Abstract
Unprecedented competition currently characterizes the global business environment. Thus, for organizations to survive, they need to pay attention to successful business practices. One such area is organizational behavior. This study is aimed at evaluating three scholarly articles that examine various aspects of organizational behavior. Zehir et al. (2014) explored the influence of charismatic leadershi p on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and ethical climate . Using 600 respondents , they established that a positive relationship exist s between charismatic leadership and ethical climate. Using 341 published articles and 16 unpublished dissertations and manuscripts , Lee et al. ( 2015 ) carried out a meta-analytic review to find out how the identity-relevant construct functioned in the nexus of attitudinal/behavioral constructs in organizations. The review showed that t he mean corrected correlation between all attitudinal/behavioral outcomes and organizational identification was positive for all studies . Lastly, Alfonso et al. (2016) obtained data from 203 participants in their quest to test the mediating role of quality of working life (QoWL) in the relationship between OCB and emotional intelligence (EI). The results showed that EI was positively related to OCB, QoWL was positively related to OCB and that QoWL level mediated and moderated the relationship between EI and OCB .
Keywords : charismatic leadershi p, organizational citizenship behavior , organizational identification, quality of work life, emotional intelligence
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Introduction
The cut-throat competition in today’s business world is influencing organizations in myriad ways. Notably, each business entity is required to distinguish itself from its competitors for it to attract the right talent pool, enhance performance and meet its customers' needs. It is therefore vital for organizations to polish their values, ethos or cultures. This is particularly important as millennials dominate the workplace. Increasingly, this group is keenly interested in what a particular company stands for and is highly likely to be influenced by this when seeking employment opportunities. This underscores the need for entity’s to foster sustainable organizational behaviors. Organizational behavior entails interactions between organizations and people as well as other organizations. This study is aimed at evaluating articles by Alfonso et al. (2016), Lee et al. ( 2015) and Zehir et al. (2014) . The three articles focussed on various aspects of organizational behavior in organizations.
Summary and Methods Overview
In their study, Zehir et al. (2014) sought to examine the influence that charismatic leadership has on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and ethical climate. This was based on their observed need for organizations to restructure and to engage individuals with the willingness to contribute towards successful change. The authors also acknowledged the need for leaders who are capable of driving change. In this regard, they reckoned that charismatic leaders are perceived to be excellent organizational change agents. Accordingly, charismatic leadership entails the ability to inspire action and enthusiasm in followers through a leader’s behavior, personal attributes and his or her exemplary qualities (Zehir et al., 2014). This is particularly vital in an organization’s quest for change. Charismatic leaders include entrepreneurs and organizational reformers who are aware of the need for change and can express it in a vision of a better future meant for their followers. Notable charismatic leaders include Jack Welch (General Electric), Richard Branson (Virgin) and Steve Jobs (Apple). Based on this, the authors argued that a link exists between charismatic leadership and such positive outcomes as job satisfaction, group cohesion, employee performance, financial performance, and lastly OCB. However, they sought to explore the role of charismatic leadership in instilling OCB and fostering an ethical climate.
The authors underscored the link between charismatic leadership and ethical climate. Firstly, the role of charismatic leadership in the discourse on organizational leadership is highlighted. This is because followers are likely to commit to a charismatic leader whose qualities are unquestionable. Likewise, charismatic leaders are characterized as being gifted, exceptional and heroic. These leaders are exceptional due to their ability to frame and articulate an inspirational vision. They are also characterized by action and behavior that creates an impression that they as well as their missions are extraordinary. Ethical climate, on the other hand, cannot be ignored in today’s business world. With such ethics-related scandals as those seen in Tyco, Enron and Lehman Brothers, an organizational ethical climate is vital to the success of business entities. Numerous scholars have argued in support of a positive relationship between organizational ethical climate and leaders. Based on this, Zehir et al. (2014) hypothesized that a positive relationship would exist between charismatic leadership and ethical climate.
