales: internal consistency The Cronbach s alpha of all scales is reported in Table 1. The alpha s of the OCB, IRB and trust scales were all above the 0.7 criterion. We nevertheless improved the reliability of the IRB scale by leaving out one item. Some dimensions of the leadership scale had very low measures. By leaving out two Idealized Influence items the new alpha was raised to 0.68, which does not quite meet the standard, but is getting close. The internal consistency of Management by Exception Active increased to 0.65 by discarding one item. The Laissez Faire dimension had an extremely low alpha, 0.30. By deleting two items from the scale, alpha increased considerably to 0.72. Factor analysis Factor analyses were done to examine whether the leadership, OCB and IRB items loaded on their intended factors. Because of the supposed augmentation relationship between 6

transformational and transactional leadership (Bass, 1985), we ran two separate analyses, one for the dimensions of transformational and the other for those of transactional leadership, including Laissez Faire. This last dimension was added to the analysis of the transactional dimensions to investigate whether Management by Exception Passive could actually be distinguished from Laissez Faire. The results of these factor analyses are shown in Tables I, II and III of the appendix. Table 1. Cronbach s alpha for the leadership, trust, OCB and IRB scales Scale/dimension Number of Alpha New number New Alpha items of items Idealized Influence 4 0.55 2 0.68 Inspirational Motivation 4 0.86 Intellectual Stimulation 4 0.67 Individualized Consideration 4 0.76 Contingent Reward 4 0.70 Management by Exception 4 0.56 3 0.65 Active Management by Exception 4 0.76 Passive Laissez Faire 4 0.30 2 0.72 Trust 6 0.85 Conscientiousness 5 0.83 Sportmanship 5 0.88 Courtesy 5 0.86 Altruism 5 0.89 IRB 7 0.84 6 0.91 First of all we tried to analyse the transformational scale with four factors. However, only two factors could be distinguished (Table I). The first factor included all the Inspirational Motivation items and two Idealized Influence items. The Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration items all loaded on factor 2, except item 09, which loaded slightly higher on factor 1. Secondly, we examined the factor loadings of the transactional and laissez faire dimensions. A reasonably clear-cut four-factor pattern revealed itself (Table II). The third step was to measure the factorings of the OCB and IRB scales. Starting with five intended factors, we saw that two dimensions of OCB - Courtesy and Altruism - collapsed into one factor. To be able to answer our first research question we included the IRB items in this analysis. Table III shows that six out of seven items loaded on factor 2. Two Conscientiousness items also loaded on factor 2, but because their measures were higher on factor 4, they can be considered to belong to that factor. Our conclusion therefore must be that despite the informal character of sme s supervisors do make a distinction between extra-role and in-role behaviour of their employees. Path-analysis Although we have a small sample size of 30 supervisors, we would nevertheless like to share our first results of the structural equation analysis (LISREL 8.30), for which the correlationmatrix presented in Table 2 served as input. We tried several models: a) with trust as a moderator; b) with trust as a full mediator; c) with trust as a partial mediator, as presented in Tables IVa IVc of the appendix. 7

Table 2. Pearson correlations for leadership dimensions, trust, OCB and IRB. TFL CR MEA MEP LF TRUST OCB IRB TFL 1 CR.84** 1 MEA.28.43* 1 MEP -.61** -.49** -.19 1 LF -.73** -.55** -.24.75** 1 TRUST.58**.56**.18 -.51** -.58** 1 OCB.26.24 -.34 -.23 -.43*.39* 1 IRB -.02 -.03.03 -.27 -.27.26.26 1 N = 30; ** p< 0,01 (2-tailed); * p< 0,05 (2-tailed). No significant moderating or mediating effects of trust were found. Table IVb indicates that neither the contribution of trust, nor that of any leadership dimension is statistically significant, where the explained variance in IRB is concerned. But where OCB is concerned some of the leadership dimensions contribute significantly in the expected direction. For this reason only the model with OCB as dependent variable is presented in Diagram 3, in which trust is included as an independent variable. As one can see, this model explains 54% of the total variance in OCB. As pictured by Diagram 3 Contingent Reward stimulates, Laissez Faire discourages the occurrence of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Management by Exception Active also has a fair contribution to the model, but opposite to the predicted direction. Quite remarkable is the fact that transformational leadership does not explain OCB significantly, moreover, its coefficient was negative. Although not significantly and contrary to our expectation, Management by Exception Passive correlates positively to OCB. Trust does not relate significantly to OCB, IRB does not relate significantly to OCB either and is therefore not presented in Diagram 3. Discussion Limitations The greatest limitation of this study is of course its small sample size. Because of this, our findings cannot be generalized to the whole of the population. The fact that this research was done in Holland puts another restriction to the inferences that can be drawn from it. The same research done in another country might produce different results due to cultural influences. Last but not least: since the nature of this research is cross-sectional, we cannot say anything definite where causal relationships are concerned. Conclusions and implications for further research As shown before our scales proved to be a reasonably sound instrument. It might nevertheless be interesting to have a deeper look into the leadership dimensions. One question that could be raised for example is why Contingent Reward is so closely related to transformational leadership. Is it because of the emotional implications of rewarding leader behaviour that Contingent Reward may be experienced as transformational rather than as transactional leader behaviour? Especially in small organisations, where people have to work so closely together, the psychological impact of Contingent Reward (Antonakis et al., 2003) might be more important than in larger organizations. 8