Secondly, the authors explored the link between ethical climate and OCB. The latter refers to the willingness of an employee to cooperate in the implementation of decisions (Zehir et al., 2014). The five dimensions of OCB include altruism, conscientiousness , sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue. In this regard, they reckoned that if an organization supports and internalizes ethical values, the effects will be manifested in the form of employees’ OCB. Thus, they hypothesized that a positive relationship between OCB and ethical climate was likely. Lastly, the authors investigated the relationship between OCB and charismatic leadership. In this case, they cited that a strong relationship existed between OCB and leadership, arguing that leaders significantly influence OCB. Different leadership styles were recognized to be related to OCB. Charismatic leadership could be influenced either directly or indirectly. The latter could be achieved through the mediation of ethical climate. Therefore, the authors hypothesized that charismatic leadership would be positively related to OCB. The last hypothesis was that ethical climate would mediate the relationship between OCB and charismatic leadership.
The authors used face-to-face surveys to collect data. The respondents were randomly selected and were hotel employees while others worked for plastics and electronics manufacturing companies of various sizes. A total of 600 respondents were involved, the majority of whom were men (61%). More than half (52%) were 30 years old and above, with 52% having a university degree. The length of their business experience ranged from 1 to 5 years. About 44% of the respondents were middle managers. Size-wise, the companies from where the respondents were drawn were small (33%), medium (14%) and large (53%). The Schwepker’s seven-item scale was used to measure the ethical climate. Items were subsequently rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The Conger-Kanungo Charismatic Leadership Scale was used to measure charismatic leadership while Podsakoff's 17-item scale was used to measure OCB's five dimensions. To analyse the collected data, authors used SPSS to perform an exploratory factor analysis and varimax rotation. This was aimed at evaluating the variables' factor structure.
Organizational identification can be used as the basis for explaining individual behaviors and attitudes in organizations. This is because it entails the crucial definition of individual and organizational identities. It is this argument that informed Lee et al. (2015) in their review. Subsequently, the authors sought after meta-analytic evidence of the argument through an examination of how the identity-relevant construct functioned in the nexus of attitudinal/behavioral constructs. In this pursuit, the authors reckoned that to meaningfully and appropriately relate to the surrounding social contexts and others; every entity requires a fundamental sense of identity. This sense of identity is reflected by organizational identification in which case a psychological state is captured whereby an individual is likely to define him or herself using the attributes that he or she believes represent his or her organization. Therefore, the study was aimed at providing systematic evidence of the consequences of organizational identification through its positioning in the attitude-behavior relations framework. It was also aimed at examining whether and how the effects of organizational identification on attitudes/behaviors vary across the different national cultural contexts. In this pursuit, they sought for meta-analytic evidence of how national culture moderates the relationship between organizational identification and its behavioral/attitudinal outcome. By considering the national culture, the authors believed that they were contributing to the literature on organization identification by offering a comprehensive depiction of the effects of organizational identification.
Regarding the effects of organizational identification, the authors argued that individuals are rooted in an organization by organizational identification. As a result, such organizational attributes as the goals, values and norms become part of the individuals. Therefore, organizational identification blurs the identity boundary between organizations and individuals. Based on this argument, an organizationally identified employee bears attitudes and takes actions aimed at benefiting the entire organization as opposed to those that solely benefit him or her. Subsequently, Lee et al. (2015) argue that organizational identification shapes an individual’s behavior and work attitudes. With regard to attitudinal outcomes, they focussed on job satisfaction, job involvement and effective organizational commitment. Likewise, the key behavioral outcomes examined were in-role performance, extra-role performance and the uniqueness of organizational identification’s effects on behaviors.
The consideration of national culture as a moderator of the relationship between organizational identification and its behavioral/attitudinal outcome was based on the premise that national culture shapes the norms and core values transmitted and shared within the particular national context. The authors argued that this results in "collective programming of the mind" (Lee et al., 2015). This programming controls the responses of individuals in the given context. Moreover, the culture-fit theory contends that as a social context at the higher level, national culture manifests its cultural value system in, and thus constraining organizational practices and policies, which subsequently influence the behaviors and attitudes of individuals that have been integrated into these contexts. When viewed from this perspective, national culture acts as a boundary condition for the functioning of organizations and the individuals working in those organizations. Five value dimensions characterize cultural variability. These are time-orientation, power-distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty-avoidance and masculinity/femininity. Previous studies had suggested that time-orientation, individualism/collectivism and uncertainty-avoidance had vital implications for organizational identification. Thus, in their study, Lee et al. (2015) considered the three dimensions.
In the methods section, the authors carried out a literature search in which various search strategies were used to identify relevant, English language articles that had been published during or before April 2014. Out of these strategies, the authors obtained 341 published articles as well as 16 unpublished dissertations and manuscripts. However, for their inclusion in the meta-analysis, the studies were expected to satisfy four key criteria. First, as opposed to other types of identification issues, a study had to address an organizational identification issue. Secondly, a study had to qualify as an empirical one, reporting correlations between individual-level outcome and organizational identification variables. Thirdly, it had to report correlations between organization identification and their behavioral and/or attitudinal outcomes. Fourthly, the study had to incorporate measurement of organizational identification using scales that emphasized a person’s oneness perception or identification’s self-defining nature. Using this criteria, and from 114 studies in 85 articles, the authors were able to obtain a data set of 149 organization identification-outcome correlations.
All the possible zero-order correlations from each study were coded in a bid to calculate the overall correlation. Out of the coded correlations, some were non-independent since they were computed from a similar sample. Since the authors were interested in the relations between a number of different types of individual outcomes and organizational identification, many studies yielded more than one correlation. As a result, more than one correlation per study was allowed in the final sample. While multiple correlations from one study were used, the authors ensured that in analyzing the correlation between each specific outcome and organizational identification, only one correlation was used for each study. This was aimed at preventing the violation of sample independence assumption. Thus, in analyzing the overall correlation, the authors used the composite correlation per study. The studies were subsequently coded by two coders independently for sample size, type of organizational identification outcome, correlation, national culture, reliability estimates and study characteristics.
Behavioral and attitudinal outcomes were used in coding the organizational identification outcomes. The former were coded using extra-role performance and in-role performance. On the other hand, the latter were coded using affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job involvement. In coding national culture, the values used by de Wit et al. (2012) and Hofstede et al. (2010) in their meta-analysis were used. To accomplish this, the geographical location in which the study was conducted was first identified. Subsequently, each study was assigned Hofstede et al.’s (2010) three dimensions of cultural value. These were long-term/short-term orientation, individualism/collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. For extra exploratory moderator analysis, the authors coded two elements of study characteristics. These were data structure and publication status. The former was coded into cross-sectional data, longitudinal data and panel data. The latter was coded into unpublished dissertations and manuscripts and the studies published in academic journals.
In the meta-analysis, corrections for measurement error in the dependent and independent variables were first carried out for all correlations. In this case, each study’s internal consistency coefficients were used as the reliability estimates. In consideration of the studies heterogeneity, a random effects model was used to calculate meta-analytic correlations. Additionally, the Q- statistic and the I -squared ( I 2 ) statistic were used to conduct homogeneity analysis. Using the meta-analytic correlations, the authors then created a correlation matrix. They then carried out a fixed-effect meta-analytic structural equation modeling with the aim of testing the hypothesized models. Further, they used a meta-regression SPSS syntax to conduct a “random-effects weighted least square (WLS) regression analysis” ( Lee et al., 2015) .
Alfonso et al. (2016) sought to test the mediating role of quality of working life (QoWL) in the relationship between OCB and emotional intelligence (EI). The authors recognized that while a significant number of studies had explored OCB, not much had been done regarding the effect of EI on OCB. Likewise, not much had been carried out regarding the interactions of EI and OCB with the work-related quality of life. The authors defined EI as a set of abilities and traits that aid in dealing with emotional information or emotions. In this regard, they argued that in the context of an organization, the way individuals experience their relationships to work and obtain its benefits is dependent on their emotional intelligence. The study also recognized the fact that numerous studies had examined the relationship between organizational citizenship and EI. However, while most of these studies indicated a positive link between EI and organizational citizenship, some were marred by inconsistencies. Nevertheless, Alfonso et al. (2016) hypothesized that EI would be positively related to OCB.