Diagram 3: Model with OCB as dependent, beta-coefficients and error term. Trust.19 Transformational Leadership -.50 Contingent Reward.56* OCB.46 MBE Active -.59.27 MBE Passive -.70** Laissez Faire * p<.05 (1-tailed); ** p<.01 (1-tailed) Another interesting question to ask is why we did not find the supposedly moderating or mediating effect of trust on the relationship between leadership and OCB or IRB. Is it true that within small and medium-sized companies trust is already established at the very moment people are hired by the owner-manager? We cannot be certain yet, we will have to collect more data. Our results demonstrate that supervisors in sme s make a clear distinction between in-role and extra-role behaviour of their employees. The absence of detailed job descriptions obviously does not hinder them to do so. The question is how aware they themselves are of this fact, because the more aware they are, the more capable they may become in soliciting extra-role behaviour from their employees and the more competitive their companies will be. 9

One of our remarkable findings was the fact that leadership behaviour does not seem to influence the in-role behaviour of subordinates. As yet, we do not understand why this is the case. There is certainly more research to be done in this area. Leadership does appear to have an impact on Organizational Citizenship Behavior, nevertheless in a curious way. In contrast with other studies transformational leadership does not correlate more strongly with OCB than transactional leadership. Unexpectedly, transformational leadership correlated negatively with OCB. To see whether this is actually a trend within small companies, we need to collect more data. The negative relationships of Management by Exception Active and Laissez Faire with OCB possibly indicate that what leaders do not do might be as important as what they do. Supervisors should not abdicate from their leadership responsibilities and should not actively correct their subordinates. Not abdicating from responsibilities seems logical, but not correcting employees as a means of stimulating OCB goes against common sense. The way feedback is provided may however cause a negative climate for OCB to grow in, not correction per se. Within small and medium-sized companies supervisors probably lack leadership training. Most of them did not become supervisors due to their leadership skills, but because of their longstanding relation with the boss or their excellent technical skills, etcetera. For this reason improving feedback skills may help. Another way of enhancing OCB is by improving rewarding behaviour, especially when this becomes a means of expressing a genuine sentiment toward the employee. All in all, taking up leadership responsibilities, improving feedback skills and rewarding behaviour may enhance OCB. Leadership does seem to matter. References Antonakis, J., B.J. Avolio, N. Sivasubramaniam (2003), Context and leadership: an examination of the ninefactor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 261-295. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and performance beyond expectations, Free Press: New York. Bass, B.M., B.J. Avolio (2004), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden: Palo Alto. Bass, B.M., R.E. Riggio (2006), Transformational Leadership, 2 nd edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, New Jersey. Cardon, M.S., C.E. Stevens (2004), Managing human resources in small organizations: what do we know?, Human Resource Management Review, vol.14, 2004), pp.295-323. Compeer, N., M. Smolders, J. De Kok (2005), Scale effects in HRM research: A discussion of current HRM research from an sme perspective, Scales Paper N200501, EIM: Zoetermeer. Deluga, R.J. (1994), Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 67, pp. 315-326. Deluga, R.J. (1995), The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Military Psychology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-16. Den Hartog, D.N., J.J. Van Muijen, P.L. Koopman (1997), Transactional versus transformational leadership: an analysis of the MLQ, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 70, pp. 19-34. Dirks, K.T., D.L. Ferrin (2000), Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 611-628. Heneman, R.L., J.W. Tansky en S.M. Camp (2000), Human resource management practices in small and medium-sized enterprises: unanswered questions and future research perspectives, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Fall 2000, pp.11-26. Hornsby, J.S., D.F. Kuratko (1990), Human resource management in small business: critical issues for the 1990 s, Journal of Small Business Management, July 1990, pp. 9-18. Judge, T.A., R.F. Piccolo (2004), Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis test of their relative validity, Journal of Applied Psychology, October 2004, pp. 755-768. Koch, C.L.Y., en E. van Straten (1997), Personeelsbeleid in enkele MKB-bedrijven, EIM Strategic Study 9703, Zoetermeer. 10

LePine, J.A., A. Erez, D.E. Johnson (2002), The nature and dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, February 2002, pp. 52-65. Little, B.L. (1986), The performance of personnel duties in small Louisiana firms: a research note, Journal of Small Business Management, October 1986, pp. 66-69. Lyles, M.A., I.S. Baird, J. Burdeane Orris, D.F. Kuratko (1993), Formalized planning in small business: increasing strategic choices, Journal of Small Business Management, April 1993, pp. 38-50. Matlay, H. (1999), Employee relations in small firms. A micro business perspective, Employee Relations, Vol.21, no. 3, pp. 285-295. Mintzberg, H. (1983), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs. Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books: Lexington Massachusetts. Organ, D.W. (1997), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: it s construct clean up time, Human Performance, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 85-97. Pillai, R., C.A. Schriesheim, E.S. Williams (1999), Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study, Journal of Management, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 897-933. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, W.H. Bommer (1996), Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Journal of Management, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 259-298. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, R.H. Moorman, R. Fetter (1990), Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.107-142. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. Mackenzie, J.B. Paine, D.G. Bachrach (2000), Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: a critical review of theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research, Journal of Management, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 543-563. Williams, L.J., S.E. Anderson (1991), Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behavior, Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 601-617. 11

Appendix Table I. Factor analysis of transformational leadership dimensions. Scale item Factor 1 Factor 2 01 Values and beliefs (II) 02 Sense of purpose (II).66 03 Moral and ethical consequences (II) 04 Sense of mission (II).63 05 Future (IM).72 06 Accomplished (IM).79 07 Compelling vision (IM).66.46 08 Confidence (IM).67.34 09 Re-examines critical assumptions (IS).33.32 10 Differing perspectives (IS).35.43 11 Different angles (IS).67 12 Suggests new ways (IS).66 13 Teaching and coaching (IC).33.65 14 Treats me as an individual (IC).44 15 Different needs (IC).33.64 16 Develop strengths (IC).40.63 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring; Rotation Method: Varimax; loadings <0.30 are not shown. Table II. Factor analysis of the transactional and Laissez Faire scales. Scale item Factor 1 Factor 2.50.60 17 Provides assistance (CR) 18 Who is responsible (CR) 19 What one can expect to receive (CR).56 20 Expresses satisfaction (CR).57 Factor 3 Factor 4 21 Focuses on irregularities (MEA).47 22 Concentrates on mistakes (MEA).57 23 Keeps track (MEA).80 24 Directs my attention (MEA).35 25 Fails to interfere (MEP).48 26 Waits for things (MEP).75 27 If it ain t broke, don t fix it. (MEP).62 28 Problems chronic (MEP).56.46 29 Avoids getting involved (LF).62 30 Is absent (LF) 31 Avoids decisions (LF).62 32 Delays responding (LF) Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring; Rotation Method: Varimax; loadings <0.30 are not shown. 12

Table III. Factor analysis of the OCB and IRB scales. Scale item Factor Factor Factor Factor 1 2 3 4 01 Attendance at work is above the norm.34 02 Does not take extra breaks.68 03 Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching.32.44.48 04 Is one of my most conscientious employees.37.46.49 05 Believes in giving an honest day s work for an honest day s pay.38.74 06 Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters*.79 07 Always focuses on what s wrong, rather than the positive side*.76 08 Tends to make mountains out of molehills *.83 09 Always finds fault with what the organization is doing*.61 10 Is the classic squeaky wheel that always needs greasing*.48 11 Takes steps to try to prevent problems with other workers.66 12 Is mindful of how his/her behavior affects other people s jobs.54 13 Does not abuse the rights of others.45.38 14 Tries to avoid creating problems for coworkers.76 15 Considers the impact of his/her actions on coworkers.80 16 Helps others who have been absent.84 17 Helps others who have heavy work loads.78 18 Helps orient new people even though it is not required.64 19 Willingly helps others who have work related problems.72 20 Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her.58.32 21 Adequately completes assigned duties.85 22 Fulfils responsibilities belonging to the job.83 23 Performs tasks that are expected of him/her.87 24 Meets performance requirements belonging to the job.47.61 25 Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation 26 Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform*.48 27 Fails to perform essential duties*.67 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring; Rotation Method: Varimax; loadings <0.30 are not shown. * reversed Tables IV. Coefficients of LISREL-model with trust as a partial mediator. Table a. Coefficients with OCB as dependent variable (R 2 =.54). Model beta t IRB Trust Transformational Contingent Reward MEA MEP Laissez Faire.08.19 -.50.56 -.59.27 -.70 0.83 1.04-1.53 1.93-3.75 1.27 -.2.96 13

Table b. Coefficients with IRB as dependent variable (R 2 =.26). Model beta t OCB Trust Transformational Contingent Reward MEA MEP Laissez Faire.08.26 -.52 -.08.07 -.21 -.33 0.83 1.13-1.24-0.21 0.32-0.78 -.0.98 Table c. Coefficients with Trust as dependent variable (R 2 =.43). Model beta t Transformational Contingent Reward MEA MEP Laissez Faire -.005.36 -.07 -.12 -.32-0.01 1.17-0.40-0.49-1.13 14