With regard to the relationship between OCB and QoWL, the authors argued the ‘work-related quality of life’ as a concept emerged with the aim of giving organizations a broader view of the factors that are likely to influence the working experience. In this regard, QoWL, and particularly job satisfaction is likely to affect OCB as opposed to the reverse. Supporting this view, a previous study established that job satisfaction resulted in better moods, more intentional OCB, less likelihood of quitting a job and absenteeism. Based on this, the authors hypothesized that QoWL is positively related to OCB. According to numerous studies, a positive link exists between EI and general satisfaction at work. Thus, if an individual can regulate and adequately use emotions at work, he or she may deal with conflicts better, leading to a favorable QoWL. This way, both EI and OCB are related to QoWL. Thus the third hypothesis was that QoWL level would mediate the relationship between EI and OCB. The last hypothesis was that the QoWL would moderate the relationship between EI and OCB.
The 203 study participants, aged between 20 and 62 years were recruited through a professional online network and had regular work interaction with subordinates, supervisors, clients and/or colleagues. The 128 women and 75 men lived and worked in France. The number comprised of employees (142), team leaders (38) and senior managers (23). Majority of the participants (n=187) reported that they interacted daily with colleagues, 132 with clients while 130 participants reported interactions with colleagues. The authors assessed OCB using the scale employed by Podsakoff and Mackenzie (1994) while the French adaptation of the EI scale was used to assess EI. To measure QoWL, they used the French version of the Work-Related Quality of Life questionnaire. In the data analysis, Pearson correlations, descriptive statistics (standard deviation and means) and alpha coefficients were calculated. For each particular citizenship score, a number of moderator regression analyses were carried out using SPSS 21.0 in a bid to explore the mediating effect of QoWL in the relationship between OCB and EI. To assess the change in R 2 owing to additional interactions between EI dimensions and stress, the authors used the F test of statistical significance.
Findings: Differences and Similarities
On carrying out regression analysis, Zehir et al. (2014) established that the factor of strategic vision coupled with articulation explained the variance observed in ethical climate, partially supporting the hypothesis that a positive relationship would exist between charismatic leadership and ethical climate. The results also showed that the variance in OCB was explained by ethical climate, thus supporting the second hypothesis in which the authors reckoned that a positive relationship between OCB and ethical climate was likely. The authors regressed charismatic leadership on OCB to test the third hypothesis. The results showed that variance in OCB dimensions was explained by sensitivity to environment/strategic vision and articulation as well as status quo, thus supporting the hypothesis that charismatic leadership was be positively related to OCB. Lastly, the relationship between the OCB’s civic virtue and charismatic leadership was mediated by ethical climate. Thus, the fourth hypothesis was supported partially, implying that ethical climate would mediate the relationship between OCB and charismatic leadership. This was confirmed by a Sobel test (civic virtue; t = 3.56, p < .05).
On the other hand, Alfonso et al. (2016) established that all OCB scores were strongly and positively related to EI, and ranged from 0.20 to 0.53. In this regard, the first hypothesis was duly supported implying that EI was positively related to OCB. However, only Sportsmanship (0.39), behavior towards the organization (OCB-O) (0.40) and civic virtues (0.20) were strongly related to QoWL. This partially supported the hypothesis that QoWL is positively related to OCB. Given the role of charismatic leadership in fostering ethical climate and enhancing the OCB, there is a positive link between charismatic leadership and QoWL. This suggests that there is consistency between Zehir et al. (2014) and Alfonso et al.’s (2016) findings. Lastly, moderation and mediation only occurred for OCB-O, particularly for Sportsmanship. This partially supported the hypotheses that; QoWL level would mediate the relationship between EI and OCB, and QoWL would moderate the relationship between EI and OCB.
Lee et al. (2015) established that the mean corrected correlation between all attitudinal/behavioral outcomes and organizational identification was positive for all studies. This indicated the presence of moderators for the associations between outcomes and organizational identification. Likewise, it was established that the size of the correlation between behavioral outcomes and organizational identification was small compared to that between attitudinal outcomes and organizational identification. Further, organizational identification was positively and significantly related to job satisfaction, job involvement and affective organizational commitment.
The correlation between in-role performance and organizational identification was positive and significant. It was also smaller than the correlation between extra-role performance and organizational identification. The authors also established that the relation between the organizational identification and its subsequent outcomes was not significantly moderated by the data structure. Organizational identification was also recognized to be a stronger predictor of both the general behavior and general attitude in organizations. Among the three cultural dimensions explored, the individualism dimension showed significant negative effects on the strength of the relationship between outcomes and organizational identification. Thus, the organizational identification-outcome relations were stronger in collectivistic cultures as opposed to individualistic cultures. Likewise, these relations were independent of publication status. There was also no relationship between correlation sizes and the studies’ measurements precision. Lastly, on carrying out the meta-regression analysis, the result was insignificant, indicating that publication bias was not likely to be present.
Applications: From theory to practice
The findings from these studies can be applied to real organizations in numerous ways. One such avenue is the adoption of the right leadership approach. This is because consistent with the findings of Zehir et al. (2014), a leader should motivate members of his or her organization to embrace and adhere to ethical policies. In this regard, the need for organizations to foster charismatic leadership cannot be overstated. Further, this form of leadership is likely to result in ethical climate. The established relationship between charismatic leadership and OCB implies that if leaders show sensitivity to the feelings and needs of their followers and develop inspiring strategic and organizational goals, these employees are more likely to exhibit citizenship behaviors. Also, if the charismatic leaders assist the employees in developing helpful and positive relationships, the employees will be more willing to support one another. Ultimately, this will result in enhanced organizational performance.
Given the proven role of EI in predicting OCB by Alfonso et al. (2016), it is undeniable that when workers can easily deal with emotional information, and manage and understand their emotions and those of others better, a positive working environment is likely. These workers are also more likely to establish healthy relationships with their colleague, leading to easier completion of the assigned tasks. When this is attained, a better QoWL is achieved, which in turn enhances the ability of the employees to express OCB. Furthermore, a high QoWL is associated with increased enthusiasm in the workplace. According to Lee et al.’s (2016) findings when individuals identify with their organizations strongly, they are likely to show extra-role performance irrespective of their targets and likely to go the extra mile. Thus, to improve their employees’ performance, organizations ought to create ‘identified’ individuals as opposed to ‘satisfied’ or ‘committed’ ones. This is because once employees are rooted in an organization, their satisfaction and commitment follow automatically. Therefore, organizations should invest more in identity-enhancing programs and not interest-enhancing ones. These programs are also likely to be more effective in collectivistic cultures and not individualistic cultures.
Journal Selection: Journal of Organizational Behavior
I would submit this evaluation to the Journal of Organizational Behavior. This is because the journal is aimed at publishing both theoretical reviews of research as well as empirical reports in the area of organizational behavior irrespective of the location of the study. The journal focuses on theory and research in topics related to organizational behavior conducted at the individual, organizational or group level. This study fits this description hence the choice for this journal. Before submitting to this journal, the author has to ensure that the content has never been published or submitted for publication before. The only exception is an abstract contained in the proceedings of a symposium or scientific meeting.
The journal covers research articles, special issue articles, JOB annual reviews, p oint/ c ounterpoint s, r esearcher's n otebook , and t he i ncubator . To submit, an author can first provide a cover letter. However, this is not mandatory. The manuscript should then be presented separately in three key files. These are the title page, main text and figures. The title page should contain such details as a short title, composed of not more than 40 characters; author (s) full names; authors' institutional affiliations; and acknowledgements. A conflict of interest statement may also be required. The main text file should comprise of title, abstract and keywords; main text; references; tables; figure legends; and lastly the appendices if relevant. Once the paper is accepted, the corresponding author will be required to fill a copyright licence agreement. This is done on behalf of all the paper’s authors.
References
Alfonso, L., Zenasni, F., Hodzic, S., & Ripoll, P. (2016). Understanding the mediating role of quality of work life on the relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behaviors. Psychological Reports , 118 (1), 107-127.
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin , 141 (5), 1049.
Podsakoff, P., & MacKensie, S. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363.
Zehir, C., Müceldili, B., Altindağ, E., Şehitoğlu, Y., & Zehir, S. (2014). Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of ethical climate. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal , 42 (8), 1365-1375.
